1982-07-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas there is great consternation among Canadians regarding the extremely unfortunate incidents that occurred at the Archambault Institute; and whereas all members of this House deplore the horrible attack in which three of the Institute's prison guards were killed, I move, seconded by the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House convey its deepest sympathy to the families of the officers who died on duty, following the incidents that occurred at the Archambault Institute.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
I wish to inform my colleagues in the House of a tragic incident that occurred at the Archambault Institute in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, which took the lives of three family men who were prison guards at the Institute, namely, Mr. Leandre
Leblanc, 60, thirty-five years of service; Mr. Daniel Van Den Abeele, 36, twelve years of service; and Mr. Denis Rivard, 27, six years of service. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House deplore the tragic incident that occurred at the Archambault Institute at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, that it offer its deepest sympathy to the members of the affected families, that it express its gratitude for the loyal services rendered by the three guards who died on duty, and wish a quick recovery to the three officers who were injured.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, Canada has four common reptiles two of which, the bullfrog and the snapping turtle, are becoming endangered due to overhunting. There are no laws to prevent this, and catches ranging up to 6,000 pounds are being taken, with much going to the United States. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the federal Department of Environment take steps to limit catches of Canadian reptiles and study the possibility of putting a moratorium on hunting them for the next five years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 27, 1982


INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As a result of the general economic downturn due to both product and market decline, and the resultant high unemployment levels in both Salmon Arm and Kamloops, B.C., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That this House urge the Ministers of Employment and Immigration, Labour, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion to give consideration to designating the above-named centres for eligibility under the industrial and labour adjustment program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the recent horrible sex slayings in Toronto and now the butchering of prison guards by convicted murderers are brutal, vicious attacks on Canadian society. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House condemns these terrible deeds and that the matter of capital punishment again be considered and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the director of Sports Canada states that coaching must be "a professional discipline if athletes are to succeed". Present and future athletes of Canada will be the beneficiaries of a $1 million incentive fund established by Labatt Brewing Company Limited in conjunction with the Canadian Olympic Association in the pursuit of coaching excellence. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the fine and generous example of Labatt Brewing Company be used to encourage others in the private sector to invest in the outstanding talent pool of amateur athletes within Canada so that they might share in the greater success of those athletes in high level national and international competition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, Heath-Steele has announced the closure of its mining operation in the Newcastle region of New Brunswick, which will throw about 560 people out of work. In the same region 900 mill workers will be temporarily laid off. The federal government has announced that CFB Chatham will be shut down, forcing another 3,800 out of work.
This government can provide Quebec with $500 million to create jobs for an Airbus deal with France, and can provide hundreds of thousands in subsidies to Quebec for a subway deal with New York. The employees of Chatham are forced out in favour of Bagotville in Quebec. The minister responsible for New Brunswick scrambles into a hole and hides. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the government face up to its responsibilities to all provinces in this nation and cease these obvious acts of discrimination, particularly in favour of another, against New Brunswick.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Next month the USS Ohio, the world's largest nuclear submarine, will sail down the Juan de Fuca Strait, to be armed with its 24 multiple warhead missiles at Bangor, Washington. Ironically, it is the same month when people around the world will be remembering the horror of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In light of the accuracy and the incredible destructive power of the USS Ohio's Trident II missiles, and recognizing the concern and growing opposition of the people of southwestern
July 27, 1982

British Columbia to the threat the USS Ohio brings to that region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House opposes the deployment of this new generation of nuclear weapons and instructs the Secretary of State for External Affairs to communicate our opposition to the Government of the United States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the policy of the government appears to be "Don't do as I do, do as I say". The government is capping the wages of its own employees and asking industry to keep prices down. In Banff National Park employees' wages are being capped at 6 per cent. At the same time, accommodation rentals are being increased for employees from 15 per cent to 40 per cent, and perhaps even higher. Continual increases in prices induce inflation and make it necessary for employees to bargain for higher wages in order to make ends meet. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That this House urges the government to practise what it preaches and apply the 6 per cent and 5 per cent rule to the increase of all prices under its control, including land and accommodation rentals in Banff, Jasper, and other national parks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MISS UNIVERSE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada and, in particular, the city of London, Canada, were honoured last night when Karen Diane Baldwin of London was chosen as Miss Universe, the first Canadian to be so recognized, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House conveys to Miss Baldwin our congratulations and best wishes for a successful year in her capacity as the new Miss Universe.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: The House may wish to applaud this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, through directions to the Bank of Canada, is deliberately forcing interest rates in Canada to be at least 4 per cent higher than interest rates in the American market. For example, bankers' acceptance rates yesterday were exactly 5 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States; Euro-dollar rates were 5 per cent lower than the prime rate in Canada; London interbank rates were over 4 per cent lower than the prime rate in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett);
That this House condemns the government for deliberately orchestrating interest rate policies in Canada to the detriment of all Canadians by allowing interest rates in Canada to be 4 or 5 per cent higher than elsewhere, and that this House demands that the government direct the Bank of Canada immediately to cease interfering in money markets in Canada so as to allow interest rates in Canada to fall to those levels enjoyed by Americans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that-if I could get the Prime Minister's attention-my question is to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Parent:: Me or him?


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you the Prime Minister today?
My question to the Prime Minister is based on the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who said that Manitoba's willingness to follow the 6 and 5 per cent federal guidelines would affect decisions on federal spending programs in that province. Does that policy apply to all Canadian provinces?

July 27, 1982
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will have to see exactly what the minister said, but certainly the spirit of what has been quoted is one that would apply to all Canadian provinces.
As the Leader of the Opposition, for today and a little while longer, will remember-


Mr. Epp:: That's right; then he will be Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -quite a while longer, I guess-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No way!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -will remember, last February I met with the provinces and we attempted to find ways in which we could bring inflation down. I think that the budget which has been endorsed by this House repeatedly is the best way to do it at this stage. We hope the provinces will see that actions along these lines are in the interest of the whole economy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister was going to summon his courage and call an election, or perhaps just the three byelections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEDICARE PAYMENTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on the basis of the federal government's policy of cutting back federal spending in provinces that do not follow the six and five guidelines, let me direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
She will know that the Manitoba government is now negotiating a fee agreement with its physicians which will be in excess of the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines. Does the statement made by the minister yesterday mean that the federal government will refuse or withhold its medicare payments to Manitoba if the fee agreement exceeds 6 and 5 per cent?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, from what I have read in press reports about my colleague's speech, he was discussing a possibility that should be looked into. Provincial negotiations with doctors on health insurance are strictly a provincial matter.


DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether it is the policy of her department to reduce or withhold medicare payments-transfer payments to provinces that engage in settlements in excess of 6 and 5 per cent. Is that the present policy of her department?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, again, instead of offering constructive suggestions to strengthen medicare, the Leader of the Opposition throws red herrings into the debate. I have repeated often, and will tell him once more and send him copies of the details province by province, the exact increase, including health payments, for each of the coming five years, which average 13.4 per cent per year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have here is a government policy which is followed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, not known about by the Prime Minister, and not followed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Everything is as usual.


PAYMENT OF DREE SUBSIDIES
Charles Joseph Clark: 1 have a supplementary for the Minister responsible for DREE, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister is aware that since the June 28 budget, the federal government has announced that DREE grants would be awarded to the following manufacturers in the province of Quebec: O. J. Ouellette Inc., Montreal; Alpha-Vico Canada, Farnham; Beton Canfarge, Inc., Sainte-Foy; the Pierre Dionne Company; Siemens Electric Ltd., Pointe Claire; Magotteaux Canada, Cowansville. Will the DREE grants be cancelled if these businesses fail to follow the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we are now preparing guidelines for applying the 6 and 5 per cent policy to grants awarded under government programs, and I do not think the guidelines will apply retroactively. By the way, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for pointing out the good work being done by my department in the province of Quebec.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO FORCE PROVINCES TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBJECTIVES
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in order to clarify a point. Not long ago, the Prime Minister of Canada met with his provincial counterparts and invited them to collaborate with the government in trying to resolve a difficult situation of the government's own making.
Today, his colleagues, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance, are implying that the provinces will retain their right to receive fiscal transfer payments and grants, provided they abide by the guidelines set up by this government. Since the agreement entered into by the Prime Minister with the provincial first ministers was
July 27, 1982

concerned only with co-operation, could the Prime Minister at least have the decency to tell the Elouse today whether his government really intends to oblige or force the provinces to respect the federal government's guidelines by threatening to cut off grants if they refuse to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to subsidies, under agreements entered into between November and February, for programs mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in his question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the answer is no. Those agreements are final, and as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said earlier, the figures are known. Federal transfer payments to the provinces are going to be increased by 11 and 13 per cent, and we have no intention of reopening those negotiations, nor was this mentioned by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in his speech.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROVINCES WERE INFORMED OF GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION
Roch La Salle: Since my question was in the past tense, the Prime Minister answered me in the past tense. If certain provinces were to enter into agreements with the federal government and were entitled to subsidies, would the terms or the objective set by the federal government today with respect to the 6 and 5 per cent ceiling be considered absolute criteria for determining the amount of the subsidy? If so, why did the Prime Minister of Canada not advise his provincial counterparts of this intention which the federal government is indicating today, instead of keeping it a secret from the provincial first ministers when he met them only a few weeks ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member misunderstood my answer.


Roch La Salle: I understood your answer as far as the future was concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member ought to know that the future has been taken care of in an act of Parliament. These transfer payments made under our financing programs have been in effect since the act was passed and will apply over a period of five years. I fail to see why the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition are trying to confuse the issue. The government has never indicated that it intended to change that legislation. Here, we have an act of Parliament. What the Minister of Employment and Immigration was referring to, and what I myself referred to in the House, or at least at a press conference on Friday, were federal government spending programs aimed at growth sectors that require assistance in the form of taxpayers' money, and it is our view that, as far as possible, this assistance which is paid by the taxpayers should be subject to the 6 and 5 per cent ceiling. There is no question
Oral Questions
of repealing acts of Parliament as far as transfer payments to the provincial governments are concerned.


INQUIRY WHETHER SIX PER CENT AND FIVE PER CENT RATES WILL BE OBSERVED
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is quite aware of the fact that his fellow ministers are now talking about putting pressure on the provinces and the private sector, using subsidies and present federal programs as a lever. In other words, if they do not agree with the government's objectives, subsidies granted under government programs might be withheld or reduced. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister to tell the House clearly whether he has recommended that his ministers impose the 6 and 5 per cent ceiling as a pre-condition, without considering the fact that these industries are often faced with surplus inventory.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's other questions referred to subsidies for the provinces, and I answered those questions. The hon. member's last question started out with the provinces and ended with industry. I am not sure ... if he is talking about industry, that is one thing, but if he is talking about the provinces, it is something entirely different. As far as the provinces are concerned, I gave him my answer, the minister gave hers, and the agreements are there in an act of Parliament. As far as the private sector is concerned, the answer is yes. If we are going to spend public funds, we are going to urge the private sector to, go along, as much as possible with-[DOT]


Roch La Salle: Urge or oblige?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member would let me finish, then he will get his answer: to abide by the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines.


FINANCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the mid-1970s the chief executive officer for Imperial Oil was appointed by the government to chair a committee to advise the government on competition policy. Subsequently the Bertrand report showed that Imperial Oil and its partners were involved in some extremely nefarious competition policies. In fact, they ripped off the Canadian people to the tune of $12 billion. Presently the government has appointed an economic committee of blue ribbon wizards to advise it on how to lead the

July 27, 1982
Oral Questions
country out of its economic wilderness. The chief wizard on the committee is Ian Sinclair.
Mr. Sinclair runs a company that operates directly in conflict to the best economic interests of this country. In this regard I am speaking of CP Ships, which had 40 foreign registered ships, with foreign crews. All the money it earns from that source is being channelled to Bermuda and London, England. Would the minister, under the circumstances, explain how he can accept advice from a group of people whose business practices have so consistently undermined the integrity and strength of the Canadian economy, and would the minister be prepared to replace Mr. Sinclair in favour of someone with a little more concern for the Canadian economy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the member's allegations brought forward in his question. The purpose of the private sector six and five committee is not primarily to advise the government. The purpose of the committee is to encourage the private sector to follow the six and five guidelines in its operations, both with respect to wages and with respect to profit margins.
Ian Sinclair has undertaken the chairmanship of that important committee, and I believe that instead of undermining his role we ought to give him every possible encouragement in the important task that he has undertaken. In so far as I am concerned, I am quite thankful that a man of Ian Sinclair's leadership capacity has responded to the call of the government and has undertaken this important work.


Raymond John Skelly: I thank the Minister of Finance for that kind offer. I think we would be prepared to stop undermining him if he would stop undermining us.


SHIPBUILDING
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister some time in 1981, made a commitment to consider and respond to the idea of a marine industrial longterm development plan for the country. Dome Petroleum is ordering offshore, as indicated, five LNG carriers which would provide 12.5 million hours of work. In the province of Quebec 1,500 shipbuilding employees will be laid off in February. In British Columbia there is a tremendous number of unemployed individuals. There is a desperate need for some consistent, coherent activity on the part of the entire government to capture these benefits. Would the Prime Minister be prepared
to make an announcement in the House about the activities the government would be willing to take to ensure that Dome does not send these 12.5 million hours of work away to Japan when they are so desperately needed in Quebec and in British Columbia?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that the normal process is to have a hearing before the National Energy Board. This has not taken place as yet; the government is then called upon to assess the situation and make a decision. We will respect the process provided by the law, and we will respect the law of the land as passed by Parliament.


Raymond John Skelly: I guess the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been reading the Prime Minister's mail, so maybe we could ask him to look at his commitment again.


QUERY RESPECTING MARINE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, 1 guess my final question is much broader than the terms of reference of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Basically the following companies have chartered foreign vessels to carry Canadian goods. The Norwegians have provided us with a vessel to carry oil into the Arctic for Dome. Also the Norwegians have provided B.C. forest-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Really, the hon. member is exaggerating. I would ask him to go directly to his third question and not to repeat the preamble.


Raymond John Skelly: On the basis of the broad involvement across many sectors of the resource industry, would the Prime Minister be prepared to provide us with some information as to whether any of these jobs will be available to Canadians through a government statement on a marine industrial strategy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, despite the opposition of the New Democratic Party, last year we passed a bill called the Canada Oil and Gas Act which had very clear provisions requiring the procurement of Canadian goods and services every time this can be done competitively. In our negotiations with oil and gas companies operating in the Canada lands, we have made it a very clear requirement that every opportunity be given to the use of Canadian goods and services. We intend to follow up on this, and various agreements have already been achieved. We have seen a significant increase in the content of Canadian goods and services. This is something the government has done and Parliament has passed, despite the opposition of the New Democratic Party. I think members of the New Democratic Party should reflect a little upon their hypocrisy on this very issue.
July 27, 1982


PUBLIC WORKS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. The minister will know that the city of Mississauga receives considerable grants from the federal government in lieu of taxes for Toronto International Airport. Will those grants be reduced if the city of Mississauga does not confine its employees to the 6 and 5 rule, or what is the standard with respect to those grants?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the legislation dealing with grants in lieu of taxes was recently before Parliament, approximately a year ago. Of course there was no reference in that legislation of strings attached to grants. However, the provision of payment of grants in lieu of taxes is at the discretion of the Crown. Certainly there has been no indication to municipalities that that would be the case. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that the issue of leverage was one which the government was considering in a general way and on which the government would report to Parliament at a later date.


INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister knows that the Regional Municipality of Niagara has applied for designation as a designated community geographically under ILAP. The minister indicated in response to my question the other day that he was aware of the concerns of that community and that favourable consideration would likely be given. Will that favourable consideration be conditional upon the implementation of the six and five formula within the region, particularly as it affects local employees?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the decisions on designating a community under ILAP are made by cabinet. As I said to the hon. member's leader earlier in the question period, we are discussing now the exact nature of guidelines with respect to the 6 and 5 per cent program. As soon as final decisions are taken in that regard, we will be announcing them.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Oral Questions
Commerce as well. As the minister knows, recently Jiffy Products was awarded a DREE grant for the expansion of a peat processing plant in Shippegan, New Brunswick. The incentive grant is for an amount of $1,218,925, a sum which is very badly needed in this depressed and economically floundering section of the province. Will this grant, a grant that is badly needed to boost the economy of the region and to provide employment for 41 people, be withdrawn if the company does not comply with the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines to which the government is holding Canadians ransom? I ask the minister to address himself to the question because the people of northern New Brunswick are suffering drastically from unemployment due to the ineptitude of the government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question about the reasons for economic difficulties in New Brunswick, but I should like to repeat what I said to his leader. I do not envisage any guidelines for the application of federal government programs of support to business being retroactive. Also I would like to thank him, as I thanked his leader, for confirming the constructive activities in support of the economy in the province of New Brunswick by my department.


WELFARE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister knows, the cost of child care welfare services is shared between federal and provincial governments. If the province of Manitoba decides to increase allowances to foster parents by more than 6 and 5 per cent, will it be in danger of losing its funding under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Monique Bégin: No, Madam Speaker.



THE HANDICAPPED AND THE DISABLED


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Department of National Health and Welfare is in a shared cost program with provinces such as Manitoba for the rehabilitation of disabled persons. The Government of Manitoba has said that it will not go along

July 27, 1982
Oral Questions
with the six and five. Will the federal government's contributory share to that program be reduced or eliminated? Will disabled people in Manitoba suffer because their government will not go along with the 6 and 5?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, these questions give me an opportunity to practise the English language. This is another red herring thrown at disabled people, this time by a member from Alberta who knows full well that under CAP we will reimburse 50 cents on the dollar of all costs of social services and of welfare. These payments will not be reduced because these are not the programs which feed inflation.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASSIST IN PROMOTING POTASH SALES

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns the decline in the export of potash from Canada. I am sure the minister knows that production was down 56 per cent at the end of June this year over last year, that export sales were down 35 per cent, and that more than 1,000 workers have been laid off in the potash mines in Saskatchewan since the election of the Progressive Conservative government in that province in April.
The minister is aware that the previous provincial government has been trying to establish long-term markets for our potash through an export arm of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. This goal has now been abandoned by the present government in Saskatchewan. Can the minister assure the House that he will intervene to ensure that there will be an aggressive sales policy that will find long-term markets for our potash in other parts of the world?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, obviously I do not want to get into a provincial political debate as alleged by the hon. member, but we are concerned with respect to the export of potash throughout the world. As late as last week, when the President of Brazil and several members of his cabinet came to Ottawa, the Prime Minister and several of our cabinet ministers raised the issue of potash sales to Brazil. At one time we had 40 per cent of the market in Brazil. We are now down to 10 per cent.
As well, the hon. member knows that the chairman of the Export Development Board is the president of Canpotex which is the export arm of the potash industry. He was invited to attend meetings with the Brazilian businessmen as well as with several Brazilian cabinet ministers.



RAILWAYS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. I am sure that the minister is also aware of the tremendous decline in potash production in the last few months in Saskatchewan where over a thousand people have been laid off. In order to attempt to stimulate the industry, can the minister assure us that any freight rate increase for potash in the next couple of years will be within the guidelines of 6 per cent and 5 per cent? I ask this because we need that stimulus for the industry.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, that obviously will be the objective of the government, to maintain these rates at the increase indicated in the budget of June 28.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. His department purchases training from a number of community colleges across the country, such as Thebatcha College in my constituency. Does the government's new policy enunciated by the minister, and confirmed this afternoon by the Prime Minister, mean that the government will reduce or withdraw funding with respect to those institutions which raise either tuition fees or instructors' salaries by more than the 6 and 5 per cent guidelines?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member finally got around to asking a question as to what was actually said so that we can totally dispel the kind of stories put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues.
We are simply trying to point out that it is very important at this time for all Canadians, provinces, municipalities and the private sector, to join in the objective and attempts to try to restrain the costs and prices of all goods and services within the 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines. As a federal government it is very important that in any discussions we have with any of those different sectors we remind them of how important it is to return the economy to health by establishing those objectives. We will be using the opportunities presented to us to hold those discussions and to have that kind of persuasive reminder which it seems only the members of the opposition have forgotten.
July 27, 1982



PETRO-CANADA APPLICATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM TO RATES AND CHARGES

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to know what leverage the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to exert on Petro-Canada? I understand that under the bill employees of Petro-Canada will be covered by the six and five formula. Are rates and charges of Petro-Canada for its products going to be under the six and five formula?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Petro-Canada will be in the same situation as any other oil and gas company.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is that?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All Indian bands receive transfer payments from the government through his department. If chiefs and councils feel that their salaries, or salaries of their employees cannot be met by the six and five formula, will the minister use his leverage by reducing grants or the transfers to these bands, to determine that they will in fact follow the program?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I think there is precious little fear that the Indian chiefs and bands cannot abide by these guidelines.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. John C. Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am seeking information and clarification with respect to the application of the 5 per cent and 6 per cent world, particularly as it applies to the three national boards under the supervision of the National Farm Products Marketing Council and the dairy farmers of Canada under the Canadian Dairy Commission. Has the minister sought the approval of the provinces with reference to the application and, if not, why not?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the price setting ability in the Dairy Commission is under federal jurisdiction and is under discussion at the present time. Their request for assistance for the next year, according to their programming, does
Oral Questions
not amount to 6 per cent. The formula is being worked on at the present time and we hope it will be announced on August 7. In the production of eggs, eggs were minus four last year. Therefore we are not that concerned about the price setting ability for eggs. For poultry products such as broilers and turkeys, they are under provincial jurisdiction as far as price setting authority is concerned. We have no authority for price fixing there. Each province runs that on its own.
I understand there has been some discussion between the national organizations on how they will work it out. An agreement should be forthcoming very soon, but again I am sure the hon. member knows that even those provincial boards, in the province he and I both come from, signed contracts earlier this year, the vast majority of them at around a 5 per cent increase. If everybody else follows that leadership we have nothing to worry about.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Six weeks ago, on June 9, as reported in Hansard, at page 18278, the Solicitor General said:
-I can assure the House that the Correctional Service of Canada is taking all the steps that are appropriate to assure good order in our institutions.
Thirty six hours ago we had a major tragedy at Archam-bault. In light of the minister's statement in the House six weeks ago, why, in a maximum security institution, were there 200 hardened criminals in the work area, or the recreation area, at one time? Why did they have knives and poison and, according to press reports, molotov cocktails? In view of his statement in the House, what extra precautions did the correctional service in fact take in order to ensure a quiet summer?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, these very tragic developments have been constantly watched by me since they occurred the day before yesterday. I have had a series of reports on matters.
As the hon. member knows, there is an inquiry under way now. I expect to have the results of the inquiry by the inspector general within two weeks. As well, there is an investigation by la Surete du Quebec, and I understand there will also be an investigation by the local coroner.
In view of that fact I do not think it would be proper or appropriate for me to start giving explanations of why the event took place. I understand, as has been indicated by the spokesman at the institution, that it seemed to have begun with an escape attempt that was botched up. We have no evidence at all to suggest there were festering grievances behind it or anything beyond that. I would like the opportunity to have this

July 27, 1982
Oral Questions
investigation completed, to get its results, and then be able to answer questions in the House of the sort the hon. member just asked.



MINISTER'S POSITION

Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. All previous reports done on the correctional service have had total secrecy. I would like to ask the assurance of the Prime Minister that this will be an open investigation and, more pertinently to the Prime Minister, rather than to the Solicitor General, since the present Solicitor General has had this office in the two years there has been a multimillion dollar riot in Matsqui, prison staff saying that they cannot have confidence in the warden; there has been a major breakout in Edmonton, as well as the entire Olson debacle. Now we have had a major tragedy at Archambault. Why is this man still the Solicitor General?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in so far as the matter raised-


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -is concerned, I indicated when I appeared before the justice committee that there had been some substantial improvements in the level of order in the institutions. I tabled statistics, which I am prepared to share again with the hon. member, that show that in the last two years there has been a substantial decline in major incidents in the institutions.
Although tragic events occur and human behaviour is not completely predictable, and we are dealing with the most violent, dangerous people in the country, who are incarcerated in these institutions, I think we can show that the Correctional Service of Canada has functioned very well under the circumstances.
I can also remind the hon. member that, throughout the incidents he has described, there has been a high level of concern and security for the surrounding community. For example, in the tragedy which occurred the day before yesterday, at no time was there any danger to the community surrounding the institution. Considering the stress, and the tragedy that was occurring within the walls, a considerable amount of credit can be given to the officers in the Correctional Service of Canada who valiantly performed during the incident.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This past spring the
minister made commitments both to the Conne River Indian people and also to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He said that if negotiations with the Government of Newfoundland broke down, he would not have much choice but to get money to the Conne River Indian people directly. Negotiations have broken down, the Conne River people are completely without funding, and the minister appears to have welched on his commitment. Could he tell the House what he will do to back up his commitment and to see that the Conne River people get the funds intended for them?


John Carr Munro: Well, yes, Madam Speaker, but I am sure it is not the hon. member's intention to leave a false impression. The fact, as I hope the hon. member knows, is that the Indians at Conne River are receiving social assistance payments where this is required, the children are receiving an education and so on from the province, which is affording them the same social service benefits and infrastructure as people in the rest of the province. But with respect to our obligations under the agreement, the province has refused to flow the money or do whatever is necessary to trigger our obligations to the Indians of Conne River. To assist with respect to that aspect, I am quite prepared and do intend to meet with the appropriate minister of the Newfoundland government very soon.


James Douglas Manly: More than simply meeting with the appropriate minister is required, Madam Speaker.



REGISTRATION UNDER INDIAN ACT

James Douglas Manly: Justice officials have said that funds cannot be given directly because the Conne River people have never been officially registered as Indians. When will the minister act to give these people their due and register them under the Indian Act? Although the government is not afraid of Newfoundland when it comes to jurisdiction over offshore oil, why does it back down on a question of fundamental human rights for the Indian people?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I have been prepared, as I explained in committee, to be sensitive to the concerns of the provincial government, not because of any fear of the provincial government-quite the contrary-but more on the basis that its assistance is required because it, too, has historically supplied funds in the millions of dollars for the social and economic welfare of the Indian people of Newfoundland. Before I take actions which are against the wishes of that government, I must be careful, because it has indicated that I should seriously consider, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, one of the alternatives; that is, if I take certain actions of which it does not approve, the province will withdraw all funding to the Indian people. That may be something that the hon. member would like to avoid. I know I would.
July 27, 1982



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of Mr. Arafat's signed statement Sunday, accepting all U.N. resolutions relating to the Palestinian question, will the Prime Minister now undertake to move toward implementing the recommendations of the 1979 Stanfield report respecting the Middle East, which urged the broadening of contacts with the PLO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would certainly want to support the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he cautiously saw this alleged statement by Mr. Arafat as an interesting development. At this stage I think we are trying to ascertain what was actually said, and its significance. But I think it would be a very important step forward if the PLO were to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist, because we think that would be an important step forward in recognition of a homeland for the Palestinian people, which is a position that this government supports.



FISHERIES


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will perhaps remember receiving a letter from me last week concerning potential halibut quotas on the west coast. Can the minister tell us whether the report which has been drafted for him by the advisory group on the west coast with respect to halibut quotas has reached his desk? Can the minister tell this House what those halibut quotas will be and when they will go into effect?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I was advised this morning that the report was on the way, and it will obviously be the subject of discussion by the advisory council. At that time I will be able to answer the hon. member's question. I regret that I have not seen his letter.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for his courtesy.



REQUEST THAT FISHERMEN BE CONSULTED

John Allen Fraser: The minister will know, when he checks with his officials, that I have received at least 108 letters from fishermen in the halibut sector on the west coast, complaining very bitterly about the proposed halibut quota. Can the minister tell us whether these people and others who would join with them in these complaints will have a chance to register their concerns with the minister before any final decision is made?
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would presume that these fishermen are represented by their organization at the council. The difficulty in this case is in determining whether there is enough halibut to go beyond those fishermen who are mainly dependent on halibut and whether it can be shared more widely with fishermen with other types of gear who have access to salmon, herring and other species. That is a debate which will be going on for some time, and we will try to come up with the best solution.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister knows, Canada's petrochemical industry is in a severe slump. In the province of Alberta alone, some 12 petrochemical plants have either been cancelled or delayed indefinitely. One of the main reasons is the fact that under the National Energy Program, ethane, which is the basic raw product used in the petrochemical industry, is taxed when it is processed for export purposes but, while in its raw form, it is not. This creates an anomaly that militates against the further processing of this raw product.
Representations have been made to the members of cabinet, including the minister himself, by the minister of economic development of the province of Alberta, specifically on April 16. The minister of economic development in the province of Alberta warned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that this tax treatment could inflict permanent damage upon the petrochemical industry in Alberta and, indeed, in the rest of Canada. Is the minister actively reviewing this tax treatment, and what response has he given to the minister of economic development of the province of Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I already answered the economic development minister of Alberta on this subject when I told him that a task force headed by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been set up to review the situation involving the petrochemical industry. But I want to point out to the hon. member that the tax in question has a very minimal impact indeed on the petrochemical industry. The fact is that the petrochemical industry throughout the whole world is going through very difficult times at present.
The hon. member knows, for instance, that in Japan a very large part of the petrochemical industry closed down, that in the United States the petrochemical industry is going through very difficult times, and that the same thing is happening in Europe. So the problem is related to a situation of declining demand for petrochemical products throughout the whole world, due to the recession. The fact that Canada has an exchange rate advantage is helping our industry to compete in
________________COMMONS DEBATES
Motions
July 27, 1982
the international markets. However, the tax in question is indeed a very marginal factor in the whole problem. The problem is much wider than the hon. member has indicated.



REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO REVITALIZE INDUSTRY

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, since the minister believes that the tax treatment under the National Energy Program does not have a major impact, what is he prepared to do to revitalize the petrochemical industry in order to fulfil the commitment he made in October, 1980, under the National Energy Program, when he said that he would be concentrating on the future growth of the petrochemical industry in western Canada, principally in Alberta? He said he hoped this would begin a new era of western diversity. Surely it is because of the National Energy Program that in large part the petrochemical industry is in danger. What is the minister proposing to do to revitalize that very important sector and thereby create jobs for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that once again my hon. friend has not understood my first answer. There is no National Energy Program in the United States, Japan or Europe, and their petrochemical industry is going through extreme difficulties at the present time, in fact difficulties that are more severe than those being encountered at the present time by the Canadian industry. As I indicated, there is a task force set up under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which, at the present time, is examining the whole situation of the petrochemical industry.
Our interest is to have a very bright, vibrant and dynamic petrochemical industry in this country. However, as long as the world is going through the recession that we are going through, there is no point in trying to sell products to people who do not buy. The demand for petrochemicals is down all over the world. What we have to fight for and support are the types of measures that the government has announced to get the Canadian economy on the road to recovery. We hope other economies of the world will follow the same steps.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I propose, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
That Rod Blaker, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Lachine, be Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I move, still seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
That Eymard Corbin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Madawas-ka-Victoria, be appointed Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,041, 4,193, 4,201, 4,255, 4,344 4,349 and 4,364.


Mr. Beatty: L What action (a) was taken (b) is currently planned by the government on each recommendation of the (i) second report of the second session of the 30th Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments (ii) fourth report of the first session of the 32nd Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments (iii) report of the task force on Regulatory Reform (iv) reports of the regulation reference of the Economic Council of Canada?
2.	For each recommendation on which action was not taken and is not currently contemplated, what is the reason for the government's inaction?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The following indicates where action is either being taken or is planned by the government with respect to the recommendations of the following reports:
(i)	Second report of the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments;
(ii)	Fourth report of the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments;
(iii)	Report of the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform;
(iv)	Interim report of the Economic Council of Canada, Responsible Regulation November, 1979; and
(v)	Final report of the Economic Council of Canada, Reforming Regulation 1981.
July 27, 1982

If action on a matter that was the subject of a recommendation has not been taken and is not currently planned, an explanation is provided.
Most of the recommendations in the reports noted above deal with matters falling within the general area of regulatory reform. As the House has been advised on other occasions, in October, 1980, the government endorsed an initial 18-month work program for regulatory reform which was comprised of 12 projects, each with clearly defined objectives. The government's intention, recognizing that not everything could be achieved or even attempted at one time, was to focus its energies on pursuing a selection of possible reforms that seemed to be both beneficial and achievable within an initial, limited time. The government will review the results and prospects of the program. Recommendations not dealt with in the initial regulatory reform work program will be reviewed again in the course of developing proposals for the next phase of the government's regulatory reform efforts.
With respect to those recommendations of the above named reports dealing with the matter of improved consultation on regulatory matters with the private sector, one of the projects of the current regulatory reform program has as its objective improved private sector consultation. The Office of the Coordinator, Regulatory Reform has been working with major regulatory departments to examine existing consultative procedures and techniques to improve the consultative procedures and techniques of federal regulatory departments.
With respect to recommendations on the matter of advance notice of new regulatory initiatives, we are currently assessing the feasibility of implementing regulatory agendas or a consolidated regulatory calendar.
With respect to those recommendations dealing with prepublication of draft regulations and notice and comment procedures, such prepublication, with opportunity for comment by affected interests, is encouraged under the government's regulatory reform program. Prepublication requirements for regulations are increasingly being incorporated in new regulatory statutes. In addition, Chapter 490 of the Administrative Policy Manual, which sets out requirements regarding socioeconomic impact analysis of major regulations in the health, safety and fairness area requires prepublication of draft major regulations together with a summary of the analysis that has been prepared. A recent decision of the Treasury Board, incorporated in a new policy directive regarding compliance by federal departments with the GATT agreement on technical barriers to trade, requires that federal regulations incorporating technical specifications (e.g., standards) be subjected to a notice and comment procedure which includes prepublication.
With respect to recommendations dealing with improved ex ante analysis of new regulatory initiatives, we are assessing the feasibility of implementing an RIA (regulatory impact analysis) requirement for new federal regulatory initiatives. The essential objective in this area is to improve the information on the impact of regulatory initiatives that is being provided to decision makers. Work on proposals for an RIA system is
Order Paper Questions
continuing under the direction of the Office of the Co-ordinator, Regulatory Reform.
Regarding those recommendations dealing with the matter of parliamentary reform, and particularly parliamentary involvement in the regulatory process to ensure greater accountability for regulatory activities, the position of the government has not changed. The President of the Privy Council has advised the House on past occasions of his intent to initiate the process of examining possible reforms, and specifically those that were the subject of recommendations in the above-noted reports.
We have examined the recommendations dealing with reliance on the consensus process for developing technical specifications and referencing of external standards in legislation. We are actively promoting reliance on the consensus process as well as reliance on the technique of incorporation by reference. A recent decision by Treasury Board, incorporated in a new chapter of the Administrative Policy Manual, encourages federal regulatory departments and agencies subject to the directive to follow these practices.
Those recommendations dealing with accountability and control of, and appointments to regulatory agencies, including questions of the use of government policy directives and cabinet review of agency decisions are the subject of a major project of the current regulatory reform program. A special review group on regulatory reform of Crown agencies, based in the Privy Council Office, has recently completed an assessment of these and other recommendations regarding federal regulatory agencies. The findings of the review group are now being considered.
Support for public interest groups, including the question of provision of core funding, project specific funding, and cost awards by regulatory departments and agencies is also being examined within the regulatory reform program. An interdepartmental task force, headed by the Secretary of State, is examining the role of voluntary organizations and their relationship to the federal government. Issues relevant to interest group support in connection with the federal regulatory process will be covered in the report.
With respect to those recommendations dealing with the matter of reduction of paper burden and records retention provisions, one of the projects of the current regulatory reform program has as its objective implementation of a cabinet decision to standardize and reduce requirements in federal legislation (statutes and regulations) which impose obligations on the private sector to retain records. Work on this project is well advanced. A bill to amend the records retention provisions of seven statutes is nearly completed and should be available for consideration by Parliament in the very near future. Federal departments are also preparing amendments to some 50 regulations for the purpose of further adjusting records retention requirements. Cost savings to the private sector from these changes have been conservatively estimated at $100 million per year.

July 27, 1982
Order Paper Questions
With respect to those recommendations dealing with ex post evaluation, several projects of the current regulatory reform program are aimed at ensuring ex post evaluation of federal regulatory activities. Government departments have now completed a legislative review in order to identify obsolete and unnecessary statutes. It is my intention to introduce in the House in the near future a bill that will provide for the repeal of 125 obsolete statutes identified through this process. In addition, major federal regulatory departments are now engaged in or have completed an initial review of their regulations in order to weed out obsolete, contradictory, unenforceable or duplicative provisions. This work should be completed prior to the termination of the current regulatory reform program.
The Office of the Comptroller General of Canada has been working with major regulating departments to review departmental program evaluation plans prepared in accordance with the requirements of the government's program evaluation policy. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the plans for the 1982-83 fiscal year comprehensively cover the regulatory activities of each department. The Office of the Comptroller General is reviewing its program evaluation guide and methodology for program evaluation to determine if adjustments should be made to facilitate evaluation of regulatory programs in accordance with the existing Treasury Board policy directive which requires periodic, systematic evaluation of all government activities.
With respect to those recommendations dealing with the matter of improved "service to the public", the federal task force on service to the public is continuing its work on implementing a program of initiatives in this area.
With respect to those recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments not dealt with above, the Department of Justice is initiating a review of these recommendations as part of a general review of the law and legal policy relating to the use of statutory instruments and delegated legislative authority.
With respect to those recommendations concerning federal economic, social, and common property regulation, these recommendations are being assessed by the Office of the Coordinator, Regulatory Reform and by relevant departments and ministries with a view to potential adjustments to current regulatory arrangements.
With respect to all other recommendations of the above named reports, each recommendation will be re-examined in the course of developing new proposals for continued federal efforts in the area of regulatory reform after the termination of the current reform program in June, 1982.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Canadian National Railways or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is
it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: (a) to (e) With the exception of special circumstances related solely to company initiated relocation, Canadian National and its subsidiaries do not provide loans to any officers or employees.
Assistance, by means of specific housing loans, has been granted for the acquisition or construction of housing units to meet employees' needs in remote locations where little or no housing was available (e.g. transfers to Northwest Territories and the Yukon) or in situations where employees were being relocated along with the transfer of their work. About 180 such loans aggregating about $3.5 million were made during the relevant period; less than half of those loans will be outstanding by the end of 1982.
Other specific information requested is considered proprietary and of a personal nature.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the National Arts Centre Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre Corporation as follows: The National Arts Centre Corporation does not loan money to its employees. However, since March, 1980 it has loaned money, totalling $50,650, to musicians of the NAC orchestra engaged on full-time contracts. Repayment of amounts loaned is effected by deductions from regular fee payments at interest rates consistent with prevailing money market conditions.
The purpose in making such loans is to enable musicians to upgrade the quality of their instruments, which they are required to provide, for the mutual advantage of both the musician and orchestra. Title to instrument purchased in this manner is vested with the corporation until complete retirement of indebtedness.
Other specific information requested is considered proprietary and of a personal nature.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does Fitness and Amateur Sport have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for its employees and, if so, are they embodied in a code of conduct or other specific document and is the code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?
July 27, 1982


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. New employees are informed of the existence of the standards of conduct, discipline, which are contained in a chapter of the Personnel Manual which is available to the public upon request.
2.	The list below indicates cases of disciplinary action from April, 1977 to March, 1982. To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.
Year
1980
Month
March
November
Discipline Cases April 1977 to March 1982
Date Suspension
25
27
28	days
7 10 11 12
13	5 days
Letter of Reprimand



Discharge


Mr. Nickerson: Was an interdepartmental committee established under the lead of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to study the questions of northern taxation and the isolated posts benefits and allowances remission order and, if so (a) what are the names, titles and departmental affiliations of the members of the committee (b) did the committee ever meet?


John Carr Munro: (a) Please see below.
(b) The Interdepartmental Committee on Taxation of Northern Benefits held formal meetings on December 11,
1981,	January 5, 1982, March 22, 1982 and April 29, 1982. Between the second, third and fourth meetings, there were a number of informal meetings on the topic of the taxation of northern benefits involving, for the most part, committee officials from the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Energy, Mines and Resources. On May 4,
1982,	a meeting of assistant deputy ministers from the departments represented on the committee was held to review and evaluate the work of the committee, which subsequently met again on May 26.
Interdepartmental Working Committee on Taxation of Northern Benefits
Mailing List:
DIAND:
Manfred P. Klein Deputy Director Northern Economic Planning DIAND
10 Wellington, Room 623 Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere Hull, Quebec K1A0H4
Emerson Mathurin Senior Project Officer Forecasting & Analysis Div. DIAND
10 Wellington, Room 623 Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere Hull, Quebec K1A0H4
Order Paper Questions
Robert Reid Chief,
Forecasting & Analysis Div.

10 Wellington, Room 623 Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere Hull, Quebec K1A0H4
EMR:
Keith Brewer A / Director-General Economic & Financial Policy Analysis Branch Mineral Policy EMR
Room C-1754, 580 Booth Ottawa, Ontario KIA0E4
Bill Beard Chief
Taxation and Financial Analysis
Mineral Policy

Room C-1754, 580 Booth Ottawa, Ontario K1A0E4
995-8762	995-9351
George Kowalski A/Director
Economic Analysis Div. Mineral Policy EMR
Room C-1754, 580 Booth Ottawa, Ontario K1A0E4
Finance:
Henry Pawlak Tax Policy Officer Tax Policy Div.
Finance
26-S, Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A0G5
Satya Poddar
Director, Taxation Analysis
Tax Analysis & Commodity Tax Div.
Finance
26-S, Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0G5
996-8267
Revenue:
Alan Cockell Director
Regulations Division Revenue Canada-Taxation Room 472, Metcalfe Bldg. 88 Metcalfe Street Head Office Ottawa, Ontario K1A0L8
Bob D'Aurelio Research Office Current Amendments Division Revenue Canada-Taxation Head Office 88 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0L8
995-0061

July 27, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Bill Massel Director
Accounting & Collections Revenue Canada Room 5000 400 Cumberland Ottawa, Ontario K1A0L8
MSSD:
Scott Serson Policy Analyst Ministry of State for Social Development
Room 1344, 171 Slater Street Vanguard Bldg.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A IG3
MSED:
Carole Swan Analyst
Policy Analysis Branch Ministry of State for Economic Development Jackson Building 122 Bank Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA IE7
Treasury Board:
Anna O'Farrell
Head, Allowances Section
General Personnel Management Div.
Treasury Board
Vanier Bldg., 8th Floor
222 Nepean Street
Ottawa, Ontario

Joan Spice Program Analyst Social, Employment, Housing and Cultural Div.
Program Branch Treasury Board 22-S.W., Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A0R5

Scott Houston
Resource Industries Branch

235 Queen Street 7th Floor, East Ottawa, Ontario K1A0H5
Labour:
Mike McDermott Industrial Relations Adviser Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Labour Canada Ottawa, Ontario KIA0J2
CEIC:
Stephen Gerley Director
Manpower & Planning (Resources & Services) Labour Market Planning and Adjustment
Employment & Immigration Room 4E-04, Phase IV Place du Portage Ottawa, Ontario KIA0J9


Mr. Parker: 1.	What was the total number of men trained on CPR under the on-the-job training program for engineers since December, 1980 and how many were trained at (a) Vancouver (b) Revelstoke (c) Calgary (d) Medicine Hat (e) Moose Jaw (f) Saskatoon (g) Winnipeg?
2.	What was the total cost of the manpower program and what was the breakdown per engineer?
3.	What formula is used for cost sharing?
4.	(a) What was the total cost per trained engineer for training undertaken for CNR Gimli, Manitoba (b) how many graduates and how many failures were there?
5.	Does CNR receive assistance under manpower and, if so, in what amount?
6.	Has RTC initiated studies as to the effectiveness of CNR and CPR programs and, if so, are the studies available?
7.	Has CNR and CPR made use of Manpower policies for training carmen and, if so, in what manner?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission/Department, the management of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Transport Commission as follows: The information requested is available on a fiscal year basis. The data given are for the period from April 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981.
1.	The total number of trainees, under industrial training contracts entered into with the CPR for the training of engineers, was 68. All of the training was in Ontario.
2.	The total cost to Canada for this training was $221,357. The average cost per engineer trained was $3,255.25.
3.	The formula used to calculate the costs to Canada are percentage reimbursements of wage costs incurred by the employer, CPR, during the training period. The applicable percentage for the above-mentioned training is 40 per cent.
4.	(a) $8,474.69. (b) To date, 2,622 have graduated and 91 failed.

July 27, 1982

5.	CNR did not receive any assistance in the training of engineers but it has received assistance under the Canada manpower training program in other occupations, with a total cost to Canada of $95,195.
6.	No.
7.	Neither CNR nor CPR has utilized the manpower program in the training of carmen since April, 1980.


Mr. Mazankowski: Since the announcement of the reorganization of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, how many (a) senior managers (b) other staff in each department have (i) resigned (ii) taken early retirement (iii) been transferred to a government position outside of the three departments?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
(a) Senior (i) Management	Resigned (	ii) Early (ii Retirement	i) Transferred to Other DepartmentsExternal Affairs	None	None	NoneIndustry, Trade & Commerce	1	1	3Regional Economic Expansion	None	None	1(b) All Other Staff	External Affairs	15	2	21Industry, Trade & Commerce	37	4	18Regional Economic Expansion	44	3	31
These personnel changes reflect the normal day to day employee decision to improve or cease his or her career in the public service.


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has had any success in finding out why question No. 2,329 is not being answered.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am currently looking into that matter on behalf of the hon. member, and 1 am very pleased to do so.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 23, 1982, 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, pursuant to House Order (p. 19701), referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise briefly this afternoon to comment on Bill C-109, remedial legislation for victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I realize that we are presently at second reading stage where we discuss the bill in principle. 1 plan to do just that, recognizing that we are all anxious to get this bill into Committee of the Whole where we can go through it clause by clause and raise many of the concerns that we on this side have regarding Bill C-109.
When the bill was first introduced on December 23, 1981 the minister responsible indicated that the government was prepared to set aside $110 million to provide remedial relief to those households suffering with the problems of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. It became clear immediately that the program was hopelessly inadequate. Considering the extent of the problems associated with this type of insulation, at best the program announced by the minister responsible is a band-aid for a very serious wound.
It is important that we see this bill as simply the first step in a very long march toward improving the situation for thousands of Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a situation that is bound to cost them many thousands of dollars and in some instances tens of thousands of dollars.
It is important that as Members of Parliament we do not consider Bill C-109 to be the final step in resolving this problem. It should not be considered the final offer. It is not a fait accompli. Bill C-109 is simply the beginning of a process by which the Government of Canada will make an effort to rectify a situation that has caused anguish to many Canadians.

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
I want to take a few moments this afternoon to relate to the House an example of how the plight associated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation has caused so much anguish to one of my constituents. The story begins in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia. A woman nearing her retirement had saved to improve her home. The woman had been widowed a number of years earlier. She had worked for many, many years and had saved her money. She placed her money in a fund which would eventually result in an improvement to her modest home in the city of Vancouver.
In the months approaching her retirement she decided to take money out of her bank account and improve the roofing on her modest home, replace the siding with aluminum siding, rewire the whole house, improve the plumbing and lay a new asphalt floor in the carport. 1 could go on and on, but the point I am trying to make is that here was a single woman about to retire placing all her life's savings into improving her home. She had lived in the home for many, many years, and that was where she planned to spend the remaining part of her life.
It was a comfortable home in the city of Vancouver. In her efforts to improve her home she decided to take advantage of a program the government introduced and to insulate her home thoroughly so that it would be cool in the summertime and snug and warm in the winter. She asked a contractor to instal urea formaldehyde to improve her home.
Needless to say, that was the beginning of the end. No sooner had the foam insulation been installed than she noticed symptoms of ill health. She found she could not breathe properly. Her throat and lungs were irritated. Her eyes began to weep after a short period of time in her home. Within a matter of days she could not stand being inside her modest home and had to move out into the carport. Luckily, it was a Vancouver summer; it was mild. She was able to set up temporary tent-like lodging; I suppose I can call it that. She went into her home to cook and so forth, but she could stay only 15 minutes before she would have to leave again.
Naturally, she went to her physician and inquired about her condition. When the physician found out that urea formaldehyde was the type of insulation she had installed in her home, he very quickly did the appropriate tests and found that this woman was suffering from severe illness directly associated with the urea formaldehyde insulation. The physician said that the only alternative was to remove the urea formaldehyde or move out of the home.
To remove foam insulation requires the expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars. I suppose for some Canadians that would not cause a serious problem, but for others it creates a hurdle they simply cannot overcome. The woman to whom I have been referring had retired, but she was asked to spend $15,000 to $20,000 to remove the noxious urea formaldehyde foam insulation from her home. She was unable to do so. I believe it was her solicitor who advised her to place her home on the market, sell it, get what money she could out of the home and buy something else or move into an apartment, condominium or town house. This was a very difficult thing for this person to do. This elderly woman had lived in her
home for nearly 20 years with her husband and then as a widow. After spending thousands of dollars of her savings to improve the home she was asked to sell it and move into an apartment.
That was very difficult for her to do, but she had no alternative. She placed her home on the market. Needless to say, as soon as prospective home buyers found out that the home was insulated with urea formaldehyde foam, they quickly walked away. They were not interested in purchasing a home with that insulation. By that time it had become extremely infamous because of its problematic nature.
After many, many weeks of attempting to sell her home and living in a carport or boarding with friends who would take her in, an individual came along and said he would be prepared to buy the home simply for the lot and that he would give her a certain number of dollars which would compensate her for the value of the lot. As far as her home was concerned, it would simply have to be bulldozed off the landscape. Can hon. members imagine how that woman must have felt at that point? She had no alternative, so she sold the lot and stood by and watched the new owner of that propery bulldoze her very nice home down and haul it away to the sanitary land fill. I do not suppose one can begin to appreciate the agony and sorrow which would have been attached by that woman to that scene.
However, that was not the worst of it. By that time this woman had spent a considerable period of time with her legal advisers who were, during the process, charging her for their services and for their advice. When she received the money for the lot, she had to pay her solicitors. By the time she paid for the advice given to her and for the lobbying of the federal government which was undertaken, she walked away from what was one of the nicest modest homes in Vancouver. She walked away with her suitcases, her personal belongings and a handful of dollars in her purse. Her entire life's savings had simply been devastated. She had no home, she had nothing, and the interesting part of this, for our purposes here today, is that this was through no fault of her own. She was a totally innocent bystander to this whole process. She now happens to be living in my constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap in a mobile home on which she must pay rental charges based on the income of a senior citizen.
I must say that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was sympathetic enough to ask me to write the details of this case down and to provide them to him for his consideration. I have done that, and for the minister's consideration I am very appreciative. I expect the example I have used is not a typical example, but I used it to indicate the human tragedy which has been associated with this disastrous urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
This woman came to me and said, "Mr. Riis, what will the government do to assist?" Because this bill was then before the committee, I suggested she might expect $5,000 in compensation. She said, "I have lost tens of thousands, perhaps $150,000, and is all the government going to give me $5,000?"
July 27, 1982

1 said, "Yes, that is the way it looks." She told me that was inappropriate, unfair and unjust. I had to agree that it was for a woman who had lost her entire life's savings and seen her home bulldozed down before her eyes because it was insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. She could not understand why the government would be so coldhearted and callous and would not have more compassion for people such as her.
I understand that this bill would provide a maximum of $5,000 to an individual after the individual has had the foam insulation removed and presented a certificate to the authorities. I hope the minister will respond to this later this afternoon because, if that is the case, that assumes that people have $5,000 to expend. I should not say $5,000; I suppose it will be $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or more, and once people have expended those thousands of dollars, the government will see fit to reimburse them with $5,000 maximum. There are many, many Canadians who could not even begin to think about expending $10,000 or $15,000 to remove this foam insulation from their homes. I do not know what the figure would be, but if there are 80,000 people likely to apply, I suspect we are talking about 75,000 people who simply could not begin to consider borrowing an additional $15,000 to $20,000 to improve their homes, especially when nearly two million people are in a state of enforced idleness as a result of unemployment in our country. Many more are operating very close to the limit of their moderate incomes. There are people on fixed incomes and many others who during these difficult economic times are, at best, making a poor living.
As responsible Members of Parliament we have to ask ourselves if it is reasonable to expect Canadians to spend $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000 of their savings to clear up this insulation problem and then look to the government for a $5,000 reimbursement. This has happened to people through no fault of their own; and as a matter of fact, they were given the impression that it was quite a legitimate activity. The government indicated that it was the kind of insulation it wanted people to instal and that it was prepared to support the process through CHIP grants and so on. The offer of a maximum payment of $5,000 as provided in Bill C-109 is not a fair proposition at all.
We also have to address the long-term health problems. I do not suppose there is any member who has not spent time with constituents who have had urea formaldehyde foam insulation installed in their homes. We are all quite aware of the health problems associated with the insulation. As responsible Members of Parliament we have an obligation to see that adequate provisions are included in Bill C-109 for a follow-up on the health of the people involved, particularly those on modest incomes. Perhaps the minister will give his reaction when he has an opportunity to speak. It is likely that 80,000 home owners will claim the maximum $5,000 grant. That means a bill of $400 million. The minister has indicated that he has set aside $110 million, so that leaves a $290 million shortfall. We would all have to accept, of course, that the $5,000 maximum grant is hopelessly inadequate.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
On a number of occasions the minister has said that he would give consideration to additional funding that might come from other federal programs, from provincial or industrial sources. Knowing the state of the Canadian economy and the financial plight of provincial governments, I do not think we should hold our breath waiting for them to support an error made by the federal government. It was the federal government's initiative and approval under which the program was implemented and this type of insulation installed.
While we are discussing this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we consider providing full compensation for those innocent people who now find themselves in a disastrous financial situation through no fault of their own. Anything short of full compensation and an admission that we have erred in putting the policy in place would not be appropriate.
We need also to give consideration to alternate housing for people required to move out of their homes temporarily while adjustments are being made to buildings insulated with urea formaldehyde. We should perhaps consider the vacancies in CMHC funded homes, or beyond that through the auspices of CMHC.
Through CMHC the government could help people who are having difficulty renewing their mortgages because of foam insulation or who are having difficulty selling their homes because of it. I think it is well known that urea formaldehyde insulation does not mean, by definition, that there is a problem in the home, but the name has become associated with the serious problem. People have become very suspicious of it. Any home owners unfortunate enough to have urea formaldehyde insulation in their homes, even if there are no problems, will have a difficult time selling that home or even renegotiating a mortgage. I believe that in some cases there is even difficulty getting insurance on these homes because there has been an increase in the number of fires in such homes-probably by accident, but I suppose this is open to question.
With the greatest respect to my Progressive Conservative colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I must say that some of their public utterances have left me confused and I hope they will clarify them. I have talked with representatives of the urea formaldehyde lobby groups that have been formed in virtually every large and small municipality in the country. They tell me that the Progressive Conservatives have lobbied long and hard to hold up this bill because its provisions are inadequate. Yet when I read the appropriate minutes of the committee, I get the contrary impression-that the Progressive Conservatives are quite anxious to see the bill go through and have cooperated with the government for its rapid passage. I hope I am wrong in this and I hope my friends to my right will clarify the issue. What is their position? Do they plan to vote in favour of the bill in spite of its obvious shortcomings, or will they behave as they did with Bill C-154, when speaker after speaker after speaker rose to rip the legislation apart, bad-mouth the government and then say that, in spite of all the

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
problems and criticisms that they had, they were going to vote for the bill and support the government. I think it is important that my Progressive Conservative colleagues set out their position on the various controversial elements of the bill. Have they abandoned the home owners who have this dreaded insulation problem? I would not want to suggest for a moment that they are hypocrites, although I know other people might use that term.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege to speak to the House today on a subject which has some relevance to the profession in which I hold a degree both at the graduate level and at the post-graduate level. Very often in this House subjects that have medical relevance and are important to the welfare of the country as a whole are debated. There are five medical doctors in the House, three on the government side and two on the opposition side. Rather than call on these people who have the experience, training and background to give support and help to clarify issues, over and over again these subjects are left to Members of Parliament who have training in fields other than the medical field and who have without prejudice attempted to define the meaning of these medical problems. But they attempt to exaggerate at times the problems which are presented. They give remedies which are very frequently not at all appropriate to the conditions discussed.
Those of us with a medical background find it very difficult to sit and listen to that type of thing, which very frequently not only misleads the public but over and over again creates unnecessary anxiety and despair. I think it is incumbent on us, when there are critical questions concerning medical problems, that we make sure those who have the background at least be consulted, that the problem is discussed, and that they be given an opportunity to speak on the issue as I am being given that privilege today.
Long before I came into politics, Mr. Speaker, 1 realized that the politician has a knack of appearing to be knowledgeable and conversant on practically every subject that comes before him. As a surgical consultant in a cerebral palsy ward, I had an opportunity to talk with the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. Certainly he was a man for whom I had great respect and 1 have fond memories of his day as Prime Minister. On this occasion I felt I had the opportunity to discuss with, and perhaps even educate, this distinguished parliamentarian on the subject of cerebral palsy. We saw a patient and I started my short harangue, but within about two or three minutes the Prime Minister took over. He told me his thoughts on cerebral palsy, how it should be prevented and treated, and what his experience had been on the subject.
It was then that I was introduced to the technique which is used so frequently in the political field. It is a situation frequently encountered that when subjects of medical interest are discussed, a particular politician will speak at great length and
give his version of what should be done. However, my experience has been that it is only when these particular problems relate to the politician himself that he will listen. So again 1 might say that I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to talk on this problem.
The problem of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, Mr. Speaker, has had a very major impact on the emotional status, fears and worries of the public. I would like to quote a constituent of mine, a very level-headed, hardworking and dedicated mother in my riding. She says:
Do those who approved the program feel any remorse at all for what they have done? Do they suggest that we rent a hotel for seven people for six months so we can have our home entirely gutted and rebuilt because we felt that we could help ourselves and conserve at the same time? What is the future of our children and ourselves without the removal of urea formaldehyde foam? Where do we turn, to whom do we turn?
That is from a lady with a large family. Their home is paid for and at no time have they had any symptoms whatsoever. They are proud of the environment and setting in which they are able to raise their children. They have had this house for three years, they knew it was insulated with this foam, but at no time was there any suggestion of any ill effects from that particular type of insulation. Why should a lady of this mental capacity, whose husband is an executive at one of the local plants, suddenly have to be concerned about her residence because of this information which has so flagrantly been spread throughout my constituency and Canada?
Another constituent wrote me:
-merely because we are not suffering overt symptons healthwise now, nobody knows what the long-term damage may be to one's health . .. cancer does not show up immediately.
Another constituent is worrying, not because there are any particular signs of illness but because of what they hear on the radio, see on television or read in newspapers.
What are the medical facts, Mr. Speaker? 1 do not intend to go into the administrative aspects of what the government intends to do, but I would like to acquaint you with the medical facts as those who are trained in medicine read, interpret and act on them. Most of us, if we have signs of ill health such as a rash, respiratory problems or gastrointestinal discomfort, will use our common sense and do what we feel is necessary. If that fails to give us the desired result, we go to our family doctor. For the most part, the doctor will either give you directions and support or he will say this is beyond his scope and refer you to an appropriate specialist.
In the Hamilton-Toronto area a colleague of mine, one Michael Newhouse, is a particularly skilful specialist in the fields of allergy and chest physiology. He is a professor of medicine at McMaster University and has written about 60 to 70 papers on the subject of environmental and occupational diseases referable to the respiratory system. I felt I should contact him and discuss his experience in this particular field. First and foremost he indicated that he had no cases referred to him from general practitioners in the Hamilton area with symptoms which could not be explained by causes other than urea formaldehyde foam insulation. He also indicated that there was no increase in cancer cases or any suggestion of
July 27, 1982

concern or worry on the part of those in the field of malignancy research.
He further surveyed the Toronto area. He talked to other specialists who come under the term of respirologists. None of these people had any cases referred to them that could be considered in any way related to insulation. These specialists trained in this field have the equipment, the expertise and the sophisticated support to pick up early changes. Out of a population of approximately 2.5 million people, I think a lack of problems is most significant. That type of information is necessary so as to decide what to do. This doctor has been looking for the particular disability created by formaldehyde insulation. He was not able to find it, and he is continuing his search.
The next question is how toxic is formaldehyde? At this moment in practically every hospital in the country there are doctors and technicians working with formaldehyde. I am referring to pathologists and their technicians. Pathologists deal with diseased organs. The diagnoses they make frequently lead to the form of treatment that will follow. If they decide a lump in the breast is malignant, they may recommend partial amputation of that breast. If they identify tumor cells in a lung it usually means partial removal of the lung. In the course of the pathologist's work, the tissue submitted to him, whether from a surgical operation or from an autopsy, is put into Formalin. Formalin is usually a 40 per cent solution which for the most part is diluted into a 10 per cent solution. Tissues are kept in containers filled with this solution. Every day doctors remove tissues from the containers. For an hour to two and a half hours every day, with the emanation of fumes they cut up the tissues and prepare them for slides. Tissues are stained for study microscopically. For two to three hours every day of their working lives the pathologists and their technicians are exposed to high concentrations of formaldehyde.
What effect has this had on the pathologists and their technicians? In the British Isles a study was carried out on 15,000 of them. The following questions were asked and analysed. Is there a high incidence of cancer in that group compared to doctors working in other fields and compared to the general population? No excess of cancer cases was found in that particular group. Second, do they have any extra respiratory conditions, such as frequency of colds or irritated sinuses? Again, there was no suggestion that this group had any greater number of respiratory infections or diseases compared to the average population and to other doctors. What about longevity? The record showed that this group of people lived longer than the average.
The answers to these questions and this study are not 100 per cent proof that there are no ill-effects from formaldehyde. But certainly a study of 15,000 people working in this type of environment over a number of years and showing no ill-effects-certainly not the effects so widely publicized-must make one think in terms of what is the effect of prolonged
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
exposure to conditions where there is a high concentration of formaldehyde.
Why, then, are we so concerned? Why has this epidemic of fear been visited upon us? A number of factors can be considered, but probably at the back of it all has been some experimental work which has been done in the United States by a doctor in the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology in North Carolina. This doctor studied 2,000 rats and mice. The animals were subjected to various levels of formaldehyde six hours a day, five days a week for up two years. Of this group only the rats developed nasal cancer. The number was significant. The experiment was done on a threshold level; that is, the animals were exposed to a certain percentage of formaldehyde. If the formaldehyde concentration was below a certain level, a lesser incidence of nasal cancer was noted. This experimental study was done by an honest researcher and showed that cancer can occur in the nasal lining of mice if they are exposed to a much higher concentration of formaldehyde than is ever found in a normal setting.
This type of cancer can occur in animals and it has some very special characteristics. These characteristics relate to the breathing mechanism of the rat. A young mouse given a pungent or an irritating odour will stop breathing, or its breathing mechanism will diminish. On the other hand, a rat hyperventilates, which means that it breathes more rapidly and in doing so a mechanism comes into play causing considerable irritation of the lining mucosa of the nose. There is an explanation for it. However, it is difficult to say whether this is due to formaldehyde specifically or whether it is due to the irritation of increased breathing of any irritant.
But what correlation is there? Can one extrapolate the findings in animals to human beings? This question has been considered for many years. It has been debated in various scientific circles. The conclusion is that there is very little correlation or linkage between what is found in animals and what is found in human beings as far as the production of cancer is concerned. The American policy is that if some substance produces cancer in an animal over a fixed period, it is decided as a policy that the particular substance will be banned until it can be proven that it will not produce a similar condition in human beings.
During the past three to four years various studies have been conducted. One was conducted in Denmark, one in England to which I have alluded, and three in the United States. They concerned the effects on people working in an environment where there is a high concentration of formaldehyde. In none of them was it possible to find excessive cancer of any kind in the average population, nor was there any particular evidence of nasal cancer. Based upon medical evidence as a result of the work of accepted research workers, there was no direct evidence that human beings exposed to large doses of formaldehyde developed mucosa cancer.
These were not well-controlled experiments. Most human experiments cannot be properly controlled and cannot be taken

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
as scientific fact; but the results of these various studies must be available to average physicians and doctors so that they can advise their patients.
What is formaldehyde? How pervasive is it? Where is it found and in what concentration? Formaldehyde is a component of the human body. There is a certain percentage of formaldehyde in every cell of our bodies. Formaldehyde takes part in the chemical reactions of the body and is therefore one of the chemicals which constitutes our individual cells. It is not a foreign agent. It takes part in various chemical reactions in very minute quantities.
Also it is found externally in a number of items. It is found in plywood, chipboard, acrylic carpeting, various carpet binding agents which are quite extensively used in homes at the present time, car exhaust fumes, and also in very high concentrations in tobacco smoke. As I sit between two female members of the House of Commons in the conference room, whose names I shall not indicate, I feel 1 am in much more danger absorbing smoke from their cigarettes. Each of them is a chain smoker. I feel this is much more hazardous than living in any home with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.


Mr. Tousignant;: I certainly agree with you.


Stanley Hudecki: The gentleman to my right agrees with what I am saying. Certainly smoking is a real hazard.
I should like to refer to some statistics. In 1978-79, 28,000 people in Canada died from smoke-related conditions. In the North American continent 150,000 persons per year die from smoking. Yet the number dying from any cancer which could be related to formaldehyde at the moment, and in light of current knowledge, is exactly zero. These statistics must be kept in mind when we deal with people exposed to formaldehyde and to urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
A study was conducted under government supervision concerning the concentration of formaldehyde in homes with this insulation. In fact, some 2,700 homes were studied. The average concentration of formaldehyde in homes with some form of insulation was .049 ppm. For those homes which had only formaldehyde foam, it was .034 ppm. The interesting fact is that one quarter of the homes without any foam insulation had formaldehyde levels much higher than the average foam-insulated house. It is possible to have high levels of formaldehyde above the acceptable level, yet have no formaldehyde insulation whatsoever.
I am not trying to indicate that people do not respond unfavourably to formaldehyde. Our human body is such that practically any one of us may show a most unusual reaction to any chemical. Those of us who expect to have our teeth fixed under local anesthetic or those of us who require minor repairs under local anesthetic are really at hazard and at risk. We may very well show a massive reaction to local anesthetic. Indeed this happens. Many of us have read of instant deaths occurring in the dental chair or in the emergency room. Certainly there are people who are sensitive, and we call them hypersensitive, to formaldehyde. These people are very, very rare. They are
rare enough that they do not justify the problem being publicized as it has been recently. We should not terrify the major portion of our population because there are those among us who react violently to formaldehyde. These people must be diagnosed accurately.
In view of the fact that formaldehyde is so pervasive and is present in so many different areas of the home and in so many commodities in the home, a very careful study must be made to ascertain whether or not sensitivity is due to the insulation or to other causes. If there are other causes, they should be dealt with. If it is related to the home, on the other hand, then appropriate steps must be taken. In some cases the individual should even be moved from the home so that the necessary changes can be made.
It is very difficult to explain why this unfortunate situation has arisen in Canada. Perhaps one of the reasons for this general fear and depression over the situation is that much of the expert information has been blown out of proportion. This information has come from specialists in the field of toxicology, which is the study of different poisons; from the area of clinical ecology, which is the study of the environment; and from many research workers who have accumulated vast amounts of information on this subject. This information should be used constructively so it could cast light on the subject.
I believe that those who are genuinely concerned about this situation should have confidence in the medical practitioners who advise them. Those concerned people should consult with these specialists and have an accurate diagnosis made. Not only do these people who have spent their life in this science understand physical ailments associated with various poisons, but they understand people's personalities and the cause of their depression. They have access to very sophisticated information. Rather than being worried and writing letters to editors, they should be sure that the diagnosis is accurate by having it verified by qualified people. I would suggest to them that they have confidence in their family doctor and consultants. They should rely on the support which is needed in these situations.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting a long time for the government to introduce a fair solution to the UFFI problem. It appears that we are still waiting.
Before I commence my remarks on this bill, I would like to reply to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), who related a number of stories about his constituents not being affected by urea formaldehyde. He did not give us any stories about those who had been affected. It appears that he was attempting to have us believe that urea formaldehyde was good for us. I grew up on a farm many years ago when we used a lot of urea formaldehyde to treat grain. At that time we knew that the fumes from urea formaldehyde could make one ill.
July 27, 1982

At this point there seem to be two doctors in Canada who are willing to back the government's policy on urea formaldehyde. One of those doctors is the member for Hamilton West and the other is Dr. Newhouse, who is also from Hamilton. The hon. member for Hamilton West admitted that he is a Liberal politician and he very categorically stated that no politician should make medical statements under any circumstances. The government has been unwilling to retain the other doctor, Dr. Newhouse, who was willing to back the Liberal government's decision, in order to have his supposed expert opinion put on the record. Consequently, I suggest that we must question the credibility of the statements by the previous speaker.
While I have only a few examples, I note that there are a number of people who have taken a very deep interest in this particular problem and have staked their reputations as doctors to say that there is a problem with the use of urea formaldehyde as insulation. Some of these people include Dr. Albert Nantel from Laval University in Quebec City, and Dr. Kinlock, the city health officer in Vancouver. These doctors have been willing to put the facts in front of Canadians and state their belief that urea formaldehyde is a substance which can adversely affect people's health.
Over the years in Canada Canadians have come to depend on and, to some extent, trust the government to provide an environment where Canadians can make good use of the resources we have. Canadians have come to expect the government to make an effort to provide a standard of living which will enable us to meet our needs and enjoy the comforts of our society. For instance, we have learned that medicare should be and is available and is something that we expect the government to make available to us. It has been suggested recently that the government is gradually withdrawing from this field but most people still believe it is a responsibility of the government. We have also learned to trust the government to provide us with the kind of medical attention that will improve our health.
Therefore, it comes as a shock to have the government recommend an insulation, such as urea formaldehyde, which does anything but improve the state of our health. In this case, the government has created an environment which has made people ill instead of better.
Another expected function of the government has been to provide the opportunity for people to earn enough money to put food on the table. The government has not been very successful in this area either. We have 1.3 million unemployed, or a real unemployment level of almost two million. It is difficult to feed your family when you are unemployed, Mr. Speaker.
Heating a home in Canada is essential. This used to be a minor expense but during the last few years the government has turned it into a major expense, particularly for those people on low incomes or those who are unemployed.
This brings us to the subject of shelter. Canadians have come to consider housing as a right and something which they can expect to acquire during their life. Canadians take good care of their homes because they expect to have them for a lifetime.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
The whole idea of Canadians owning their own homes is being undermined by the inability of the government to solve the housing problem. It is being undermined in other ways as well, because the interest rates which home owners are required to pay on mortgages have increased to the extent where many are having difficulty paying them. These people may be the same home owners who have urea formaldehyde within their walls and are trying to get rid of it.
The government has created by its policies a situation in which the rate of inflation is making it impossible for prospective home owners to buy houses. The cost of building has risen so high that many people who could have expected to own a home a number of years ago can no longer do so. Besides that, the costs of maintenance, heating and lighting have gone up to the point at which much more than 25 per cent or 30 per cent of a person's income is spent for shelter, which is not acceptable.
Through the years, people who have bought houses have planned to take care of them, to pay for them, to make them their own. We, as legislators, were sent here to help them do that. Instead, by recommending urea formaldehyde foam insulation and then refusing to do anything about its removal, we are helping them to foul their nests so they can no longer live in them.
There was a time and, I suppose, the time is still here to some extent, when people trusted the government, but that trust in government has been eroded over the last number of years. That trust was built up over generations. If the government said that something could or should be done, we accepted that that was probably correct. After all, those in the House of Commons thought about it, and the final result was supposed to be acceptable to the people of Canada. This government has been tearing down that trust. The treatment of those people with urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes is just one more case of the government misleading and then mistreating people.
The problem involving urea formaldehyde foam insulation has gone through a number of phases which have led us to the position we are in today. We started out with an acceptance of the substance by the people of Canada because the government had recommended it and we trusted the government. We therefore decided that urea formaldehyde foam was a good insulator and would be used. Those of us in the country who used urea formaldehyde foam insulation were ignorant of the substance, although some people began to think that there was some reason for complaint. During the first phase there were just a few complaints. During the second phase there were a number of complaints and eventually there was a flood of complaints. However, these people faced a negative reaction from the government, from real estate people and, to some extent, even from the medical profession. People who were bothered by urea formaldehyde foam insulation went to the

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
medical people and were told that it was probably just an irritation, but they went from one doctor to another and from one hospital to another.
By phase three, government agencies were receiving so many complaints that they thought it might be better to do something about it, or to look into the matter. So after being flooded with complaints for a fair length of time, they reacted by setting up technical evaluation facilities for the problem which measured the formaldehyde concentrations in the air and in the walls of houses insulated with the product. Whenever the air concentration was lower than . 1 per cent, the home owners were told there was no reason that they should be sick. It did not matter that they were sick. Finally, during phase four, which is really a recent phase, it became quite clear that urea formaldehyde is harmful to health or does affect the health of a large proportion of people who have it in their buildings.
It was then necessary to ask the following questions: Is it possible to protect ourselves from urea formaldehyde foam insulation? What can be done to get rid of it? Can we neutralize it in any way? We have gone through all the possible questions which could be asked, without considering tearing down the buildings. But the final solution, as admitted by the minister and the government, is that the only way to get rid of urea formaldehyde foam insulation is to take it out. The cost of taking it out is the issue in this particular bill.
The discussion today of Bill C-109 is really part of an inquest procedure by which we are finding out how much it will cost to take this insulation out and how much it will cost to replace it with somethig else. Over the years, in the rush to reach energy self-sufficiency, the government made some grievous errors, and the promotion of urea formaldehyde foam insulation was one of them. This insulation was acceptable under the CHIP program and was given government authorization. Many people decided to use it.
What they have paid for in making that choice have been substantial health risks, not only the money they put into it. They received only a small rebate from the energy department of this government. They also paid for it in sharply reduced values for their dwellings. If they put them on the market now the chances are that they will be unable to sell them. They also paid for it in the long battle, which is not yet over, to try to make the government realize that it has a responsibility for putting and allowing unsafe products in the marketplace of Canada-in fact, not only allowing them, but pushing them, recommending them, suggesting them and paying people to use them.
Bill C-109 is therefore another bail-out bill for the government in a long series, the kind of bail-out in which the government opposite specializes. I am certain that the government sees this as a kind of response to the democratic process and an acceptance of the needs of the people. I see it, and the UFFI users see it, as a belated response to a national problem which was created by the government.
We now have the bill before us. First reading was given on April 27 and now, on July 27, we are in second reading stage.
The government has not moved very quickly. It will blame that on the NDP. However, let us look at the story.
In December, the problem was major. When the bill was put before the House in April, it was a recognition that something had to be done. But what is going to be done? This bill sets a limit on the disbursement of funds until December 31, 1982. Therefore, the longer it takes the bill to pass, the shorter the time to make payments to those affected by UFFI contaminants. This is another ploy. This ploy has been placed in the bill to try and stampede UFFI victims into taking what the government will give now rather than what may be the evaluation after home owners have looked at the cost of removing it. Putting a limit on time short-circuits the input of many individual members of this House who have UFFI victims in their constituencies.
No one has done more than the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to bring the problem of foam insulation to the attention of this House and the minister. I might note in passing that when the noted Canadian journalist, George Bain, was writing a book on UFFI, while in Ottawa he visited the hon. member for Comox-Powell River for first-hand information on the problem. We in this caucus have similar confidence in the hon. member. When he tells us that a one-shot grant assistance which the government is proposing to pay UFFI victims is inadequate, we say to the minister: "Show us why and how he is wrong." Is it inadequate or is it not?
The minister may say, and I have heard him say, that victims of UFFI want their money now. We say that members of the minister's own UFFI home owners' council are telling us and other people privately that the amount proposed is inadequate. The minister may say that there may be more money in the future, but from where and from whom? We suggest that once a bill is passed, there will be no further assistance. The government is trying to get the bill through, saying it will pay a maximum of $5,000 and then look around for other money; but the chances of getting it are very slim.
Bill C-109 does not terminate a vcitim's recourse to the courts, but it does give the public a fairly low evaluation of the worth of this kind of suffering. In return for exposing yourself to a health hazard and subjecting your house to the most extreme reconstruction problems, the government of Canada will pay you $5,000. This is a miserly amount.
My experience with government compensation has been somewhat similar. My most recent experience was compensation for the grain and oilseed producers of Canada for the damage they sustained as a result of our ill-conceived and economically catastrophic grains embargo on the Soviet Union. That embargo represented a substantial loss to farmers, particularly western grain farmers. The government said it would pay compensation, just like it says it will pay compensation to UFFI victims today.
The compensation was difficult to calculate, but the government said it would make a fair stab at it. The University of Saskatchewan, the Department of Agriculture and the Library
July 27, 1982

of Parliament all did studies on the situation and came up with a substantial amount of money which represented the cost of the embargo to the farmers. When the studies were completed, there was a variation in the cost, from $81 million up to $150 million and more. In my view it was not enough, just as the $5,000 today is not enough. But that is not the point. The point was that the federal government said it had arrived at that figure with the benefit of a computer model and exhaustive calculations by departmental officials. They reached the $81 million figure, the low side of all the studies.
1 asked for those calculations. I placed a question on the Order Paper asking for the relevant calculations. I am still waiting. So far the government has condescended to send me only one document which has anything to do with the problem. It is the same document which was distributed by the government to the press at a briefing when the embargo compensation was announced. I am still no wiser as to what calculations led the government to pay the Canadian farmers $81 million, half the amount it was suggested was required.
I can talk about other situations. The same problem was faced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) in his dealings with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). Despite the inquiries, the parliamentary questions, the pressure from the joint committee on statutory regulations, this government releases what it wants to release through a policy of evasion, delay and stonewalling, as it has done with this bill.
This bill establishes what the government says is a maximum level. How does the government justify a $5,000 grant? Do we have any studies, calculations or computer models that will enlighten us on how it reached the $5,000 figure? Will such evidence be tabled in the House? What we need is some kind of natural justice based on facts which can be backed up.
In this particular case, natural justice would be to give the home owner what it costs him to replace the urea formaldehyde foam that he installed at the behest of the government to begin with. I doubt very much whether there is natural justice in this bill or whether home owners will get it from the government, and neither does the hon. member for Comox-Powell River.
1 think the UFFI home owner deserves better. UFFI home owners have been very active and co-operative in getting the government to listen to their plight. Of the 30,000 registered at UFFI centres after the program was announced on December 3, 15,000 returned completed forms. They played ball with the bureaucracy at every turn. They played ball with the government and with the bureaucracy put in place by the minister. Now it is the government's turn. Instead, what the government is saying is, "You can have $5,000; take it or leave it." We do not think $5,000 is enough.
I would like to read a small excerpt from the May-June, 1982 Alumni News as follows:
CCA says that all UFFl-affected home owners, including those who didn't insulate under the CHIP program, will be eligible. It is estimated that less than 5
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
per cent of all affected homes will require an amount as great as the $5,000 grants, but there will be houses where that Figure will be exceeded.
Estimates made by reliable construction people in the city of Toronto are that the average cost of replacing urea formaldehyde in a home in Toronto would be approximately $22,000. We did not believe the department in December when the program first came out, and we do not believe it now. A friend of mine who insulated one floor with urea formaldehyde was required to pay something over $10,000 for material alone; he did the work. I think that is a fair estimation of the needs of the people who have to replace this insulation.
What does $5,000 mean to a person who has a problem? Some of the people who have problems are the 15,000 home owners who have registered, as well as the other 15,000 who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation but have not registered. To get that $5,000, a person must spend an average of $22,000. Before a person is eligible to get the $5,000 he must spend that amount. If a person does not have the money, what does he do? He goes out and mortgages his house. To get the $22,000, he must put a mortgage of $17,000 on his house. At present interest rates, $17,000 would cost approximately $260 a month just to pay the interest. The $5,000 grant would pay the interest on the mortgage for a year and a half but nothing off the principal. Two years down the road he is still paying for this $17,000 mortgage; the $5,000 is gone, and there is nothing to show for it except payments of $260 a month for the next 20 years.
But if a person has UFFI in his house, what mortgage company will give him a mortgage? A previous speaker told us what happened to a home owner in Vancouver. She could sell only her lot and had to bulldoze her house away. Consequently, she ended up only with the value of the lot.
I would like to make a couple of other points before I sit down. I do not think we should talk only about the position of the government. 1 think we should also recognize that the official opposition has not aided in solving this problem.


Mr. Lewis:: Come off it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Members of the official opposition failed to put forward any concrete policy which had any effect on the mind of the government or the minister. They have refused to accept the kind of process which is necessary. They have not met with home owners to obtain the understanding they require. They have run away from the situation to the extent that they have not been of any help in reaching a solution to this problem.
Let us look at the bill. The bill has an income barrier. If a person does not have money, he will not be able to take advantage of the $5,000. The bill has a cut-off date which would disqualify as many people-


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Hon. members will know that I do not often rise on questions of privilege or even points of order, but the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has just said that members of the Conservative Party have not met with people representing
19748

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
organizations who have banded together because of the fact that they have urea formaldehyde in their houses. I am sure the hon. member did not mean that. I have met with these people for many, many months. I know that many other members of the Conservative Party have also done that. I spent all last Sunday afternoon-two days ago-with representatives of groups in my city.
I am sure the hon. member got a little carried away but would not intentionally want to leave the impression that he really believes members of the Conservative Party have ignored this matter or have not been listening to constituents who have come to them, because that is just not the case.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that urea formaldehyde home owners have visited many members of the Conservative Party. I did not intend to say that those members did not see them. What I mean is that after seeing them, members of the Conservative Party did not come forward with the kind of pressure which was necessary to change the mind of this government. I apologize if I left the impression the hon. member mentioned.
This bill has a cut-off date which would disqualify as many as 60,000 people from taking advantage of the program. The bill makes no provision for a long-term medical follow-up. Regardless of what the hon. member for Hamilton West says, most doctors in the country recognize the dangers and possible long-term effects of living in a home insulated with urea formaldehyde.
The bill requires that only one payment be made. There is no allowance for commitments in the future, regardless of the findings of the committee. These are real problems and they need real answers.
We in this party think the government can do a lot better in providing assistance to UFF1 victims. That is why my colleagues and I are bringing to light the injustices contained in this bill. The government must deal with them as quickly as possible.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak at this stage of the proceedings on this very important bill. I think we shall finally reach today that decisive moment we have all been looking forward to for so many months. If Bill C-109 is passed today on third reading, we shall be releasing total funds of $110 million for use by UFFI victims. I think that is the correct figure, and I am grateful to all the members of this House for their unanimous consent, so that UFFI victims will no longer be penalized. Mr. Speaker, I was impresssed with the speech of our Liberal member who discussed the scientific aspect of the matter, since he himself is an expert in the field, namely Dr. Hudecki. He clearly explained the scientific side and showed us how complex the problem really is. We were aware of the fact, but just the
same, I want to appeal to all the members of this House to refrain from playing politics with this question, because it is an excessively complex issue and since it is a scientific problem, we have had to obtain technical data and we have had consultations with various groups. Obviously, before establishing a policy worth $110 million, as a responsible government we had to proceed with a serious analysis, including samples taken from numerous homes, not necessarily in order to reach a final decision but at least to finish the debate in Parliament and enable the people who need assistance to benefit from the $5,000 government grants earmarked for UFFI victims.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall go over the past history of this product which has aroused considerable concern here in Canada. However, I shall not go beyond the historical confines of the problem, unlike the member who spoke before me, the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who tied this question in with the unemployment situation and interest rates, blaming the government for all our ills. Instead, during the time I have been allotted I shall go over exactly what has happened since the official announcement under the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
What happened to the program? The CHIP program was announced in 1977 and its purpose was to improve insulation in Canadian homes. I may refer the member for Prince Albert, who was talking about housing conditions in Canada, to the results of several surveys that were published. In fact, regarding satisfaction of Canadians with the quality of housing in Canada, as measured by a survey that was held about two years ago, 1 previously mentioned this item in the House, when I said that nearly 85 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with housing conditions in Canada. I think it is hard to find countries where the rate of satisfaction with the quality of housing is as high as that. Then, in 1977, as we all know, the Canadian government announced a special Canadian home insulation program, aimed at cutting down on oil consumption, at a time when prices were rising fast. It is clear now that five years ago, the government was being extremely provident, because we know how much home heating oil costs now. At that time, the government set up a home insulation program.
Specifications were set by the Canadian General Standards Board, and some 100 products were suggested or recommended by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for use as insulation. The 100 products suggested or recommended included urea formaldehyde foam. What is the Canadian General Standards Board? Is it a purely governmental organization? Is it a private organization? Not at all! I think that for the benefit of hon. members and the public, I should explain what the Canadian General Standards Board is. It is a committee on which consumers are represented. It also includes members of private industry and representatives of provincial governments. It is a committee that includes, as I have just said, the private sector, various professions and members of the Canadian government. It was this specifications committee
July 27, 1982

which recommended or suggested some 100 products for use as home insulation. It did not say that one particular product was the ideal solution, so that the consumer was given a choice.
The specifications for urea formaldehyde foam were approved by the Standards Council of Canada, and information was published on possible uses of this product. That was in 1977. In 1979, two complaints were registered following possible harm caused by urea formaldehyde. By September of 1980, 100 complaints had been registered. From then on, the government would be taking various steps to protect the consumer. After the 100 complaints in September, 1980, in December of the same year, the Department of National Health and Welfare conducted an investigation into the possible hazards of this product. So at that time, there was some reason for concern, and we proceeded to determine what hazards were involved. The Department of National Health and Welfare took action. That was in December 1980. A report was published, and the product was put on the list of hazardous products. Under the Hazardous Products Act, the product was banned for commercial use. Here again, we see that the government acted very responsibly. However, when the product was put on the list of hazardous products, the private sector appealed the decision in order to be able to go on selling the product. At this point, we may well ask, who was going to pay the legal costs of consumers in the courts? It was, in fact, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which paid the legal costs under the Hazardous Products Act, and the product remains banned. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few historical data which I have recalled to determine whether, as some members of the opposition, and especially the New Democratic Party members, are saying, the government shirked its responsibilities with respect to the use of this product.
So what happened next? There were all kinds of reports and it seems that the use of this product, the manner in which the product was installed, created certain problems. However, not all home owners who used the product are now suffering ill effects as a result. During the debate on second reading of Bill C-109 to provide for payments in respect of dwellings, the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was, I believe, the spokesman for the official opposition on the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and as reported in Hansard of May 31, at page 17917, he himself used the product and did not have any problems. I shall quote what the member for St. John's East said during the proceedings on second reading:
-I believe the government also has a very serious obligation to tell the House exactly what it feels is its responsibility to those who do not have health problems as a consequence of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and 1 am one of them. There is no problem in my home. I do not live there all year round. It is in my constituency, but I have no problem there. Indeed, the insulation has worked very well. It has served me very well, but if I were attempting to sell my home, I
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
would have to state that it has urea formaldehyde foam insulation because that is now a regulation of most real estate companies in the country.
That is another aspect. But then we can both accept the fact that there are home owners who have suffered ill effects and also that we cannot ban the product outright and say that it was 100 per cent harmful. We are aware that there were victims and there still are. If the product was properly installed, according to the specifications, those people or those home owners have solved their insulation problems, and I think the member for St. John's East probably reflects the circumstances of the vast majority of home owners who insulated their homes with this product. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not solve the problem of other Canadians who have been practically enticed to use that product. The New Democratic Party may very well claim that the amount of $110 million is not enough, but then again perhaps $500 million would not be enough either, so in its wisdom the government has to keep in mind the fact that the money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers and that it must then be redistributed once we are sure that those grants are relatively proportional to the moral responsibility of thg government. I will come back to that aspect in a moment.
Of course, some people will echo the New Democratic Party and say that it just is not enough. The fact remains, however, that not one of 30 countries in the rest of the world has agreed to grant $110 million to people who have used this product. Not a single country has agreed to do that, only Canada's Liberal government has accepted that moral obligation because it is aware of the significance of this issue for the victims. Mr. Speaker, I could talk for another hour about cases which I have heard about in my riding from people who came to see me in my office. I have files, including this one whose importance cannot be denied because it is one inch thick, nothing but letters to and from Mr. Guy Chevalier of Sainte-Dorothee who has given me permission to mention his name. This goes to show to what extent members have received representations from people who have been victimized by this product. I think that all members fully grasp the significance of this problem which has made headlines week in and week out, sometimes as a result of publicity, sometimes because of changes in temperature and humidity. But it is a fact that the issue has evolved considerably and we are still unable to say what is the exact cause of this problem and what is the ideal solution. I am sure we all want to help the people who have used this insulation and I think that all members are now fully aware of the situation.
I want to single out and commend all the organizations that have made representations, either to their Member of Parliament or to the minister concerned, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. (Mr. Ouellet). Setting all political considerations aside, I think each one of us ought to make an objective effort to solve this problem which takes a new dimension practically every day. We have physicians in the House as well as on the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Committee, not to mention engineers and representatives of all disciplines and professions, even lawyers. I do believe we should forget the political aspect and work honestly and objectively with a view to finding an acceptable solution to the problem. Earlier I extended my congratulations to the Federation of the committees of victims of Quebec. I had an opportunity to meet with that group and so did all other members from Quebec. Those people asked us to give them some information about the situation. As a result of that meeting, we were asked to declare the problem of urea formaldehyde "a national emergency situation." Mr. Speaker, I suggest that nobody would hesitate to call that situation a national emergency problem because we have no idea of the extent of the damage. In my riding, the association did urge, and I quote their text word for word:
We urge our Members of Parliament Marcel Roy and Yves Demers as well as the hon. Jeanne Sauve to bring pressure to bear upon Mr. Ouellet so that he will declare UFFI-insulated houses a "national disaster".
With respect to the first item in the claims of Laval UFFI victims committee, it was agreed, and the minister himself referred to this in the health, welfare and social affairs committee, that we could declare the situation of UFFI-insulated houses a national disaster. Speaking of national disaster, I think it is appropriate to recall that Laval was heavily damaged by floods in the past. In various regions of Canada, people took action under the existing national disaster legislation to estimate the damages, and the provinces shared on a per capita basis with the Canadian government the cost of the damages paid to the victims. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, I believe that legislation was used two or three times by some provinces. We agreed with the first item of their claims that it is a national disaster and we urged them to make similar representations to the provincial members and their ministers because the Canadian government, through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, did agree to call it a national disaster. 1 have asked the Laval members of the Parti Quebecois to agree as we did that the situation of UFFI-insulated houses be considered as a national disaster. I trust that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), whom 1 see over there, will also be able to support the claim put forward by the members of the Quebec federation of committees of UFFI victims, to the effect, that the situation be considered a national disaster; therefore, under the existing legislation, the provinces will contribute on the basis of their population to the amount paid the victims. That was accepted. The second claim was taken from a brief presented to me on June 15.
We require our MPs to vote against the bill unless its regulations are changed.
Well, after several discussions, we did not want to play into the hands of the NDPs, and organize a filibuster talking about unemployment, talking about interest rates and housing conditions, when in fact we should be deciding whether, today
or three months from now, we should grant $110 million worth of assistance to UFFI victims.
For our part, this is what we said: "You can oppose this bill if you want to, but you will not have a penny from the Treasury Board before fall when the session is adjourned, while $110 million would be available under this legislation, which would mean $5,000 per housing unit." The minister has stressed several times the flexibility of Bill C-109, saying that the terms of financial assistance will be prescribed by regulation rather than by legislation. You are asked to support this legislation, and then we shall see whether the provinces are willing to co-operate since the minister has stated that the situation may be viewed as a national disaster.
After that meeting, Mr. Speaker-and this shows how objective the committee has been-the following was published in the Contact Laval newspaper on June 30:
UFFI victims satisfied with their meeting with federal MPs.
While no formal commitment was made by the three federal Members of Parliament for Laval, the Laval committee of UFFI victims has said that it is fully satisfied with the results of the meeting it had with its federal representatives last Sunday to look into the situation. The meeting lasted over three hours and followed the sit-in in the office of the Member for Duvernay, Yves Demers. The Laval committee stated that the three Members of Parliament had sympathized with the predicament of its members and that positive results could be expected in the near future in response to the representations made by the Federation of Victims to the minister concerned, the hon. Andre Ouellet.
"I believe that some progress has been made because of this meeting," stated Mrs. Emilie Morais-Deschenes, who was expressing the views of the committee.
Many questions were discussed during the meeting, including the matter of the bill which Mr. Ouellet plans to introduce in the House of Commons and of the program to decontaminate UFFI-insulated houses.
According to Mrs. Morais-Deschenes, the Laval members of Parliament agreed to ask Mr. Ouellet for amendments to his bill and were interested by the request of the victims to have UFFI-insulated houses declared a national disaster.
The hon. members will note how often this request comes up and how much the federation of UFFI victims insists on having UFFI-insulated houses declared a national disaster. I continue with the article:
"The meeting has had positive results for both sides and I believe that we can look to the future somewhat more optimistically," concluded Mrs. Morais-Deschenes.
All this shows that no one has taken the limelight on this issue. I believe that all members of this House have met their responsibilities and received representations from their constituents, and I think this is one of the reasons why the minister has agreed to make many amendments to his regulations concerning the taking of samples, the amount of $5,000, the clean-up of houses and the possibility of removing the insulation from between the walls of these houses. I believe that the minister has been very flexible because, once again, this is a new problem, a new rapidly changing situation, and our efforts must be sustained because how are we to know what the harmful effects will be in six months. I believe that the government has shown great caution, but before declaring a national disaster, we would need the support of the provinces. The
July 27, 1982

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, when appearing before the Standing Committee on Elealth, Welfare and Social Affairs, made a presentation in which he stated:
As promised when I appeared before your committee on Tuesday, May 11, 1982, you will find enclosed copies of the telex messages which I sent on December 9, 1981, to my provincial counterparts concerning the Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation Victims' Assistance Program.
The message dated May 20 was a telex addressed to all the provincial ministers responsible for housing and consumer protection. The particular telex Addressed to Quebec Minister of Housing and Consumer Protection Guy Tardif, referred to a meeting that had taken place in September in Quebec City; through this telex, the content of which I will spare you, the Minister was seeking the provinces' co-operation. When asked whether he had received replies, the minister said that unfortunately he had received none at all. I therefore urge all hon. members of the House, because there are not so many provinces with Liberal governments in Canada, to prevail upon the governments that have the same political philosophy or affiliation as their own to declare a state of national disaster and provide the victims with a certain amount of money to which the $5,000 may be added. The idea would be to cooperate fully, and not to blame the government for this or that. I suggest that the government was responsible in its decisions. And in connection with provincial co-operation I should like to refer to the case of the City of Laval. I quote:
UFFI: Laval offering home-owners a 20 per cent reduction of their assessment.
This is an article that appeared in the Le Devoir on March 30, 1982.
The City of Laval feels that UFFI houses on its territory have lost an average of one-fifth of their commercial value. Le Devoir heard yesterday that 408 houses have been fully reviewed and that their respective owners should receive a new assessment within the next few days.
According to our information, the ratepayer would be left with three possible choices:
If he agrees with the reduction proposed by the city, he would have ten days to let them know. The Laval Assessment Service would then advise the Quebec Land Assessment Review Board (BREF) of the change;
If he feels entitled to further reduction, he should turn down the City's proposal and make personally an application to the BREF before May 1. In this case, he would have to contend with the City's Assessment Service which would defend its new assessment;
And, finally, if the owner preferred to keep his previous assessment which did not take into account the presence of UFFI, he would need only to turn down the city's offer.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very good illustration of the whole issue. The City of Laval, the second largest city in the province of Quebec, is willing to co-operate with us on this program. How is it that the provincial government chose to ignore the telex the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had sent on December 9? This is the problem we shall have to solve together. Although I do not intend to pursue this point any
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
further, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to mention that the department has provided more than $120,000 to several organizations, so that they may keep the government up-to-date on further developments and advise it on the most scientific and practical ways to help these victims, either through National Research Council Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare, or the recently formed advisory committee to the government, so that no unproperly researched decision may cause further harm. This is why, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House who has lived through these problems together with other UFFI victims in his own region and who is aware of their impact on them, I feel I am entitled to rejoice at the prospect that relief measures are on their way. I saw crumbling brick walls, houses which were considerably damaged and I agree that in some cases $5,000 is not enough.
1 think that the legislation will be passed today for the benefit of all victims and I am pleased that an order of reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs has been made by the House. I mentioned that the minister who provided under Bill C-109 some $110 million for the victims of UFFI was flexible and that we would not proceed under the legislation but rather through regulation. Once again to reflect that flexibility, the government has decided and this in response to the member for Prince Albert who suggested that once the bill was passed everything would be over, to make an order of reference and I quote:
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to consider urea formaldehyde foam insulation including:
And the first point is as follows:
1.	The process used to approve the material for use in Canadian homes;
2.	The question raised on the health effects and the nature of the research being conducted or contemplated on these questions;
3.	The questions raised on remedial action and the nature of the research being conducted or considered;
4.	The question of the number of homes affected, specifically attempting to identify the reasons for the discrepancy between the number of homes estimated and the number registered;
5.	The question of use of the foam in schools, public buildings and rental accommodation and recommendations on possible courses of action where remedial action is required;
6.	The identification of home owner groups with special needs and recommendations on how these special needs could be met;
7.	The report of the Hazardous Products Board of Review on the aforementioned matters.
I specifically mentioned that committee in my preliminary comments.
8.	Any changes or additions to the regulations deemed advisable with regard to the aforementioned matters.
That the committee be instructed to report on the aforementioned matters no later than December 1, 1982;
Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to chair that committee. I have already got in touch with a spokesman for each opposition party in order to hold a first meeting next Thursday to be followed on Tuesday next by a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization which

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
will be asked to draw up a specific schedule and call up witnesses as soon as possible so that we may notify those wishing to submit a brief to the committee and give them enough time for research. We shall have to sit all through the summer if we want to be ready to table the report on December 1 as requested by the government under the above-mentioned order of reference.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that scientific research will be necessary because it is important for the victims of those conditions to be well informed. We will of course ask the provinces for their co-operation and as I said before, by calling the situation a national disaster we hope to get their cooperation thus following the example of the city of Laval assessing its property owners. It is in that context that I will chair the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which has been empowered today to investigate urea formaldehyde in Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-109. At the outset I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who has been our party critic on this issue. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River has taken a fair amount of flak on this question because he has insisted upon the best possible deal for UFFI home owners. In spite of the combined pressure from the Liberal and Conservative Parties to rush the bill through as though this were some kind of gift package they were placing under the Christmas tree to surprise people, the hon. member has kept insisting that the people will be surprised, because when they open the package they will find there is nothing there for them. As a matter of fact, the pressure to have the money spent by December 31, 1982, means that by this coming Christmas many UFFI home owners will be sadly disappointed about any hopes they had that this bill will meet their needs.
I believe that the bill coming in at this time emphasizes the slowness of the government in responding to the situation and its slowness in accepting its responsibility. We remember that this program was actively encouraged and promoted by the government. However, when problems arose with this program the government ran for cover and hid. It has been very slow in accepting its responsibility. When it did accept its responsibility it did so in a very halting and inadequate manner.
Perhaps one of the major concerns is that the maximum $5,000, as it was orignally termed, is completely inadequate when one considers that the cost of removal of urea formaldehyde in most urban areas is estimated to be between four and five times that much.
Perhaps the situation faced by UFFI home owners can best be illustrated by reading a letter from a widow who signed herself as "a very disturbed citizen". She sent this letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I think it outlines better
than I or other members can the real situation facing many UFFI home owners. Many find themselves in a similar position. The letter states:
Dear Sir:
Re: Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation
As one of many home owners who was encouraged by way of advertising and government grants to upgrade the insulation of my home and being concerned with energy conservation I now find myself in very serious circumstances for having proceeded.
First, I had the attic insulated, then proceeded to check out what type to use in the walls.
Some of the loose fills were reported to settle greatly, were not moisture resistant, did not fill all crevices and would deteriorate if becoming damp.
Foam insulation on the other hand, was supposedly easier to install, more economical and because it was inserted when moist, would fill all cracks and crevices.
However, the polyurethane foam was reported to expand after insertion, thus warping or bulging the walls. A company (Rapco Foam) was highly recommended by Mr. Dalgleish of Winnipeg when guesting on a local radio program.
I contacted the company to check out their insulation. I was told:
It would not settle or expand;
It resisted moisture;
It would enhance the comfort and value of my home;
Its R Value (3'/2 inches inserted in the wall cavity would increase that of my house by 18.12;
It was chemically stable, and
It was government tested and approved (CHMC approved *SA98209).
I still have the famous brochures on hand.
The wall insulation was completed April 20, 1978 at a cost of $652. Apparently the most costly $652 I have ever spent! Now I find:
The insulation has toxic effects which can result in severe medical problems.
My house has depreciated 30-40 per cent of its otherwise market value.
It would be most difficult to sell (if a buyer could be found) because real estate and mortgage companies are just not interested!
For those who are financially able to remedy the problem, there is still no guarantee the house will ever return to its previous market value; real estate companies are now asking "does this house have, or has it ever had UFFI?"
A medical doctor has advised that I don't inform the neighbours UFFI is in my house.
If the hazards to the people living in the house are as minimal as government is trying to say, why would it be of concern to neighbours?
She then gives something of her life history, which I think is interesting and relevant in view of the background of many of the people who are suffering because they accepted this government program:
Married in 1949, we had our first child in 1950. In July of 1951 my husband became ill and remained so, passing away in 1965.
It is now 31 years since I became the family supporter. During these years I worked a full-time job, at times a second part-time job, as well as caring for my two children, paying child care for 11 Vz years (no grandparents, or uncles to lend a hand) and put a down payment on a house.
We never owned a car after 1952-my children and a house were my first priorities. They had music, skating and swimming lessons, both completed grade XII and had further education. Thus they never had time on their hands to become problems to the community. Believe me on a salary of $125 per month in 1951 to $463 per month in 1970, it did not come without strict budgeting and much sacrificing.
As a result of an automobile accident (being a passenger in a car that was hit), since the end of 1970 I have been on a medical disability of under $278 a month (private insurance) and not subject to increase. However I rent a suite to
July 27, 1982

supplement my income, for mortgage, utilities, taxes, repairs and general upkeep. Without the rental income, I could never afford to keep the house.
In August, 1980, I paid off the mortgage-the accomplishment of a lifetime! The increased market value seemed a Godsend; compensation for the previous sacrifice. I was assured of security until I became a senior citizen in 1988, and even after. I could hardly believe it was mine and I had finally accomplished my objective.
I have never applied for any assistance such as UIC or welfare, nor did I have a grant for the insulation. It is absolutely contrary to my upbringing, however, as a result of having my house insulated, and in view of my personal circumstances,
I am asking now:
1.	The federal government is offering up to $5,000 if the house test indicates gas over .1 PPM and if you can prove medical problems therefrom.
I had skin irritation, kidney (edema) and respiratory conditions previously-the symptoms with thyroid and arthritis are interrelated, thus I cannot prove the UFFI has caused them; however, having had a very bad winter, who is to say it has not greatly increased or aggravated my problems. But, on the surface it would appear I would not qualify for even a portion of the grant.
2.	It has been suggested that people with medical problems move. Where to? How can I rent, plus live on $278 a month, and plus my rental income?
3.	If I stay in the house, and continue to rent the suite, could I be held responsible if a tenant should have medical problems?
4.	I understand estimates to completely remove the UFFI treatment of the 2 *SA& 4d, and restore the walls, perhaps change electrical wiring and boxes if they have been affected, range from $14,000 - 25,000.
I do not have the money for this, nor would I be able to obtain a loan at my income level.
5.	It has been well publicized that the Research Council advised against the use of UFFI-then why would the representatives of the people approve its use; and having done so, not accept full responsibility for the results?
6.	Once approved federally, companies have to be licensed and/or approved provincially and municipally; then why are the people not protected from false advertising and misrepresentation?
A Rapco Foam brochure given to me in April, 1978 indicates an R Value of 4.35 per inch in summer; 4.80 in winter, "stays dry", "repells moisture;" another indicates its chemically stable and another indicates an R Value of 18.12 (foam only) in a 3l/>
inch wall cavity.
However, an Energy, Mines and Resources booklet, dated August, 1976 "Keeping The Heat In" contradicts most of the information still being advertised in 1978. The foam had then been derrated by 40% to account for shrinkage; the R Value being 2.5 per inch and, "But may only be applied to walls with no insulation whatsoever".
Rapco was aware my house had some fiber glass insulation.
7.	As a bonus, my bathtub was insulated! Recently, I learned UFFI contains corrosive substances, attacks mortar and metal and promotes wood rot. Is my bathtub being corroded? Are the two *SA& fours and joists with wood rot?
8.	There is also a question of the toxic effects on NA/SO *in3' recommended for treating wood cavities. The sodium herein could be harmful to edema patients.
I know of one man who said he would never use this on his house as it would be as dangerous as UFFI.
How can any level of government which has approved and/or licensed use of such material and allowed advertising which has been contradicted in 1976 to be distributed in 1978, not be liable to those of us who felt responsible enough to respond to conservation pressures being requested by our government, federally and provincially? How can a $5,000 grant, at most, compensate for 30 years of struggling and erasing the future security of the citizens who respond to the needs of the country? My home was the only asset of real value I've been able to acquire in my lifetime. I await your response as to the amount of assistance your level of government or party would assume in this regard:
-financially, to restore our property to proper market value; obviously $5,000 is completely inadequate.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
-Are you prepared to support these home owners in obtaining justice where
it is due? Or would you preferably overlook the situation because it
happened to someone else?
As children, our parents raised us to be honest, independent and compassionate, to respect the rights of others, respect the law, police, and our country (my only brother was killed overseas in the RCAF, I served in the CWAC). In turn I try to teach my children similarly.
But the many changes in our country in the last few years frighten me; perhaps it is time to realize our greatest fear is the justice, or lack of it, from within.
That letter was signed, "A very disturbed citizen". In it, the widow asked what the different parties were prepared to do on behalf of the UFFI home owners. 1 am pleased that the critic for our party did not cave in and want to rush this matter through when the provisions are completely inadequate. The position of the Conservative Party, however, falls far short of what is required. It is outlined in a memo distributed by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). It begins by describing the remedial relief to home owners with UFFI as "woefully inadequate". That is very true. "Woefully inadequate" means that it is inadequate to the point of being filled with woe for the people who are supposed to benefit from it. The Conservative Party realizes this, yet continues to support it. It is filled with woe for the people who are supposed to be benefiting from it because there is nothing in it for a great many of them. Realizing that it was woefully inadequate but that there were possibly some PR advantages, the Conservative Party agreed to give it speedy passage and minimal opposition.
The Conservatives have attacked the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) for trying to hold up the bill and get a decent deal on the matter. In return for giving speedy passage-and every sweetheart deal has two sides-the Conservatives said that they wanted the government to table the regulations which will administer the program. That is very well and good. Second, they requested that a special subcommittee of Parliament be struck immediately after Bill C-109 was passed. My understanding is that the New Democrats had already won that concession, and then the Tories added an amendment which only further explains the concession that the committee be empowered to recommend amendments to Bill C-109 and its regulations and that expert testimony be heard into the whole subject matter of UFFI.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will permit me to ask him a question.


James Douglas Manly: I would be very happy to attempt to answer a question at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think he should allow a question at this point.


James Douglas Manly: Very well, then. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I will attempt to answer it now.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member rose in the House to make a speech about the bill. Instead, I have heard nothing but complaints about so-called alleged positions taken by the Progressive Conservative Party. The complaint

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
seems to be that, somehow or other, the Conservative Party is not opposed enough to the substance of this bill or the limitations in it. I must ask the hon. member why, then, if the hon. member is complaining about us having said that we would let this matter get through, did his party unanimously agree yesterday to finish this bill in all three stages tonight? I just do not understand where the hon. member is coming from.


James Douglas Manly: The facts are very clear. The Tories have tried to push this legislation through for the last three or four weeks. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River has received a great deal of criticism because he kept insisting that this bill had serious inadequacies and that he was right, and we are still right. We are trying to point out some of the inadequacies of the bill and the fallacies of the Tory opposition.


John Allen Fraser: You agreed to finish the bill off tonight. Now, you cannot have it both ways.


James Douglas Manly: If I could just continue with some of my comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that all three of these things that the Tories say they won as concessions are all very well, but they give absolutely nothing to the UFFI home owners.
UFFI home owners have been very concerned about this bill. It appears to promise something, but in fact gives them nothing. One of the major problems of the bill is that there is an income bias. The $5,000 will be paid after the UFFI is removed.
As I mentioned already, the cost of removal will be four or five times greater than that. In homes in urban areas across Canada, it is estimated that the cost of the UFFI removal will be between $22,000 and $25,000. This means a great many low and middle-income people will not be able to have the insulation removed from their homes. Therefore, they will not qualify for the program. There is no help for those who need it the most.
Another concern is that more and more evidence is accumulating that UFFI creates long-term problems but that this is a short-term program. The moneys have to be spent by December 31, 1982. The idea of an ongoing committee is fine. It is said to be open ended and flexible, but there is no commitment. Our party would like to see some commitment in addition to flexibility.
I would like to place on record some questions from the president of the British Columbia UFFI home owner's action group, Penny Tilby. She is one of the members who met with the minister over the weekend. They ask that there be further government confirmation of some matters raised where there is diffusion, confusion, contradiction or mistrust. There is a great deal of that.
The minister agreed with the objective of UFFI home owners to hold compensation for removal of UFFI. He agreed to approach companies, provinces and other federal departments for additional assistance. In order to show proof of his
sincerity, will the minister amend the regulations now to state that the $5,000 is the minimum and not the maximum? We would like some confirmation that what he said yesterday was not simply a slip of the tongue as it is recorded in Hansard but that it represents a real change in policy.
Second, the minister originally agreed with home owners that Part I formaldehyde gas or proven health problems is not a fair criterion for assistance to UFFI victims. The National Research Council states that there should be removal from all groups as a minimum. After agreeing, the minister went back on his agreement, has not done anything to back up his commitment, and did not change Draft 13. Will he maintain good faith with the advisory council and remove this criterion as he promised?
Third, the minister promised there would be help from other government resources to add to the UFFI assistance program. Will the minister back his personal commitment? For example, will CMHC come to the aid of these people? Will there be help from the Canadian Home Improvement Program to top up the $5,000?
The minister said he would study the question of income bias. Home owners feel that simply to look into this question is not good enough. Will the minister make a commitment now to ensure universal access to the $5,000 assistance so that lower-income Canadians will not be excluded? Will he (a) guarantee contracts for persons who cannot advance $5,000, or (b) will he give the low-income person an interim loan of $5,000?
There are some 1,300 members of the UFFI action group in B.C. On an initial questionnaire, some 10 per cent of the people have replied, and more replies are coming in every day. Of the 10 per cent who replied, 10 per cent said they would be able to scrape up or somehow raise the $5,000 in order to have this money up front, and 71 per cent said they would not be able to. We are talking about a bill that at present will not meet the needs of 71 per cent of those it is supposed to help.
The Manitoba home owners said that 50 per cent of their home owners were on a fixed pension or low income. These people cannot afford this kind of help. It is absolutely essential that the minister make a commitment that he will remove income bias from this $5,000 grant. It is not good enough that he look into the problem. We would like a definite commitment.
Fifth, with regard to the establishment of a committee on health and welfare to continue to study and recommend, the home owners ask whether the minister and the government will guarantee to pay the future medical costs of any proven UFFI-related disease.
These are some of our concerns about this bill which we share with UFFI home owners. With these inadequacies in the bill, we cannot support it. We would like some real commitment on the part of the minister. It is important that there be help for these people. The government has come forward with a package that looks good. It is a package that they can put
July 27, 1982

under the tree. The Tories want to help. We say there is nothing in that package for 70 per cent of the people who need help from the UFFI program. I hope the government will listen to our concerns and take some positive action.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all, that I am very happy to have the opportunity this afternoon of speaking to Bill C-109. I should also like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole, and your colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on his appointment as Assistant Deputy Chairman on this first day in your new duties respectively.
Mr. Speaker, after those few words of congratulations, I must say that I found the speech of the hon. member opposite rather surprising. I thought the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) quite appropriate with regard to some of the comments made by the representative of the NDP about the bill now before the Flouse, when he pointed out that unanimous consent was given by the House to pass the bill at all stages and refer it to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Moreover, when my hon. colleague for Laval (Mr. Roy) spoke after our colleague of the NDP, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), saying that after that stage, study of the bill would be completed, to my mind the order of reference passed yesterday by the House, that is on July 26, as reported on page 19701 of Hansard, should have been referred to in order to ascertain what would happen to the bill. All that leads me to point out to the House that the bill having been introduced in April, 1982, I wonder why my colleagues of the New Democratic Party should now claim that we want to rush this bill through, that it is not complete, and that it should be discussed further. I wonder about it all the more that when on July 7, I personally proposed a motion, under Standing Order 43, suggesting that the House consider passing the bill through all stages, they refused unanimous consent, thus rejecting the motion as reported on pages 19084-5 of Hansard. Some of the comments made by the Progressive Conservative House leader dealt with the situation of the committee empowered to deal with certain aspects of the matter as a result of passage of the motion yesterday.
This motion was rejected by the New Democratic Party. The same thing occurred on July 8 when I introduced another motion under Standing Order 43 to have the bill go through all stages. A surprising development took place on that same day when the New Democratic Party also introduced a motion under Standing Order 43. They were really on the defensive concerning this bill, I imagine in view of the comments which had been made and the fact that certain English newspapers
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
had even said that they were responsible for delaying this bill. However today when they take this kind of holier-than-thou attitude, we should point out to them that had they agreed at the time, they would have had more time to discuss this bill in the House and they could have shown more foresight as concerns this bill since we are about to adjourn.
I am therefore very glad that we are going through all the stages of Bill C-109 this evening and having the vote at 9.45 since I introduced motions under Standing Order 43 on July 7 and 8, and put some questions to the Minister on February 2 about the UFFI situation, and I also questioned the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) last week, on July 20, about the Lamoureux report. The Minister replied that the report, which will be in a more complete form at a later date because of the illness of one of the Board's members, maintained the ban on the use of UFFI.
Mr. Speaker, UFFI victims will certainly be very happy to learn that the bill will finally be passed this evening following their meetings with members on this side of the House and in most Quebec constituencies; later on these members met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make representations and recommendations. I would like to give the background of what has happened ever since the Canadian people and afterwards Parliament were made aware of this situation. Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, on December 23, 1981, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, announced a federal assistance program for Canadians who had their houses insulated with urea formaldehyde foam. This material was banned in Canada in December 1980 when it was discovered that it could cause health problems. What was important at that time was that the program included free tests, technical advice and nontaxable financial assistance-I believe that this is very important-up to an amount of $5,000 to pay for the work to correct the problem.
The federal government therefore made this announcement on December 23, 1981. While I am explaining what followed to the Canadian people, and especially to Quebecers in my constituency of Lotbiniere, I would like to point out that, because of the flexibility and understanding shown by the government in response to the representations made by Members of Parliament, especially those of the Quebec caucus, following their meetings with associations of UFFI victims, changes will be made to the regulations. That is why in my speech this afternoon, and later this evening-because I shall not be able to conclude my speech now in view of the time allotted to me-I would like to tell the House about the changes that will be made in the regulations, because it is mostly through them that the situation will be corrected. In December 1981, the national testing program of 2,400 houses in Canada showed that in nearly 9 out of 10 houses insulated with UFFI, the average level of formaldehyde gas was lower than the acceptable level of 0.1 part per million.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
The Department of National Health and Welfare had then decided that a level of 0.1 was acceptable in homes, and it has stood by its decision. What was said in December 1981 was that if this test carried out at the request of the home owner showed a level of formaldehyde gas higher than 0.1 parts per million or if the home owner stated that a lower level was causing medical problems, a certified laboratory would make a complete test of the house. This second test included the analysis of air samples in the house itself and inside the walls and a humidity check inside the walls as well. The government paid for the tests which cost between $400 and $500, except that the home owners would have to pay $100 themselves, which amount would, however, be reimbursed under the government financial assistance program. That was in December 1981.
At that time, the Canadian government was therefore offering to home owners a non-taxable grant of up to $5,000, as I mentioned earlier. As for those whose houses, while insulated with UFFI, showed a level of formaldehyde gas lower than 0.1 parts per million, they also received financial assistance and technical advice if they could prove that a lower level was harmful to their health. The Department of National Health and Welfare was convinced that relatively few people would be affected by levels lower than 0.1 parts per million. This was therefore the situation when the Canadian government made its announcement on December 23. Let us now take a look at the technical aspects of the federal assistance program. I would like to do so before six o'clock to show the Canadian people what changes we have asked the Canadian government to make.
First, there was a universal free test. On request, home owners were to receive a dosimeter to test the level of formaldehyde gas. Second, a complete test was subsidized. If the level of gas shown by the free test was higher than 0.1, a second complete test was to be made. The government paid most of the cost of this test and the home owner's share was $100, which amount would however be reimbursed later on. Third came technical advice. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation gave home owners technical advice about corrective action to be taken, and the level of financial assistance provided by the government would be based on such advice. Fourth was the matter of financial assistance. Subsidies were paid in cases where the level of formaldehyde gas was higher than 0.1 or when the home owner could produce medical evidence showing health problems related to UFFI at levels lower than 0.1. The amount of the assistance offered was $5,000. The UFFI Centre authorized certain contractors, testing companies and laboratories to carry out the work. Seven, Mr. Speaker, after this corrective action, the government made technical and financial checks to ensure that the work had been thoroughly done and according to standards. This was a very important point, namely that the corrective action would actually be checked. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it six o'clock. I can proceed at eight o'clock.
July 27, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I assume that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) would like to proceed this evening at eight o'clock. The Chair will therefore recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere at eight o'clock or shortly afterwards.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at six o'clock, the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) had the floor.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. We in the official opposition have been waiting patiently throughout this afternoon, expecting Bill C-109 to move quickly out of second reading stage and into-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is making an argument, hardly a point of order.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with the House leaders, and I think I know what the hon. member wants. Perhaps he will be satisfied once I have disposed of the following.

At this time I would like to have unanimous consent to tell the House the result of those talks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: First of all, I wish to inform the House that notwithstanding consultations which took place among party representatives, we were unable to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B in respect of the committee stage of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada. I therefore wish to give notice that, at a future sitting of the House, I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, to allocate one additional sitting day to the said stage of the said bill.
Such notice being given, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in a few moments as soon

July 27, 1982

as the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) has finished his comments, will be willing to allow consideration of the bill now before the House, namely Bill C-109, to proceed from the second reading stage to consideration in Committee of the Whole. If that is what was worrying my hon. colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth, I can give him and his colleagues the assurance that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be available in Committee of the Whole in a few minutes, as soon as the member for Lotbiniere has finished his remarks.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to raise one tiny point with regard to the notice of motion put forward by the government House leader. Having looked into the history of motions under Standing Order 75C, I believe this is the first time the House has ever voted to restrict hearings in committee.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague will agree with me that by inadvertence he did not read the report of 1971 when a motion was made while the House was sitting in Committee of the Whole.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the remarks of the government House leader, not with respect to the motion under Standing Order 75C and the notice thereon but with respect to the bill that is presently before the House, I must say that the Progressive Conservative Party has been ready for some time to deal with this matter at the committee stage. We are anxious to question the minister, as there are a lot of important matters that must be brought out at the committee stage. We regret very much-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the minister has made a statement with the unanimous consent of the House. If there are further remarks relating to the statement the Chair is prepared to entertain them, and if not, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois).




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (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, in accordance with the provisions of the order made on Monday, July 26, 1982, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess at six o'clock, I was dealing with the program announced on December 31, 1981, and mentioned its main points. Following representations made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), 1 shall cut short my comments so that we may proceed to third reading since there seems to be an agreement to that effect.
Mr. Speaker, following the announcement made on December 23, 1981, I had the opportunity, along with a number of members, to meet a group from my riding actually called the ACEF of the Bois-Franc area. It was made up of UFFI victims, people from the Victoriaville and Bois-Franc areas, from the Richmond riding and part of the Frontenac riding who had insulated their homes with that foam. Representations were made to the effect that the federal and provincial governments should appropriate funds and provide immediate assistance to UFFI victims associations. We were told that the provincial government should provide human and technical resources as well as medical and legal assistance to UFFI victims. At the meeting held in my riding on January 25, and attended by other federal and provincial Members of Parliament, among others the provincial member for Richmond, Yvon Vallieres, those representatives made all kinds of recommendations about urea formaldehyde. Of course, we were then in a position to refer to the program which had been announced in December as well as to the provincial program.
Needless to say those federal and provincial programs were well received, some criticisms were levelled, while some tried to absolve the provincial government from any responsibility. It was then pointed out that the committee which had approved UFFI included members from the Quebec Order of Architects and representatives of Quebec Industrial Research centres. We were also told that the federal government was mostly responsible. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, following the representations that were made, I was asked as a lawyer whether it would be possible to take legal action and how to go about it. I told those people at the time: "Listen! If you want to sue the federal and provincial governments, go ahead! You ought to fight for your rights!" I think that it is a most legitimate right for them to fight for. They had mentioned the statute of limitation on all proceedings against the federal and provincial governments. They were wondering if the program we had announced on December 23, 1981, could jeopardize their right to take legal action against the Government of Canada and get more than the maximum $5,000 made available to them.
Needless to say, the ACEF people in my own riding, represented mainly by Mr. Richard Leroux, also a representative of the UFFI victims of central Quebec, who works for the ACEF in Victoriaville. We were asked those questions and later on, on February 2, 1982, I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in connection

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
with this situation, and more specifically, as reported on page 14557 of Hansard for February 2, 1982, I asked the minister whether his discussions with the provinces and especially with Quebec, as well as with the industry were still going on and whether there was a statute of limitation. The minister then replied that his discussions with the provinces and the industry were going on but they were not bringing about the results he had hoped for any more than they are now.
It is unfortunate that in this respect, we have been unable to obtain-we had other communications, Mr. Speaker, but we obtained neither the participation of the provincial governments, nor that of the industry. An important aspect at this time is the statute of limitation; the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confirmed that any payment made to UFFI home owners would not deprive them of their right to take legal action against both levels of government, and as to the statute of limitation, he assured us that the bill that is now before the Quebec National Assembly would have the same effect on the Government of Canada as on the Quebec government, which means that the statute of limitation under this bill was set on July 1, 1982.
In view of this situation, I must say that I was proud of the reply made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, in connection with this problem, has made a tremendous contribution. His job has not always been easy, for he has received a great many representations and met many people in his office who have not always been kind to him, but 1 think that if we have now reached this stage in our study of this bill, following certain changes that have been made at the request of the Quebec caucus, it is due to a great extent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has paid particular attention to the remarks made by government members in general and by the 74 members of the Quebec caucus in particular.
Following this most important question I put to him, I was delighted to see that, on April 27, the bill which is before the House this evening was introduced and it covered in fact that matter of $5,000. One thing is extremely important in the bill, and that is Clause 6. The department states that under the terms of this bill, home owners will retain the right to start proceedings against the government if they so wish, even if they avail themselves of the benefits of the program, or receive financial assistance.
This bill gives the government enough leeway to make such changes in the program as could become necessary in the light of new developments or technological breakthroughs. In short, with regard to that situation, the bill having been introduced on May 25, 1982, the flexibility granted by the government with regard to instituting proceedings was discussed, and the government agreed that it would not prevent them even in cases where the complainants had received financial help. I feel that point is extremely important because many of the victims feared that receiving $5,000 would preclude their
taking action against anyone as acceptance of the money would be equated with a settlement. Such is not the case, Mr. Speaker, as stipulated in Clause 6 of the bill.
Another important thing occurred on May 25th, 1982. Members of the committee dealing with the matter at the level of the National Advisory Council on UFFI, as advisors to the minister, also announced on that day that $40,000 would be paid out in direct financial assistance to the Quebec Federation of UFFI Associations. That was in keeping with the bill of April 27 which raised the possibility of government flexibility in that respect. Discussions went on after May 25, 1982 and then I had the pleasure of moving under Standing order 43 that the bill be adopted at all stages. Unfortunately it was rejeced, shot down by one of the parties, the New Democratic Party. But eventually I introduced it anew and on that day of July 7 we were given more details, and that is the very important thing I want to tell the House before concluding my remarks. With respect to the bill or the program we had announced on December 23, 1981 and the items I enumerated before six o'clock, we agreed to numerous changes in the regulations so that first of all we would accept applications from all people who had urea formaldehyde foam insulated houses. In other words, all home owners who wanted to take the necessary steps to remove some of the foam from their houses would be eligible for non-taxable financial assistance of up to $5,000.
Every home owner is perfectly free to decide what type of corrective measures he wants to take for his house, and he is also be free to decide to remove the foam if he wants to and the government will retroactively pay for such expenses up to $5,000. That is another aspect of the changes we made in the regulations. The people who have already removed the foam or who are in the process of doing so will also be eligible under this program, provided they can produce the appropriate receipts required under the regulations. That, Mr. Speaker, was announced in a communique made public on July 7 by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Some people referred to the costs of the tests and before six o'clock I mentioned the famous $100 cost. Well, we have done away with that $100 charge so as to reduce as much as possible the expenses incurred by home owners. It was decided, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the $100 required for the exhaustive test. The cheques, which have already been mailed and received, will be returned or the amount refunded.
I see that my colleague for Levis (Mr. Gourde) is also very happy about this situation. He certainly received many representations from his constituency, as did my colleague from Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand). There were certainly many UFFI victims in their ridings. I can also see that my colleague for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) looks very happy across the aisle. They were all very glad to learn that home owners would no longer have to pay $100 for the test. Moreover, with regard to

*
July 27, 1982

the additional financial assistance mentioned earlier, this same committee, with the assistance of the UFFI centre, will consider obtaining additional financial assistance from other federal and provincial agencies and the private sector. These were the changes made to the regulations and announced on December 23, 1981. What has brought this matter before the House today is the very important agreement reached yesterday, on July 26, 1982, to go through all stages of this bill today and refer the legislation to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which will look into the process used to approve the material, the question raised about the effects on health, and so on, as reported in yesterday's Hansard on page 19701. I feel this is very important. The public made representations, the members of the Quebec caucus then made certain recommendations, the announcement was made on December 23, 1981, and we now have this bill before the House and there is also the matter of the regulations. There are now and there will be following the study by the committee very important points to be considered by the victims. I feel that these victims, under the circumstances ... of course, other sources of financial assistance are possible and this is what the committee will consider-but I think that at this stage, Mr. Speaker, this legislation meets the wishes of the victims themselves and of members on this side of the House. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I shall have no hesitation in supporting this bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in order to provide the House with the time available to go into what should be gone into in Committee of the Whole, and in view of the fact that the minister is here to answer the very important questions that are to be put to him, I suggest you put the question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments that I would like to make before you put the question with regard to matters relating-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is rising on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understood that there was unanimous consent to move to Committee of the Whole on this measure, and I think we should do so immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will be recognized if he wishes to have the floor.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we will be moving to Committee of the Whole almost immediately, but first there are two or three matters that I want to raise. You know that I have not spoken at any point on this bill, neither previously nor publicly, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important, given that I have a number of constituents within my own personal constituency and within the area immediately adjacent to my constituency, as the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) well
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
knows, who will be directly affected by the bill. I do not intend to take a long time. I never do, as you know. But I do want to put some matters to the minister that I consider are questions of principle, quite different from questions relating to the clauses. Clauses, important though they are, are not necessarily appropriate ways of dealing with the principles of the bill.
Let me first say to the minister that I must confess some degree of disappointment in the way this matter has been handled. 1 am not talking about the technical way of handling it but I am talking more about the way the government has approached the problem that has confronted so many people. Without restating the obvious, a large number of Canadians place a great deal of faith in the government, not necessarily in the government of the day, but in government in general. They believe that when the government says something is okay, it has good reason to say that. When the government puts its stamp of approval on a particular measure, it believes that that stamp of approval carries with it the full weight and commitment of the government.
I know a great number of people in Hamilton, and I have received communication from a great number of people from all across the country, who are vitally concerned that in spite of the fact the government encouraged them-and encourage is not too strong a word to use-to take advantage of the urea formaldehyde method of insulating their homes and in spite of the fact the government's stamp of approval appeared on the advertising and that government funding was available to assist them in this task, Canadians across the country were quite rightly led to believe that this was a safe and reasonable way to cut down on their heating costs, protect their families from the environment and to protect their homes.
The difficulty with all of this is that, probably inadvertently-I am prepared to concede that, although without having sufficient knowledge-the government did allow the situation we now have to develop. The government did not know there was a hazard attached to urea formaldehyde. The government, therefore, did not appreciate that the people who were being encouraged to take advantage of it were being encouraged to place their health in jeopardy. We can argue as to the correctness of that statement. Some people believe there is a health hazard, others dispute that. But certainly there is something wrong with the urea formaldehyde method of insulating homes.
The difficulty now arises that if a person cannot trust his government, and if a person cannot trust that the government stamp of approval is indeed worth something, then who can be trusted?


Philip Derek Lewis: Not you. We have tried that.


Ian Deans: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) says not me. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion. There are those who trust him, there are those who do not. I do. I think the hon. member is a very trustworthy person.
Let me come back to my main point. People were encouraged, and in many ways they were financially

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
encouraged, to take advantage of this particular method of insulation. It turns out that it is not a very desirable method. Who then is responsible? Are the people responsible? Was it within the power of the individual's family to research adequately the appropriateness of urea formaldehyde insulation? I do not think there is a member in the House who thinks that any family could ever have undertaken such a task.
Was it within the responsibility of the individual insulator, the person who installed the foam? We all know that people move in and out of those businesses as the occasion arises. I think there is a degree of responsibility upon them, but they too might have assumed that since the government was giving its stamp of approval it was legitimate for them to provide that foam and to put that foam into the homes of families all across the country. You can hardly levy all the blame on those people.
Was it the fault of the manufacturer? In substantial part, yes, it was the fault of the manufacturer. There is no question that there are far too many products made available in this country in particular, and in North America in general, that are not tested as to their hazardous material composition. It is to a large extent the fault of the manufacturer that this product was not properly tested, that all of the potential hazard was not identified, that all of the likely side effects were not found and that adequate safeguards were not introduced. But then, to come back to the point, the government, having the advantage of all the information, all the conventional wisdom, all the testing and all the lab results, still decided that it was proper for the Government of Canada to approve this particular insulation within the insulating program for funding purposes. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to think that even the manufacturer-culpable though the manufacturer is and culpable though he must be held, still has the benefit of saying that, in the final analysis, the government okayed it. It did not have to, but it did.
Now we come to why I insisted upon rising on principle. I know Mr. Speaker has read the bill, and I know that people in Ottawa are vitally concerned about it. Also I know that were you in a position to do so, you would want to place before the House the concerns of the people of Ottawa which have been raised with me, those being that no matter where one turns, in the final analysis the approval or okay was given by the government.
Now, what does the bill do? The bill recognizes that the government was marginally at fault. The government says that, to some extent, it was to blame for this and therefore it will make amends. But how will it make amends? It will do this by ensuring that anyone who does not need assistance will get it.


An hon. Member:: How is that?


Ian Deans: Anyone who does not really need assistance will be able to obtain a grant, but anyone who needs assistance and
has no financial backing to enable them to do the job themselves will not get assistance because it is not in the bill.
If one happens to be one of those poor souls in a position of not having sufficient income or being able to obtain a loan and repay it at the exorbitant rates of interest currently being charged, one cannot take advantage of the legislation. If one is retired, living on a meagre pension income, and took the government's view that one ought to insulate one's home, cut down on fuel consumption, and that in order to do that it would be appropriate to put in urea formaldehyde and obtain a government grant, and then one found it was causing a health hazard, there is nothing in the bill for him. If a young family bought an older home and decided that it would be appropriate, in this time of energy conservation, to put in insulation, if they took the government's advice and installed urea formaldehyde and were therefore able to take advantage of the loan grant offered by the government, and if they suddenly discovered that it created intolerable health conditions but their income was not sufficient to enable them to go out and borrow money to have it taken out, this bill does nothing for them.
In this bill up to $5,000 only will be made available if one can borrow the additional $15,000 or $20,000 necessary to take the foam out of one's house. This is the problem with the bill. This is the difficulty with it. This is why we are having so much trouble with it.
The minister says to those people who are now faced with those situations, such as the elderly who cannot afford to take it out, those who may be on pensions because of disabilities and cannot afford to take it out, or those young families who are not required to have an income capability which would enable them to borrow and therefore cannot afford to take it out, that despite the fact the government guaranteed that it was good foam and good insulation and it turned out that the guarantee was wrong, they are now supposed to accept its word. The government says that they are supposed to trust it and perhaps in a year or two, if they live that long, it will try to be of some help. I say to the minister that that is not good enough.
I see the minister smiling. He smiles so kindly. I understand why people are taken in by that very kindly smile, but what is behind it? The minister does not seem to appreciate that the commitment he is making is no commitment at all. I am not suggesting that he does not believe it or that he does not mean it. I think he means it. I think he believes it. I think his commitment is honest. I am not questioning his integrity on this matter. I do not doubt for a moment that, if he had the power, he would like to be of more assistance. But let us take a look at the truth of it.
If the minister had been able to convince his cabinet colleagues that they should have undertaken their full responsibility, he would have done it by now. If he had had the persuasive power to convince the balance of the Treasury Board that there should be more money available for victims of urea formaldehyde who are now feeling the tremendous problems which result from having it as insulation in their homes, or if
July 27, 1982

he had had the power to convince his cabinet colleagues that, given the government's initial inducement to use the product, they therefore had an equivalent responsibility to ensure that no one would suffer as a result of that inducement, he would have done those things by now. If he could not convince his cabinet colleagues over the course of the last year that more money should be found, that the federal government's responsibility was to ensure that that foam was taken out of each and every home where it was causing a problem and that it was, therefore, the government's responsibility to pursue the manufacturer and to recover from the manufacturer whatever was recoverable by way of liability, why should we believe he can convince his colleagues in the future?
If he could not convince the industry of its responsibility until now, why should we believe he can convince the industry between now and some date off in the future?
If he cannot convince the provinces on the basis of the evidence which is currently before us, then why should we believe that he will be able to convince them sometime between now and some obscure date in the future? I see the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) sitting and nodding his head in agreement, and I understand why.


Mr. McCauley:: He is falling asleep.


Ian Deans: I mean, that is the crux of it. I feel confident that if it were within the power of the minister to dig into his own personal treasury to hand out the necessary funds, he would do it. But we know that is not the case. If the minister has not been able to convince those other participants up to now, what is there in the offing which will bring about a sudden change of heart? What is there in the offing which will bring about a reversal of the opposition which is so strongly held by both the provinces and the industry?


Mr. Ouellet:: Wait until Committee of the Whole.


Ian Deans: If the minister rises and suggests that he is just on the verge of getting those agreements, we can sit another week and off he can go and get them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: If the minister is of a mind to rise and suggest to us that it is just a matter of time and the agreements will be signed, the provinces will participate and the industry will chip in, then why does the government not just simply go the full distance, provide the necessary funding, recover from those people who are just on the verge of providing assistance, put the money back into government coffers and ease the burden on every citizen across the country?
When one stops to think, it is almost unbelievable. The reason I rose to speak tonight, when I had no intention of rising and knowing that you are not able to rise, Mr. Speaker, is that my honest worry is that once the bill is passed, notwithstanding the committees, investigations and all the best intentions of the minister and his cabinet colleagues and all
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
others involved, by the time summer is over and winter sets in around 1982 or 1983, the government's commitment to people who still have UFFI in their homes and are suffering as a result of it will be less than it is today. It will have waned, the same as their commitment in other matters. That is my worry.
When I pass this provision for $5,000-which is not in the bill but the avowed intention according to the minister's statement-that will be it. There will be no more. Whether the government's austerity program is right or wrong is not to be questioned here tonight, but we will probably talk about it on another day. That program will take over and there will be no assistance, and the government, in spite of the best intentions of the minister, will renege on its vague promise of other help. It will say that it has done the best it can. It would like to do more but it cannot because these are tough times for everyone and if you have to die because it did the wrong thing, well, that is tough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Rossi:: You are in show business.


Ian Deans: I am sorry that it bothers some Liberal backbenchers because I understand that Liberal backbenchers tend to get a little aggravated in July and August, but we on this side of the House take the work seriously. We do not care whether or not it is August.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Carlo Rossi: You are in show business.


Raymond John Skelly: Serious business.


Ian Deans: If that member would care to identify himself and to suggest that publicly, I would demand that he deny it. He knows it to be totally untrue. To say such a thing from obscurity and anonymity of a backbench from where he will never go further is disgusting.
However, I will ignore it considering where it comes from. It does make me want to say a few words more, I will have you know. I had considered stopping at this point, but let me pose two or three more questions to the minister. They relate directly to the principle of the bill. The principle of this bill is to make sure that those who can afford to remove urea formaldehyde from their homes will get $5,000 or less. Those who cannot afford to remove it will get nothing. That is the principle of the bill. It is not a principle which we can support.
I put to the Liberal backbenchers that many of their constituents for whom they are Fighting so hard have an average income capacity which will make them unable to take advantage of this legislation because there is nothing in it for them. So do not sit there yapping about why we should get on with things. This is far too important a matter to pass in the blink of an eye.
Let me suggest to the minister that there are some problems with this bill. The minister talks about his leadership and his commitment. I want to ask him some questions which were related to us. They are very relevant to how this matter will

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
ultimately be resolved, if at all. I stress the point, if they will be resolved at all. I honestly do not have much faith in an ultimate resolution which will be satisfactory to anyone who does not qualify today under the bill.
Will the home owners' representatives be invited to participate directly in the negotiations which will take place with the other so-called partners in this problem? Will they be at the negotiating table? Will they be there as spokesmen, or will they simply be allowed to attend?


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have seen a lot of cheap tricks lately. I would draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the member sitting directly behind the present speaker and to the T-shirt she is wearing. I think it is unacceptable in this chamber. I would ask you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker. Is it permissible in this chamber to wear a T-shirt which says "I support UFFI victims?"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point. The Chair has been called upon to make a ruling that is, shall we say, one of the more delicate ones. The tradition of the House has been to remove the display. In the circumstances, I think that the decorum requirements are such that I will rule that this is not a display.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you can see that the Conservatives are nit-picking, playing games, and are unconcerned about the problem. For a moment I was worried that they might demand my hon. colleague to take her shirt off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Let me continue, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about the time-frame for a moment. Through you, Mr. speaker, I ask the minister what provisions are there to put in place a full review of the responses obtained within the process that will be undertaken? What time-frame will there be in which to come to ultimate conclusions with regard to that? What assured alternatives will the minister provide today should these projected negotiations to which we are hanging on so much fail to satisfy the objectives for total compensation of the cost of removal?
I think that I am likely speaking for the Conservatives as well; I hope that I am. I think we are all committed to total compensation for the full removal of UFFI. I think that is the stand of most members. However, I worry because there is no guarantee or way of making sure that this will happen. Will the minister respond to the very serious concerns that have been expressed by all the members of the advisory council? Has he committed himself to provide relief to financially deprived victims? What will he do if a senior citizen on fixed income, an unemployed person or a low-income individual is unable to remove the insulation? Where is the commitment to those people? What is the minister prepared to tell us about the government's commitment to ensuring-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been receiving numerous questions from the hon. member which are in the form of a speech. I want to assure him that I am ready to give him answers to all his series of questions. I hope that it will be possible to do so as soon as we reach Committee of the Whole stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister has made his point.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker says on behalf of myself and, I am sure, on behalf of other colleagues here that the questions which the House leader of the New Democratic Party is asking are questions that we want to ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not making a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suggest that there are numerous opportunities to speak in the House today and these questions are certainly valid and could be answered by anyone over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not making a point of order.


Ian Deans: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) for his support in this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) asks the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) if he will accept a question.


Ian Deans: I have only about five more minutes in which to speak, Mr. Speaker, and then I will be happy to accept any number of questions. I will be very happy to accept any number of questions in about five minutes, and then the hon. member can take the rest of the evening to question me or the minister, depending upon whom it pleases him to question. I probably know more about the answers than the minister does. In fact, so does the hon. member for Vancouver South, probably.
I wanted to go on and say to the hon. member for Vancouver South that I am delighted that he thinks these questions are the appropriate ones. I think he is right. These are questions to which we all want the answers, and we need only ask them once and then we will get the answers.
Considering the problem of access, when the minister responds at the end of second reading, I would like him to state what provision will be put in place, through either an amendment to the bill or through the regulations, to ensure that the victims of UFFI will have access to qualify for the grant of up to $5,000. I think we have all agreed that it is up to $5,000. Yesterday, the minister indicated that that was the minimum amount. I think we all understand now that in fact $5,000 is the maximum amount. The $5,000 is available now only to those with adequate financial resources. How will we ensure in the regulations that people of limited means will have access? How will we-
July 27, 1982


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


Ian Deans: I am having trouble tonight. What is the matter with you people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) rises on a point of order.


Irénée Pelletier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on a point of order.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, did 1 understand correctly what you said earlier? You allow us to wear T-shirts in this House? Did I understand you correctly?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member understood correctly.


Ian Deans: I seem to be having some difficulty. Just remember, though, that if one happens to be male, one must wear a tie with one's T-shirt.
I want to ask the minister what, if any, provisions we will have in the regulations, or what kind of amendment the minister is prepared to provide which will ensure that those people who have expended their financial resources in the installation of urea formaldehyde foam in the first place will have some additional funding made available to them to cover the difference between the $5,000 grant and the full cost of removal. I do not have to remind the minister, I am sure, that the full cost of removal, at least in metropolitan areas in Toronto-and I suspect it is probably equally true in most metropolitan areas across the country-ranges in the order of some $20,000. That is in large areas. In a brick home-


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: That's not true.


Ian Deans: The hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) says I am wrong. Well, I have been wrong before and I am therefore open to be questioned on that. But the information I have, and I think it is shared by the minister, is that total removal of the insulation from a brick home costs up to $20,000. In fact, I may be wrong on the low side. It may, in fact, cost far more. However, we will not quarrel about that. Even if it costs $10,000, for someone with no money the difference between having an encumbrance of $10,000 and an encumbrance of $20,000 is hardly worth quibbling about tonight, especially when one cannot get a mortgage on one's home because one does not have the income to pay for it.
What I am worried about is not the numbers so much as the principle, because it is to the principle that I am speaking. Therefore, I think it important that we address that principle. There are certain problems which must be addressed, not in private consultation, not in letters and not simply by a nod of the head and a wink of the eye. There are issues which are not directly related to the removal of the urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I know a family extremely well, with whom I have met to discuss this problem. There seems to be no doubt but
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
that urea formaldehyde foam insulation has seriously affected the health of the woman in that household. I use the words "seems to be" because I am not a medical doctor, I do not pretend to be one, and never have. What do we do? What are the provisions to assist those who might suffer acute or longterm health problems which may well be, and which some people claim are, directly related to urea formaldehyde foam insulation? I am being tentative because I am not positive, but there are those who claim there are health problems which are directly related to the use of this particular product.
What about assistance for those whose homes have been structurally damaged as a result of the UFFI? I think that hon. members recognize there is a distinct possibility of structural damage. What about property value losses? I know that the hon. member for London West and other hon. members are aware there are any number of appeals pending and some which have been won concerning property taxes and relief from property taxes. But one must bear in mind that the reason this relief is to be given and therefore paid for by the other property taxpayers in the municipality is that the federal government approved the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation and encouraged people to take advantage of it. Then, of course, there is a whole range of health questions. I will not go into detail on all the questions, but they are vitally important.


Raymond John Skelly: Someone over there wants you to go into detail.
I think they said, "Bravo".


Ian Deans: No, I do not want to abuse the time of the House. However, I do want to say there is a wide range of health-related problems. Where does the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) fit in? Where is the tie in? What is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare? To what extent will the ministry assume financial responsibility for those problems? Let me say to the minister that I can remember, some years ago, battling a case involving asbestosis which was directly related to the operations at Johns-Manville. I remember the battle we had trying to convince people that there was indeed a health hazard in the early years. I have been at this business a long time. In the early years, we had a very serious problem trying to convince doctors and others of the seriousness of the fibers or particles which were in the air within the Johns-Manville plants in the manufacture of asbestos. I know of people who died from lung disease and who could not prove, while they were alive, that they were suffering from a disability which resulted from their employment, and who received no compensation.
I want to say to members in the House: do not cast aside the potential of serious health problems resulting from the continued use of and exposure to urea formalydehyde foam insulation. Do not be as people were ten and 15 years ago when they were blind to the seriousness of the difficulty. For God's sake, do not come back ten years from now and tell us it is very, very unfortunate that we did not know. That is the whole problem.

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
These are matters which are new to me. They are new to most of us, and we do not fully understand the implications of them. But we require an absolute commitment from the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare as to the ministry's full participation in and covering the potential and real hazard. It is therefore important that we recognize it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. I now recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as belated as it is in the evening, it is certainly a privilege to rise to speak on this bill. I do not doubt that my fellow colleagues in the New Democratic Party feel very strongly that the bill before us tonight is inadequate. In fact, I believe some of our colleagues on the government side feel the bill is inadequate. There was a general understanding many hours ago that each party would be brief in the speeches in the second reading stage in order to get this bill into Committee of the Whole. The reason we wanted to get the bill into Committee of the Whole was so that questions which members have to ask the minister could be asked.
What we have been subjected to in the last 40 minutes is a display of mock words by the New Democratic Party House leader. The purpose of the display was to push this debate on until we reached the point where there was really little time to ask the questions of the minister which the minister already said he is in the House to answer.
Hon. members who have known me for many years know that I have always been on pretty good terms with many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I am not quick to cast aspersions in this House. Anybody watching this performance tonight maybe wondering what is going on. I feel very badly about this. Regretfully, I do not think the House leader of the New Democratic Party has served the people who are suffering from urea formaldehyde by his display tonight which took the last 40 minutes.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that on second reading a member is entitled to 40 minutes, entitled to express concerns-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not making a point of order.


John Allen Fraser: I never said that members are not entitled to 40 minutes. I am saying that if this place is to function and when it is clear that members are trying to co-operate to get the debate to the stage where questions that are appropriate to ask are to be asked, and somebody else plays games to stop it, it is inappropriate that they get up-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret the intervention and I will not make another. I wonder if the
minister-the member-might accept a question that would clarify the situation.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that my friends in the New Democratic Party are now finding out what it is like to have their little game exposed. They do not like it so they are jumping up and down. They now want to ask the minister a question. They have had hours and hours to ask the minister and they have been careful not to do this.
The House leader of the New Democratic Party posed a lot of questions that all members in the House know have to be posed and answered. However, he did not pose them at a time and in a place where the minister could answer them. That is the game he has been playing.
Earlier the suggestion was made that other members in this chamber are not sincere in their worries about this issue, that somehow or other some members in the House do not care as much about the problems and limitations in the bill as do our friends in the New Democratic Party. Let me say this.
No one would ever accuse my friends in the New Democratic Party of having, nor would they claim to have, a monopoly on wisdom, perspicacity and intelligence. They have never done that. However, they have always claimed a monopoly on virtue, and that is what they have been trying to do tonight.
That is regrettable because I have received hundreds of letters from people in my province on this issue. I have met with people who are suffering from urea formaldehyde. I think that the bill presented by the minister is inadequate and there are some questions that have to be asked.
I will accept an assurance if it is given to me because 1 accept assurances solemnly given by hon. ladies and gentlemen. I will cut off my speech if my friends in the New Democratic Party will now rise and say that they have had their fun, they tried to make a point and they now want to move into committee of the Whole. If the House leader of the New Democratic Party wants to interrupt me to say that is what they will do, that is fine. However, why should I now sit down and let them get up and make the same speech over again, knowing that what they are going to do is ensure that all of those people across this country who want the answers to the questions that the House leader of the New Democratic Party asked will not be answered? If the New Democratic Party speakers get up after I sit down and carry on making the same kind of speeches, because of the terms of the House order which they agreed to yesterday, it will guarantee that the minister will not be allowed to give any answers in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: That is a game that is being played. My friends in the New Democratic Party have been shouting at me. They always shout when I get upset because I do not usually go after them. I try to get along with them because I am a very patient and tolerant fellow. They are now saying, "Oh, you are supporting the Grits". Isn't that interesting? Let me say this.
July 27, 1982

1 have run in five elections and have been elected in four. If they want to find out the great degree to which I have supported my friends on the Liberal side-there are a lot of them in the Elouse tonight-they can ask them whether 1 have spent the last ten years supporting them. They can ask some of their colleagues who are no longer sitting because they cannot get elected in the lower mainland of British Columbia whether I have been supporting the Grits.
I see them smiling. I know the answer they will give. Sometimes we get along very well personally, but there is not a member on that side, including the minister, who is ever going to accuse me of unduly supporting the Liberal Party, and they do not expect me to.
What I do not expect are cheap shots from those fellows in the New Democratic Party. I do not expect that from them and I do not have to put up with it. We can just see how sincere the members of the New Democratic Party are. 1 believe it is fair to let those who have been watching know just what kind of a game they have been playing. I do not know who will rise following me. It may very well be a member of the Conservative Party. It may as well be a member from any other party because time is running out.
I say seriously to the minister that this bill is defective. It does not set out even the so-called $5,000 maximum amount. It is very limited with respect to the amount of money the minister has been able to persuade the Treasury Board to commit to this very urgent and serious problem. We do not have the regulations in front of us, although I understand there are some drafts of regulations. By merely reading the bill we cannot tell what it will do until we see the regulations. However, the minister is here, and we could ask these questions of the minister, if my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party would allow us to get to that stage of our procedure in which we would be allowed to ask questions of the minister. Ordinarily, if there was not a House order made yesterday, I would not care. Members of the New Democratic Party could talk as long as they wanted at second reading. That would be their choice. If they wanted to talk all this week and all next week, they could continue to talk at second reading. If that is what they wanted to do, why did they agree yesterday to a House order which, I think Your Honour would probably rule, makes it mandatory to end all debate on this bill tonight by 9.45? Members of the New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. The only thing I can conclude is that the New Democratic Party does not want to give hon. members a chance to get up in the House in the special Committee of the Whole for which we have been waiting and ask the minister questions. Not only do I as a Member of Parliament have the right to ask questions, but the minister also has an obligation to try to answer them. There may be government members who would like to ask some questions too. They are entitled to do so. I see some hon. members opposite nodding. I will not continue any further. I am deeply sorry-
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think the House leader of the New Democratic Party has thought up another point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indicated that somehow or other we are abusing debating time. On a point of order I want to ask him if he is aware that it was at my insistence that there was a debate. The Tories were prepared to let the bill go without debate.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my response to the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party is that if he thinks what he has been playing around with for the past couple of hours is a debate aimed at eliciting any answers, that is a fraud on the public watching this debate.
I do not like this bill for many reasons. I do not like the way this whole problem has been dealt with, but I want to ask some questions. What we are really getting down to is that if the New Democratic Party wants to carry on speaking for the rest of the evening, there will be no questions asked. The whole Committee of the Whole stage will have to be forced through in the last couple of minutes because that is the House order to which the NDP agreed. It will be on the heads of members of the New Democratic Party when we start to get telephone calls in an hour or so from people all across the country asking how the dickens this happened and why we did not get any answers from the government.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Talk about the issue.


John Allen Fraser: Members of the New Democratic Party are very jumpy. They come in wearing fancy T-shirts bearing slogans. I do not quite understand why that is suddenly all right for some people to do but not for other people to do-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: -but I do say that there is a serious problem connected with this bill. The bill is not adequate. We do not have the regulations. The minister has an obligation to answer questions, and the intention of members of the New Democratic Party to talk this bill out to the last minute and to depend on the terms of a House order is a cheap fraud on Parliament.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks in this debate on Bill C-109 with regard to urea formaldehyde foam insulation I want to say that I think what we just heard was one of the poorest examples of an elected member. An hon. member stood in the House and almost pleaded with Liberal members to stand up and take their places here so that the debate could swing to the other side of the floor because of some kind of mechanism worked out between the two parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sidney James Parker: Last August I sent out a questionnaire to people in my riding because I was concerned about this matter, and I would like to read that questionnaire into the record as follows:
Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Do You Have a Problem?
I believe the government is sidestepping its responsibility to Canadians whose homes are contaminated by UFFI. I intend to press for compensation for home owners who are victims of the government's mistake in approving the use of this dangerous substance. I need facts and figures about the extent of the problem in Kootenay East-Revelstoke. If you are affected, please complete the following questionnaire, give it to me when I am in your area, or send it to my office in Ottawa.
I want to talk a little bit about that. At that time the defeated Conservative member decided he should do something. He decided to attend public meetings in my riding to hear about the concerns of the people there. At least he had a little more gumption than members of the Conservative Party here this afternoon. Not one Conservative fought for the full compensation for UFFI victims which this bill does not provide. Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.
1 would like to read into the record some of the answers to my questionnaire. I think it is well worth putting some of them on the record. The following is a letter sent to me from Revelstoke:
Thank you for taking up the cause of those of us who are "stuck" with this problem.
For myself, it is difficult to say whether or not the health problem I have had since about last Christmas is due to the formaldehyde gas or is due to a virus and as I have had a sinus problem for many years ... for the past nine or ten months I have suffered more severely with it and with recurring muscle and joint pains.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member who has the floor now has considered the possibility that the person about whom he is talking who is getting sick might be getting sick from watching the NDP on television.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of comment and concern the Conservative Party has for people who are suffering from these kinds of problems.
The letter goes on:
From a purely economic point of view those of us with the insulation are at a distinct disadvantage:
(a)	We paid income tax on the grant money from the Government.
I do not know whether that has been mentioned yet. People who received grants paid income tax on those grants. The letter continues:
(b)	We paid the labour costs to instal the insulation.
(c)	Worst of all, no one will buy a house knowing it has been insulated with urea formaldehyde foam-if one wishes to sell it would be necessary to have the foam removed, new insulation put in and, depending on how it would be removed, either the exterior or the interior walls redone.
That is a letter from a widow who needs assistance, and she does not need just $5,000. She needs full compensation and assurances from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that regulations will be set forth to protect people such as herself. I should like to put on the record a reply from a constituent in Kimberley, British Columbia which reads as follows:
We are both over 70-Last 6 months neither one of us has been well.
These are the things that people are saying. Another reply reads this way:
My husband who is a kidney patient has contracted emphysema.
These are the kinds of replies we are getting. As I toured my riding I visited some of these people. One lady in Kimberley had several small children. The walls of the house had bulged over 12 inches and they were in the process of moving out of the home. They did not know whether anyone was going to pay the expense of their staying somewhere else while they had the testing done on the house. Now the government has the gall to offer $5,000 in compensation and say that perhaps there will be more money later on and perhaps there is some way they will be able to deal with the problems.
As I toured the riding, people asked me when the government will finally recognize that it created a serious problem when it guaranteed to pay for the installation of this insulation. The government gave a lousy $350 grant, which has resulted in as much as $15,000 or $20,000 damage to some homes.
Some people want to sell their home but the real estate agent has told them that they must acknowledge that urea formaldehyde has been used and that the agent must tell the new buyer of this. If that is not done and it is revealed at a later date, the sale could be null and void.
The representative of the Kinsman Club came to see me with a sample of the material, asking that it be tested. It was installed in their hall and they wonder if people are being contaminated. We have heard of problems in the schools as well. I think the government has a responsibility to trace these problems and introduce programs of full compensation in the realization that there could be very serious medical problems.
A house in Revelstoke is very close to the track. All of the sudden the plaster and the gyprock in that home started to crack. The residents became very ill. They began to get nosebleeds, the children were sick and the housewife was more sick than usual. They went to the doctor about their problems. The urea formaldehyde in their home was starting to deteriorate and it was creating the problems.
In most cases the people have mortgages and because of the high interest rates now in effect, they are paying up to the hilt. To ask them to try to raise another $10,000, $15,000 or maybe $20,000 to have urea formaldehyde removed and then the government will reimburse $5,000, is hypocritical.
I do not think the Conservative party has done justice to this House of Commons by not putting up one speaker on this bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious injustice not only to their constituents but to the people of Canada. For them to accuse this party which is trying to get the message out to the country that this is a lot more serious than the government is leading us to believe, is hardly fair.
Those are the kinds of things that are happening, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that it has been a privilege for me to represent Kootenay East-Revelstoke and to have the opportunity to stand up in this House and speak for the people of my riding.
July 27, 1982


Benno Friesen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would spend some time in the House he would know that we have put up speakers. I am glad that he put in the past tense that he represented the riding because he will not be here next time.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is important to point out what has been going on in the House today. Earlier the Conservatives agreed that there would be no House order-that the only House order they would agree to was no debate at all. Then the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) got up and said they wanted time to ask the minister questions. That is completely new. It is interesting that the minister is now back in the lobby dealing with the Conservatives, trying to figure ways of getting them out of this pickle.
I should like to go through the history of the urea foam problem because it is a very serious one. For Parliament to pass a bill that does not deal effectively with the concerns of people who have urea foam in their homes, is inappropriate. There are many people in the country who cannot borrow the $5,000. The cost of taking the foam out of most homes massively exceeds $5,000. On average, contractors' bids in the city of Toronto amount to about $22,000, and for brick homes it is much more.
We have to look at the history of this problem, Mr. Speaker. It was a government that promoted the placement of urea foam in homes. It was installed at home owner's expense but many of them took advantage of the government grant and paid income tax on it.
If you buy a car or a washing machine you have an opportunity to go after the producer if the item turns out to be damaging to your health or if it does not work properly. Because of case law you have a right through the court system to go back to the producer of the item for the cost that you have incurred. In this situation it is a product sponsored by the government which has been demonstrated to be unsafe, so it is important that the government, and the official opposition too come clean and state their positions. The government is offering a very limited program that is only accessible to people who have cash in the bank or who can remortgage their home because they have other assets.
This is completely a class-oriented bill which addresses the wealthier people in the country, not those who are poor, who are on pensions or who would have difficulty refinancing a mortgage.
The question of the value of homes is not addressed in the bill. There are homes in Vancouver, in every city and province in the country that basically are black-listed by the real estate market. People cannot get anything near the price they want for their home, and indeed they should not be able to sell them to unsuspecting buyers.
The consumer has a right, in any legislation brought before the House, to have equal access, but that principle is not contained in this legislation. Perhaps the owners of some wood frame homes in Nova Scotia would benefit from the bill because the cost of removing exterior or interior walls is
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
relatively low. There is a vapour barrier and the insulation can be removed. This is nearly impossible in larger brick dwellings.
We have to look carefully at how the problem evolved, Mr. Speaker. The foam is an insulating material that is injected in liquid form into the wall cavities of buildings and expands in the wall. The problem seems to arise as the material breaks down after installation, releasing one of its components which is formaldehyde gas, into the surrounding atmosphere. Factors such as improper mix, high temperature, improper placement, moisture, humid conditions or associated fungus activity, have accelerated the decomposition process, resulting in increased gas levels in homes.
As has been pointed out by an expert committee that looked into the problem, the gas can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, nosebleeds, headache, coughing, nausea, asthma-like conditions, vomiting and dizziness. It has been related to cancer in laboratory animals, and I intend to deal with that later.
It is estimated at this point that from 80,000 to 100,000 homes are affected. In about 25,000 of those homes material was installed under the provisions of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. When properly installed in the outside walls, with the right mix and good ventilation, the material has frequently not been a problem. In adverse conditions, however, where one of the many factors above come into play, it has been proven to be a very serious problem indeed. Removal has been difficult and costs already have ranged anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 and above, and it has often proven to be unsatisfactory even after removal. People can be affected and be unaware of the problem.
Let me go back a moment in history, Mr. Speaker, because tonight is one of the last opportunities for Parliament to address itself seriously to this issue. Regardless of whether problems are put to the minister or not we all as Members of Parliament recognize that this legislation cannot be changed tonight. The hon. member for Vancouver South was very eloquent in pointing out that we were putting up speakers and the Conservatives were not. It has been clear for a number of weeks, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party was not seriously interested in getting a bill back before this House which addressed the problem in an equal way regardless of the income factor. In 1969 this product was first accepted in this country by CMHC and was used during that period in some states of the U.S., and in Europe since the 1950s. By 1970 CMHC acceptance was withdrawn because of shrinking and instability of the product. The foam simply was not demonstrating itself to be a good insulating factor.
In August, 1977 CMHC reaccepted urea foam as a safe product, and Rapco Ltd., a company partly owned by the Canada Development Corporation, claimed to have solved the shrinking problem, and Rapco has since been a major producer. In September, 1977, the CHIP program was put in place and the foam was approved for use. In August, 1978, Dr.

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
R. Viau of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs chemical directorate warned of problems and advised caution in its use. Reports of complaints from across Canada of nausea and irritation, etc., started to come in. Dr. Viau stated at that time that the government was aware of the dangers and aware of reports in Europe some ten years earlier which described the problem. He referred to a U.S. report entitled "Urea Formaldehyde Based Foam Insulation-An Assessment" done in 1977. By October 1979 a North Carolina lab test showed a link to cancer in rats at relatively low emission rates. What happens when it is in the walls, Mr. Speaker, is that gradually, due to moisture, the type of vapour barrier and depending on which wall faces sunlight, and so on, you get decomposition of the foam and release of the gas which at low emission rates has been shown, in mammals at least, to be linked to cancer.
In November, 1979, over two years ago, the "Marketplace" program raised the concerns to the Canadian public. That same month the state of Massachusetts banned the sale and use of the foam and moved to have the material removed from all public buildings.
In January, 1980 the final report on lab tests indicated a definite correlation with cancer in rats, and the Department of National Health and Welfare received the report but did not respond. In April, 1980, the province of Saskatchewan began an investigation into the problem. At the same time the Washington hearings on urea foam led to an investigation and a recommendation that a warning be included with each and every contract signed by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission. In September, 1980, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated that a special committee would be formed to study the problem, 11 months after the first reports on the cancer link and two months after the first warning by Consumer and Corporate Affairs officials. On November 24, 1980, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission's report indicated there was a cancer threat to humans. That particular problem, Mr. Speaker, and that particular report has yet to be addressed seriously either by the minister or by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), or for that matter by the Conservative Party in this House. On December 17, health and welfare finally put a temporary ban in place on the foam.
In January, 1981, my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), responded with questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as well as with letters, press releases, travelling across the country and appearing on "As it Happens" on BCTV and any other media outlet which would carry the story. Finally, on April 23, 1981, a permanent ban was put in place.
The Liberals and Conservatives want to go after the New Democrats in the House tonight for saying that for some reason they want to speak about the issue, that for some reason they have some questions which they have organized with the minister and they think, for some reason, that will be useful in dealing with householders or the media. Well, this issue has been before the House and any Canadian can refer to the
public record in Hansard and see what kind of questions the Conservatives have put forward and what kind of answers the minister has given. There has been abundant opportunity here, in committee and in public, for both sides to get their answers on the record.
The minister is saying that it is $5,000 minimum, maybe there is going to be more, maybe some will come from the provinces or the municipalities, or maybe some money is just going to drop from somewhere, maybe from other federal programs. If you live in a small home and you have this foam in there and you have had to move out into the backyard and your children have nose irritations and you have emphysema from it and so on, you do not want Members of Parliament sitting here passing legislation which may not even apply to you at all. If you cannot borrow the $5,000, if you cannot remortgage your home, if you cannot sell your home, you are in a position where you have to walk away. Certainly in a democracy such as this, where the government is complacently trying to pass a piece of legislation which does not address the problem, it would be completely appropriate for at least one group of Members of Parliament to stand up in this House and make it clear to Canadians that there is a proper approach to this problem. There has to be an approach which deals with the medical and scientific side, and one which deals with the complete safe removal of this material at the cost of all taxpayers. In the next election the voters can reflect upon the enormity of the government's bungling in getting involved in recommending and helping to pay for the installation of this dangerous product.
All physicians in this country, Mr. Speaker, should be notified of all of the problems with urea foam, and that has not been done. As I said earlier, there are still thousands if not tens of thousands of home owners, residents and renters who are unaware of the fact that the foam is in their walls and that part of the medical problem they are experiencing is directly related to that foam being there. All home owners should be formally notified that they have the material installed in their homes, whether they are owners or renters, as many are suffering without knowing the cause. The government should provide testing facilities in all regions of Canada with programs to provide some level of testing, programs that are set up to monitor it accurately in the medium and long term. This is because the release of the gas into the atmosphere of homes depends upon the amount of moisture in the walls, the temperature, the ventilation, and whether or not doors have been opened and closed a lot. There are a lot of variables and it requires some very accurate testing.
A committee must be established to determine an appropriate compensation mechanism to assist all those who have had the material installed and have a problem. The government's response to the questions in the House prior to April 23, following a great deal of urgency raised on this matter by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River, was to refer the matter to a special investigative committee. I think it is worth while for those home owners who are watching and who want to
July 27, 1982

refer to the public record to know just exactly what this committee had to say. The report says:
Urea Formaldehyde (UF) foam is prepared on site from the mixture of urea formaldehyde resin, an acidic hardening agent (usually phosphoric acid) and a propellant (usually compressed air). The fresh UF foam contains approximately 75 per cent water by weight. During the curing process of UFF1 following installation, formaldehyde gas is released.
The release of formaldehyde from the foam is a complicated and poorly understood process. Most experts agree that there are continual forward chemical reactions occurring. Formaldehyde molecules may cling to the surface of the foam and cause a vapor pressure in the foam. The presence of the formaldehyde also encourages the forward reaction and retards the reverse reaction (breakdown). Air passing through the foam can sweep the formaldehyde from the foam. Increases in temperature and humidity and the presence of greater amounts of acid in the foam can accelerate the breakdown.
Installation:
It would appear that the UFFI gassing problems referred to this committee could indeed relate at least in part, perhaps in large part, to improper installation, improper vapor barriers in foamed houses etc. There is evidence that under controlled conditions the material (UFFI) shrinks and is essentially not a defined and stable product.
Health hazards are associated with living in urea formaldehyde foam insulated homes. This is really the most important point because we are talking about applying a piece of legislation and passing it through the House. We can see the headlines across the country "UFFI bill passes through House of Commons." Everybody can wave their hands in joy. They have access to funds and they can take out the insulation. But this is a great misconception. People who have UFFI in their homes and want to take it out will know that this bill is a sham. It is the general public and the taxpayers who will think that the government created a problem. The government funded the program and supported it, and somehow or other the government has come up with a solution.
It is our job in the opposition, at least of those of us in the New Democratic Party who take the job of opposition at this point seriously, to make it clear to the general public that what is being proposed in Bill C-109 is not a solution. It is a shell game. It affects only a very small portion of the population and only the wealthiest portion of those who have been stuck with this terrible problem.
The report continues:
Potential and real health problems resulting from exposure to formaldehyde include eye, nose and throat irritation, cough, headache, dizziness and in very high concentrations bronchopneumonia and pulmonary edema. Generally the degree of reactivity depends on formaldehyde concentration and duration of exposure. Prolonged or repeated exposure in those who are predisposed to asthma (airways irritability) may produce asthma or worsen an already existing asthmatic state. Indeed the potential to cause life threatening status asthmaticus exists. Contact with UFFI may cause skin irritation or ultimate sensitization to formaldehyde.
Before going on, I would like to congratulate the home owners across Canada who have organized and worked very hard to try to get all parties in the House to respond to the serious problems they have faced. To all of the UFFI home owners in every province these people have worked their guts out for years, and I would like to thank each of the following:
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act
Dr. Penny Tilby, Vancouver, B.C.; Fred Palen and Robert Gahan, Calgary, Alberta; Glen Markowski, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Ed Smee, William Tell and Henry Wakeley, Ontario; Nicole Lamer, Pierre Bergeron, Len Coccolico, Quebec; Carl Wentzell, Garnet Wales and Dan Williams, Newfoundland. These are the real and only heroes of this continuing battle. I am confident that they will continue in the battle to get appropriate legislation and appropriate compensation. The report continues as follows:
Formaldehyde is principally an irritant, but by combining with human proteins it may produce an immunoreactive hapten protein complex resulting in antibody formation (allergy). To this property, as well as to chemical irritation, are attributed many of the problems of dermatitis and respiratory tract reactivity with bronchospasm.
I do not think I need to go on at too great a length in relation to the terrible problems that have arisen across Canada. But I would like to touch briefly on the detailed evidence of carcinogenicity or cancer that was found in the studies on animals by Doctor L. Golberg and Doctor J. Clary. This same evidence was presented at the Third Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Conference on Formaldehyde Toxicity in November, 1980 held at Raleigh, North Carolina.
A risk assessment was undertaken and it is clear to the general public and to any member of this House who wants to read the report of the mutagenicity, the teratogenicity, the epidemiology and the other health considerations that we are dealing with a very serious chemical problem and to try to sweep it under the rug to allow just a fraction of home owners to remove this kind of insulation is not the way to deal with the problem. We have to go to the very root of the problem and remove all this insulation from all the homes where it is going to cause problems.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, July 26, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House.

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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Francis in the chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-109, an act to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 4 carry?

July 27, 1982
Urea Formaldehyde Insulation Act


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 7 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall I rise and report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


André Ouellet: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Monday, July 26, 1982, the motion for third reading shall be put now.


André Ouellet: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to call it ten o'clock, chances are you would get it, at least from this side of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House shall call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 9.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, July 28, 1982