1983-01-27

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to adequately protect the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous waste and for its subservience to the vested interests of the chemical and industrial waste producers and, in particular, for its failure to expedite the clean-up of the Great Lakes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak this morning, and particularly to move the motion condemning the Government for its subservience to big industry. I am going to spend my time this morning dealing with the two major sides of the issue, one being the serious problem of no proper toxic and hazardous waste handling sites in Canada and the lack of law at both the provincial and federal levels; and also, in relation to the United States, the very serious problem we have encountered, not only under the present administration of Mr. Reagan but, in terms of the last 40 years, what has been happening to the Great Lakes and the water supply which provides water for four million Canadians and most of the 48 States in the U.S.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, through the documentation I am going to put on the record today, that there is really a conspiracy of inaction on both sides of the border to turn the entire Great Lakes system into a dump. The reason I say that is that very few Canadians know, and very few Hon. Members of this House seem to know, that the water which is now flowing out of the St. Lawrence River came down as rainfall and ran into the Great Lakes at about the same time as Columbus came to North America. It takes about 500 years for the water to recirculate throughout the Great Lakes sytem and ultimately to go out into the Atlantic. What has happened over the last four years is that the big businesses, particularly the chemical industry and the war industry in the United States, have consciously chosen certain areas near the Canadian border to store improperly large amounts of toxic and hazardous waste. Perhaps the largest of those is the Niagara Escarpment where, over the past 40 years, things such as entire trains have been driven there. Big pits have been dug in the ground and they have simply driven the train right into the ground and buried it because it is contaminated with radioactivity.
Four years ago, the U.S. Government, in collusion with the U.S. Army, dumped millions of gallons of radioactive waste from the Manhattan project directly into the Niagara system, and you can still see a huge tower there if you go to Niagara Falls which is filled with radioactive waste from the Manhattan project.
Tied in with all of that are the more serious chemical dumps, such as S-site, Hyde Park, 102nd Street and the Love Canal, which have gained their great notoriety not because of the work of Government bureaucrats and politicians, but because of concerned citizens and a few concerned medical experts such as Dr. Beverley Paigen, who started to study why there were so many stillbirths, so many spontaneous abortions, why people were getting lesions, why children were going deaf, why there were personality disorders, and so on, in relation to these dumps.
Why would a large chemical company sell for $1 an area where they knew houses and schools were going to be built, knowing full well those wastes were not like old paper bags and rotten logs, but that we were talking about a long-term pollution problem which was going to cause serious damage? Where big business cannot buy politicians-here I am talking about Canadian politicians, Liberals and Conservatives, and in the United States, Democrats and Republicans-where they cannot buy them to keep them from forcing the proper cleanup either through the introduction of the law or through the introduction of a clean-up fund, the companies simply go around it.
I will give an example of this on the U.S. side and an example on the Canadian side. Under President Carter, what was known as the "super fund" was set up which taxed all of the chemical industry in the United States, rated on the amount of waste products they produced. Now there is $1 billion sitting in that fund. The money is not being spent for two reasons; one, big business has gone to Reagan and said: "Look, if you make us clean it up it is going to lower our profits. We are in a recession. You cannot make us do that. We have been getting away with it for a long time, anyway." On the other hand, if Reagan allows the super fund to be spent, he knows that part of the super fund expenditures would include the expenditure of tax dollars. Taxpayers in municipalities and States, in the United States, and federal politicians, would say: "Why are we paying for it? Why do we have to have this super fund? Why are we involved in the clean-up?" Inevitably, there would be a public outcry. There would be a fall in the stock market. At the very least, these chemical companies would start to become unpopular. Those are the two

January 27, 1983
Supply
reasons on the U.S. side why they will not spend the super fund and big business simply will not clean up.
On the Canadian side, we simply do not have proper law. It should be constitutional, but the Government refuses to accept the concept of having the environment dealt with in the Constitution. In a few moments I am going to go through some of the constitutional problems we are having now in terms of law, the correlation between federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the real lack of law and regulations to deal with these kinds of contaminants.
Knowing that we have such paltry law in Canada now, one example which I have raised many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, is Amax. In the middle of the 1979 federal election, the Liberal Government decided that that particular company, Amax, required a special dumping permit which exceeded federal guidelines by 8,000 times. The Member of Parliament at that time was a Liberal Cabinet Minister who is now the President of the Liberal Party, but the net goes much further, Mr. Speaker, The present Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Mr. Aird, was on the Amax international board. When he stepped down to become the Lieutenant-Governor, he was replaced by the former President of the United States, Gerald Ford. So there we have the international connection of big business. What happened after that? It is very clear Mr. Aird's firm continued to do the legal work for Amax.
[DOT] (ino)


An Hon. Member:: Senator Aird.


James Ross Fulton: Senator Aird, a well-known bagman for the Liberal Party. He simply went to the Cabinet and said: "Look, I need some kind of special permit for my buddies in Amax; they want to dump one million metric tons into the fishing ground". Of course,the local media for months and months said: "Oh, it is just the Nishga Indians; they are just trying to force their land claims. It has nothing to do with pollution." But then some independent scientists came on board, church groups and trade unionists got involved, and they finally managed to get rid of the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because I understand that some 80,000 letters ended up going to the Prime Minister's Office. I tabled in this House correspondence regarding that issue. There is real concern about such paltry law. First, we should beef it up, but even where we have, Canadians are concerned because politicians, certainly in the Liberal Party, seem to be prepared to run around the law and provide big business with whatever kind of dumping permit they want.
The problem is right across Canada, and let me deal with it from the Canadian side first. In British Columbia alone
266,000	dry tons of hazardous waste was produced last year. It was all improperly dumped. There is no safe site in British Columbia, none anywhere in Canada. Last year ten million dry tons were produced and a million of those were toxic, hazardous waste, dangerous to human life, dangerous to wildlife and to our water supply. So it is right across the country. If a Canadian, some Member of this House, decided
to poison his or her husband or wife and put the same kinds of stuff into a glass of water and fed it to their spouse day after day, under the Criminal Code in Canada they would be prosecuted and probably convicted for attempted murder. But the big companies can dump it in the Great Lakes.
On the American side, the U.S. military and big chemical companies can dump it into the water supply. Laws are diverted or changed, politicians are bought, and what is happening right now is that toxic waste is going into the Great Lakes system. By the conscious inaction of not bringing in new laws and taking the appropriate action, the decision has been made-perhaps knowingly, perhaps unwittingly-by politicians on both sides to allow 20 per cent of the fresh water supply of this planet to become polluted and turned into a septic dump.
There have been statements such as this, Mr. Speaker. Our task force met with the Vice-President of Hooker in New York State a year ago. We asked him what he was doing. The Curtin decision was coming down, and it is totally inappropriate. We are following the same route on the S-site dump, going through the court and getting improper clean-up. What does the Vice-President of Hooker have to say to concerned Canadians? He stands up, after showing us some phony movie, and says: "Well, look, Mr. Fulton, we are waiting so that we can have genetic engineering make some progress, so they can engineer some bugs. We will take containers of bugs, throw them into these toxic pits and they will eat all the problem away." The man has been living in Disneyland too long, Mr. Speaker. He drank out of a Mickey Mouse cup. It gives you some idea of the way these large corporations are prepared to deal with public concern.
Mr. David Suzuki spoke in my riding quite recently, in Kitimat, Mr. Speaker. There were a lot of young people there and he wanted to give some explanation of the concern he has for the way the Canadian parliamentary system is going. 1 think it is something all of us in this House need reflect on. The average understanding of modern science by Members of this House right now is the same as that of elementary school children. A grade seven child in Canada right now has a better understanding of science than Members of this House. We really need to get to work on that because this issue of toxic waste is no joke. It is something which is coming on us in the same way typhoid fever did at the turn of the century, which is why we got the original 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
At the turn of the century, 446 Canadians out of every
100,000	were dying from typhoid fever because of sewage and other kinds of pollution going into the Great Lakes. We got the Treaty and started to move on it. The United States is not attempting to live up to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. I do not condemn Canada in this matter because we are at least going to live up to the requirements in relation to phosphorous and so on, but there are some enormous loopholes in the Agreement and they are there by the design of the Government in office at the moment in its support of big business.
January 27, 1983

On garbage day, Mr. Speaker, would you go out of your house and throw your garbage over the fence into your neighbour's yard? You would not, for a number of reasons. There are laws against such actions and there is the law of decency. You could be prosecuted for doing it and you could go to jail. There is a law for individual Canadians, but our neighbours in the United States are dumping literally thousands of tons of this material on the Escarpment, knowing full well that for the next 40 years it will go into our water supply.
Gallup polls show that 75 per cent of Canadians support the clean-up and preservation of the Canadian environment, even if it means accepting a lower standard of living. The same Gallup polls indicate that Members of this House of Commons and members of the legislatures in the country are rated in the same category as convicted sex killers. We have to wonder about that, Mr. Speaker. Why are Canadians prepared to make that kind of economic sacrifice? It is so that they can fish with their grandchildren, so that they can drink clean water, so that they can see trees growing around them and see the odd fox running about.
Politicians will not respond, however. Each week more money is spent on cat food in the Province of Ontario than is spent by the federal Government to deal with the Great Lakes and acid rain problems in the country. More money is spent on cat food than on environmental protection, which is the greatest problem we will face in this century in this country.
Acid rain is a serious thing but the problems of dioxin, mirex and so on are a moving problem. We can deal with the courts on the U.S. side and we can clutch at straws, but we have had the Curtin decision-an utter, abject failure. The EPA tells people to go ahead and move back into the Love Canal area while nine out of eleven renowned U.S. scientists advise people not to move back into the area because the EPA studies are inaccurate and incomplete. They advise that to move back would endanger life.
The whole issue is profit maximization, Mr. Speaker. Big business says that if they have to put a prophylactic around waste, if they have to contain the waste properly and permanently and have to recycle it, their profits will go down. So they go to Ronnie in the States and say: "Ronnie, don't make us spend from the super fund, don't make us clean up; we want high profits and we want deregulation".
Deregulation on this issue means that the health of four million Canadians and one million Americans along the Great Lakes is seriously endangered. We know that one two-hundredths of a drop of dioxin will kill you where you sit, Mr. Speaker. If a beam of sunlight comes through a window and a fleck of dioxin-laden dust, weighing one ten-thousandth of a gram, floats into that sunlight, that amount can kill an entire family. In the Great Lakes region, just one-quarter ounce of dioxin could kill five million people. A ton of it is sitting in Hyde Park and they are just repumping the leachate. That is all the United States is doing. Two hundred tons of contaminated stillbottoms is sitting in S-dump, leaching into the
Supply
Niagara. It is going underwater into Canada, into Lake Ontario and contaminating the Lake.
We can study the migration patterns of that stuff coming across the Lake and we can tell that the water is becoming more and more polluted. According to the general accounting office in the United States, according to our DOE officials, according to the IJC, the Lake is becoming more and more polluted with dangerous waste.
All that is happening is a couple of frivolous little court cases. The Minister of the Environment tells us that we are employing quiet diplomacy. But stuff is moving across the Lake, Mr. Speaker, and is now being found in the tissues of dead people in this country. In that cadaver from Kingston, dioxin was found in the body tissues. The stuff is moving through the biosphere. It moves in the air, in the water, across the Lake.
The answer being given by the Liberal and Conservative Parties in this country is that the matter will be studied. When people start to get diseases and die, then they will say: "We must put in water filtration systems; we must raise municipal and other taxes". I have some answers that are going to short-circuit that and I hope the House will support me in pursuing them.
What we need is constitutional law. I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) here because in his constituency there are terrible problems in relation to toxic waste.
I wrote to every fire chief in Canada and had responses from most of them. The Government had never written to them nor had any other Member of Parliament. They were concerned about the waste in their communities. They do not know how to fight most of those fires. They see it going into the water supply. It is going into the Ottawa River which is not fit to swim in any more. One cannot fish in the Great Lakes. We cannot sell our eels to West Germany; they are contaminated with mirex. The situation is serious. We need proper constitutional law, and I am going to come to specific recommendations in that regard in a moment.
I am making a very serious proposal to the House today, which is to put a head tax on Americans coming into Canada. I say that in all seriousness, and I am going to explain why. Over 30 million Americans came into Canada last year, many because they have relatives here, many to fish or to hunt or as tourists. What I am saying is that if we were to charge them a head tax of $5 or $10 at the airports, at the border crossings as they came in, and we had proper information there, we could explain to them that the reason we were doing this is the toxic waste coming from Niagara, the Hanford site, and because of what is happening to our water system and our environment from acid rain. We could say: "Here is a card; what state are you from? Here is your Congressman, here is your Senator. We are charging this tax, we are raising money, because we are going to go about this in a serious way."

January 27, 1983
Supply
When 75 per cent of Canadians support reducing their standard of living to clean up, I think it is about time we sent a strong message to those Americans, our brothers and sisters from the United States, who are prepared to take a message back to the brontosaurus in the White House. That is the description used by an American who is interested in preserving the Great Lakes.
The next step is that instead of just monitoring what is happening in the Great Lakes, we have to have a proper, complete, thorough study of the costs of complete carbon filtration so we can get pure water back out of those Lakes. That is a figure this House needs to know, because we are talking billions and billions of dollars. The complacent administration of Mr. Reagan desires to be buddy-buddy with big business interests, not to protect the health of the citizens, but to protect the profit structure of big business. We need those figures so we can send the proper message.
There are a lot of council members in southern Ontario who would like to go to the their voters and say: "Look, if the federal Government does not move and get some action out of the U.S. pretty quickly on stopping this crap from going into our water system, we will have to raise the mill rates pretty drastically". For St. Catharines, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for proper water filtration. For Ontario, we are talking billions. 1 think we need to get that message out.
The fourth item is that a large delegation needs to go from this Chamber, along with concerned citizens and scientists, to Congress. I am not talking about three or four, I am talking about 50 or 100 Members of this House. We need to talk about acid rain and we need to talk about toxic waste; that is the issue of this decade in terms of personal health in this country.
1 would like to put a few quotes on the record so that the Minister, when he speaks today, will have something to respond to.


An Hon. Member:: It is about time.


James Ross Fulton: We will see when I finish whether or not the Minister is going to be so eager to speak and face questions in this House. Here is an article from August, 1980 entitled: "MP angered as Ottawa backs U.S. waste pipeline". It reads:
The federal Government has conditionally supported a U.S. pipeline that would dump one million gallons of treated chemical waste a day into the Niagara River, despite the fact it cannot accurately predict the damage to nearby water supplies.
That was a concern raised by a Liberal Member. Another article was entitled: "Knew about hazards, U.S. put toxic wastes into river, report says". It is very clear that this is a letter from Union Carbide to the U.S. Army. It reads:
Plan 2 (using shallow wells) is favoured because our law department advises us it is considered impossible to determine the course of subterranean streams and, therefore, the responsibility for any contamination could not be fixed.
I have all kinds of stuff that I will be putting on the record one way or the other today, but there are a couple of quick shots that I would like to get off before I run out of time. The first is in relation to the Minister's most recent comments about the S-dump. On december 8, 1982, we find in The Gazette the following: "U.S. dump no threat to our water: Minister." Then there is a picture of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). But what happens less than a month later? Headlines in The Globe and Mail read: "Leakage turns water into "toxic brew"." What about this headline in The Toronto Star? "Ottawa starts study of poisons in water". And in the Toronto Sun we find this headline: "5 million lives at risk".
A month ago the Minister was telling Pollution Probe that there was no problem with the dump. But suddenly the dump is the biggest issue in the country. As far as the Tories are concerned, I ran across something most interesting about them. The Tories have an environment critic but they do not allow him to ask any questions. I suppose that is because of a caucus decision not to. The only question that has been raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) in the last three years concerning the environment was whether or not to permit the importation into Canada of raccoon dogs. There is the Tory policy on the environment. At least the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) has asked a couple of questions concerning Niagara and I am grateful that he has done so; but Tory policy is to worry about raccoon dogs being imported into Canada.


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party has painted a very bleak picture of the environmental situation in Canada. However, I am sure he has not gone to see for himself what has been done in recent years, and I think the Minister would probably be the best person to provide a list of our achievements in this area. In any case, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Members from Quebec whose ridings are located on the shores of the St. Lawrence, as mine is, are aware that eventually, the water from the Great Lakes will pass their doorstep. I must say that I am rather surprised at the Hon. Member's attitude, when he asks us to lay down the law instead of consulting with the scientific community, which, for instance, has just published reports on acid rain tending to support our Canadian theories on the subject. I think we have made progress in recent years, thanks to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts).
Finally, the obvious question after listening to my hon. colleague's speech is: What other measures does the New Democratic Party have to recommend, besides a head tax on all Americans coming into Canada? In any case, the number of tourists has dropped, and in the final instance, international relations and our reputation as a good neighbour would suffer.
January 27, 1983

In fact, although the Hon. Member's purpose is to get at the big companies, it would be the individual citizen who would be punished and would have to pay.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could inform the House how he intends to ask industry to become self-regulating. I also think he should take a look at what has already been done. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of chemical industries and all the oil refineries that have invested millions of dollars in recent years. Furthermore, we must not forget that this is a joint responsibility. The Hon. Member tends to overlook the fact that provinces and municipalities also have a role to play here, and that citizens should insist on their discharging those responsibilities. Instead of listening to all this gloom and doom, I would rather hear some specific solutions to the problem.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. I would have hoped the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) would have listened to the recommendations I made which were to deal with the issue. The whole issue of constitutional law is something that has to be looked at very carefully.
Let me quote briefly to the Hon. Member from a report to Congress by the Controller-General in relation to the Great Lakes. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the biological symptoms are there now for all to see. In the St. Lawrence the local population of whales is now biologically sterile as a result of the effluent that is entering the St. Lawrence from the Great Lakes. We should not forget, as I said earlier, that the water coming down as rainfall and entering the Great Lakes takes 500 years to circulate and to exit into the St. Lawrence. It takes a long time for the Great-Lakes to clean themselves. I am not just talking about a head tax alone, but that is one of the ways to mobilize our friends and neighbours to the south of us so as to get to the politicians who have been bought by big industry.
Let us be very clear about this. Big business has said very clearly that it will not clean up its dumps. Big business will not put a prophylactic around its waste, nor will big business recycle waste. President Reagan will not spend money from the super fund. He will not clean up. We are now taking the worst of ail alternatives, which is to allow the courts in the United States to come up with completely inappropriate resolutions.
Here is what the Controller-General in the United States had to say about this issue:
As early as 1970 EPA and IJC recognized that toxic pollution is potentially a greater threat to the Great Lakes than eutrophication. Toxic pollution could endanger human health, destroy Great Lakes commercial fishing, and ultimately render the lakes useless for a variety of desirable activities.
In fiscal year 1981, the IJC Toxic Substances Committee reported that more than 30,000 chemical compounds were produced in the Great Lakes Basin. To date, over 450 of the
Supply
chemical compounds have been found in the Lake. Here is what the EPA has to say about what they will do:
EPA generally concurs with our discussion of toxics, except for three points. First, EPA cites that some evidence indicates that controls over toxic pollutants can be effective.
That is a great statement.
Second, EPA points out that the Food and Drug Administration sets allowable limits of toxic levels in fish.
That is interesting, since the EPA itself, before Reagan came into office, said that there should be no dioxin level allowed in drinking water. None whatsoever. The third point:
And finally, EPA believes that the issue of laboratory capacity and capability is not an issue peculiar to the Great Lakes.
EPA has a three-year backlog on fish samples which have been taken from the Great Lakes which have not been tested because they say they do not have the lab capacity.
We are dealing with an administration that will not deal with the issue on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border. I suggest that we need to go to Congress with a major group to look at some kind of a head tax and to educate our American friends who are coming here that we are being seriously damaged in terms of health, recreation and tourism by their actions on acid rain and toxic waste.
We need to take action with law. The toxic and hazardous waste Bill was passed in July, 1980, and we still have not been presented with regulations for the first third. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) says that it will be up to five years before we receive that and constitutional legal experts in Canada say that those regulations will simply not be able to deal with this issue of toxic and hazardous wastes.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was of the impression that the new rules called for questions to be short and succinct. According to my calculation, the last question took some five minutes and the reply was nearly five minutes. If that is the case, almost the entire ten-minute question period is taken up with just two Members participating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) completed his remarks at 11:26. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux Payette) began at that time and completed her remarks not later than 11:29. We again heard from the Hon. Member for Skeena for a period of approximately three minutes. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis).


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I pose it on the presumption that he does not wish to minimize the force of his argument by inadvertent inaccuracy.
I understood him to say that the flushing period or purification period in the Great Lakes was 500 years. Does he not distinguish that that flushing period is in Lake Superior, where I think his figure may be accurate, as compared to the flushing period in Lake Erie, for example, which is a fraction, as I

January 27, 1983
We can eat fish with 20 parts per trillion whereas the United States allows 10 parts per trillion. The EPA, after a very serious review of the dioxin question, decided that there should be no level of dioxin allowed in drinking water. 1 find it strange, if there should be no levels of dioxin in drinking water, that it can be allowed in fish that we eat.
With regard to the second question, I had my staff check Hansard for questions by the Eton. Member for Vancouver South and the Hon. Member for Hillsborough on the environment. With respect to environment questions in this session, the only one that we found is listed under wildlife. It was not about raccoons, it was about the import of raccoon dogs from Europe. He was opposing the importation of raccoon dogs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I hesitate to intervene in the proceedings, but I should perhaps explain that the ten-minute period for comments and questions has expired. I know from signals that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) wanted to join in that ten-minute exchange; unfortunately, time is not available.


Mr. Rose:: We are not answering questions today.
Supply
understand it-I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-of the purification period in a lake such as Lake Superior?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is good question. I am reading from a document in front of me which says that a drop of water that entered the top of Lake Superior has been wandering through the Great Lakes since Christopher Columbus stumbled upon America in 1492; that today, almost 500 years later, that drop of water is spilling into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Hon. Member is quite correct. I am talking about from the top of the Great Lakes system on through. Some lakes do flush more quickly than others.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) would not want to mislead the House. While I appreciate many of the remarks which he made this morning, his first remark-he can correct me if I am wrong- indicated that we could not fish in the Great Lakes or eat fish from the Great Lakes. I want to tell him that that is not true. I live on Lake Erie and there is perch, bass, pickerel, trout and salmon fishing, all of which are edible.
1 am not here to defend the present Government, but I want to say that the quality of Lake Erie is improving. Tourism is important to my riding. Swimming is available at beautiful beaches and there is sport fishing. The Hon. Member's statement that we cannot eat the fish from the Great Lakes is not true. I would like him to correct that statement.
My second question concerns the Hon. Member's remarks about the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), who is not here today, and his derogatory remarks about raccoons. Has the Member checked Hansard to indeed verify that the Hon. Member for Hillsborough has not raised questions on the environment other than that question? If not, I would like him to correct it for the record.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question concerning fish, I think if the Hon. Member checks Hansard he will see that I was thinking about certain areas of the Great Lakes that are now permanently closed to the commercial fisheries because of high levels of PCBs and dioxin. There are also some other areas closed simply because of localized pollution.
I would like to quote from Dr. Beverley Paigen to indicate why I say the problems in relation to the fishery in the Great Lakes are becoming serious. Dr. Paigen is a renowned scientist in the United States in relation to Great Lakes pollution problems. The task force document states:
Paigen stated that Lake Ontario has been tremendously affected by toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. 'I don't feel that these (Lake Ontario) fish are fit for human consumption,' the scientist famous for her involvement in the Love Canal said. 'I would not eat the fish.'
We are not talking about all of the fish or all of the species in the Great Lakes, but our eel populations have been banned from sale in West Germany because of the high levels of mirex. Commercial fisheries, particularly trout and some other species in various localized areas of the Great Lakes, are now closed for export and catchment. There are areas where they can be caught but there is an interesting juggle in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would like to respond to the point of order which was raised earlier by the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). If Members would like to consider a period of 90 seconds, which is the time allowed for statement just prior to Question Period, as being an appropriate amount of time during this exchange for question and comments, then a 90-second question or answer could be considered, if Members so wish, as a reasonable guideline. Certainly the Chair would be pleased to co-operate in that manner.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You made a suggestion that does not cause us any particular problem, except for this one caveat. This is a suggestion that we may attempt during this particular day's debate but it does not necessarily set any precedent for any future debate. I quite agree with your suggestion on that understanding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is understood and agreed.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the time for my opportunity to pose a question has passed. I am not surprised that the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) should shout that they will not answer any questions today.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure, with the number of Members in the House today, that we could get unanimous consent and I would be pleased to answer any number of questions that the Minister would like to put to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the Hon. Member wish me to put that motion for unanimous consent?


James Ross Fulton: Yes.
January 27, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Skeena seeks unanimous consent of the House to permit the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to ask a series of questions.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious subject, but I do not think the motion which has been presented to us is very serious. The subject which underlies it is. 1 would like to take at least a few moments to put on the record what has been done, not only over the past year but a little bit before that as well. It was not in any way given reference by the hon. gentleman who moved the motion, either because he was not aware of what had been done or perhaps, more probably because it would not support the rather distorted motion which he has presented to the House.
Just in terms of this Parliament, a variety of actions have been taken within a larger context. Just to note a few of them specifically, there has been the passing of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The Hon. Member referred to it and indicated that he thought the regulations would not be brought forward for another "four or five years", I believe that was the phrase he used. That is simply not true. Some of the regulations have been gazetted. They have been undertaken after an extensive process of publication. The rest are expected to be presented very soon.
There has been the signature in July, 1982 of something like $65 million worth of expenditure from Canada, in conjunction with the Province of Ontario, directed to the further clean-up of the Great lakes water systems, particularly through the support of sewage facilities.
There have been very strong efforts, led by Canada, at the international level. Environment Canada chaired committees of the OECD directed to bringing into line, into some coherence, the international assessment, treatment and study of the production of chemicals. There has been a complete attempt to develop an international system for rating, providing, if you like, a passport for chemicals as they are developed so that, internationally, we can co-operate and co-ordinate our efforts to control the hazards of toxic chemicals.
There has been no awareness on the part of the Hon. Member that over the past three years, through cost-sharing agreements with the Provinces, we have financed extensive studies to detect existing hazardous dump sites and also to bring forward the information and plans needed to provide a network of clean-up facilities in order to remove and destroy existing hazardous sites and also to deal with the coming on to the market of toxic, hazardous goods.
There has been no indication that the Hon. Member understands that the federal Government, in co-operation with the Provinces, has offered to provide Crown land, if it should be
Supply
requested, in order to provide needed disposal sites in this country.
There has been no recognition that considerable research is being done in these areas, that something over $75 million a year is being expended by the federal Government on research into toxic areas.
There has been no indication that the Hon. Member even realizes that the Toxic Chemicals Management Program has been established within the federal Government. It was established in 1980 and is designed to provide a "cradle-to-the-grave" management approach to the handling of toxic chemicals, not only to prevent newly-produced toxic compounds from entering the environment, but also to clean up, to remove, those which are known to be present. The program provides a focus for all of Environment Canada's toxic chemical-related activities. We are expanding and developing the program and, in conjunction with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, we are assessing priorities at the national and regional levels.
The Toxic Chemicals Management Program includes measurement to ascertain concentrations present in the environment, inventories-that is, an assessment of the quantities and point sources of toxic releases-and characteristics research, for instance, impacts on wildlife toxicity, bioaccumulation and persistence.
We are concentrating our work on four essential areas of concern: pesticides, radionuclides, new chemicals and existing chemicals. Part of this work is being done in other departments, of course. For instance, pesticide evaluation is undertaken by Agriculture Canada. The examination of radionuclides is being rearranged to provide new policy direction within the Department of the Environment, and the study of new chemicals is being considered internationally with respect to manufacturers' pre-marketing data to provide adequate protection against potentially harmful chemicals.
In his speech, the Hon. Member gave no sign of recognition that he is even aware that these developments-which are known, I think, to most Hon. Members of the House-have been taking place.
The resolution which the New Democratic Party has presented focuses largely on the Great Lakes. Therefore, let us consider what has been happening in that area. Since the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, which will come to the end of its next phase by 1985, $1.3 billion will have been spent on the upgrading of sewage plant systems in Ontario, exactly because of the past impact they have had on the Great Lakes.
There has been the passing of the phosphorous limitation regulations in 1970 and 1973. The Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) in speaking about Lake Erie, correctly pointed out that, as a result of these phosphorous regulations, the quality of the water in Lake Erie has been enormously strengthened and the fisheries have been returning to prosperity.

January 27, 1983
Supply
There was no sign of recognition on the part of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) of the passing of the Environmental Contaminants Act in 1976-


Mr. Blaikie:: You gave $6.5 billion to the oil companies just last spring, so don't brag about SI.3 million.


John (Moody) Roberts: -which was directed to the control of such things as PCB, mirex, mercury and so on. There was also a revision of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978 to focus exactly on toxic chemicals. I have already mentioned the creation of the Toxic Chemicals Management Program in 1980.
It is true, of course, as the Hon. Member indicated, that a large part of the problem that we have in the Great Lakes and the Niagara River stems from sources on the American side. An important part of what we must do is to spur the United States on to greater and faster action, and that we have been doing. We have been doing it through diplomatic processes directly with the American Government and with the International Joint Commission. We have been doing it through direct contact on the part of myself and my counterparts in the United States, and officials with their counterparts. We have been doing it through the Niagara River Toxics Committee which was established to devise a study plan and to recommend actions for cleaning up the Niagara area. We have been doing it through the consultative committee of senior officials which has met six times within the past year to co-ordinate and implement our action program. We have been doing it through the support of private groups in Canada which are pressing their environmental concerns in a variety of American forums. None of this seems to be recognized by the Hon. Member who presented the motion.
What the federal Government is not doing-it could be a matter for some debate and controversy, and I would be glad to have the views of Hon. Members-is using the-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: So you could ignore them.


John (Moody) Roberts: -United States court and regulatory process. We are not bringing presentations through the American court and regulatory systems. We are not doing that because we believe that that effort on the part of the federal Government would likely be counter-productive. If we attempted to use the American court system to resolve these problems, it is quite likely that the American administration would say: "If you have chosen to use the court system, you must live with it. It is a lengthy and expensive process and you must abide by its results. Do not come to us to respond to your problems; you, have gone to the courts to deal with them." We believe that that would be counterproductive.
We believe that through direct negotiations with the United States, we can impress upon them their obligations to us, which are not necessarily legal obligations, but, rather, are moral and political obligations of a good neighbour to another. Therefore, we have not chosen the court process, not because we are opposed in principle to doing so, but, rather, because we
do not think that that is the best way to promote Canadian interest.
However, we have been anxious to support others who use the American court process, such as the special interest groups which have standing before the American court process. We have opened up our advice, expertise and knowledge to them and they have expressed their thanks for what we are doing.
It is fair enough to ask, if those are the methods we are using, is there any reason to believe that they are succeeding? Indeed, there is some evidence to that effect. I believe it is because of the kinds of interventions that we have made with the United States authorities that, for instance, the American administration has responded to the problem involving the Niagara Falls, New York sewage treatment plant, which is the major polluter of the Niagara region. I think it was as a result of interventions on our part that the permit was issued in November, 1982 to proceed with that project and the funds to support it were unblocked in Washington.
At one stage the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) referred to something which was a bit garbled. I was not quite sure what he was referring to when he spoke in support of a pipeline development; I think he was referring to the SCA issue in the Niagara Peninsula. It was as a result of our interventions with the American authorities, both the United States Government and the State of New York, that the SCA waste facility permit was tightened. It was made to conform with those guidelines which should be met. That is a result of our efforts. We have been monitoring the situation. We know that the effluent which has been coming from the SCA facility, certainly up to this point, does have a risk point which seems to meet adequate standards.
It is because of action on our part that we brought forward the two comprehensive base line reports in 1980 and 1981. It is because of our work that we were able to bring forward the Canadian Niagara River Program in August, 1982. I hope the Hon. Member has had a look at it. It was not clear from his remarks whether he has. It was partially as a result of technical assistance which we provided to environmental groups that improvements in court orders in the United States have taken place. I am not arguing that all of the court orders are completely satisfactory from our point of view, certainly they are not but they are an improvement over what would have happened otherwise.
I have already mentioned the support we gave to interested groups, the creation of the Niagara River Toxics Committee and the bilateral consultation committee of senior officials. What has been the effect of those bilateral consultations? I can cite some examples of what they have done. Funds for the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant were allocated. There has been increased funding on the part of New York State for responding to Niagara problems. We have provided much improved controls through the Niagara River Toxics Committee.
January 27, 1983

The United States Environmental Protection Agency brought forward a Niagara frontier agenda which was a clearer response to problems than existed before. The United States has rewritten 25 major industrial discharge permits to take into account the kinds of concerns that Canadians have been expressing. There has been a speeding up of hazardous waste landfill site litigation in the United States. The United States K Corps of Engineers has been investing much more money into the study of dump site impact on groundwater quality.
I am not arguing that this is the best of all possible worlds. I am not arguing that there is still not a lot to be done. What I am arguing is that there is evidence that the impact of our interventions with the United States is having a favourable effect.
If we are acting on the situation, why is the situation becoming worse, and why did we not act before? The answer is that the situation is not getting worse. As we have already mentioned, there has been a decline in the phosphorous levels in Lake Erie. There has been a decline, since its detection, of mirex in the Great Lakes by a ten-fold span. The same is true of PCBs, DDT and dioxin. Over the past eight, nine or ten years in each case there has been roughly a ten-fold decline in the levels which have been found in the Great Lakes.
It is not that the situation is not improved. It is improving but needs to improve even further. The quality of water in the Great Lakes is improving. What is really happening is that our mechanisms of scientific detection have become so sophisticated in relation to these problems that we face an information explosion. We are now able to detect very minute quantities of a whole range of substances not previously detected in the Great Lakes water. Our knowledge is growing exponentially. As it grows, we act. However, we cannot act until we know what situations we face. One of the real problems is that we are now able to detect such minute quantities that we have the capacity to frighten people if we are careless and irresponsible, as I think the Hon. Member for Skeena has been in discussing these issues; we are able to frighten people in some circumstances without being able to give them iron-clad assurances of the significance of what we are finding.
To try and put it graphically, we know that chlorine is a tremendous poison, yet small quantities are put without hazard into swimming pools. It is poisonous, yet at a certain level it is not only satisfactory but is perhaps conducive to health. One could say that salt is made up of two terrible poisons, sodium and chlorine, yet in that combination they are harmless.
What we are able to do now with our scientific techniques is to indicate the presence in such small quantities of many substances which are normally thought of as poisonous without being able to say that at that level they constitute any hazard. There are really serious problems which are posed to us in the situation we now have. There are real problems of how we manage and act, given the information explosion that is occurring in toxic chemicals, how we manage the assessment of what we are finding and how we establish priorities for looking at them.
Supply
I can say to all Members of this House that an ordinary cup of coffee contains hundreds of substances. The aroma of a cup of coffee contains something like a dozen substances which could be considered to be toxic, yet we are not able to assess the significance of finding those toxic substances in such small amounts. If we multiply that example by others, when we have this extraordinary range of information, to say nothing of the synergistic effects of the combination of these chemicals, how are we to manage their assessment? How are we to both inform and educate the public at the same time?
The second very serious problem we have is how to bring into line the evolution of our approach to environmental matters, with proper public assessment of them. Originally, ten years ago, the general approach to pollution problems, that we took was roughly that which is still used in a rather emotional way by the Hon. Member for Skeena. That is, the policeman approach-stop whatever is happening; find out what is happening and stop it.


James Ross Fulton: The honest cop.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, the policeman's role, the honest policeman's role. There is nothing dishonest about saying there are hazards out there, let us find out about them and stop them. But we have moved beyond the simple policeman's role, the honest cop role to a somewhat more sophisticated approach of attempting to develop preventive pollution measures; not simply to find out what has happened and stop and correct it, but to try and act in order to prevent such situations recurring.
As we have done that more and more, we have found that we move into different areas of planning and managing levels of risk in relation to these situations. We can never assure people that everything they deal with will be absolutely safe, but we have to manage the advantages and disadvantages of the situation. We have the problem of not being able to give people 100 per cent assurance. We have the problem of trying to persuade them that there are better ways of managing our affairs so as to minimize risk.
It is a problem which is reflected in a particularly acute form in the NIMBY syndrome; that is, "Not in my back yard; we do not want anti-pollution clean-up plants close to us because there is some risk". No scientist will ever be able to assure you that there is absolutely no risk. There has to be an acceptance of risk in some areas if there is to be markedly less risk in the general treatment in society.
Those are serious matters. They are ones I would like to see Members more involved with in this House than they have yet been. I would like to see Members from all Parties asking for more briefing and information. Remarkably little of that comes to us.
There has been tremendous progress in relation to environmental protection. A great deal has been done; much remains to be done. I believe the record not only of the past three years but of the past ten years shows that federal and provincial Governments have been organizing themselves to respond

January 27, 1983
Supply
effectively as our information increases, but questions still remain that deserve to be dealt with seriously.
I wish the Hon. Member who moved this motion had treated some of these questions seriously rather than indulging in what was largely a misguided, rather silly rhetoric about the corruption of politicians and the evils of big business. The complexity and seriousness of these questions has really gone far beyond that level of debate. I know he is an intelligent Member and really does care about these problems, but I would invite him to apply his intelligence and sincerity to them in a responsible way.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest when the Minister indicated his concern with toxic wastes entering our environment and asked Members of Parliament to come forward for briefings and to seek more information on this very complex topic. I want to ask the Minister about a certain report that would help shed some light on a contaminant that people feel is entering the environment around Kamloops, British Columbia. This is a report on the Development of Source-Testing Methods Applicable to Non-ferrous Smelters.
I have been trying through his office to obtain a copy of that report for my constituents for some months. I wonder if the Hon. Member would indicate when 1 might expect to receive a copy?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am sorry, I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information but I will seek to get the report and provide it to him just as quickly as possible. I do not have it with me. 1 will try to expedite it.


William Herbert Jarvis: I have two questions within the 90 seconds, if I can do it. The Minister discarded the possibility of proceeding by way of litigation in United States courts. About two years ago he was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying: "My officials are exploring the possibility of suing U.S. polluters in American courts". I took the Minister's remarks to mean that the decision not to sue was a polticial one, and yet this quote indicates, or would appear to me to indicate, that it was a technical consideration that he asked his officials to investigate. 1 would like him to clarify that.
Second, when the Minister says "the situation is improving" vis-a-vis the Great Lakes, I really wonder if he feels that is the yardstick as compared to whether the U.S. is fulfilling its obligations under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which included the projected rate of clean-up, together with the funding, to accomplish that projected rate. Would that not be a more accurate yardstick than what the Minister is suggesting, that the situation generally is improving?


John (Moody) Roberts: I will try to answer briefly as well. In relation to the first question, Mr. Speaker, we did, as the Hon. Member said, look into the question of the federal Government using the American court system. As a result of that assessment, both legally and politically, I decided that it was likely to be counter-productive. I want to underline that I am not opposed, and indeed we would provide some assistance to others who wish to use the court system, but we felt it would be counterproductive for the federal Government to invoke the American courts because that in practical terms would limit the range of remedies which we would otherwise be able to explore with the American administration. We looked at it and, as a result of looking at it, we came to the conclusion which I have expressed.
With respect to the second question, yes, of course, we must not only look to the past at the level of improvement that has taken place, but we must look ahead and do what we can to persuade the United States to meet its requirements. While we are concerned about cutbacks in the United States administration generally in the Environmental Protection Agency, to the best of our ability to see at the moment there has not been a reduction in American expenditure allocated to the specific Niagara clean-up area. I mentioned the past record because I think it is important for people to understand that progress is being made. It is too easy to frighten people about impending horrors in these very difficult situations. It is important, I believe, for people to understand that the situation has been improving, which does not undermine in any way the importance of what the Hon. Member suggested, that of looking ahead to see what needs to be done to keep ourselves on the clean-up schedule.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question dealing with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence system. There has been a great deal of concern expressed about the seepage of waste from the ground from municipal sewage. Has the Government any plans to have our representatives on the International Joint Commission look at that matter? We recently appointed a new chairman of the Canadian section, a very capable person. Are there any representations being made by the Government to the Commission so that the Canadian members may approach American members to continue the pressure, which must be continued, I believe, if the objective of the Ministry is met?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in a general way there is a continuing process of notification and of report, and the IJC presents its assessment in reports and recommends action to both American and Canadian Governments in a continuing way. Migration in the bedrock is also a matter which we will be referring to them as well. We do need a bit more information, however, than we have at the present time.
That is why I announced a few days ago that we are undertaking a crash program to try to detect exactly what the contours of that migration are, so we have a better knowledge of exactly how serious a problem we face in making representations both to the United States Government and also in communicating information to the International Joint Commission.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, again with respect to various jurisdictions, what relationship exists between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Ontario? I have particularly in mind the fact

January 27, 1983
that the City of Brockville is intending to establish a landfill site on a piece of land adjacent to the St. Lawrence River. I believe this is seen in the community to hold a great potential for damage, at least, to the St. Lawrence River system. Is this the kind of case, if it was brought to the Minister's attention, specifically beyond today, that the Minister might take up with his Ontario colleagues? Is it the kind of case that the federal Government may see fit to intervene in in order to protect the environment along the St. Lawrence River?


John (Moody) Roberts: The questions are short, Mr. Speaker, but they raise complex matters. I would say first that generally there is a close system of co-operation. I will refer specifically to the Niagara situation, then expand later. There is the Toxic Committee which involves New York State, Ontario, the United States Government and the federal Government jointly; it is basically a committee of scientists and experts looking into the matter and suggesting remedial approaches.
There is also the management liaison committee, which involves these four Government also, to handle implementation. There is, therefore, a close process of consultation and working together through those instruments.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, to expand the scope of my answer, involves the provincial Governments as well as the national Governments on both sides of the border. We have signed with the provincial Government the Canada-Ontario Agreement within that framework. That is another means through which we can discuss these problems with the provincial Government. As I mentioned in my remarks, we have recently signed an agreement for another $65 million worth of expenditure in relation to sewage treatment within that Canada-Ontario Agreement.
On the last point, I would have to say that we have tried to work in a co-operative way with all of the Provinces, both in the assessment of the legacy of the past in terms of toxic situations, and through cost-sharing agreements in supporting remedial plans to respond to these situations and to respond to the problems of the new chemical generation. The Province of Ontario, if memory serves me correctly, had already undertaken this kind of work without the spur of federal contribution, as we have done with most of the other Provinces. We do, through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, discuss these problems, both generally and in detail.
I am relatively satisfied with the co-operative arrangements and I think we can find somewhere in that mix an effective instrument for drawing to the attention of the Government of Ontario, say, the Brockville situation. I would only ask the Hon. Member to give me more details about it so I can do that effectively.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have two very brief questions. I noticed that the Minister in his comments touched on a couple of pieces of Canadian legislation, and I think that he would not want to leave the impression with those who are going to read this debate, or who are watching it, that the laws which are on the Canadian books are in any way effective. The Canadian Environmental Law Report has this to say about the two
Supply
pieces of legislation he touched on. First, there is no hazardous waste management law at the federal level in Canada. The federal Environmental Contaminants Act of 1976, while welcome, is not a hazardous waste management law. It only deals with new substances and substances in use.
On the second one it referred to, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Canadian Environmental Law Report has this to say: "The recently enacted Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act may provide only a partial answer to the hazardous waste problems or no answer at all".
I was quite amazed that the Minister considered the analysis which I had drawn in terms of the relationship between big business and Governments at this point in time as shocking and irresponsible". Perhaps he would like to comment on what the IJC had to say last year, which was quoted in The Globe and Mail, headlined; "Politics, budget, tie its hands as lakes are poisoned". On that very point, the Minister told the press in December that the S-site dump was no problem, and then this month, three weeks later, he says it is a major problem and the headlines are: "Five million lives at risk". Perhaps the Minister would like to talk about shocking and irresponsible headlines in that respect.


John (Moody) Roberts: I have three comments, Mr. Speaker. First, I would be quite prepared to consider seriously, if Hon. Members of the House wish that to happen, changes which would strengthen the role of the federal Government in relation to pollution problems. I think it deserves very serious consideration-and much clearer expression on the part of the Hon. Member, rather than simply saying "constitutional changes, constitutional changes"-as to what is the best approach in terms of federal-provincial responsibility, the Provinces exist, they do have responsibilities in this area. The approach we have followed in this Government is not to seek confrontation over jurisdictional responsibility but to seek co-operation in responding to the problem. Now, it is quite possible to argue seriously that the entire area should move to the hands of the federal Government. If that is what the Hon. Member means, then I think he should bring that forward in detail and make some assessment of what provincial response to it would be. I think it is arguable, but I do not think it is responsible simply to say: "Constitutional change, that is the solution ', without looking at those problems in a serious way.
As to recent statements about the S-dump, I do not think I ever said that it did not constitute a problem. Indeed, we have been working very closely with public interest groups in the Niagara area to respond to those problems, as well as making representations ourselves. What I said is that there was no indication that the S-dump leakages had significantly lowered water quality standards in Lake Ontario. I reiterated that statement in my press release earlier this week, if the Hon. Member would read it. It is not that there is not a threat in the sense there may be problems developing, because quite clearly we are concerned about it; but what we can do is reassure
22268

January 27, 1983
Supply
people that up to this point there does not seem to have been a lowering of the water quality or failure to meet safe standards as a result. So one can look at a threat either as something actual or as something in the future.
As to irresponsibility, Mr. Speaker, 1 apologize because I missed the first few moments of the Hon. Member's speech, but when I came into the House he was talking, I thought rather glibly and irresponsibly, about buying politicians. If I remember correctly, he referred to Liberals and Conservatives in talking about buying politicians. Later on he said that politicians are bought.
I think that is irresponsible and frivolous, Mr. Speaker. It smears Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers and politicians in other countries. If the Hon. Member has any specific and verifiable evidence of that happening, he should provide it to the proper authorities. I do not think he should make allegations like that unless he is serious about them. That is what I was referring to when I talked about what I think is an irresponsible approach to very serious problems.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak to the motion today regarding the need to protect adequately the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous wastes. I am also pleased to hear the Minister say that he is willing to look at suggestions and recommendations to strengthen the role of Government, and I hope that includes strengthening the role of Parliament, in what is a very serious debate today and a very serious matter for the people of Canada.
I want to say that I live only a ten-minute walk from Lake Erie, and my riding of Erie is located in the heart of the Great Lakes Basin. So the ongoing battle to clean up the Great Lakes is of great concern to me because of the threat to the health and well-being of my constituents.
I realize to some degree the problem confronting the International Joint Commission in endeavouring to obtain the stated purpose of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, which is, "To retore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, in light of the continued urban growth of this highly developed industrial and agricultural region which now has a population of over 37 million people. I not only now realize this problem, but I realized it back in December, 1979 when 1 sought and obtained the unanimous consent of this House to my motion under Standing Order 43, which read as follows:
In view of the fact that a (U.S. Company) has been dumping thousands of gallons of ... harmful chemicals into the Niagara River on a daily basis, and in view of the fact that the continuation of this method of disposal has a potentially harmful and lasting effect on the health of all citizens, Canadian and American, who live along the river. I move ... that the Government express its concern ... and urge the Government of the United States to look directly into this matter and take what action is necessary so as to alleviate the potential danger of such a continued disposal method of harmful chemicals.
Then again, on February 3, 1981 I raised this matter in the House as follows:
recent press reports . . . indicate that American industry and Government dumped toxic and radioactive wastes into the Niagara River during the Second World War. If these reports are well founded, the health of residents of the
Niagara Peninsula is seriously threatened. Therefore I move ... that this House urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to investigate the veracity of these stories immediately and to report his findings to the House.
I am sorry to report that this motion did not receive unanimous consent.
Two countries, Mr. Speaker, with different priorities and policies have this common problem and must learn to cooperate in order to come to an agreement on measures of protection and prevention satisfactory to the people of both nations. It would apear that the original state of the Great Lakes can never be restored, but reasonable objectives are attainable. The Boundary Waters Treaty states that:
These waters whose shoreline or banks are shared by the two countries shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property of the other.
Residents should expect to have pure drinking water and uncontaminated waters as well for fishing, swimming and boating. Certainly the denial of these basic rights to residents on the shores of the Great Lakes would be considered as injury of health or property.
It is disturbing to report that the levels of toxins in fish and waterfowl in this area is significantly higher than it was in 1978 when the Boundary Waters Treaty was signed. On April 15, 1981 I again raised with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) the matter of dumping effluent into the Niagara River, and I quote:
Recent press reports indicate that as a result of malfunctions in the Buffalo sewage plant, millions of gallons of improperly treated waste are being dumped daily into the Niagara River. Therefore I move .. . that this House urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to verify these reports, and upon determining their truth, to inform the United States Government immediately of Canada's deep concern about pollution in this international waterway.
I did not receive unanimous consent for this motion.
As the Member for Erie, I am concerned that little action is being taken to ensure adherence to the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty. In July, 1982 I urged the Minister of the Environment to speed up the appointment of a third Canadian representative on the International Joint Commission so that there would be a strong Canadian voice on the Commission when such crucial issues as the clean up of the Great Lakes were being discussed. A third member has since been appointed. On January 24, 1983 the Minister of the Environment issued a press release announcing new Canadian action to investigate S-area contamination. This followed hard on the heels of an extensive Canadian federal investigation which showed that S-area poses a greater threat to Canadian waters than any other United States landfill uncovered to date.
Therefore, it seems ironic to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister would make this statement six weeks after the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) raised the question in the House with the Minister.
My colleague referred to the very discouraging report issued by the New York Department of Health that toxic chemicals contamination in the Lake Ontario-Niagara River Basin is increasing rather then decreasing. With more pollutants escaping now than anticipated and with the report that Canadian water treatment plants are not equipped to remove
January 27, 1983

them from drinking water, this is serious indeed. The Department of National Health and Welfare makes that alarming statement regarding the inadequacy of the Canadian water treatment plants, and considering that some of these toxic chemicals are deadly, 1 echo my colleague's question to the Minister: Has the time not yet come for an emergency Summit meeting and the establishment of an international task force?
Since 1978 the Niagara Falls, New York system has been discharging contaminated water and raw sewage containing chemicals into the lower Niagara River. The Minister is well aware of this. Also, there has been a contamination of the bedrock structure along the river. Since the Minister has been saying that the federal Government is taking some action, I want to ask him if he will table the representations which have been made in writing by either himself or the Department of External Affairs?
What is the purpose and the effect of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Treatment Agreement if nothing more can be done? The actions proposed in the Minister's statement are as follows: first, a study of the plume of toxic chemicals believed to be moving southward from S-Area through underground layers beneath the Niagara River and into Canadian territory; second, increased funding through the Great Lakes Water Quality Program for comprehensive analyses of drinking water quality in Lake Ontario; third, additional funds to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Lake Ontario fish for chemicals emanating from S-area, including dioxin; and fourth, that monitoring for chemicals in the river will be intensified to include classes of contaminants indicated as present in S-area.
I agree with the Minister and the Government that these actions are important and fine but in themselves they are not enough. I repeat, as well as these actions there should be an emergency Summit meeting and the establishment of an international task force to get Parliament involved with our United States' counterparts.
In the Minister's statement, he admits that the United States Government made public a revised complaint against Occidental Chemical Corporation, formerly the well-known Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation, in late December, recognizing the seriousness of the contamination as well as the direct infiltration of S-area contaminants into the Niagara Falls, New York drinking water treatment plant.
At the conclusion of his press release, the Minister pledged that the federal Government will continue to press the U.S. for a complete clean-up of S-area and will be consulting with American officials on the development of comprehensive studies to define the extent of contaminant movement, remedial measures and the monitoring and evaluation of remedial programs.
The August, 1982 report of the International Joint Commission notes 24 different regions in the Province of Ontario that have been identified as problem areas. The Niagara and St. Clair Rivers are two of our freshwater sources which are most seriously in need of an extensive clean-up. Human health
Supply
concerns have to be given the highest priority and much more work needs to be done in eliminating the sources of pollution in these areas and undoing the damage which has already been done. Identification of problem areas alone is not enough. I repeat, it is not good enough!
On January 25, 1983 my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines, addressed the Minister's statement on the safety of drinking water, and I quote from pages 22193-4 of Hansard'.
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who will recall answering a question of mine some six weeks ago by stating that the S-Area does not constitute a threat to the quality of the drinking water of some four million Canadians. On what basis would the Minister make such a statement to this House, and then yesterday issue a press release indicating that this S-Area is somewhat of a new and pressing problem which should be eradicated almost immediately? ... since he has had knowledge of it for some considerable length of time.
The Minister replied, in part, as follows:
There is no evidence whatsoever that the standards of drinking water in the Niagara River or Lake Ontario are beyond those which are established as being safe. There is no indication in the present situation of any conflict with the existing safe water guidelines. That does not mean we should not be concerned about leakages or the migration of fill. There are problems which should concern us.
And well they should, Mr. Speaker. In a subsequent answer the Minister said:
What is new in this situation is not changes in the quality of water; what is new is the evidence of migration, underground, of potentially dangerous products to Canadian territory. That is the new element of the situation which 1 discussed yesterday. 1 brought forward an action program which will help us deal with that.
My colleague's recommendation, and I repeat his words once again, is as follows: "The establishment of an international task force and the holding of an emergency Summit meeting with the latest findings." This must take place; this must happen.
The Globe and Mail for January 25, 1983, on page 1, reported on the leaking which turns water into "toxic brew , quoting federal scientist Douglas Hallet who said that some of the hundreds of chemicals found in the S-area dump include reactives, which can combine in the ground to form new and unknown chemicals as they mix. Mr. Hallet called the chemical brew "just as dangerous as radiation", and said it contains substances known to cause cancer, mutations and birth defects.
Mr. Hallet said he believes the dump contains dioxin, the deadliest of all chemical wastes. That is frightening. The report in The Globe and Mail goes on to say that the S-area is one of four major chemical dumps polluting the lower Niagara River. The other three, Love Canal, the Hyde Park dump and the 102nd Street dump, and dozens of other dumps, are believed to post some hazard to the region.
I want to conclude my remarks by urging the Minister to take seriously the recommendations made earlier this week by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines. I will repeat them although I have done so earlier in my address. The Government should seriously consider the establishment of an international task force to study this immediate and most

January 27, 1983
Supply
serious matter and to arrange an immediate Summit meeting without delay. Let us get the Parliament of Canada active in this very serious problem. If the Minister takes this action, I am sure he can count on the support of this Party. We need to be good stewards of the environment which has been entrusted to all of us.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member if he does not realize that the kind of task force he is asking us to establish has already been established and is operating. I refer to the Niagara Chemicals Toxic Committee which brings scientific and pollution experts together. It is exactly what he has asked us to do. Does he not realize that his suggestion is not only worthy of consideration but that it has been implemented already by the Government?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I believe what we need is the involvement of Members of Parliament, not only a task force such as has been indicated by the Minister, but one that involves Members of the House who represent the people.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the Hon. Member who just spoke. I wonder if he has anything to say about why so few questions have been raised by his Party regarding the Niagara and Great Lakes issue. In this, the longest session of Parliament, the only questions on the Niagara and Great Lakes issue that I am aware of from his Party were those raised by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines.
When the Hon. Member says that his Party is willing to become involved in legislative action, task forces and so on, why has his Party not raised this issue in the House and what action is his Party prepared to take to bring the issue to the floor?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: 1 wonder where the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was when I was speaking. A number of times I indicated occasions on which I have raised the issue in the House. In December, 1979 I received unanimous consent for a motion, and several times since I raised the issue of the environment and, more particularly, the Niagara River and the Great Lakes. Perhaps the Hon. Member should stay in the House if he would like to ask questions of those who are delivering a speech.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I congratulate the NDP for bringing this very timely topic up for discussion in the House. I also note that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is here and has been here throughout this debate. I am glad he is here to hear the comments which I will be making because they affect very specifically the Niagara Peninsula, where I live. My words will follow the comments of the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz). We have adjacent ridings and the problems we are facing now are ongoing problems which we have had for a number of years.
I would also point out, with respect, that a provincial Member of Parliament, Vince Kerrio from Niagara Falls, spearheaded the formation of a discussion and action group in
the Niagara Peninsula some six or seven years ago. The Minister nods his head because it was Mr. Kerrio and his very able research assistants who brought this particular problem of the Niagara Basin and the Niagara River to the attention, first of all, of the provincial Parliament and, of course, we have had discussions in the House on numerous occasions.
The Hon. Member for Erie states quite correctly that he and other Members from the Niagara Peninsula have brought this problem to the floor of the House by making statements, raising 43s and asking questions of the Minister, and much has been done; but there is much more that can and must be done if we are to rectify this particular problem.
In my remarks, I would like to deal, first of all, with toxic wastes generally and their disposal. Then I would like to address myself specifically to the problems we are facing in the Niagara Peninsula. Following that, I would be happy to receive questions or comments from my other colleagues and address myself to them. It was noted earlier that there were problems across Canada, but Ontario and Quebec, the most industrialized provinces, in my opinion, have done studies and uncovered worrisome problems in our own area.
We talk about the complacency of the public. I do not think there is any complacency among thinking people, but one antidote to complacency, if there is any, might be a brief consideration of polychlorinated biphenyls, the PCBs that we talk about. In concentrations of a mere one part per billion, they can kill certain living organisms. During the 50 years that they have been in use, there has been constant leakage of them into the environment as well as deliberate dumping.
Environment Canada has determined that there are over 17 million pounds of PCBs needing disposal in the Province of Ontario alone. Fortunately, almost all of these are securely stored, but in my opinion they ought to be destroyed.
Facts such as these are intimidating and even discouraging, yet they must be faced. At this moment there are over 50,000 chemicals on the market and almost 35,000 have been classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as being either definitely or potentially hazardous to human health. New concoctions are being developed at the rate of over 1,000 a year. These are some of the hard facts; it is not scaremongering to speak of them. If our society wants the benefits that chemicals can give us, then we must control and manage them and dispose of hazardous wastes in a responsible manner.
We must be sure that dangerous chemicals remain our servants, because once they get out of hand they become very cruel masters indeed. Toxic wastes, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Erie and the Minister earlier, must be safely neutralized. Every barrel of waste casually sealed and stuck haphazardly into the ground becomes a ticking time bomb primed to go off at any time.
Fortunately, the news in this area is not all bad. It is gratifying to see the consensus that has developed among the public, Government and industry that the problem of hazardous
January 27, 1983

wastes must be attacked on a broad front, and soon. I am pleased that there are encouraging things to report as well.
Perhaps the easiest way to handle hazardous wastes is to ensure that they are not allowed to cause trouble in the first place. We would be well on the way toward conquering the hazardous waste problem if a proper program of monitoring toxics could be devised and instituted, with strict, so-called cradle-to-grave tracking of chemicals whose dangerous properties would be known and registered before a product came on the market, and with control systems set up to ensure that wastes are delivered only to authorized facilities. I am going to deal with that a little later in my discussion.
It is to this end that Canada strongly supports the chemical management program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, and we are a member of that body.
It is important to co-ordinate our tactics on the national level as well, and this is exactly what the Department of the Environment is trying to do. The proposed regulation under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act will require the development of necessary systems and administrative arrangements between the federal and provincial transportation and environmental agencies for controlling the movement of international and interprovincial shipments of hazardous waste. We have all seen what can happen when these hazardous wastes are transferred from city to city, from Province to Province or nation to nation, and we have such a mishap as we had in Mississauga just a few years ago with the derailment of one of the trains.
Another initiative that Environment Canada has taken is the establishment of our Toxic Chemicals Management Centre. Scientists here will oversee the identification and assessment of problems caused by toxics and recommend solutions. The primary purpose of the Centre is to draw up priorities and thereby influence the allocation of those resources. I am talking about people, equipment and money which we use to deal with toxics. For example, priority lists of key chemicals or waste streams will be regularly published and updated. The idea is to anticipate needs and not just to react to those terrible emergencies which will be facing us. With the help of this Centre, the Department of the Environment, Canada's Health and Welfare Department and certain other federal Departments will co-operate in monitoring, testing, research and control activities in air, water and other programs.
Nonetheless, we still have a long way to go on the score of public confidence. While it is true that the public has often been burned, so to speak, and that chemophobia is rampant- the fear of chemicals-it is probably impossible that unanimous consent to build a treatment facility, no matter how safe, could ever be obtained anywhere.
Now 1 direct myself to what do we do with the wastes we now have on our hands? Much could be done to tell the public of the great advances in the development of safe waste technology which have already been made. We have a lot to learn from the Europeans in this regard. The waste treatment centre in Nyborg, Denmark, for example, processes waste, recovers oil and solvents, safely incinerates combustible materials and
Supply
detoxifies inorganic wastes to the maximum extent possible. Its performance satisfies the most rigorous environmental and health standards, and the treatment centre is a welcome part of its community.
Within a one kilometre radius of that plant are a public beach, a park, a golf course and a residential neighbourhood. The plant is jointly owned by Government and industry and is integrated into a total system which includes the sites that produce the waste and a collection network. Such treatment centres could provide local employment and serve as magnets to attract industry, all in an environmentally safe manner. It is not at all utopian to speak of such facilities. They already exist and are already in service.
Some three weeks ago I had representatives of just such a company come to see me. Its head offices are located in the Niagara Peninsula, but it operates throughout Ontario and Canada. Its representatives explained what can be done with these hazardous wastes and how to dispose of them safely. I have set up a further interview with them and I am going to tour the plant in the very near future. I am happy this company is located in my area and I am happy it is giving us some of the answers that we so desperately need concerning the problem of waste management.
We have greatly increased our ability to recycle waste, and the capability to detoxify safely or incinerate hazardous waste is, for all practical purposes, right here and now, at hand. This is' a matter of will. Society must shoulder the burden of responsibility for the life style it demands, a life style made possible by chemicals.
One expert in the field has remarked that we have technical solutions for waste problems, but what we do not have are the social solutions. Everyone is in favour of a safe landfill site, but not in his or her home town. There is even a term for this attitude; perhaps Hon. Members have heard of it. It is called the NIMBY syndrome, which is short for "Not in my back yard". The NIMBY attitude will and must be overcome.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this attitude is all too understandable, especially given events of the type that have been going on in our own back yards, especially in the ridings of the Hon. Members for Erie, Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), as well as my own, that of Welland, which are here in Ontario and in the Niagara Basin. I am referring to cross-boundary pollution, since this is an area that is obviously a federal responsibility.
The chemical waste situation in the Niagara area, as was pointed out by the provincial member for Niagara Falls, Vince Kerrio, could well serve as a microcosm for the entire problem. One can recite the whole dreary litany that we have all come to know so well: disposal of toxic wastes in a manner that conformed to standard practice decades ago but has now proved to be grossly inadequate; lack of co-ordination between Government and industry planners; a public that feels it has been kept in the dark and is now embittered and rightly so;

January 27, 1983
Supply
constant and paralyzing wrangling over who is or is not at fault and who is to pay for the clean-up. I think the people of our area and across Canada have had their fill of that; the script has been all too predictable.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that three levels of Government are involved on each side of the border. When we have to bring this many groups together, we can see that the problems multiply accordingly.
The real tragedy in all this, of course, is that while lawyers argue over responsibility, and while debates about who is to pay drag on and on, the hazardous chemicals that have leached into the water table are constantly continuing their insidious work.

In Welland, in my riding, which is not as close to the Niagara River where all this is going on, a number of people from the riding are working on this problem. In fact, in Welland, our drinking water comes from the same river, and in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, plans are not enough. We must have action, based on what we know today, and we must do whatever is necessary to destroy the toxic wastes the river contains, which are causing illness in our area.

Take two examples. First, the Hyde Park landfill in Niagara Falls, New York. From 1953 to 1975, 80,000 tonnes of chemical wastes, including materials contaminated with dioxin, were deposited at this location. Dioxin has been detected in the sediments of the creek leading from the site to the Niagara River itself.
Second, the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant in New York which was mentioned by the Minister. This is a plant that began operation in December, 1977. Almost from the start it had serious problems, and its carbon absorption beds were taken out of operation after only six months. Because of this, effluent, both human and industrial, is discharged into the Niagara River after what I and many people believe to be inadequate treatment.
Regrettably, and I must say this to the Minister and to all colleagues in the House, the steps being taken to rectify the situation at the plant are proceeding much too slowly. Even if a decision were made tomorrow about what steps are to be taken to correct the situation, we still would not be out of the woods because an adequate plant would not be fully operational for at least two years after the first day remedial work began. Meanwhile, waste of every description is pouring into our waters. In its efforts to stay on top of the situation, Canada has asked repeatedly for assurance that the various water quality agreements will not be violated, and it has also asked for co-operation in monitoring the river so that we will be able to tell exactly what hazardous wastes are contaminating our waters.
The Department of the Environment staff actually did their own sampling for the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant. Environment Canada has had to invest an extraordinary amount of time and resources to maintain a watching brief on
the progress of these issues. Studies carried out in May, 1981 give us great cause for concern. They confirm that pollutants are not being adequately treated before discharge into the Niagara River. In all, 41 organic compounds and heavy metals were indicated in the samples taken. These include 25 priority pollutants named by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I do not mean to imply that we Canadians are guilt-free when it comes to polluting the Great Lakes with hazardous wastes. There are far too many sources of pollution on our side of the border as well. We must take the responsibility for what we have done to our Great Lakes and to our rivers. Nonetheless, it is a cold fact that, when all dischargers within the Niagara River's watershed are considered, the total United States point source discharge exceeds total Canadian discharge by more than two billion litres a day. Let me repeat that. The total U.S. point source discharge exceeds total Canadian discharge by more than two billion litres a day.
This is not acceptable. This cannot go on in this, one of the most highly populated areas of Canada. It cannot be allowed to go unchecked, and this applies to both sides of the border. I call upon the Minister, his cabinet colleagues as well as all my colleagues in the House to refrain from making this a partisan issue. This is a Canadian issue, one which all of us must address.
While we must be realistic in facing these facts, there is no need to give only the gloom and doom despair side of it. Environment Canada has established a firm foundation on which to base our efforts for effective waste management in the Niagara region. There are many precedents for fruitful international co-operation in the Great Lakes Basin. The recent consultations with the U.S. Government on the subject of dioxin provide but one example.
We have an effective monitoring and tracking program already in place and can analyze and track pollutants to their source with a great deal of precision. Laws are already on the books that can force polluters to clean up their act and manage hazardous waste in a responsible manner. Perhaps most important of all, the federal Government has demonstrated that it is willing, even anxious, to join with provincial and local Governments, and with the United States, in a co-ordinated effort to solve the crisis in waste management that so urgently confronts us.
I ask that all Members put aside bi-partisari ideas with regard to this pollution problem. I ask that we join together in asking, urging and demanding that our Minister and this Government act positively to solve this problem as soon as possible.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thought the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) was excellent and I hasten to compliment him on it. One issue that he dealt with was the treatment of hazardous waste, mentioning that
January 27, 1983

we have a lot to learn from the Europeans. 1 presume he is referring particularly to the Danish example at the Kom-munekemi plant near Nyborg.
Does the Hon. Member share with me the regret that we have to learn a lot from the Europeans in terms of handling hazardous wastes? Does he know of any country that would be more identified as having the responsibility for dealing with nuclear wastes than Canada?
I fail to understand why we are so far behind other countries when we should be a world leader in high technology regarding nuclear wastes. People from Denmark and other countries involved in this area should be coming here to see the Canadian example, rather than our having to go to Denmark to study the Danish example.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, 1 was referring to all pollutants. I will address myself directly to the problem posed by the Hon. Member with regard to nuclear wastes. However, I was also thinking of the wastes that they are taking out of their sewage system and how their water system has been recycled for a number of years. I believe that we have a great deal to learn from them in this area.
With regard to our nuclear waste, the Hon. Member knows that the Minister of State for Mines has a program under way to determine ways to take care of our nuclear wastes. Since we are the creators of the CANDU reactors and market them, I agree with the Hon. Member that we should be taking a lead role in using that nuclear waste, hopefully for the betterment of the people. 1 believe we should be looking for ways to use these wastes to our advantage rather than simply disposing of them. 1 hope that we take this into consideration in the future.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the Member on his comments. He gave a well deserved blast to the present Cabinet.
I would like him to comment on one of the points 1 raised in my speech, which is the fact that people in Ontario spend $50 million a year on cat food while nowhere near that amount is being spent in relation to the clean-up of the Great Lakes annually by the federal Government, either in studies or on sewage treatment funds. In the United States, where my real concern lies with respect to the Niagara problem, the EPA has put up $500,000 this year to take a look at all the dumping which occurs in the Niagara Escarpment.
As a result of the Hyde Park court decision and the present proposals concerning the evolution of the S-dump court process, does the Hon. Member not think that there is some further steps that Canada should and could be taking, either going to Congress or somehow motivating Americans who come to Canada, or by making a change to Canadian law? Does he think there is some way his Party can do more?
I agree that it should not be a partisan issue. All Members should be involved because it is a very serious issue. However, the money is not being put forward and the legislative protection is not being provided. In the United States, 68 per cent of the EPA's budget has been cut. They will not clean up the dumps at Niagara. The U.S. Government will not clean them
Supply
up. Has the Hon. Member of his Party thought about how they will be cleaned up, particularly in light of the amount that is being spent by Cabinet? I think that is a reflection of the concern shown by Cabinet on this serious issue.


Gilbert Parent: I will address myself to four points which were raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). First, he said that I was blasting the Minister. I was urging the Ministers. In urging them, I do not in any way try to downgrade what they have done. They have taken positive steps up to this point, but I am urging them to do more.
Second, unlike the Member for Skeena I am not an expert on cat food. I cannot debate whether people in Ontario spend $50 million on cat food and not as much to clean up the Great Lakes. I would hope that the provincial Government would address itself to that issue because the Province of Ontario borders on all of the Great Lakes. 1 am sure we are studying the problem federally.
With regard to the Hyde Park problem in the U.S. and our dealings with the Americans generally, I do not know if it was the Hon. Member who suggested that we tax Americans who come across the border in order to remind them that they are polluting our country. If he did, I dissociate myself from that view completely. I would venture to say that proportionately there are as many Canadians going to the United States as Americans coming here. It would simply create problems between the two countries that we do not need right now.
I would comment finally on the subject of working hand in glove with the United States. We are dealing with two democratic countries. We have always worked on the theory of advice and consent. I suggest it is to our great credit that we have been able to discuss our problems over the years and find solutions in an amicable way. I believe there is such a thing as moral arm-twisting. I would prefer that we be involved in this area of trying to convince our neighbours to the south that it is not only beneficial to us but to them to clean up one of the greatest treasures of the world, and I am talking specifically about the Great Lakes.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Skeena is aware that at the turn of the century more fish were caught in the five Great Lakes than were taken out of the ocean. We had an entire fishing fleet within the continent, and, God willing, it will return some day.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make. Like all my colleagues, I appreciate the concern which the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) has expressed. He hearkens back to the days when we were able to take these great numbers of fish out of the Great Lakes. I suggest that the thrust of his speech is compromised by his unwillingness to admit the culpability of the political Party and the Government which he has been associated with for so many years. If we want to really consider this problem, let us address it seriously and honestly and admit that the Party of which he has been a Member has been in Government, with only one small interruption, since 1963.

January 27, 1983
Supply
Many people and interested groups have been trying to bring this problem to the attention of his Party and Government since that time. They have been called doom-cryers and nay-sayers and have been accused of trying to frighten the people unnecessarily. The fact is that those people who have made it their business to know of these matters have been telling the Liberal Party and Liberal Governments about this for the last 20 years.


John (Moody) Roberts: It was 1975.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: People have been talking about environmental pollution and the toxic time bomb long before 1975. The fact that you think the problem only occurred in 1975 tells me something about how aware of the situation you are. I am addressing the Hon. Member who seems to be more concerned about it than you are.


John (Moody) Roberts: You do not know what you are talking about. Get the facts straight.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How does the Hon. Member explain why he does not give credit where credit is due, or in this case blame where blame is due?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, in this day and age people want to find a scapegoat and someone to blame. This involves taking the full responsibility, as the Government should, for whatever it has or has not done and, as the Hon. Member pointed out, taking the credit as well as the blame.
We do take credit for many of the things that were done with regard to trying to control this problem. To the extent that we were in power, we take as much blame as we should as the Government in power. I remind the Hon. Member that there was a time between 1972 and 1974 when the Hon. Member s Party actually had the run of the country, since there was a minority Government at that time. I ask the Hon. Member why this was not brought up at that time and why they did not force the issue.
I would accept whatever blame I must as a Member of Parliament, but I would also compliment the present Minister and the former Minister of the Environment for the work they have done so far. I encourage and urge them to continue that good work in attempting to rectify this problem once and for all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House will note that it is one o'clock. I have been advised that the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) may wish to seek the consent of the House to table a paper. Perhaps this should be done now since it is consistent with the discussion.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Members on both side of the House as well as the Minister and asked their agreement to table a task force report on the issue before the House at the present time. I believe I have their agreement, so I would seek unanimous consent to table this report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
The Chair will call it one o'clock. I might note that the Hon. Member for Beaches will be seeking the floor immediately following Question Period. The Hon. Member will be deemed to have been recognized before one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, last week under the provisions of Standing Order 21,1 mentioned a committee that was looking into the Crow rate and the Gilson Report. There is a great deal of discussion on this topic in Quebec at the present time, with many meetings-often for political reasons, although some people would disagree. In this connection, Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear that the Federal Quebec liberal caucus is taking a very close look at the Gilson Report and especially the changes in the Crow rate. Since the middle of August, the Quebec caucus has been taking an active interest in this subject, and many farm organizations and individuals are sending invitations to Federal Liberal Members in Ottawa, with a few day's notice, to a meeting to discuss the Gilson Report. However, I would like to remind the House and also our Quebec farmers that Federal Liberal Members would rather stay here in Ottawa to make sure that the decisions that are made will be in the best interests of Quebec.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
January 27, 1983______________________ COMMONS



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to a matter of utmost importance to many young people not only in my riding of Erie but, indeed, throughout the nation as well. We are all familiar with commercials on television sponsored by the Department of National Defence showing exciting action shots of the activities taking place in the Armed Forces today. Naturally, they have prompted many teenagers to go down to the recruiting offices with visions of adventurous careers in their mind. Imagine their surprise and disappointment when they are told that openings are few and they will have to join a long waiting list.
Such happenings bring two questions to mind. First, if there are few openings for new recruits, why spend thousands of dollars on expensive TV time only to entice hundreds of people who will be turned away? This is just another catastrophic waste of money by a debt-ridden Government. Does it not make sense, then, in a time of high unemployment, to allocate extra funding to the Department of National Defence, so that it can take on more young people, taking them off the unemployment rolls and starting them on the road to a new career?


Mrs. Appolloni:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Thank you for that support. Why waste a lot of time talking about job creation when we have a very legitimate way to create jobs by training more young men and women in the Armed Forces?
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crom-bie), has raised this subject three times in the last few weeks, and each time did not receive a satisfactory answer. This is a simple proposal and it deserves-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



CALL FOR REINSTATEMENT OF STANDING ORDER 43

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, this House settles most matters or issues by division. Such is the nature or foundation of the parliamentary system of Government. However, one of the most fundamental processes also used for action is unanimous consent of all Members of the House on matters falling within our constitutional bounds. This action by unanimous consent is perhaps the most fundamental basis of our democratic system of Government.
Equally vital, and perhaps the second most fundamental right and privilege of the House and its Members, is the ability to put before the House a matter of urgent and/or pressing
DEBATES	_________________22275
necessity for consideration and decision by the House. This fundamental privilege was enjoyed by Members of the House under Standing Order 43.
As a result of the new rules adopted by the House on an experimental basis for a one year trial period, Standing Order 43 has been superseded by Standing Order 21, permitting Members to make 90-second statements. These statements are not decision-oriented.
Madam Speaker, as a Member of this House 1 will do all I can to reinstate Standing Order 43 at the end of the one-year trial period and thus restore one of the most fundamental rights of Members of this House to put before it matters of urgent and/or pressing necessity.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Lalonde:: Good luck!


Mr. Deans:: Under Standing Order 43 he could not have done that.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in 1978 Soviet authorities decided to silence human rights and Jewish activist, Anatoly Shcharansky, by sentencing him to 13 years of imprisonment on a trumped-up charge of espionage. Since that time he has become a world-wide symbol of resistance to Soviet efforts to stamp out fundamental human rights.
1 am sure all Hon. Members of the House will join with me in calling on Secretary Andropov to release Mr. Shcharansky in the name of humanity, and allow him to join his wife in Israel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: On November 19 last this House unanimously expressed its concern for Mr. Shcharansky. Since October 22 the Government of Canada has, on four separate occasions, made representations to Soviet officials, in both Ottawa and Moscow, on behalf of Mr. Shcharansky. However, to date, his plight since commencing his hunger strike remains unknown, as prison officials have consistently refused to allow his mother and brother to visit him in prison.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be meeting with Mrs. Shcharansky today, and I am sure all Members of the House will indicate their interest in Anatoly Shcharansky's well-being and assure Mrs. Shcharansky that we stand solidly behind her in her crusade to free her husband.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 27, 1983



S.O. 21 EXCISE TAX

[Stage Direction]
exemption urged for charitable organizations
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the federal Government has refused the rescind its excise tax on publications distributed by the Canadian Cancer Society and other charities. As a result, between $50,000 and $100,000 a year in donations to the Canadian Cancer Society will go to the Government rather than to research and education, which is what the Society is all about in the first place.
I am concerned about the statement that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) made whereby he made it appear as though the excise tax was confined to imported materials. In actual fact the Society informed the Minister on March 12, 1982, that an estimated 90 per cent of the problems of the Canadian Cancer Society relate to federal sales tax on Canadian produced materials rather than imports. Clearly, the Minister is misinformed and, as a result of that misinformation, the volunteers who are the backbone of the Society continue to have an added burden which could be lightened if the federal Government would move in this matter.
I ask the Government to respond to this request. Specifically, I ask it to pass an immediate remission order which would exempt Canadian charities, including the Canadian Cancer Society, from federal sales tax on Canadian produced materials, or to effect such a change in the budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) this spring.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, Members of the House and the Government know that the North American market essentially establishes prices for farm commodity products and, more precisely, that Canadian products such as corn and soy beans find their prices set on the Chicago market. Input costs in Canada are essentially exactly the same as those of the American producers, and find themselves, in large instance, established by the prices of inputs such as sprays and fertilizers which have natural gas or petroleum as their base.
A few years ago the border was closed to Canadian farmers importing those products, in order to try to help create a Canadian industry. Without reflecting on whether or not that cause has been established, and whether that end has been met, we now find that U.S. prices for those input costs, particularly fertilizers and herbicide sprays, have been going down dramatically over the last year, whereas in Canada the same companies are producing the same products for Canadian farmers at the maintained high prices without seeing any fall. It is time that a message go from this House and this Government to those companies to indicate that Canadian producers must have equality, and that prices must fall or the border will be reopened.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address the House on an important matter to which reference has already been made by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), that is, in connection with Anatoly Shcharansky.
Mr. Shcharansky has been in prison for six years, a large part of it in solitary confinement and, worse, in the confinement of a punishment cell. He has endured the ravages of a hunger strike, the pain of forced feeding, and the deprivation of any human contact with his family, particularly with his aged and ill mother who, herself, has undergone many hardships in her vain attempts to see her son.
I would urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to appeal on behalf of the Government, Parliament and the people of Canada, directly to the Leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. Andropov, that Mr. Shcharansky's case be reconsidered on humanitarian grounds and that the Soviet Union see fit to allow Shcharansky his freedom and permission to join his wife outside the Soviet Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIR TRANSPORT


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, yesterday when I was cut off I was in the middle of an important statement on the licensing of northern commercial air carriers. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that my presentation was pre-timed to 90 seconds precisely, as required by Standing Order 21.
However, it took five seconds for the microphone to be turned on. I then had to wait another five seconds for a certain racket emanating from the unruly Members of the NDP to subside. Another five seconds were stolen from me by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with certain needless, extraneous remarks. Therefore, it is sad to relate that I was unceremoniously gonged right in the middle of my presentation. Never mind, Madam Speaker, today you are privileged to hear the second thrilling instalment.
I was saying that because of the Air Transport Committee system, healthy competition is turned into backbiting complaints and niggling legal manoeuvres. I therefore suggest that the Air Transport Committee institute a streamlined licensing procedure for the smaller northern operators, exchanging excessive protection for the ability to initiate a new or improved service in a timely manner.

January 27, 1983


Madam Speaker:: I just want to tell the Elon. Member that the timing is done very carefully. If he feels that he could not finish his presentation, it was probably because he gave it slower than when he timed it in his office. Things are done very carefully here.


Ian Deans: See what you have done, you have cost us 15 seconds!



INCOME TAX


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, Canadians continue to protest recent irresponsible statements by the Minister responsible for the status of women. Her call for the elimination of tax exemptions for spouses would cause financial hardships for families, older couples, and single parents. Poor women would be deprived of benefits because they pay no income tax. It is not too late for the Minister to apologize publicly for her insulting putdown of women who contribute to society through their unpaid work in the home and the community.
The New Democratic Party believes there must be tax reforms to benefit low and middle-income families. Highest income earners must pay their fair share. This would provide funds for tax credits and increased family allowances. We ask that a major review of federal income programs and tax benefits for families be undertaken to determine the most equitable means of paying compensation to the principal parenting person. Benefits should be adjusted to family needs, whether or not the parent works in or out of the home. Women must have choices with access to jobs and to affordable child care.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Andre Bachand (Missisquoi):: Madam Speaker, Quebec apple growers have suffered tremendous losses in their orchards as a result of unfavourable weather conditions during the winter of 1980-1981. A study made in August, 1982 by Agriculture Canada showed that 31 per cent of our standard apple trees died, which means 291,000 trees. Although all apple producing areas in Quebec were affected, the number of apple growers who were severely affected was highest in the orchards north of Montreal and around Missisquoi.
On December 15, 1982, representatives of the Federation des producteurs de pommes du Quebec had a meeting in Ottawa with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the various agricultural
Oral Questions
organizations concerned, and submitted a complete file on the losses suffered by the Canadian apple-growing industry as a result of unfavourable weather conditions during the winter of 1980-81.
Madam Speaker, our apple growers hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will soon make a decision in their favour, providing urgently needed financial assistance and thus preventing a number of bankruptcies.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Bow River Gas Co-op in Alberta, with some 600 members, covers approximately 2,300 square miles, has 180,000 acres under irrigation, and 60,000 acres of dryland farming. The burden placed on these farmers by the National Energy Program and federal taxes is an excellent illustration of why the farmers of Canada are so depressed, and of why more than 400 farmers went bankrupt last year.
Farming and the high cost of energy go hand in hand. This Co-op irrigates 180,000 acres by mechanical means with the use of natural gas; 27,000 tons of fertilizer produced by natural gas were used on 240,000 acres, and the tax on the natural gas used was $1,134,000,000. In addition, the Co-op paid the federal Government $270,000. The Canadian Western Natural Gas Company, which supplied part of the area with natural gas, paid the federal Government $513,000 in direct taxes. All of these federal taxes have to be added to the cost of production, plus the provincial and municipal taxes, with the result that there will be more and more farm bankruptcies and less production as farmers will not be able to fertilize their land. If the Liberal Government is sincere in wanting to keep food plentiful and our farms in operation, it better be realistic and remove this excessive tax on natural gas.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It relates to Crown Trust, Seaway Trust and Mortgage, and Greymac Trust and Mortgage. The Minister admitted outside the House last week, or possibly the week before, that he, his predecessor, or the Government was aware for over a year that problems existed with respect to the operations of these companies, including Seaway and Greymac Mortgage Company, two

Oral Questions
companies for which the federal Government and the Minister have a direct and exclusive responsibility.
Upon learning over a year ago of problems existing in the operations of these two companies, what action did the Minister or his predecessor take in order to minimize or mitigate the potential losses that could be suffered by Canadians who had dealings with either these two mortgage companies or their associated trust companies?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I attempted, in response to a question similar to the one the Hon. Member has asked today, to point out the responsibility that I exercise as a designated person under the federal Loans Companies Act. Under that Act when the superintendent becomes alarmed about a particular company, there is a process whereby the superintendent reports to the Minister. If the Minister shares that concern, under Section 73(1 )(2) of the Act he is required to give an opportunity to the principals of the companies involved, in this case Seaway Mortgage Company and Greymac Mortgage Company, of responding to the problems that are identified by the superintendent.
I have indicated that at the present time I am in the process of receving submissions from the principals of these companies. I must make a decision after they have completed their submissions. Only at that time will I really have had a full opportunity to assess whether in fact there are grounds for misgivings or difficulties in those companies. I repeat, at this time it is not possible under the law in a practical way to answer the hon. gentleman in specifics.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, we have been trying unsuccessfully for over two weeks to find out what action was taken over a year ago when this was first brought to the attention of the Government. With respect to the trust companies for which the Minister has a responsibility in terms of the Canada Deposit Insurance Company, did he or his predecessor, as the Minister responsible for CDIC, initiate or participate in discussions with the Province of Ontario regarding the operations of the three trust companies upon learning a year ago that there may have been some problems or irregularities within those three trust companies or anv of them?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the difficulty in attempting to respond to the question of the hon. gentleman is as a result of the fact, as I am sure he must know, that the trust companies which are under the control of the provincial Government now, which are subject to special legislation of the provincial Government, either have common directorships with the companies for which the federal Government is responsible or, indeed, have shared joint projects with the companies for which I have
January 27, 1983
responsibility, and for which those hearings are now under way. It is again practically, legally and, I submit, morally impossible for me to keep these five companies distinct and separate. Therefore it is not possible to respond in specifics to the Hon. Member's question.
When the principals have had an opportunity of responding to difficulties identified by the superintendent, when I have exercised the responsibility which is given to me specifically under the legislation, then, and only then, would I be in a position to respond in detail.


William Herbert Jarvis: What I am trying to find out is not the details of the exercise of responsibility. I am trying to find out if the responsibility was ever exercised.


ACTION TAKEN BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, with respect to the legislation creating the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Act, Section 11 (g), gives them power, and I quote: ... to make or cause to be made such inspections of a member institution as may be". It not only gives them power to investigate, but Section 12 then says that the Corporation shall not only have the power to investigate but may have the power under Part II of the Inquiries Act in conducting the investigation.
If the Government knew, or the Minister or his predecessor, over a year ago of the problems or irregularities of Crown, Greymac, and Seaway, all member institutions to which this Act and the powers of investigation apply, why was nothing done? And if something was done, what, and when during this past year?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, indeed I have indicated that the Superintendent of Insurance of Canada, a member of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, has indicated publicly that a number of steps were taken with respect to those companies which fall under his direct jurisdiction. I will repeat for the third time that I cannot go into the specifics of those because it would not be fair to the people who are the owners of the companies.
It would not be fair in justice, or in anybody's sense of justice, to have public debate while in effect a hearing is under way. More than that, the Province of Ontario is conducting an intensive investigation of Crown Trust, Greymac Trust, and Seaway Trust, and the papers are full of all of these things. For me to add, or attempt to expand upon the information which is coming from the Province, would not be very useful at this time at all.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the
question put by my friend, the Hon. Member for Perth, was a very simple one; it was "when". That question has not been answered. It would seem not to add to any confusion to answer that question. The Minister has the information. He should answer it.
January 27, 1983


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION-BORROWING POWERS
Walter David Baker: I have another set of questions I want to ask the Minister, Madam Speaker. Press reports today indicate a federal liability of approximately $100 million in deposit insurance for Crown Trust. Why then has the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation been permitted, by an Order in Council dated January 7, 1983, to borrow up to $500 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? What is this money to be used for? How many other trust companies does the Government expect to collapse, and if it does not, why was this borrowing for the first time taken to the full limit?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would have hoped that the action taken by this Government recently to indicate that it recommended and supported the increase of deposit insurance coverage from $20,000 to $60,000 would have alerted the Hon. Member to the fact that the Government, out of prudence, would have to ensure that the fund, which is responsible and is the basis for that kind of protection, had some kind of infusion or extra protection, if a case warranted. I would further draw the attention of the Hon. Member to the Bill which was tabled in this House to effect that. This Bill, which is public knowledge and has been public knowledge, which I hope will be supported by the Hon. Member and his Party, of course, has to take into account that additional potential risk involved.
It is simply a matter that if the people of Canada through their elected representatives, both Conservatives and Liberals, have urged the Government and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to increase its coverage of the risk in order to protect Canadian depositors, it only follows that that Fund has to be adjusted to meet those kinds of risks. I would hope we have support from the Hon. Member for that move.


CORPORATION'S DEBT
Walter David Baker: It is implicit in the hon. gentleman's answer that, first, there are no other trust companies which this Government expects to collapse, and that is the question which I asked. It is also implicit that the funds are just to deal with the amount of money with respect to the problems which are presently facing depositors.
Section 37 of the Act allows the Corporation a total outstanding debt to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of not more than $500 million. Could the Minister tell the House how much is outstanding at the moment, and does that amount include what will be borrowed to bail out Crown Trust?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question really reflects the difficulty of following rumours and newspaper reports about the problems which have given rise to all this publicity, namely, the legislation in the Ontario provincial House. This Government has not said that Crown Trust will be a claim on the fund. I hope that there will be no claims against the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as a result of any of these matters. It is my hope also that the Province of Ontario
Presence in Gallery
will soon be able to resolve those difficulties. I believe that the sooner this matter is brought to a head and resolved, it will be to the benefit not only of those depositors but of other people who must have some misgivings as a result of the very question asked by the hon. gentleman.
I have no knowledge if there is a claim by Crown Trust or with respect to Crown Trust. I hope there is not, but, again, I can only repeat my last answer that if the insurance is to be increased to $60,000, then the Government, out of prudence, and the Corporation with actuarial advice, has to move to a higher limit.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL AUDIT OF CORPORATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act allows the Auditor General to audit annually the accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation. In fact it says he shall . Is it the intention of the Government to have a chat with the Auditor General, and the officers of the CDIC, to see whether or not, given the real dearth of information which we have experienced here in this House as a result of the problems of the trust companies which have been the subject of discussion for two weeks, a special audit could be made of that Corporation so that, with respect to the affairs of that Corporation, Hon. Members of this House can have a greater idea of what has happened than they have yet received from any Minister of the Crown in the federal Government?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. gentleman would have the opportunity to explore that kind of question during debate and consideration of the Bill which is before the House, which is a Bill to increase the coverage from $20,000 to $60,000 for each depositor. The hon. gentleman can rest assured that all of the officers of the Crown associated with the Company, the Minister of Finance and officials, of course, had to review this very type of question in preparation for the submission of that Bill to the House, which asks for an increase of the deposit insurance limit, and also asks that the amount of call which the Corporation could make on the Government be increased. All of that information will be available to the Hon. Member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MRS. AVITAL SHCHARANSKY, WIFE OF SOVIET HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST, ANATOLY SHCHARANSKY
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of Mrs. Avital Shcharansky, the wife of Anatoly Shcharansky, who is a prisoner in the Soviet Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 27, 1983
Oral Questions


BROADCASTING
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. For the last three weeks the Minister and the Chairman of the CRTC have played ping-pong with the very serious issue of sexual violence, stereotyping and degradation of women over Pay TV. All of us realize that broadcasting is a federal matter, but we have reached the ludicrous position where the federal Government and federal regulators and policy makers refuse to take responsibility for what is going on.
The CRTC Chairman's non-solution is that he will get together a group of the producers of porn and they will regulate themselves. To make matters worse, the Commission's draft regulations on Pay TV do not contain the protection which now exists for AM and FM Radio or broadcasting, dealing with indecent or profane material, and the protection of minority groups.
My question is simply this. Is it the Government's policy, through its inaction, to give tacit approval to a pornographic television industry in Canada? If not, then what does the Minister intend to do about it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I really wonder where the Hon. Member has been for the last week and a half. On a number of occasions Members on this side of the House, and a Member of his own caucus, have raised the question time and time again. We, as a Government, indicated very real concern, and we also indicated a number of steps which could possibly be taken. Therefore I am really quite delighted that yesterday afternoon the CRTC issued a public statement calling for all Pay TV licensees to come in and meet with them to examine this whole question and establish guidelines.
Furthermore, the statement indicates quite clearly that they are reviewing proposed Pay Television network regulations, taking into account concerns expressed relating to sexual exploitation. They go on to say that they subscribe to the philosophy expressed in the recommendation made by the task force on sex role stereotyping to the CRTC, notably Section 3, which includes the statement that the Commission should also discourage the portrayal of gratuitous violence against women and expect Pay Television licensees to do the same.
If the Hon. Member reads the public notice issued yesterday by the Chairman of the CRTC, or the press release issued at that time, I think it is quite clear that the CRTC is very much concerned about some of the developments aired in this House by Members on both sides, and is indeed taking the action it ought to take under the Broadcasting Act.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is so much a question of where this Hon. Member has been for a week. I was working, on a parliamentary tour with a parliamentary
committee, and was unable to be here. I think the real question is where has the Minister been on this whole issue? That is the essential question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, since protection against violence, and degradation of women, bigotry, and racism, exist in the AM and FM regulations, I would like to know why the Minister is willing to slough off this very serious matter on a regulatory body which, on the one hand, says it is going to do something about it, and on the other hand says it does not have the power to do very much about it. When does the Minister intend to introduce parallel broadcasting legislation in this House so that we will not have some bunch of bureaucrats telling us what we can watch or not watch, and so that the Parliament of Canada can express itself on this very serious matter?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I am indeed willing to take into consideration the fact that the Hon. Member was on tour and he missed the furor caused across the country by the decision of First Choice to go ahead with some of the programming he mentionned. I would like to point out to him that, after a good deal of consultation with Members of the House, including obviously Members on this side but also with Members of the Hon. Member's own caucus, the matter was indeed brought to the floor a number of times in the course of the past week.
I would also point out to the Hon. Member that the CRTC does indeed operate under the Broadcasting Act, particularly under Section 3 which indicates quite clearly that the first responsibility for programming content rests on the licence holders themselves. That means the Broadcasting Act expects licence holders to act in a responsible fashion. If they do not, then the CRTC has the power to call them in, as the CRTC has done.


Mark Willson Rose: When? Never!


Francis Fox: I would also point out to the Hon. Member that the Act was passed with the unanimous consent of this House including Members of his own Party.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he awake?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Mr. Benjamin:: Old clean Gene, running for leadership of the Tories.
January 27, 1983

IMr. Nystrom: Well, if he wants to run for leader, perhaps he can give me a straight answer to this question.
In the 1980 election campaign the Liberal Party and the Minister of Agriculture made a promise to the farmers that they would change valuation day for capital gains on farmland from 1971 to 1974, and then index that to reflect inflation in the cost of farmland. I would like to ask the Minister the following question, and I hope he will be serious, cut the bull for once, and tell us why the Liberal Party has not fulfilled the promise it made in 1980, and whether or not it is his intention to keep that campaign promise before he is so rightfully defeated in the next election?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we can expect a decision on that soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the shortest answer I have ever heard you give.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS CHEMICALS THROUGH PORT OF VANCOUVER
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who will know that a great deal of controversy and public concern have been created in the Vancouver area by conclusions contained in a Master's degree thesis concerning liquid petroleum gas tanker safety in the Port of Vancouver. He should also be aware that his officials in Vancouver have dismissed out of hand the method of inquiry and the findings of the report, even though the Harbour Master admits he has only glanced at the thesis.
Have the Minister's officials had time to undertake a more detailed study of the points raised in the thesis, and can the people of Vancouver expect a federal inquiry into the handling and transportation of all dangerous chemicals to and from the Port, as well as within its boundaries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, let me first say that in the last two years in the Port of Vancouver about one million tonnes a year have been handled without an accident. I am talking about chemical goods, of course. Secondly, this MA thesis will probably be more read than any MA thesis in the history of the country. The Department will be examing some aspects of it. They are re-examining now, for example, the speed in the port and the tug assistance and matters of this kind brought out in the thesis to which my hon. friend is referring.
I would like to underline, and I will send him a letter on the subject, the number of regulations, and administrative and physical measures that exist in the Port of Vancouver concerning the transportation of dangerous goods. I repeat that we
Oral Questions
have not had an accident-cross my fingers-in the last two years in this type of transportation.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, I must compliment the Minister of Transport. That is perhaps the most satisfactory answer he has ever given me to any question dealing with the Port of Vancouver in my history of almost four years in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS PARTICIPATE IN CITY INQUIRY
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, Mayor Harcourt will be making a recommendation to Vancouver City Council to set up a joint task force to look into LPG shipments in the port. In view of the fact that an accident in that port could involve damage to over 500,000 people, can the Minister give this House of Commons the assurance that his officials will participate in that Vancouver City Council inquiry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am aware of a number of these inquiries which have taken place, but I am not aware of this particular one. If there is a purpose to be served in respect of safety by joining such groups, my hon. friend can be assured that the Department will do so.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Recently the Minister told the House of Commons that he is studying whether the country's anti-pornography laws need to be strengthened. I should like to ask the Minister what changes, if any, he would propose to these laws, given that pornographic material is not only "obscene" but also encourages dangerous trends in a society already prone to violent crimes? Also, given the recent trends in such cities as Toronto, where there has been a tremendous increase in sexual assaults, would it not be prudent to tighten the definition of obscenity as requested in the report of the Justice Sub-Committee on Pornography, and also to provide an explicit definition of pornography?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, we are indeed looking at the definition of pornography. As he also said, some years ago the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-which I recall I chaired and the Hon. Member participated in-recommended that the concept of degradation of the human person be added

January 27, 1983
Oral Questions
to the Criminal Code. Naturally, that is one of the possible revisions to the Code that is under consideration.
At the same time I think I should say that we believe that the actual definition in the Criminal Code is much more serviceable than is often realized. It quite often happens that provincial attorneys general fail to take full advantage of it. There is no better example of this than the one that has come up many times in the House, having to do with videotapes in British Columbia. As a result of our insistence that the Criminal Code is adequate for that purpose as presently constituted, the Attorney General of British Columbia has finally taken action in a number of cases, and the issue is now before the courts.


HOUSING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and deals with an extension of the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program to December 31, 1983, for certain northern areas of Canada. It is my belief that the extension and the boundaries set by the Government discriminate against western Canada. For example, in Quebec the north-south limit is the 48th parallel, in Ontario it is the 46th parallel, and in Manitoba it is the 55th parallel. What the Minister and his Corporation are saying is that Flin Flon, Manitoba, at the 54th parallel, is in southern Canada, while Sudbury and other communities on the Canada-U.s! border are in northern Canada. Will the Minister tell the House why this Program discriminates against western Canadians living in the North?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I do not have a map in front of me, but the fact is that these changes, made at the request of some Members of this House on all sides, were the subject of considerable examination. I will ask for a re-examination of them and, if a case can be made, I will be very happy to change them. 1 certainly do not intend to discriminate against anyone.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He may know that B.C. Coal Resources in Sparwood, British Columbia, has announced a total shutdown for six weeks now, and for another month during the
summer. That means that 1,500 workers will face temporary layoffs and 400 workers have been given an indefinite layoff.
At the same time as these layoffs are happening because of lack of markets, the federal Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars opening up new coal projects in northeastern British Columbia. Could the Minister give the workers and the communities in southeastern British Columbia his assurance that he will protect their jobs by permitting the southeastern coal projects to supply the markets until such time as they approach their production capacities?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government of Canada does not decide which country buys coal and from whom. 1 think it is important that the Hon. Member recognize that the Government of Canada substantially assisted British Columbia in developing the northeast coal mines.
The major customers for British Columbia coal are in the Pacific Rim countries, particularly Japan. Production in the steel industry all around the world is down, consequently the biggest customers have cut back on supplies. I wish we had control over the market. I wish we could make an order, but I am not aware that we control the Japanese steel industries or can tell them where to buy their coal.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration but I shall direct it to his competent Parliamentary Secretary. The work-sharing program has had fantastic success in Canada. Having been successful, some of the corporations and unions involved asked that the time frame be extended. That request has been acceded to. Now, over the winter period some firms are asking for a further extension that will carry them over the tough winter period. Will the Department look into the possibility of extending that particular program which is bringing terrific benefits to areas all across the country?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the work sharing program has indeed been very successful in this country, especially if we consider the present state of the economy. The Department of Employment and Immigration is looking at all possible ways of keeping the maximum number of Canadians employed. The program is now being analyzed. With other members of Cabinet, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be giving this matter careful study, and he will be making a decision very shortly.
January 27, 1983


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will know that the income tax forms have gone out to millions of Canadians. A directive has also gone out from the departmental offices to the effect that no rebates will be paid until, perhaps, the middle of May, due to the changes that might be made in the Income Tax Act through Bill C-139. In view of the fact that the Government is just starting to debate that Bill and that there have been suggestions that it intends to make 100 changes, does the Minister have any intention of sending directives to taxpayers to assure them that they will not have to fill out the present income tax form and then, at some later date, have to change it?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, on a previous occasion, the House was informed of the fact that Revenue Canada district directors had advised all Hon. Members that T-l forms had been mailed, and that most Canadian taxpayers had probably received them. Hon. Members were also invited to advise people who had any questions to complete their T-l forms as soon as possible and return them to the Department. It was also pointed out, as the Hon. Member mentioned, that refunds could not be sent out until the Bill to amend certain provisions of the Income Tax Act was passed in the House. Departmental officials believe they will be able to proceed with analyzing tax returns reasonably soon, which means that taxpayers would be receiving their refunds within a reasonable length of time. Furthermore, since the standing committee has already finished its preliminary studies of the Bill, I am convinced that the House will be in a position to pass the legislation amending the Income Tax Act without causing any delay in sending out the cheques.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF FILING DATE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, ordinarily Canadian taxpayers would be starting to send in their income tax form immediately. There has been a delay of almost a month already. There is always a period of congestion when those forms are made out, and this puts an extra-heavy load on accountants who do the job for the taxpayer.
I wonder if the Minister and his Department are giving consideration to telling the Canadian people that they will have another month or two, or whatever is required-whatever is taken off the original period-until the Bill is passed. In that way they would know, when making out their income tax forms, on what basis they were doing it.
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, at this very moment we can assume that the vast majority of taxpayers have received their T-l or T-2 forms and have already started to complete their tax returns. In fact, many Canadians, owing to the Government's generosity when it brought down its last budget, will be entitled to higher tax refunds than last year. In fact they are rushing to complete their T-l forms. I do not think that circumstances warrant extending the deadline. The T-l and T-2 forms are actually going to reach the Department very soon, and we shall then make every effort to expedite analysis of the returns and send out the cheques as soon as possible.


RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who has been trying to get a consensus from farm organizations to change the statutory grain rates, and resting his whole case on getting a consensus because the Prime Minister said the Crow rates would not be changed without a consensus. I would like to ask the Minister, since whatever consensus he thought he had collapsed around his ears last week, and since farm organizations could not agree with either the Gilson, the Snavely or the Argue proposals, all of which are no good, does the Minister intend to proceed to announce a plan based on either of these proposals, or does he plan to announce something different? Further, how can he make any announcement when he has no consensus?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if our hon. friend has a bit of time this afternoon he might look back at what the Prime Minister said on the subject. The Prime Minister, and I have checked chapter and verse of this bible, has said repeatedly that he would not contemplate a change to the Crow unless the people of the west wanted to change the Crow.
My hon. friend has just said that the different votes in the West were on whether it should be the Gilson-Snavely formula, or the Argue formula. He has not said that there has not been a vote on not changing the Crow, there has not been a vote in favour of maintaining the Crow, and that is of the essence.
To answer the last part of the Hon. Member's question on the subject, following the decision of Cabinet yesterday, I will be in a position to make an announcement on the Government's plan on Tuesday in Winnipeg.

January 27, 1983
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


LOSS OF JOBS AT CANADIAN FORCES BASE COMOX, B.C.
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It pertains to the loss of approximately 474 jobs from CFB Comox. As the Minister knows, the devastation in the forest industry has caused a great deal of economic dislocation, as well as the announcement recently that we are going to lose approximately an additional 474 paycheques from the valley. There was also a statement made yesterday that there may be a reduction in Search and Rescue.
Could the Minister indicate that he would be prepared to meet with representatives and officials from the Comox Valley, looking for some possible offsets on this matter, and could he also indicate whether his Parliamentary Secretary was correct in indicating that with the removal of 409 Squadron we may see a slight reduction in Search and Rescue efforts there?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, on the question of Comox I believe my Parliamentary Secretary answered the question very ably yesterday, and what he said was true. Yesterday we issued a communique on this fact because we did not want false rumours circulating, speculation on what was going to happen in Comox because of the phasing out of the Voodoo 101, which made it necessary for us to modify the configuration of our deployment for the air defence of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: For strategic reasons.


Mr. Lamontagne:: For strategic reasons, there is no doubt about it. Despite the fact that the consequence will be a reduction of 450 people in the strength of the base, I would like to stress that only 17 of those 450 are civilians; the rest are strictly military people. We already have had the commander of the base meet the people of the community there to explain to them what will happen, and to ensure that if we can be of any help to them in trying to supplement in some ways that they might feel would compensate, we are ready to discuss that. If those people want to come and see me here I will be very glad to receive them. By the same token, if I am out west at a certain point in time, I will be very glad to meet them then also.
As far as search and rescue is concerned, there is no diminution of the capabilities of Comox.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It follows on questions posed earlier in the week with regard to the ongoing dialogue between this Minister and the Minister in
the United States on the pollution problem in the Niagara region.
In view of the fact that the S-area dump is established in New York State adjacent to the Niagara region and in view of the fact that it is alleged that there is leaching into the Niagara River, would the Minister, give an undertaking to visit this site along with his senior officials and the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls, so that they may ascertain firsthand if there is a danger from this leaching further polluting the waters of the Niagara River?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, In fact I had planned to make such a visit last Monday but the local concerned group, Operation Clean, since I had offered to take part in fund raising activities on its behalf, gave me some indication that it would like to delay the visit until it is actively organized. I would be very happy to give the Hon. Member that undertaking and to involve him and other Members of the House in such a visit. I already have projected it, and as soon as we can arrange a suitable date I will be back in touch with him.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, this is supplementary, and directed to the Minister of the Environment. Based on the evidence already known about the problem within the Niagara River, and particularly arising from the chemical leaching from waste dumps in New York State, 1 think the last thing that this particular problem needs is another visit from the Minister. What this particular problem needs is some direct political action.
I would like to ask the Minister whether on his visit he would also contact the Governor of New York State, and ask him for a meeting where Canada's real concerns in this matter can be properly expressed in a political way rather than in a public relations way, as the Minister has just indicated he is willing to do?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am really surprised. If there is anybody who has been leaping on bandwagons in the hopes of catching newspaper headlines in this issue, it is the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Just this morning they were urging us to undertake stronger efforts, to develop visits and meetings on the part of myself and other Members, and now he says that those visits are no longer needed. I wish the NDP Members would talk to each other and get themselves straight on something other than their simple desire to garner newspaper headlines.
As I have already indicated, I will be happy to get in touch with anyone, including the Governor of New York.


An Hon. Member:: Always too late, anyway.
January 27, 1983


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ARRANGE MEETING
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. This kind of question will not be resolved by the Minister engaging in political putdowns of Opposition Members who are attempting to find a resolution to the problem. It is time that the Minister started to become political with the people who can directly resolve this question. I ask the Minister again will he attempt to set up a meeting with the Governor of New York State, so that we can come to some rational and reasonable solution of this particularly serious problem? 1 ask him again, yes or no?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome any rational or reasonable approach coming from the NDP, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would sit down rather quietly and discuss the matter with the Hon. Member for Skeena who, this morning, was lashing around accusing politicians not only on both sides of the House but on both sides of the border of corruption, and of being bought off. If that is not playing superficial, emotional, disruptive and irresponsible politics, 1 do not know what it is. I wish they would get together, be rational and reasonable and constructive, but I am not going to hold my breath.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 26, 1983 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling a report on collective bargaining for employees of Parliament, in both official languages.
Business of the House
[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker,
1 have the honour of presenting a petition of behalf of my constituents. The purpose of the petition signed by 941 citizens from my riding is to request that the minimum age in order to be eligible for Old Age Security benefits be brought down to 60 years. The nature of this petition is to request that the House enact the appropriate legislation. The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order and give full weight to the urgency and strong commitment of their plea, so that the Government will accept it.



POINT OF ORDER


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Chair be kind enough to explain the rationale behind the allocation of questions in today's question period? I was of the understanding that the ratio between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party was normally three to one. Today, the ratio appears to have been made on the basis of the number of Members of each Party present in the House.
It is quite obvious, as a result of the Winnipeg convention, that there are not many members of the Progressive Conservative Party here. However, I wonder whether a precedent has been created this afternoon whereby questions are to be allocated on the basis of the number of Members of each Party in the House present at the time?


Madam Speaker:: The only rationale that applies is the privilege of the Speaker to recognize Members the Speaker wishes to recognize. However, the Hon. Member must realize, considering the number of Members of each Party in the House today, that, some kind of shifting had to take place.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1983
Order Paper Questions
pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 with regard to the allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), and that, therefore, at the next sitting of the House 1 shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister has the right to do that if she wishes to, certainly. 1 am not quarrelling with that. I have some doubts as to whether she should or not, but that is her prerogative.
My recollection was that the Government's order of business had to do with the tax bill at the first of the week. That is a recollection of mine, which may be imperfect. Is it the intention of the Government to bring on the tax bill as has been announced, or will the order of business be changed so that we will be dealing with Bill C-131 on the Old Age Security payments?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the tax bill will be dealt with at 11 o'clock on Monday. In the event the motion of which the Minister has given notice were to be moved, it would not be moved until we reached "Motions" on the Order Paper, which would be Monday afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, let me be clear and put the question another way to make it easier for my friend. Is it the intention of the Government to move the motion at three o'clock on Monday?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not want to make a commitment, but I believe that is the most likely probability.
because of program changes, an additional 15,000 revised copies were printed.
(b)	(i) and (ii) The total cost of production, including federal and provincial taxes amounted to $1,461.68. Printing costs including federal and provincial taxes amounted to $3,001.23 for the original printing and $2,064.35 for the second printing.
(c)	(i) and (ii) The same consideration was given to the development and presentation of this consumer program promotional item as is given to others produced for CMHC programs. The two colours were used because green is the program identification colour and black is the most legible colour. This is the only promotional consumer item used exclusively for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program in rural areas. Because it is referred to frequently, reused, hung on walls and kept on desk tops, the information sheet was laminated to protect it from wear and tear.
(d)	The cost of producing this same sheet using a non-gloss, black and white format is estimated at approximately $1,243.68, including federal and provincial taxes, plus approximately $2,100 and $1,700 (including federal and provincial taxes), respectively, for the initial printing of 15,000 copies and the reprinting of 15,000 copies.


REVENUE FROM TAXES ON GASOLINE
Mr. Mitges: Since the introduction of the National Energy Program and the signing of the Energy Pricing Agreement with the producing Provinces, how much revenue has the Government received from taxes at both the well head and the pump?


Pierre Bussières: Following are the amounts collected between October, 1981 and September, 1982.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Excise tax on gasoline Marketable pipeline gas Canadian ownership increase (gas) Natural gas liquids
Canadian ownership increase (gas liquids) Petroleum and gas tax collections Resource royalties tax collection
520,316,336.52
1,068,146,927.64
258,362,273.15
121,157,160.48
22,623,491.69
1,488,516,548.60
113,879,471.88
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of	Total	$ 3.593,002.209.96
the Privy Council): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,504, 4,508, 4,519, 4,586, 4,598
and 4,636.	Canada labour code-ministerial permits
Mr. Stewart: Did CMHC produce an information sheet entitled "Highlights" for homeowners in rural areas regarding the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) and, if so (a) how many of the sheets were printed (b) what was the total cost of (i) production (ii) printing (c) what were the reasons, if any, for using (i) a glossy format (ii) two-tone colour (d) what would be the total cost of printing and producing the sheet using a non-gloss, black and white format?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Yes. (a) 15,000 copies were printed in the initial run;


Mr. Parker: 1.	For the past 24 months, by month, how many ministerial permits were issued under Section 29.1 (1) of Part 111 of the Canada Labour Code?
2.	For the same period, by month, how many applications were made for ministerial permits under the Section?
3.	For the same period, by month, what is the average number of days specified for the permits issued under Section 29.1(2) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code?
4.	Is there an established policy by which decisions are made concerning the granting of overtime permits and, if so, what is this policy?
5.	Has the Minister cancelled any overtime permits in the past 24 months under Section 29.1 (4) of Part 111 of the Canada Labour Code and, if so, for what reason?

6.	For the past 24 months, by month, how many joint applications have there been for overtime permits under Section 29.1(6) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code?
7.	How many of the permits requested in Part 6 were granted?
8.	For the past 24 months, by month, what is the total number of hours of work permitted under Section 29.1(1) and (2) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code?
9.	What is the total number of hours of work permitted in cases where joint applications were made?
10.	For the past 24 months, by month, how many permits were issued by the Minister of Labour under Section 33( 1) of Part 111 of the Canada Labour Code?
11.	What classes of employees have been identified under Section 33(1) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code as being eligible for permits allowing excess hours of work?
12.	Is there a policy outlining what reasons will be accepted as "exceptional circumstances" in permitting excess hours of work under Sections 33(1) and (2) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code and, if so, what are the exceptional circumstances?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and
10.	See the table below.
4,	8 and 9. Not applicable since permits granted under Section 29.1 provide for a modified work schedule and do not authorize the working of overtime hours.
5.	No.
Order Paper Questions
11.	Anhydrous ammonia delivery staff, officers, deckhands, masters, mates, engineers, oilers, cooks, messpersons and seamen, drilling and marine personnel, clerical employees, mechanics, maintenance staff, all classes of employees of the Canada Post Corporation, salesmen, warehousemen and helpers, installers, telecommunications gangs, stevedores, dredging personnel, charge hand repairman, tractor operators, labourer, rail gang, track maintenance, road gang, signal gang, ballast gang, tie gang, surfacing gang, crane operator, welder, grinder, electrician, machinists, refiner, firemen, cleaner, carpenters, production staff, design specialist, development technician, service engineer, record co-ordinator, grain cleaning crew, grain unloading crew, grain shipping crew, millwright, greasers, deckhands, utilitymen, machine shop crew, janitors, truck drivers and heavy equipment operators.
12.	Yes. Those circumstances that place an unusual or abnormal demand on the operations of an employer for the delivery of goods or services or for the completion of work, where it is not possible or practical to increase the workforce or make other arrangements to meet the demand, are acceptable circumstances for the purposes of Sections 33(1) and (2), having due regard for the welfare of the employees concerned; e.g. work in remote areas and work affected by weather conditions.
Section 29	Section
33 *
Employer	Permits	Joint	Permit Issued	Days per	PermitMonth	Applications	Issued	Applications	Joint Application	Permit Average	IssuedOctober 1980	10	3	4	1	13	4November 1980	10	3	8	2	15	2December 1980	6	8	2	2	12	3January 1981	3	18	1	12	12.5	10February 1981	5	4	3	2	12	4March 1981	8	1	7	0	12	5April 1981	3	0	1	0	-	6May 1981	4	13	2	6	11	11June 1981	9	7	7	6	11	4July 1981	11	14	7	9	11	5August 1981	7	2	4	1	15	3September 1981	3	6	3	3	10	2October 1981	3	9	2	7	10.5	3November 1981	10	4	5	3	11	2December 1981	7	1	2	1	12	2January 1982	10	6	6	2	11	0February 1982	10	15	8	6	12	3March 1982	10	7	7	6	11	5April 1982	1	1	0	0	14	3May 1982	10	6	3	2	11	5June 1982	4	20	2	13	13	3July 1982	2	5	1	1	12	11August 1982	3	3	1	2	11	2September 1982	1	3	1	2	11	0Totals	150	159	87	[DOT]89	11	98
* Includes two permits for applications prior to October, 1980.


PAMPHLET "FAMILY LIFE: THE METRIC WAY"


Mr. McCuish: I.	Did the Metric Commission publish a pamphlet entitled "Family Life: The Metric Way" and, if so (a) what was the total cost for the design, production and distribution (b) how many copies were printed and distributed to date (c) who was responsible for the design and production?
2.	Was the contract awarded outside the Government and, if so, in what manner was it awarded?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes. (a) approximately $57,000; (b) approximately 3.8 million printed and distributed; (c) Ove Design Group (Ottawa and Montreal) was responsible

January 27, 1983
Order Paper Questions
for the design. Interweb Inc. of Boucherville, Quebec was responsible for the printing.
2. Yes. The contract was established on the basis of a competitive tender by DSS.


Mr. Neil: 1.	Was the brochure "Family Life: Metric Way" mailed out recently with Family Allowance cheques?
2.	Did the Metric Commission share in the cost of the postage required for the mail-out and, if so, what was the Commission's share of the cost?


David Berger: 1. Yes. 2. No.


Mr. Domm: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refer to a list of names of petitioners in the House of Commons on December 9, 1982 and, if so (a) was the list prepared by the Minister's office (b) what was the (i) cost incurred (ii) time involved in its preparation?
2.	Did the Minister state that a number of the signatures were false and, if so
(a)	what number (b) which signatures?


David Berger: 1. No, the Minister made reference to a petition which was tabled in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member for Peterborough, (a) (i), (ii),
(b)	(i), (ii) Not applicable.
2. No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,337 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have Question No. 4,337 deemed made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS Question No. 4,337 -Mr. Towers:
1.	Were civilian internment camps established in Canada before, during, or after World War II and, if so (a) on what date was the Order in Council authorizing construction passed (b) on what date did construction begin (c) how many camps were erected and where were they located (d) on what date were the camps considered redundant and closed down?
2.	How many Canadian citizens or persons with Canadian landed immigrant status were interned?
3.	How many internees were of (a) Japanese (b) German (c) Italian (d) other ethnic origins?
4.	Were any then Members of Federal or Provincial Parliaments or Municipal Councils incarcerated and, if so, in each case (a) for what reason (b) what was his/her name?
5.	What criteria were used in determining who should be incarcerated?
6.	Did any internees lose their lives from other than natural causes while in custody?
Return tabled.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I notice that all of the questions answered today are in the four thousand category. I want to ask for the fourth or fifth time what is happening to question 2,328. It has been on the Order Paper for almost two years. Surely we can get an answer one of these days?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to look into that matter on behalf of the Hon. Member.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, that is what the Parliamentary Secretary said for the fourth or fifth time; I wish that happiness would materialize.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to adequately protect the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous waste and for its subservience to the vested interests of the chemical and industrial waste producers and, in particular, for its failure to expedite the clean-up of the Great Lakes.
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, prior to the lunch break I asked Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister, if there would be agreement to permit me to table a report that was put together by a group of Members from my caucus. This document is entitled "An Environmental Task Force: A Report on Toxic Chemical Pollution".


Mr. Tousignant:: It is not a very good report.


Neil Young: I want to thank Hon. Members for allowing me to table this document. I just wanted to say that before I start
January 27, 1983

my remarks this afternoon. I would suggest, though, that the Liberal Member on the other side who probably has not yet had an opportunity to read the report do so, because he would probably be a much more informed Member if he does that.
We had a repeat performance by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) at the end of Question Period of the kind of performance to which we have become accustomed on this issue in the last two or three-year period. Questions were put to the Minister primarily by Members on this side of the House, particularly myself and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who is the mover of the Motion before the House today. The Minister's response has perhaps been expected in the past, but I would have thought from his statements earlier this week, wherein he seemed to indicate that his mind had been opened and he had suddenly become aware there was a problem in the Niagara Peninsula, that he would not have proceeded with the same kind of political put-downs, or attempted put-downs, that he had utilized in the past in an effort to dismiss the seriousness of this matter. It is not enough to address that particular problem with statements such as "If you ask questions on this you are nothing but an alarmist. You people in the NDP are scaring people. It is totally irresponsible to raise this question in the House."
The Minister has gone to the point where he advised us in response to a question from me that we were talking through our hats and did not know what we were talking about. We have become used to those kinds of statements from the Minister, disappointing though as they may be. I suppose we are expected to absorb that in the natural course of things. I expect the Minister to do that, although I am disappointed that he does so.
I object, as one Liberal mentioned earlier in the debate today, when people who are attempting to express their concerns in their communities and find answers about possible hazards to the health of people who live in those communities or, in this case, whether Lake Ontario is a safe source of drinking water, are put down by politicians and bureaucrats and dismissed as being NIMBYs. I am sure that is a new word to most Members in the House but it is one that is used quite extensively to dismiss people in those communities as being either reactionary or at least irresponsible in terms of their perceived obligation toward a Government initiative and their support of that initiative. A NIMBY, as some bureaucrats like to label a number of citizens, stands for the "Not in my back yard" syndrome. That is the kind of put-down that is made to dismiss the concerns which many of those persons have about the possible dangers of chemical dump sites or other Government programs to their immediate family and community.
In the course of the Minister's remarks earlier today, he attempted again to dispel the very real dangers that exist as a result of the chemical wastes which are leaching from the dump sites on the New York State side into the Niagara Gorge, the Niagara River and on into Lake Ontario. He continues today, as he has over the past several years, to say
Supply
that there is no evidence that this is happening. I suggest to the Minister that, quite to the contrary, there is sufficient evidence which clearly shows that dioxin, the most dangerous chemical known to man, is leaching from those chemical dump sites into the Niagara River and on into the drinkig water supply of the residents around Lake Ontario. Even Members of his own Department, some of whom are very qualified individuals, have confirmed this fact.
I might note for Hon. Members that dioxin is so dangerous that an individual from the Minister's Department has estimated that a shovel full of that chemical dumped into Lake Ontario would kill the entire lake. Yet it is being allowed to leach into the lake uncontrolled as a result of the Minister's inaction in demanding a political intervention with politicians on the American side of the border.
During the course of our investigation into this matter, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States told us quite bluntly that the Reagan administration was not becoming overly concerned about this question and was prepared to sit back and listen unduly to the chemical industry in the United States because Canada is not applying enough political pressure on the U.S. Government to make it confront the problem. The Government has merely passed diplomatic notes to the United States up to this point as a political response to this problem. This does not include some of the testing which has been carried out in the Niagara Peninsula recently. The Government's only political response so far has been to lightly slap the U.S. administration on the wrist and ask it to take action. Frankly, the United States Government will not take action until the Canadian Government demands that it do so.
We asked some members of the New York State Assembly to outline for us what they thought the problems were. The Environmental Committee of the New York State Assembly met with us when we were in Niagara Falls. To our great surprise, they did not engage in any rhetoric as the Minister is prone to do. They were not interested in blaming Canada or the U.S. Government for the problem. Instead, they considered it an issue which must be approached in a non-partisan manner. They agreed that the pollution should be cleaned up and were not interested in making political points on the issue. In fact, they told us that their committee had invited our Minister of the Environment to appear before them so they could hear the Canadian concerns directly and raise them with their colleagues. We were told that the Minister of the Environment refused to speak to them. He said that this issue was not on his list of priorities. He was more concerned, to use their term, with the sexy issue of acid rain. One must wonder, particularly after listening to the answers to questions we have asked the Minister in the House, whether there is a perception on that side of the House that there are more political or Brownie points to be made on acid rain than on the question of toxic waste pollution of our lake system.


David Orlikow: He is not doing anything about acid rain.

January 27, 1983
Supply


Neil Young: As my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reminds me, the Minister is not doing much about acid rain either, even after the establishment of a task force of Members of the House. They made an extensive investigation into the problems of acid rain and tabled an excellent and well-documented report in the House which spells out the problem very well. However, the Minister is still incapable of taking action. I am beginning to wonder if that Minister is a political eunuch in terms of his responsibility in his portfolio.


David Orlikow: And he wants to be leader.


Neil Young: And he wants to be the leader of his Party. Good luck to them.
I should remind the House that we conducted our investigation with very limited research support. We used our own staff members who admittedly only had layman's experience on the question. However, we discovered facts that the Minister did not seem to have. When we presented these facts to his environmental officials, they accepted those facts and indicated that on their superficial examination of them they believed that we gathered information in one week that was as accurate as theirs. I am not discrediting those officials for I believe they have done a tremendous job under the circumstances.
For example, we found that in Lake Ontario alone there are 400 known, identified chemicals that simply come from industrial waste pollution. One chemical on its own, in isolation, may or may not cause a problem, but the burning question out there involves the fact that no one knows because no one has studied it. No one knows what effect the combination of any of those 400 chemicals will have on one another. We all know that one chemical on its own may be a stable element, but we do not know what happens when different chemicals combine.
No one has ever done any study on that subject, and I think it should be done for a number of reasons. First, it is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that that drinking water is safe for the people who consume it; second, it is necessary in order to satisfy the concerns which have been expressed by people in Ontario and by politicians in the House on their behalf.
There is absolutely no question but that these problems are very real and they exist. I mentioned the Minister's officials earlier on and said that I did not want to criticize them because I think they do a good job under the circumstances. I want to tell Hon. Members that when Hooker Chemicals was before the U.S. court concerning the American Government's attempt to force it to clean up its act, our Government would not even intervene before the court. One of the Minister's top officials was forced to take his vacation time in order to give expert testimony in the U.S. court about what was happening to Lake Ontario. That is what a conscientious public employee whose boss would not even allow him to go in the name of the Department had to do. I think that is shameful on the part of the Minister and it is a damn disgrace on the part of the
Government, especially when one considers some of the expert testimony which was given to us.
For example, Dr. Berkes, Professor of Urban and Environmental Studies at Brock University, told us this in St. Catharines:
The Environmental Baseline Study of the Niagara River issued in 1980, concluded that water taken from Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Falls and Fort Erie met "federal and provincial criteria for acceptable drinking water".
The report does not add that drinking water quality in these waters was within guidelines only because there are no guidelines for a vast number of potentially hazardous chemical substances.
Assurances that drinking water meet Government standards are misleading and irresponsible.
Again, in terms of the attempted put-down concerning people who are asking questions about this serious matter and are referred to as being "NIMBY" or persons afflicted with the NIMBY syndrome, Professor Farka, Professor of Man-Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo, stated the following in a brief he presented to our task force:
In fact, the situation is quite different. The factual situation is that the major industrial liquid waste proposals made in Ontario to-date have been inadequate and incomplete on technical grounds. Thus it is no wonder that they have been rejected on a combination of technical, social, political, and environmental grounds. Those who use the NIMBY Syndrome for the failure of these proposals are in fact using NIMBY as a scapegoat to cover the inadequacies of these proposals.
During the course of one week we talked to residents who have been voicing their concern over the last several years about what is happening in the Niagara River. We attended public meetings and went to these people's homes, speaking to them individually. I want to ensure the House that those individuals to whom we spoke were expressing a common concern. Some of them were rather fearful that they would have to raise their children in that particular community because of the unanswered questions concerning the safety of the drinking water supply, and that fear was not alarmist, it was very real. I am sure that if the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) rises to speak in the debate, he can confirm that these are extremely rational, sane people. The arguments they presented to us were, for the most part, not emotional; they were very reasoned and well thought out. They had done their own research and had listened to people from the scientific community. This experience extremely impressed myself and my colleagues on that particular committee.
I will repeat what I said during Question Period, and I meant it sincerely. The Minister responsible for this particular Department should do no less than accept his full responsibility to the Canadian people and to this House. He should insist upon a meeting between himself and the Governor of New York State, and should sit down and rationally discuss this question and come to some form of an agreement to clean this situation up for the safety of all Canadians.


Mr. Ethier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a correction which should be made. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) would like to correct his statement. He said the Minister said that there was no dioxin
January 27, 1983

leaching into the river. I think it was the Department which discovered that dioxin was leaching into the river and made it public. 1 think that accusation was wrong and the Hon. Member should correct it. He should not leave the impression that the Minister said that. In fact, what he did say was that Environment Canada was the Department which discovered that dioxin was leaching into the river and made it public. Therefore, I would invite the Hon. Member to correct his statement.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member asking the question may wish to correct his particular question, because it was not the Canadian Department of the Environment which discovered dioxin in Lake Ontario. It was the Environmental Protection Agency, in 1976, I believe.


James Ross Fulton: It was in 1973.


Neil Young: The Hon. Member for Skeena advises me that it was 1973. I am quite willing to check Hansard, but the Minister gave me a response to a question concerning the presence of dioxin in Lake Ontario and some fish species, and he minimized the source of dioxin. I am going by recollection here. I could be proven wrong and will stand corrected if I am, but I believe he said that one could get as much dioxin from cigarette smoke or car exhaust, or some such thing.
[ Translation]


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that in my opinion, the Minister should be present in the House for this debate. I know he was in the House this morning, but he left right after question period. Of course, I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Ethier), but since we seldom have an opportunity to discuss environmental matters in the House, I think the Minister should be here.

I am delighted that the matter was brought before the House. I compliment the Hon. Member for so doing. I have serious reservations about some of the things that he said, and I am not sure that I appreciate the style in which he made his presentation.


Neil Young: Me?


William Herbert Jarvis: No, 1 am referring to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Neil Young: Good.


William Herbert Jarvis: I claim some understanding of the frustrations, having been the spokesman for our Party on matters of environment for two or three years. It is a very frustrating experience because one is so seldom able to get the matter on the floor of the House. One sees the Government moving very slowly or not at all. One is exposed to all kinds of citizen pressure, both from individuals and groups. I understand all of those frustrations and I compliment him for bringing the matter before us.
At this stage in the debate, I doubt that the issue needs any definition, but that will not deter me. I think other Hon.
Supply
Members will have shared with me the experience of the Time magazine cover story of September, 1980, about two and a half years ago. It was a very compelling story. If it helps to define that which they say may not need defining, I wish to quote from it. It is entitled "The Poisoning of America". I will quote briefly from the opening paragraph as follows:
Of all of man's interventions in the natural order, none is accelerating quite so alarmingly as the creation of chemical compounds. Through their genius, modern alchemists brew as many as 1,000 new concoctions each year in the U.S. alone. At last count, nearly 50,000 chemicals were on the market. Many have been an undeniable boon to mankind, mitigating pain and disease, prolonging life for millions and expanding the economy in myriad ways by stimulating the creation of new products. There is, however, a price to pay for an industrial society that has come to rely so heavily on chemicals: almost 35,000 of those used in the U.S. are classified by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being either definitely or potentially hazardous to human health.
Therefore we, as part of the North American continent, have these very obvious and dramatic problems. First, in some cases there is our inability to even identify the chemical and its toxic nature. Second, we are unable to control the introduction of these chemicals into the environment. Third, we are unable to determine how long the toxicity lasts or how pervasive these chemicals are in terms of their toxicity. Part of the problem is this enormous uncertainty.
One thing is certain. We in North America have on our hands an extraordinarily complex problem, one which will cost enormous sums, not only to clean up now but to control in the future. The dramatic example, of course, has been in the Niagara Peninsula. Much of the debate today has centred on that. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) used much of his allotted time to deal with that issue. As I understood it, his proposition was that the present administration in the United States has caved in to business interests. He may be right. I have nothing to substantiate that. He obviously feels very strongly, and he may be correct. It may even go beyond that. It has been the unhappy and maybe the necessary experience of many of us that in times of economic stress, Government expenditure in certain areas, one of which is the environment, is often the first casualty.
Therefore, I am not prepared to admit to the argument advanced by the Hon. Member that the total fault lies with big business. Part of the problem may be simply the economic recession we are now in. Whatever the cause of the failure of the United States to fulfil what I believe to be its obligations under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, we do have this problem.
In my view, the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been breached. I put this to the Minister following his intervention in the debate. The agreement called, first, for a projected rate of clean-up and, second, for the commitment of funds to accomplish the clean-up at that projected rate. I do not believe that either of those conditions have been met, either the rate of clean-up or the funds to accomplish this.

January 27, 1983
Supply
The Minister said that the situation is improving. When I had an opportunity to question him, 1 put to him that I very much doubt that that is the yardstick by which we should judge our performance. In my view, the yardstick is whether that water quality agreement has been fulfilled in terms of its time performance and its funding to accomplish the time performance.
Were I as a Minister to judge the performance, I would do it on the basis of that agreement and not on the fact that on a certain date certain chemicals had less presence in the Great Lakes than last year, the year before or ten years ago. There is a very clear document by which we can judge our performance and that of our southern neighbours.
Incidentally, in other areas the situation is not improving. As I say, we focused on the Great Lakes. There are other areas. I think of acid rain. I have been the very fortunate owner of a log cabin on a Northern Ontario lake which is springfed. When I go to that cabin now, I am presented with a booklet which says how much fish out of this lake I can eat. I am not threatened. I never catch fish that big, which is an admission of my frailties as a fisherman.


Walter David Baker: Or the judgment of the fish.


William Herbert Jarvis: Or the judgment of the fish, as my hon. friend points out. To receive a booklet which states how many pickerel I can eat in a certain period of a certain size and to come to the dock and see a great, big, black, red and white sign erected by either the Department of the Environment or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, portrays dramatically and graphically how much fish I or a visiting American tourist can eat.
That has some rather serious economic consequences. If I were an American tourist visiting Northern Ontario for the first time with my wife and young children to see nature because in my country it had been devastated, I am not sure that I would be content and peaceful having my family spend their holiday period at a lake which is posted like that.
That lake is 100 miles away from Sudbury. Whether that is the cause, I do not know. I am not saying it is the big business interests in Sudbury that are causing me concern about a lake that I have loved and cherished for almost 30 years. I do not know. However, when the Minister, all of a sudden, says that things are improving, I say to him that they are sure not improving in some places. They sure are not improving in many lakes in Northern Ontario.
I understand the focus on the Niagara Peninsula. My family were fruit farmers in Grimsby. The Niagara Peninsula is my heritage. I know it and love it. I can understand the focus that has to be on it, but may I say it goes beyond that.
With respect to our relationship with the United States Government, State governments and agencies, the Minister has had the luxury of an economic recession. Were we not in the stress economically in which we find ourselves, I do not believe that any Minister or Government would get away with what has happened in the last two years in the Niagara Peninsula. People are so preoccupied with other issues, so very concerned about economic issues that the by-product has been little or no public attention focused on the environmental
issues, specifically those in the Niagara Peninsula. The Hon. Member for Skeena quoted some headlines. I will do the same as follows:
Chemicals pour into river;
Curbs fail; river called a "sewer";
Niagara River health threat serious;
Pollution de la Niagara: "un desastre national";
TNT found in pipelines at hazardous waste site;
Deadly chemical is found in Lake Ontario gull eggs;
U.S., Canada ponder warning public off fish caught in Lake Ontario;
Leakage turns water into "toxic brew".
Every provincial or federal Minister of the Environment is always concerned with alarmist headlines in newspapers. I guess you can be concerned, but there is nothing you can do about it. You will get that kind of headline.
If we were not in the situation we are in today where people are so concerned about other matters, no Government and no Minister of the Environment, federal or provincial, could stand up in the face of that kind of headline. He would have the citizens of this country screaming at him. The Government has not been forceful in pursuing its economic aims, if indeed those aims have been well defined. There are all kinds of examples.
I remember very well, and I am glad he is here, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) sitting opposite receiving a telegram from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1980. I will not get into that at any length, but it was the subject matter of some headlines. I very much question whether what I interpreted to be a strong commitment contained in that telegram during an election campaign was fulfilled. The endless delay in appointing the representative to the IJC is another example of what I firmly believe is the Government's lack of diligence in pursuing the best interests of our fellow Canadians.
The Hon. Member for Skeena made, what I guess could best be called, a very strident presentation, and I hope that the stridency with which he advanced his arguments will not deter the Minister from taking from those arguments at least one very good idea. The Hon. Member for Skeena, as I understood him, said that the backbenchers, both in the Opposition and the Government, had a potential role to play. I am not sure that I want to be among 100 Members of Parliament marching on Washington. I am not sure that is a tactic which would be the most effective, but the idea of the Opposition Members and the Government backbenchers participating in a meaningful dialogue with our United States counterparts is excellent. I will support it. Just do not ask me to march with a placard with 99 others up Pennsylvania Avenue. That is not a style with which I would be very comfortable. But the basic idea is good.
There is, for good reason and not so good reason, a natural tendency for Ministers to reject the intervention of both their own backbenchers and Opposition Members in pursuing Government policy. I do not know why that is. I can speak, of
January 27, 1983

course, from the vast experience of some seven months as a Minister, but I suppose the pressures of Cabinet meetings, speeches and committees, added to the burden of having to deal with the Hon. Member for Skeena's 100 MPs going to Washington, is just too much for any Minister, but I would hope that this Minister, if he is serious about conveying our message to the U.S., would take up the idea. I do not believe the Hon. Member for Skeena claims any patent rights to it because I believe the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), mentioned the participation of MPs. I think that could be a very worth-while exercise. I do not believe we have to leave it to the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, or even necessarily that Standing Committee of the House which is dealing with it, but I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary, through the Minister, to think about that idea because it has been supported by all Members of the House.
I would like to deal now with a broader issue because it has been raised as well, that is, the hazardous waste problem. That matter was raised very well, I believe, by the Hon. Member for Welland. He was, 1 believe, quoting from a publication from Environment Canada in 1981 entitled, "The Hazardous Waste Problem. Let's find some common ground". The publication covers such matters as, what are hazardous wastes; where do they come from; why they are such a big problem; the environmental and health considerations; the large volume of them; the limited number of treatment and disposal facilities; the fact that there is no magical solution; the technology. It even goes on to deal with the Danish example, and the Hon. Member dealt with that at some length in his remarks. As I read this whole document, I think the bottom line is that our main problem, despite some problems in technology, is the political problem. I will just quote from page 7 of that Departmental publication which reads:
-the technology for treatment of hazardous wastes is immediately available. The difficult issue is to decide where the treatment facilities should be located and where the end products of the treatment process are to be deposited, presumably in chemical landfill sites.
The solution to the problems of location will involve some public debate and compromise.
We talk about the the NIMBY syndrome, "not in my back yard". Nobody wants a hazardous waste deposit site in his back yard. Were it to come into Perth County, 1 would be the first on my feet on a point of order, in Question Period, during proceedings under Standing Order 21, the "Late Show", and everything else. We would all react the same. And if we think that we are going to package this waste and take it up to the Arctic; we are not. First of all, it is not practical. And my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) does not want it up there any more than I want it in Perth County. We all feel that way.
The Department in this document has identified this problem, and it is politicial. I do not know how practical this idea is, I have not thought it all the way through, but we should look at the example in the Danish community of Nyborg. The Kommunekemi facilities, at Nyborg, this international model, this demonstration for the world in terms of technology, is located in close proximity to a number of facilities, including a
Supply
residential area. I think there is a recreational facility close by, and so on. In any event, I suppose it is not much different a community than many communities in my riding or any other Member's riding which is in a rural or semi-urban area.
Because nobody wants this waste, why not take the lead as a federal Government and say to any number of communities, "We propose to put a hazardous waste disposal site somewhere. It will be a model for high technology. It will bring substantial capital investment, and high skilled people, well paid, into your community. It will become, hopefully, a model for other Canadian communities and for other countries in the world"? In other words, instead of saying, "We are going to dump some hazardous waste on you", let us say to any number of communities which are interested, "We are seeking a site for a model high technology waste disposal site, and the communities which are interested, whether in the Niagara Peninsula, Southwestern Ontario, or Sarnia, or wherever, can send representatives to Denmark to see what it means to the economy of that country in terms of payroll and jobs and the visitors that it attracts." Even the Government of Canada in its own publication is touting Nyborg, Denmark. What is wrong with that idea, Mr. Speaker? I have no idea if any communities would react, but it seems to me that if we are faced with the seriousness which the Department says we are faced with, this NIMBY syndrome, something has to happen; either that, or we are going to dump it on somebody. I do not want it in my riding and I do not want to see it forced on any of my colleagues. But what is wrong with trying my suggestion? We are all interested in high tech. We want to get on the high technology bandwagon. That is the sign of the future.
I do not know whether I have been constructive. I would like to make two points in summation. First, I think the Minister should pick up on the participation of backbenchers and Opposition Members in terms of our relationship with the U.S. on this problem. Second, I hope we can take some positive steps with respect to the hazardous waste disposal problem by encouraging communities to investigate the viability and the advantages of being a model for such an installation in Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who just spoke. I would like to put to him what I think is a difficult question for all of us, but particularly for the Hon. Member and his colleagues in light of the difficulties which have already been well expressed, with respect to cleaning up what hazardous waste we have and creating a society in which we have the facilities to dispose of the hazardous waste which will be created in the future so that, hopefully, we will have a society in which we will create less hazardous waste which has to be dealt with.
We are in a recession, but even if we were not in a recession, there would be the difficult problem of how to reconcile a vision of the economy, which I believe the Hon. Member and his Party are known to have, which relies on the profitability of certain enterprises as the reason for their existence, and at the same time have a society in which shortcuts are not taken and

January 27, 1983
Supply
in which all the technology which can be developed will be developed and will be used to protect society from hazardous waste. How can you expect to get that kind of responsibility when at the same time you regard the profit motive as the engine of the economy? I say in all seriousness that there is a very difficult question there for anyone who wants to come to terms with this, but particularly for those who hold high the profit motive as the reason for people being in business, in manufacturing or engaged in these activities which create that waste in the first place and who so often in the past have not felt any responsibility for it.


William Herbert Jarvis: I suppose I can answer that in two ways. That of which 1 stand accused by the Hon. Member is quite true. The accusation is quite accurate and 1 plead guilty to it, if I have to. I believe, though, were I to show the private sector the potential profitability of being in the waste disposal business, then 1 think 1 would have a very positive response from the private sector. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is asking me about the polluters or those dealing with the result, but I have answered the second part. If he is talking about the polluters, I have to go a long way back to when I was environment critic, and I do not claim an immediate expertise but I found, in several instances, part of the problem was that the private sector that stood accused of polluting did not know what the rules were because they were changing so dramatically. Time Magazine points out very well how fast things were moving. A polluter did not even know he was polluting until all of a sudden, someone said there is a toxicity factor in the particular chemical which he had been disposing of in a barrel on an ordinary municipal site. That has happened many times.
The second thing that happened was the multitude of various Government levels, often with different regulations, with which the business person was dealing. I found that if an industry, for example, was made aware of the problem, it was conclusive that this damage was being done, and given a reasonable time in which to correct it, and even given tax incentives-as the Hon. Member knows, we have given I think rather liberal tax incentives for some pollution control equipment-that industry has normally responded reasonably well. I hesitate to accuse the Member of dealing too dramatically in absolutes, but I am afraid I am going to have to. It is much easier, in dealing with the environment, to say it is either black or white. I know that, I have been there and dealt with groups for whom I have had a profound respect. But I do not think it is that simple.
I am sure I have not satisfied the Hon. Member. Likely that is because of my lack of experience and knowledge in the area. But in recalling those days in 1976 to 1978 when I was dealing with this, I was beginning to feel a little bit better about the private sector's response to this issue.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the notion the Hon. Member has of interesting the private sector in regarding waste disposal as profitable. I am wondering who will pay. Who will make it profitable for the private sector to become
involved in that kind of enterprise? My worry is that the only way it can become profitable for the private sector is for someone to pay them to do that. The only people I can imagine doing that are the public. What I find wrong with that, or regrettable at the very least, because I want to see things cleaned up and at some point I may not care how it gets cleaned up, is the public will then be paying the cost of what all along should have been borne by the private sector. This is especially so in those cases, and I think you would have to admit that there are many cases of people knowing about the pollution but stalling and hiring lawyers to keep the thing going.
So I agree with the Hon. Member that there have been companies caught legitimately unawares, but there are also plenty of them who just kept things going in order to sell, as Reid sold to Great Lakes Paper after they polluted the English Wabagoon River system. So who is going to pay for it? If it is the public, is it not regrettable that after all this time the public has to pick up those costs? It is only the public that can pick up those costs because, although they are privately caused, they have to be publicly addressed.


William Herbert Jarvis: I am afraid I have to disagree that the public inevitably is going to pay. I am not the greatest forecaster in the world; I am the one who said that Nixon was innocent as they dragged him kicking and screaming from the White House. That shows you what kind of a forecaster I am. I just could not believe that anyone could be that stupid.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I thought you were being a bit naive.


William Herbert Jarvis: Maybe it is my exposure to the Party to my left which has created that naivete, I do not know. No, I would envisage a future wherein by Government law or regulation, a Hooker chemical or any chemical producer, would have to dispose of their waste in a certain way. Therefore, in my philosophy, a market is created by Government regulation for the private sector because the chemical producer must then deal with someone in the private sector whose business it is to dispose of waste.
Now perhaps the Hon. Member can make the connection that the public is paying for that, but in my view that is one of the best forms of the functions of the private sector. The market is created by Government regulation. We do it every day; we make a fortune for accountants and lawyers in this House, and I do not know why we do not give the people who want to deal in waste disposal a bite at the apple. They are part of the private sector.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will be familiar with the proximity of the problem to my riding of Niagara Falls and will sympathize because of that fact. I was pleased to listen to the debate this afternoon and find a remarkable absence of hot rhetoric and cheap partisan remarks, and I appreciate that. I can say to Members opposite from both Parties that the people from my riding and others in the area appreciate the serious concerns expressed here this afternoon. To those people in Niagara Falls and the
January 27, 1983

millions who border on the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Basin, the matter is extremely serious. It is more serious than perhaps anything else affecting the residents of that area.
With respect to one matter raised by the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), I would like to mention, as you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker-and I know the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and others are aware of it-that there is a complete breakdown of the pollution control plant in Niagara Falls, New York, and chemicals and municipal waste are going untreated into the Niagara River. As a matter of interest, the House should be aware of the fact that we have a commitment-I will not say an ironclad commitment-from the powers that be on the other side of the river, that by the fall of 1984 the serious defect in the pollution control plant in Niagara Falls, New York, will be rectified. I hope that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) will keep pressure on the authorities across the river and see that the commitment is fulfilled.
When the new plant, as rectified, is in operation the authorities across the river intend to see to it that the hazardous chemicals will be removed at the point of discharge into the sewers by the users of water which carry the pollutants and not at the pollution control plant. That would answer, in part, a move that has apparently taken place in the United States and with which I agree. It is a partial answer to the question put by the Hon. Member for Perth. I would be interested in hearing whether the Hon. Member for Beaches agrees that the chemicals should be removed at the point of discharge rather than attempting to control pollution at the plant.
The Hon. Member for Perth accepted the suggestion of the Members of the New Democratic Party who spoke that the Minister of the Environment should look to backbenchers for support in his fight against pollution. That makes a lot of sense to me and I agree with the suggestion. He also suggested that hazardous chemical treatment was very closely connected with the chemical pollution of our waterways, and I do not question the relevancy of that.
The Hon. Member for Perth also referred to what he considered to be an undue delay, and what I know to be a serious delay, in the appointment of the co-chairman of the International Joint Commission by the Government. While I was disappointed at the delay, I am informed that the appointment of Mr. Seaborn was an excellent one, and we look for great things from him.
The Hon. Member for Perth also said that in hard times, economic problems tend to replace environmental concerns. I suppose that is correct, but it would be unfortunate if we allowed the weak economy to wield an undue influence. We cannot sit back and say that because times are bad we will let pollution continue unabated. I know that no Member of the House would suggest that. As the Member from Niagara Falls, I refuse to even consider that possibility, but I appreciate that there is such a tendency.
Supply
Earlier this afternoon we were told that the Minister of the Environment and his officials will visit the S-Area dump in the very near future. I hope that Members of Parliament who are particularly concerned with this because of their proximity to the Niagara River and Great Lakes area, will be included in the party. Regardless of anything that has been said by other Members to the contrary, I welcome the visit. I am behind anything that will bring this matter more forcefully to the attention of the Government. It is not enough that the Minister and his officials should meet with the Governor of New York and others, as has been suggested, although anything along that line could only be helpful.
The very distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Ethier) is in the House this afternoon, and I hope he will get the Minister in a corner sometime soon and ask him if he is going to continue financial support for Operation Clean in Niagara-on-the-Lake in its fight with respect to the hearings on the S-Area dump. That is perhaps the largest and most hazardous chemical dump in the proximity of the Niagara River. It is only 1.5 kilometres above the pollution control plant in Niagara Falls, New York. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will keep pressure on the Minister for financial help for the good work being done by the volunteers of Operation Clean and even for increased funding. The people of my riding would certainly appreciate that.
The Hon. Member for Perth suggested that there had been a breach of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and that is a very serious allegation. Sometimes I am as concerned as he is that there has been such a breach, and I think the question must be addressed by the Government. If there has been a breach and no remedial action is taken within a reasonable time, then I think we must enforce those portions of the agreement which give redress to Canada.
I have addressed the excellent speeches I heard this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The subject concerns me primarily as one interested in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Basin because of the proximity of my riding. I should like to return to my prepared notes now with regard to a more specific area of concern in the Niagara River.
We would be remiss in not recounting our considerable efforts in successfully combating accelerated eutrophication of the Lower Great Lakes-Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. You will recall that in the late sixties, headlines were rampant with the spectre of a dying Lake Erie. Widespread complaints from the good people of the Lower Great Lakes Basin decried the fouling of clean beaches with smelly deposits of algae. Cities and towns complained of malodorous drinking water. Schools of dead fish, choked by the lack of precious dissolved oxygen, cluttered our shoreline, leaving in the putrid waters coarse species of fish. Sport fishing, a national pastime in Canada, an important economic activity in the Great Lakes valued today at some $500 million was threatened. There has been some improvement, and I am thankful that those in authority did not give in. That is not to suggest that the problem has been resolved.

January 27, 1983
Tabling of Documents
Clearly, the lakes were suffering. In response, the Government, in concert with the U.S. Government, requested the International Joint Commission, in 1964, to undertake a scientific investigation to determine the root cause of these problems. The study clearly defined the cause. Untreated and partially treated sewage contains large amounts of phosphorus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the speech of the Hon. Member but I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document. Prior to that, you ought to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have had discussions with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the energy critic for the New Democratic Party and the House leader and they all agreed that they would give unanimous consent.


Walter David Baker: That is true, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to give our consent to the tabling of the document.


Raymond John Skelly: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary seeks unanimous consent to revert to Tabling of Documents for the purpose of tabling a document related to Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table in both official languages the National Energy Board Report dealing with Phases II and III of the Gas Export Omnibus Hearing, 1982.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Presumably the House is prepared to revert to debate on the motion of the New Democratic Party now before the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to adequately protect the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous waste and for its subservience to the vested interests of the chemical and industrial waste producers and, in particular, for its failure to expedite the clean-up of the Great Lakes.
Arthur Allister MacBain: When I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the problem of phosphorus in the Great Lakes Basin and the tributaries that flow into it. Phosphorus was identified as the key nutrient element which spawned the growth of nuisance algae. These algae bloomed in the summer and then sank to the lake bottoms or washed up on our shorelines. As it rotted it used up the precious store of dissolved oxygen critical to the support of aquatic life. Also as it rotted it released some more phosphorous into the lakes which further exacerbated the problem. The problem was so severe that in the late summer large portions of the bottom waters were totally devoid of dissolved oxygen.
Studies undertaken by Canadian and American scientists had determined that the reduction of phosphorous was the key factor in stemming this uncontrolled growth cycle known as an accelerated state of eutrophication.
In signing the 1972 Canada-U.S. agreement, immediate phosphorous control was a primary objective, and Canada proceeded to take the following actions. First, Canada pressed for and gained agreement with the United States to set phosphorous target levels for Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. To achieve these lower levels, the countries then agreed on an equitable reduction of phosphorous inputs.
The Canadian strategy was twofold. We would remove phosphorous from municipal sewage treatment plants and limit phosphorous contents in household laundry detergents. In 1970 and 1973 phosphorous content in laundry detergents was limited to 5 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively under the federal Canada Water Act. Canada and Ontario undertook a successful $6 million research and development effort from 1972 to 1976 to build phosphorous removal facilities in sewage treatment plants. As a result of this effort and the accelerated funding for the construction of sewage treatment plants, all plants with a capacity greater than one million gallons per day discharging directly into the lakes were provided with phosphorous removal facilities. This was accomplished co-operatively with the Province of Ontario.
We must remember that phosphorous control on the Canadian side was only achieved because of a massive effort in building and updating sewage treatment plants at the estimated cost of SI.3 billion by all levels of Government in Canada.
January 27, 1983

By comparison, the United States has spent some $7 billion, which we would expect, given their greater population of the Great Lakes Basin. This huge investment of resources under the 1972 agreement has paid off in concrete results. These are, one, in 1972 an estimated 80 per cent of the sewer population in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin was served by sewage treatment facilities adequate to meet the water quality objectives of the agreement, including phosphorous removal. Today this figure has increased to 99 per cent.
Statistically, significant decreases in total phosphorous levels in localized areas of Lake Ontario have been achieved since 1972. Springtime concentrations along most of the north shore have dropped an average of 12 per cent. In a 20 mile stretch in the Toronto area, the decline is estimated to be 35 per cent. The decrease in chlorophyll, a measure of algae growth, in Lake Ontario has resulted in cleaner water and better swimming conditions.
In 1977, Canada essentially met the target set for phosphorous discharges from municipal waste treatment plants on Lake Erie.
Decline in phosphorous concentrations has been noted in the nearshore of the western basin of Lake Erie and at the mouth of the Detroit River. Chloride and iron concentrations, plus suspended and dissolved solids loads, are also decreasing in the river.
The average total phosphorous concentrations along the south Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan have declined to levels comparable to those of the open lake.
Studies have provided a basis for determining the magnitude and sources of contamination to the lakes from land use activities. Recommendations of the International Joint Commission as to the remedial programs appropriate to addressing these problems are pending now.
Under the 1978 Canada and United States agreement, the parties capitalized on increased knowledge of phosphorous pollution. Further measures were instituted in the new agreement to control phosphorous from non-point sources and atmospheric deposition of phosphorous. At present this Government is finalizing a supplemental annex to the 1978 agreement with the United States which calls for controls of phosphorous from urban and agricultural runoff. These new requirements, which will be presented to Cabinet shortly, will call for a further reduction of 2,000 tons in the Lake Erie Basin and approximately 1,200 tons in the Lake Ontario Basin. The achievement of these reductions will be pursued in the most cost effective manner. Happily, the upper lakes are not threatened by eutrophication at this time due to low concentrations of population living around them. We are, however, mindful of the necessity to maintain their quality; therefore target loads have been developed for Lake Huron and Lake Superior and are currently being finalized by both parties.
The efforts that this Government has successfully put forward in combatting eutrophication is no small accomplishment. Lake Erie is alive and mending. The prognosis for Lake
Supply
Ontario is also good as far as eutrophication is concerned. While our attention has been rightly diverted to the problem of toxic chemical contamination, it is good to know that we have met the challenge with regard to phosphorous control.
I said at the beginning that my riding was particularly concerned about pollution in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Basin. I see the Hon. Minister of the Environment is back in the House, and perhaps I can remind him directly that I do hope he will continue his financial support of Operation Clean, which is a voluntary organization in Niagara-on-the-Lake, which is also in my riding. Hopefully, notwithstanding the present restraint program in Ottawa, additional financial support will be found for Operation Clean, because they are the ones at the moment who are in the fight at the S-dump hearings. Any support, financial and otherwise, that can be given to Operation Clean by the Government of Canada will be appreciated by myself and by all Members of this House who are genuinely interested in controlling pollution in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Basin.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is looking for Hon. Members who may wish to enter into the ten minute period of exchange and comment and question, and obviously I will recognize those Hon. Members or Ministers in relation to that.
So that the matter is clear, following that, whatever time it may take, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for the purpose of entering into the debate.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments addressed to me by the Hon. Member at the end of his speech,
I think I should say to him, or perhaps I should pose it in the form of a question: is he aware that within the last few days, I believe, a letter has been sent, but certainly the decision has been taken, to provide additional support for Operation Clean exactly because we are concerned that they be supported in their efforts in relation to the S-dump fight in the United States? If he is not aware of that perhaps I can indicate to him that that decision has been taken because of the concerns expressed by the group and because of the concerns expressed,
I have to say, by their Member of Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain). I know he represents the constituency where the real centre of this debate is. I just wonder if he would undertake, with some of his colleagues and also with the Minister, to try to unfreeze the funds that have been earmarked for Environment Canada's work on toxic chemicals. They have been frozen by Treasury Board; that sum is about $2.5 million, and I wonder if he would undertake to try to see that those funds are unfrozen as soon as possible.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statement by the Minister of the Environment, I must say I have not been

January 27, 1983
Supply
in my riding for almost a week and I did not have the information that he placed before the House, but I appreciate very much receiving the information.
With respect to the frozen $2.5 million, I can only say that the Minister himself is in the House at the moment and of course is much more powerful in these matters than a Parliamentary Secretary, but I will give as much support as I can when I have reviewed the matter.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Agriculture-Request for assistance for beef industry; The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Privacy- Misuse of personal information stored in computers; and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Unemployment	Insurance-Suggested	school
attendance for recipients.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to adequately protect the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous waste and for its subservience to the vested interests of the chemical and industrial waste producers and, in particular, for its failure to expedite the clean-up of the Great Lakes.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate and to follow my friend, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain). I listened with great interest to what he had to say concerning the dreadful problem that we in this part of Ontario only read about rather than live in the midst of and experience. I am certain there is a great deal of worry and concern in the Niagara Falls area.
Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am pleased the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) rose and indicated that some further funding would be available to the group dealing with the S-dump hearing called "Operation Clean." He anticipated what I was going to say. Sometimes Ministers in these times of restraint look for rupport for worthwhile undertakings from other Parties in the House of Commons. I happen to represent, at least today, another Party in the House of Commons, and had he not said that, I would have indicated my support for him. Nevertheless, I want the Minister and my hon. friend from Niagara Falls to know they have my support.
I think it is very important that we should not lose sight, even in a period of restraint, of the importance of the priority with respect to the environment and what it can do for us in terms of the quality of life in our country.
I am certain that groups in Niagara Falls who have been working on the matter must be very pleased. I am sure the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls is also very pleased.
I hope I am not being unkind to our friends in the United States by saying that I suppose what has happened to the pollution control plant that will not be put back in place in Niagara Falls, New York, until 1984, is something being repeated again and again in various parts of the United States because of the policy of the United States Government with respect to its priorities. I do not think we should necessarily criticize a Government of another country for a particular policy, but we should never allow that Government to be unmindful of the danger that we, as their neighbours to the north, regard that kind of breakdown and change in a relationship. I think that is the case. Following the State of the Union message and the results of the State Congressional elections in the United States, I suspect that, notwithstanding the fact that there are protestations to the contrary by the President of the United States that his policy has not changed, in fact, a change is coming.
There must have been a message ot the Government and the administration of the United States as a result of those elections. If I may put it in my own terms, the message was that there is something else just as important, or at least to be considered, as the balance sheet in the setting of priorities. I regard that as the message that has come as a result of some of the changes I have read and heard about recently in U.S. policy.
This reminds me of a good story told me by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). There was a person in his riding who did not want to be seen walking into a public house or a place where alcoholic beverages are served. What he did was to walk backwards into the public house. If somebody took this person's picture it would look as if he were walking out. I have a feeling that what appears to be the United States policy of staying the course is not quite so, and that perhaps the importance of the environment and the importance of preserving the environment in the United States will now come to the fore. If the environment becomes important to American policy makers, we will be the beneficiary of some of those changes.
I regret very much what the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls said about the breach by the United States of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. That is very serious for Canada. I believe its importance should be brought home
January 27, 1983

day by day in this forum and in other forums, using all the facilities we have.
I have differences of opinion with the Minister of the Environment from time to time, but I support him and 1 say to the House that I believe he is personally and absolutely committed to the cause of improving the environment, whether in Niagara Falls or elsewhere.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: 1 have served in a government and I know that from time to time one's own personal commitments are sometimes sublimated within the problems that governments face. I suspect that if it is seen in the House, and perhaps as it has been alleged in the House, that there has not been a great enough push with the United States and in Canada concerning environmental problems, much of that lack has to do with the priorities set by the Government as a whole.
A cabinet Minister with a government is not independent. He is subject to the eventual setting of priorities by a government as a whole, and we must remember that. However, the Minister of the Environment is absolutely committed to this issue. Those who worry in times of great trouble that we must concentrate on the bottom line and ignore every other consideration, are wrong. There are countries much more troubled economically than Canada that have taken another view.
In the United Kingdom, notwithstanding its great financial difficulties, there was work done at great cost in the clean-up of the Thames and in energy conversion from coal. That kind of experience must have been repeated over and over again and ought to be remembered by all of us. There are no absolutes. If we take a single-minded approach to any policy, then we only damage ourselves. There has to be a balance. In the balance, all of the important elements have to be considered. Certainly one of those, in terms of industrial development, has to be the investment in the environment, which is particularly important to Canada.
How does one invest in the environment? I see nothing wrong with grants being made to corporations that employ Canadians. Grants would allow plants to convert. I see nothing wrong with that. That is being done. I see nothing wrong with our policy of research and development as we try to move to
1.5	per cent of our Gross National Product. Part of that percentage concerns pollution control in the industrial setting. I see nothing wrong with an examination of the tax system in order to determine if tax credits can be used for the purchase and installation of environmental control machinery.
I think we must recognize that there are a number of levels of Government in this country which should be concerned with the environment, whether in the Niagara or the St. Lawrence River area where I grew up and have my home. If there is one fault with the national life in Canada, it is that there has not been sufficient co-operation between many levels of responsible Governments. I think that Canadians have paid a price for the breakdown in federal-provincial relations. We have paid that
Supply
price in the environment, in terms of unemployment and with respect to a whole host of good programs. We have wasted time and energy as a result of bickering between levels of Government.
I suggest that there is a place for Government co-operation in matters concerning the environment, as there is in many other areas. I would like to give the Minister a specific example. I discussed this with him in Brockville. The City of Brockville is situated on the banks of the St. Lawrence. I live beside that river whenever I can in the summer. I grew up there and watched it grow. No one can live beside a river like that and not have it become a part of you to appreciate. The City of Brockville, a progressive city in eastern Ontario, has decided to install a landfill site for municipal garbage on land that abuts on the river. This is a convenient site for the city since it happens to be in the township of Augusta. Therefore, it does not have to put the garbage dump in its own municipality. If this site were situated anywhere else, I believe that the federal Government would not have any jurisdiction at all. However, due to the possible leaching problems from the landfill site into the river, there is a place in that apparatus for more than just consultation. While consultation is important, if there is an environmental assessment hearing about this dump because of its involvement with the St. Lawrence, it gives the federal Government the opportunity to move in and prevent its establishment.
That was the case I wanted to raise with the Minister. I will give him more particulars, if he wishes, because it is important that we stop projects such as these before they begin. I would ask him to go to the Minister of the Environment in Ontario to discuss this issue since a river is involved.
This issue has created some problems in the area. We have had problems with the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes system in any event.
I want to deal with another area in which co-operation is important. The Minister will recall that his Department had suggested that a study be conducted to determine where a new site might be placed in the National Capital area for the disposal of toxic waste from federal Government installations. There were four or five sites set out. Unfortunately, this matter was handled improperly. The public relations for this proposal were very bad and, as a result, I should think that it has been abandoned. I believe it is right that it should be abandoned. As the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) said, the approach to these matters is extremely important.
However, the problem is still there. The public servants who work in the laboratories and those who live in the surrounding communities are still subject to the improper storage of that chemical waste. I believe if this problem is to be solved it will require co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal Governments in this part of Ontario if something is to be done here. For instance, at one time there was a proposal by the provincial Government for a central development for the purposes of the storage of those chemical wastes. I believe that is a proper approach to take. I do not see the logic of the
22300

January 27, 1983
Supply
federal Government building one site, the provincial Government building one site, and other companies perhaps having their own sites. All levels should be involved in that area.
My final point once again concerns the United States. We live beside the United States and we have to live together. The good Lord put us on the northern half of the western hemisphere, and we have to learn to live together. I believe that as much support as possible from all sides of the House of Commons should be given to such organizations as the International Joint Commission. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls is right. The appointment of the Canadian joint Chairman was good. If I were in a position to find someone to qualify for that position, I could find no one more qualified than the appointment that was made. I believe that we have a good combination in Mr. Seaborn and our group on the Commission being coupled with the Hon. Robert McEwen of the United States who lives on the banks of the St. Lawrence outside of Ogdensburg, New York and who feels exactly the same as I do about the importance of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence waterway and who is prepared to make some noise about the progress in cleaning up the environment.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that he consult with the Chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission to see if we cannot raise the consciousness of Members of the House of Commons in regard to the importance of that tributary.
I realize that the Minister wrote to various caucus groups and did not receive a great response. Perhaps the reason is that all Members of Parliament are involved. I am talking about Members of Parliament and Senators who represent constituencies contiguous to the river on the Canadian side, and Congressmen and Senators who are interested in the development and preservation of the river and lakes system on the American side. They can become familiar with and express their views on the problems facing both sides in terms of the water quality agreement, the environmental problems, as well as the financial problems on both sides.
I have found that the use of the Canadian-United States interparliamentary group has meant the exchange of ideas and the development of understanding. It is a slow process but one that ought not to be abandoned or discarded merely because it is slow. It is a good process. There will be Governments come and gone. Members of Parliament come and gone, but we can build up an expertise, an understanding and a commitment to cleaning the environment, not only with the Minister but with many Members of the House of Commons.
I have not used all my time but there are other Members who wish to speak. I feel very privileged to have taken part in this debate today, and I want to thank the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for putting this motion forward so we may deal with a subject that is quite often neglected in the House of Commons.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to compliment the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for introducing this motion and giving us an opportunity to debate this very serious
and complex problem that toxic and hazardous wastes disposal sites cause if not adequately stored or disposed of in safe and guaranteed leak-proof underground sites. This seems to be the case at the dumpsite upstream from Niagara Falls. I compliment the Member for introducing this motion.

However, that is as far as I am prepared to go in the way of compliments, and I may even be tempted to withdraw this one, having listened very carefully to the statements made by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).

Honestly, I have never heard so many erroneous statements and scare tactics in one single speech. Granted, an Hon. Member during his intervention may commit one or two errors in stating his case, but to carry on during his whole presentation, with false accusations and erroneous statements is not what is expected of an hon. gentleman in this House. Public debate is most welcome and healthy, but one should not use exaggeration in making one's case.
I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I think he was very positive in the suggestion which he brought forth.
The Niagara River Basin and its importance to the Canadian economy and people have been long recognized by the Government. This 37 mile-long river passes through an industrial complex of steel, petrochemical and chemical manufacturing industries which have been the economic lifeblood of this area for the past 30 years. The river itself has provided these industries with a cheap and easy source of hydroelectric power. It has been used by them, in return, as a sewer for their chemical waste.
In the early 1940s, we thought we could have it all and still use the river as a source of drinking water. The Niagara River soon became taxed beyond its limits. We began to see the gross earlier signs of pollution. Those were related to bacterial contamination and were obvious to the eyes and nose. I am speaking of oil slicks, foam, scums and persistent unpleasant odours, as well as visible discoloration of the water. These, the more obvious and crude types of pollution, were, in retrospect, relatively easy to rectify. Limits were placed on discharges of phosphorous and conventional pollutants which quickly removed these signs of pollution. However, within a very short period, more insidious types of chemical pollution began to come to life. They were not visible or easy to identify, but they were there all the same.
The discovery of dioxin by our environmental scientists was the key to the heightened awareness of the extreme danger of these chemicals in the river. In addition, the problem was compounded by the revelation that the major source of the dioxin was the many landfill sites in Niagara Falls, New York. Since dioxin was just one of the many chemicals deposited over the years on these landfill sites, the identification of the
January 27, 1983

problem and the solution became complicated beyond our expectations.
The monitoring of toxic chemicals such as dioxin through the Great Lakes Surveillance Program has led to a more intensive investigation of toxic chemical sources of the Niagara River. Dioxin is a primary example of the legacy which has fallen to us through inadequate control of toxic chemical waste in the past. There is no known source of dioxin currently coming into the Great Lakes Basin. It is the disposal of trichlorophenol waste in landfill sites created in the 1940s and the active dumping of this waste through the 50s, 60s, and up to 1974, which is the suspected cause of extremely high levels of hazardous chemicals now being found.
The first site to come to public attention was the now infamous Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York. We all know the tragic series of events which eventually led to the full scale investigation of that site. In fact, Love Canal is only one of 215 such sites identified in the American counties of Erie and Niagara Falls. In the case of Love Canal, the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, now called Occidental Chemical Corporation, had (lumped tons of toxic chemicals in a trench close to a residential neighbourhood. The first shockwaves emanating from Love Canal centred around the health of residents. Our Government quickly became aware of the possibility that chemicals from that site might be leaching into the Niagara River, thereby endangering the health of the Canadian public and environment.
Investigations on Cayuga Creek and Black Creek, which enter the Niagara River from the U.S. side, have shown great cause for concern since high levels of leachate from the Love Canal landfill site are evident in the sediment and fish from these Niagara River tributaries. We are presently investigating the extent of the contamination of these tributaries to identify all the pathways of movement of contaminants from the Love Canal into the Niagara River Basin in order to advise U.S. authorities as to what will constitute, in our opinion, an effective clean-up program.
In fact, the largest landfill site in Niagara Fall, New York, is the Hyde Park site, another Hooker site which, up until 1973, was an open lagoon containing a toxic brew which spilled down Bloody Run Creek directly into Niagara Gorge. Hyde Park landfill site is known to contain up to two and a half tons of TCDD-dioxin-alone and has been the subject of intensive investigation by the Government.
These investigations point to the movement of contaminants into the deep bedrock beneath the landfill and the leaching of toxic waste onto the face of the Niagara Gorge and into the Niagara River. This information was provided to public interest groups in Canada, which, together with their counterparts in the United States, presented oral testimony to the U.S. District Court of New York which is charged with resolving the fate of this site. At the same time, our Government was making active representations to the United States Government for a speedy and complete clean-up of this site, citing international obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty
Supply
Act of 1909 and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972.
I would like to point out that all actions on landfill sites on the Niagara River have occurred during the past several years. Investigation of these sites by the U.S. and Canadian authorities is still under way. It is essential that a complete information base be established before we can determine what cleanup technology would be effective and would prevent these chemicals from entering the environment in the future.
The most recent landfill site we have investigated is the S-Area site, situated just 200 yards from the bank of the Niagara River and constructed on land reclaimed from river waters some years ago. Our preliminary investigation has shown this to be the most serious direct source of contaminants moving from the landfill site into the Niagara River to date. As the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) announced on Monday, portions of landfill containing toxic waste seem to be moving directly into the river and onto Canadian territory. This is the most serious direct example of transboundary chemical pollution we have yet encountered on this river.
In order to determine whether the chemicals from this site are actually on Canadian territory, we will be conducting a further investigation in early spring. At the same time, we are intensifying our efforts to identify chemicals from the S-Area site in fish sediment and water taken from the river. The Department of National Health and Welfare will be testing drinking water on the Canadian side of the Niagara River for these chemicals.
The S-Area landfill has been the subject of intensive consultation with U.S. authorities. Several meetings between the four Governments involved have been held since the summer to present Canadian concerns over the migration of plumes of contaminants moving into and under the Niagara River and the potential hazards created by them. It is our position that the movement of contaminants is not yet well enough defined to determine what remedial technology should be used to either contain or remove the site as a source of contamination to the environment. After our study of S-Area, we will be continuing our investigation with Hooker Site 102nd Street. This particular landfill is situated directly on the bank of the Niagara River and contains toxic waste similar to that deposited in the other three landfills we have previously considered.
We have begun to negotiate with the United States with regard to the release of all confidential data pertaining to this site before the United States court. Action is actively under way. This will enable us to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the dangers of this site and its effect on the Niagara River.
Another major concern on the Niagara River is the continued toxic waste effluent coming from the Niagara Falls, New York, sewage treatment plant. This discharge presently provides a major loading of toxic chemical waste to the Niagara River from the chemical industries in the area. This

January 27, 1983
Supply
treatment plant, originally designed to process and remove highly contaminated chemical wastes, broke down shortly after it was inaugurated and has been in a state of disrepair for the last three years. This means that chemical waste receives only primary treatment and is contributing to the toxic chemical loading of the Niagara River. Numerous diplomatic and technical moves, including direct sampling by Canadians of the effluent from this plant, have been undertaken to press the United States for speedy and effective repairs.
1 would like to emphasize that the toxic chemical pollution of the Niagara River is not a simple problem to describe, let alone solve. 1 have mentioned past discharges from industries which are further compounded by inadequate treatment. These vast landfills, which amount to over a quarter million tons of toxic waste, contain chemicals the identity of which we have yet to discover, and additional new chemicals produced by compounded reaction to each other.
It is a long journey down a dark and twisting path with very few guideposts along the way. Our approach has been to recognize the problem in its entirety while methodically investigating and dealing with the problems on a case-by-case basis. Our progress has been steady and sure, but the complete understanding of these problems lies in the future, as does their resolution.
The excellence of our scientists and engineers provided us with information on which to base our negotiations with the United States. We will use all methods at our disposal to continue to press Canada's case for a complete clean-up of these sources of toxic chemicals to the river.

I would now like to say just a few words about a new phenomenon-I would call it chemophobia-and I am referring to these warnings we are getting practically every week that some new chemical product is hazardous to our health. Far be it from me to criticize the public and the media for getting worried about every new crisis or new discovery that crops up, but I think there is a tendency to make things seem worse than they actually are. I would even go so far as to say that sometimes the facts are concealed to make a better story.
The Government is taking action and is trying to correct the situation. Some Hon. Members may be aware of the program that has been established under the Environmental Contaminants Act. The Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare are responsible for evaluating and rating certain industrial chemicals. Unfortunately, not many products have been evaluated, but the Department is now extending its activities to a far greater number of chemical products and by-products. To co-ordinate and integrate all these activities, the Department of the Environment has created the Toxic Chemicals Management Centre. People working at the Centre are responsible for collecting all available data on chemical products and their effects, and for subsequently recommending appropriate action. As these people increase their knowledge of substances
used in industry, the effluent content, the impact of chemical products that have already entered the environment on humans, animals, birds, fish, air, water and soil-as these people get a better picture of the general situation, they can then zero in on certain specific situations. For instance, in factories A, B and C, we have to watch out for chemical product X, or we should give factory D a warning about its disposal methods, or product X is more hazardous than we thought and its use should therefore be prohibited, and so on. Of course all this is not going to be done behind closed doors. The priorities of the Toxic Chemicals Management Program must be open, to scrutiny by industry and other interested parties and the public. That is how the Department will be able to establish a certain level of credibility. It will not necessarily eliminate our chemophobia, but it may help to make us less alarmist.
Finally, a few words about our environmental legislation as it relates to the use of chemical pollutants. The three most important statutes that are concerned with toxic chemicals are: the Environmental Contaminants Act, the Clean Air Act and sections of the Fisheries Act relating to pollution control. This legislation was entirely adequate at the time it was passed, but that is no longer the case, in view of the challenges 1 mentioned earlier. We must therefore prepare new legislation on environmental protection.
I shall give a few examples of various areas that require our attention. The OECD has published international guidelines on laboratory testing of new chemicals. These guidelines have now been approved and we shall therefore have to apply them.
I am aware that the United States has decided to reverse its initial position and now relies on the good faith of the parties concerned with respect to product testing. I am sorry that our main trading partner made this decision, but on the other hand, I am very pleased to note that practically all other member countries in the OECD intend to make these tests compulsory. The new system has a tremendous advantage in that we will be able to obtain far more information and greater reliability.
However, the OECD program applies only to new chemicals. What about the tens of thousands of chemicals that already exist? I know that many products have been tested to some degree, and that a few have been tested quite exhaustively. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. What are we going to do about the vast number of substances about which we know very little? We shall have to be pragmatic and set our priorities.
As soon as Parliament passes new legislation, we shall make sure that the main responsibility for testing will lie with industry. Other changes will have to be made as well. For instance, our present legislation on water pollution is aimed at protecting fish and not humans. We have to do something about this. The public wants increased protection, and we shall have to act accordingly. I firmly believe that it makes sense to have a comprehensive system for the management of toxical

January 27, 1983

chemicals. Moreover, if we want to maintain our credibility with the public, we shall have to act quickly. I am convinced that we can make chemicals work for us, and that we will succeed.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, once more, I want to ask my hon. colleagues who are going to take part in this debate to refrain from scare tactics when the subject is environmental protection. We often get carried away in the heat of the debate in our statements about the hazards caused by certain industries, without first having checked the extent of the damage that can be caused by such pollutants or toxic chemicals.
I heard the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who put the motion and who almost scared the people who live in the Niagara Falls area out of their wits when he said that in water, dioxin was an extremely dangerous chemical. We know that. Everybody in Canada does. But to what extent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has now expired, and we have now reached the stage of the debate set aside for questions.

The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is rising on a question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake?


Mr. Anguish:: 1 have no questions, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I recognize the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) for the purpose of making a speech.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was standing to make a speech when you asked. He indicated he did not want to ask a question but was standing to make a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I can appreciate that, but there were two Members rising. It is the duty of the Chair to inquire at the beginning of the question period if Members are rising to put questions. I proceeded to do that with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and then the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). In any case, it was the Chair's intention and the Chair's discretion to recognize the Hon. Member who has been given the floor to make a speech.
OC)


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Bow River is rising on the same point of order?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I think I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I checked with the Deputy Speaker before you came in
Supply
and he indicated we are still following the three and one rule. Consequently, there have been only two Progressive Conservative speakers since the last New Democratic Party speaker. However, I will defer to the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), but surely we should follow these rules, if that is the rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: On that point of order, the Hon. Member for Bow River should know there is no rule. Standing Orders, and custom and practice grant to the Speaker discretion in recognizing Hon. Members. However, the comment made by the Hon. Member for Bow River is well taken by the Chair in regard to the practice of allocating time to one side of the House and then to the other and from one Party to the others. However, I checked with my predecessor in the chair before assuming my duties today and it would have been his intention, in any case, to recognize the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, in view of the fact that this is an Opposition day. The motion is presented by the New Democratic Party, and in a sense it was that Party's initiative to put the motion before the House. And it is the Chair's feeling that sufficient time should be given to Hon. Members of that Party to express their opinions. It is the Chair's intention to recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River as the next speaker in any case.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief intervention in the 20 minutes I have on the NDP Opposition motion moved by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to adequately protect the Canadian environment from toxic and hazardous waste and for its subservience to the vested interests of the chemical and industrial waste producers and, in particular, for its failure to expedite the clean-up of the Great Lakes.
Each year, Mr. Speaker, Canadian industries produce approximately one million tonnes of hazardous waste material, and this causes some very serious problems for our society in terms of its effect on our environment, our wildlife, and on the human beings who have to live next to some of the dump sites, or some of the illegal dumps where these hazardous waste materials have been disposed of over the years.
In the past, it was always thought that one of the best ways to protect the environment was to not supersaturate the environment with an excessive amount of pollutants and eventually nature would take care of itself. However, as chemicals have become more complex, research has become more complex and we understand the problems of hazardous waste a bit better, we find that some of the chemicals today, like dioxin in the Great Lakes, have produced some very, very serious problems. Dioxin is not biodegradable and when it is pumped into a natural system, nature itself cannot take care of the pollution which occurs. In Canada there are several dumping sites, almost all of which are totally inadequate for dumping hazardous waste. As a result, we find there has been

January 27, 1983
Supply
dumping into the Niagara River system, and into the Great Lakes. In fact, there is a great amount of dumping which ends up in the Great Lakes.
In the beginning, to be fair to those who dumped the waste many years ago, I suppose they did not know any better. They did not know what the long-term effects of some of these dumping of hazardous and toxic waste could be to our environment. But in this day and age, with our expertise and our research, we know there can be very detrimental effects upon our entire environment. We should be building effective repositories for these waste materials which are harming our society so very much.
I am very concerned about the transportation of hazardous wastes also. The problem of transporting this material through densely populated areas by rail or tanker trucks has caused some very anxious moments to people throughout recent history in Canada where there have been accidents. In fact, life and environment have become endangered. I know that the Department of Transport is looking at this problem now. They have looked at it in the past. I suggest they come up with a few more constructive ideas in terms of transportation of hazardous waste. I know, for example, that no one from the federal Government has been in very close contact with volunteer firefighters, for example, who sometimes find themselves coming into contact with hazardous material and have no knowledge of how to cope with it. I would encourage the federal Government to look at some kind of information program for the Volunteer Firefighting Association across Canada. The volunteer firefighters have to contend with these problems sometimes and they should know exactly what they are dealing with and how they can deal with it.
Dioxin, as I mentioned, is not bio-degradeable. One very small drop in a pitcher of drinking water could cause the death of an entire family if they were to drink that water. These are very dangerous chemicals, indeed. The waste disposal, as I have already said, is inadequate, and we should be addressing this problem very seriously so the waste can be treated, if it needs to be treated, before it gets out into our environment. Certainly the best way to take care of this problem is not to be cleaning up after the fact, but to prevent the pollution problem to begin with. In terms of the cost of cleaning up, I think that the "dumpers", if they do it intentionally and illegally against the wishes of the Government and the people of Canada, should be responsible, and in the case of illegal dumping, should have total responsibility. They should clean up the waste after it has been dumped. Either they should be required to hold insurance, or else there should be some kind of a holdback program on the profits of those companies by the federal Government. When a contractor builds a complex for the Government, whether federal or provincial, there is usually a holdback of 10 per cent, and sometimes 15 per cent, until the building is actually erected and found to be in sound and safe condition. Then the rest of the money is turned over. I submit that a possible way of dealing with those who dump hazardous waste could be that, at the end of the year when their profits are tabulated, their profits could be held back by the federal Government until they act in a responsible manner. If they act in a responsible manner and if there is no unsafe dumping of
hazardous material, then the profits can go back to the company. That should be coupled with insurance. I think there should be great emphasis put on these people so that they do not abuse the very privileged position which some of them hold.
I would like to move to a few local concerns. I am very concerned about the problem of acid rain, which is not only a Canadian problem, it is an international problem, because of the very fact that the pollutants get into the atmosphere, the sulphates and nitrates which cause acid precipitation, and they come down with no recognition of international boundaries.
Environment Canada, I know, has a testing station at Cree Lake, in the riding which 1 represent. They are monitoring very closely the amount of acid precipitation in that area of Saskatchewan which, incidentally is just on the edge of the Cambrian Shield in the northern part of my home province. Acid rain could become a very serious problem in Western Canada. I hope it never gets to the point at which we have seen it affect the Province of Ontario where there are hundreds and hundreds of lakes which are dead. They support no life in terms of organic material, fish, or insects which used to be around those lakes. They support no life, and I would not want it to move any further than it has already.
Another situation I would like to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is that which occurred on January 24, the Government of Canada, DREE and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced an incentive of some $74,000 plus to Canadian Seed Coaters Limited of Brampton, Ontario who indicated a desire to open a new facility for the processing of canola, or rapeseed as it is traditionally known, in the Batt-lefords area. The total project will cost some $215,000 and provide seven new jobs. I commend this company for moving into the Battlefords area. I think it is very good to see them recognize the benefits derived from being located in northwestern Saskatchewan. I also welcome the jobs provided in a time of rising unemployment because there is a great need for more jobs throughout Canada. I am also pleased to see that the farmers of that area, who buy treated rapeseed, will now be able to buy it from a local processor. I have some concern, however, about this company and its activities. I would like to put those on the record since they have a direct connection with the motion put forward today by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
That company is going to be using a chemical called Lindane in the treatment of the canola. There is not much information around as to how they are going to use this chemical or bring it into the Battlefords area, so I would like to say a few words about Lindane itself. The process to be used in the plant is twofold. One, they use Vitavax rs Flowable which provides the canola seed with a coating of protection from the Flea beetle and fungal diseases which attack the seed once it is in the ground. I am thinking of Blackleg which is a problem there
January 27, 1983

right now. They are also using what is called super phosphates as a fertilizer and they will also coat the seed with that. I want to put on the record that we should be watching very carefully the Vitavax rs Flowable process. Vitavax is made up of three chemicals: Carbathiin and Thiram, which prevent fungal diseases from growing on the plant. The other chemical, the one I am more concerned about, is Lindane. As far as Lindane is concerned, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in June of 1980, recommended banning its use. I quote:
After careful consideration the agency has concluded that the risks of use on these crops, even reduced by protective measures, outweigh the benefits of use in so far as the benefits are presently known and therefore recommends cancellation.
I guess what they are saying is that the detrimental effect of the use of Lindane can quite well outweigh its benefits. Now I am not supporting or denying that statement, but I want to put on record the very serious concern some people have expressed regarding Lindane. Many people who advocate its use say that it is a very dangerous chemical, but what are the alternatives to not using it? They maintain that careful use of Lindane can be an asset to those in the agricultural sector when it is used for coating canola seed. However, there are problems with humans when it comes to the use of Lindane. The EPA says that exposure to Lindane in humans can cause symptoms of acute poisoning. Therefore, the people who are going to be using this chemical want to know what is going to be done to protect them from exposure to Lindane in the plant where the seeds are going to be treated. The symptoms of this acute poisoning appear in a kind of chronological order. First, there is dizziness, headaches; nausea and vomitting set in, which can be followed by diarrhea, tremors, a noticeable weakness, convulsions, heart problems, eventually a bluish tinge to the complexion and some kind of eventual circulatory collapse. The EPA is also particularly concerned that this chemical produces acute effects in children even more significant than it produces in adults. The EPA produced a report, and Agriculture Canada circulated a report from the Winnipeg Free Press which said:
The report also cited the case of a two and a half month old infant who died after being treated for scabies with a lindane product. A concentration of 110 parts per billion of lindane in the child's brain was considered the most probable cause of death.
Lindane is also used in other products such as flea soap for pets, and we should be very careful of this product because of its very dangerous effects. Workers who must be exposed to Lindane, Mr. Speaker, are advised to wear long-sleeved shirts and pants and some kind of protective clothing to avoid exposure of the arms and legs to this chemical. They should wear gloves to prevent exposure to their hands, and to a degree some protection of the face. It is also very important that they wear disposable masks or masks of some kind, so that they cannot inhale dust particles or fumes from the Lindane. I would like to see the new company moving into the Battlefords make sure that it observes these very simple measures of protection for its workers.
Supply
As to not following a proper procedure, Mr. Speaker, there was a case of a farmer dying in Manitoba. A Mr. Kerr, who farmed near Cardale, some 50 kilometres northeast of Brandon, died of kidney failure last spring, nine days after he was admitted to hospital with symptoms of chemical poisoning. This man had stirred some Vitavax with his arm in a tub, and of course the chemical entered through the pores of his skin and that was the eventual cause of his death.
Lindane has been used extensively in Saskatchewan. The 1978-79 report of the Saskatchewan Environmental Advisory Council said that Lindane was widespread in rivers, lakes and other surface water in the Province, particularly in the Qu'Appelle River district. Bottom sediments, where agricultural chemicals accumulate and serve as a sink for toxic substances, pose not just an immediate but also a long-term potential threat to the environment. Lindane is among the more than 100 chemicals involved in fraudulent and inadequate safety tests carried out by industrial biotest laboratories in the United States in the late 1970s. Right now Lindane is one of the chemicals being re-evaluated by the Department of National Health and Welfare, but the results of those tests are not known yet. I urge that those results become known very quickly, and if there is any alternative to the chemical Lindane in the seed-coating process, I would like to see Agriculture Canada recommend it to anyone who wants to go into the business of coating seeds.
According to Steven Safe, a biochemist at Guelph University and an expert on toxicity, Lindane is slow to degrade and can accumulate in human fat cells. If one is exposed to it over a long period of time, the chemical can accumulate in the body and cause some of the side effects I have referred to. He has said that the problem with widespread use is that when Lindane gets into the water system, it can get into other organisms. It is very important to keep Lindane from getting into our food chain as it is so very detrimental to health.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like it on the record that I want to know from the company that will build the seed coating plant in the Battlefords, what it is going to do to provide safe working conditions for the people who work there. I think it should provide adequate information to those farmers who buy their product so that they do not handle it in a way that may be dangerous. I understand that there will be very little chemical waste from the plant, but I should like to know their plans to dispose of what waste there is.
I have welcomed the company into the Battleford area, Mr. Speaker. If it acts as a responsible citizen in the community, providing jobs and services, then as the local Member of Parliament I will be a friend and supporter of the company. On the other hand, if the company acts irresponsibly, as many others have been allowed to, I will be a thorn in its side for as long as it remains in the Battlefords.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) spoke this morning, he said that the critic on the environment for this Party had only

January 27, 1983
Supply
asked one question on this subject and that referred to a raccoon dog. When he was questioned about this by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), he said that his researcher had gone through Hansard and all that could be found was a reference to a raccoon dog. He was critical of the PC Party and indicated that perhaps the PC caucus had given him instructions not to speak on the environment. I want to tell the House that the PC caucus does not give instructions like that. When someone is appointed to a job they are expected to do that job in the best interests of the country. I would like to point to some of the statements that have been made by our critic for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Skeena. The Hon. Member for Erie did the research during the noon hour. I am sure the Hon. Member for Skeena would not want to deliberately mislead the House.
On March 7, 1981, as reported at p. 8690 of Hansard the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), our critic on the environment, asked about the control of acid rain in the United States. He then put a supplementary question and received an answer from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts).
On April 21, 1981 as reported at p. 9334 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough put a question to the Minister of the Environment about negotiations with the United States on the acid rain treaty. He followed that with a supplementary question, and both were answered by the Minister of the Environment.
On March 20, 1981, as reported at p. 9721 of Hansard the Hon. Member for Hillsborough presented a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding the dumping of chemical wastes in the Niagara River.
On May 27, 1981 he again put questions to the Minister of the Environment regarding negotiations with the United States on action to combat acid rain, and also on the possibility of legal action against United States industries.
On February 19, 1982 the PC critic again put questions to the Minister of the Environment, requesting that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) meet the United States President to discuss acid rain controls, and asked for the Minister's view of this.
On April 27, 1982 our critic directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the Ontario application to increase export of electricity to New Jersey and, in a supplementary question, asked for the position of the Minister of the Environment on the project.
On June 11, 1982, as reported at p. 18371 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, put questions to the Minister of the Environment regarding the cancellation of a deal to export Ontario nuclear generated electricity to New Jersey, and inquired about the delay in the Government's decision.
On July 22, 1982, as reported at p. 19585 of Hansard, our very energetic critic on the environment, who endeavours to do his work conscientiously, again put questions to the Minister of the Environment regarding negotiations with the United States
on acid rain. He asked a supplementary question about the Ontario Hydro installation of anti-pollution devices.
There are eight questions on record, Mr. Speaker, rather than just one, and none about the raccoon dog. We did not even find that one. I hope the Hon. Member for Skeena is sorry that he gave misleading information to the House.
I would now like to deal with one or two matters, but I shall not take too long with them because I know a lot of other Members want to speak in this debate.
I commend the Hon. Member for bringing the motion forward. The protection of the Canadian environment, and the provisions of clean air and good water is everyone's business. Too often we think that these matters are only the business of Government. Certainly Government has a responsibility for the environment. In Alberta there is a Clean Air and Clean Water Act, and I believe most other Provinces have something similar. It is important to set standards that everyone can follow.
I should like to deal with the matter of good water in the Canadian environment, and I will refer to a rather different type of poison from those we have heard about today and that is, parasite poisoning.
Giardia lamblia organisms exist in two forms, as a living parasite and as a cyst. Only the cyst form is infectious to man, however, since the living parasite is destroyed in the digestive process. The Alberta provincial laboratories personnel who provide Parks Canada with testing services, discovered the giardia cyst. The gardia lamblia parasite causes vomiting, stomach flu, and sometimes, paralysis. Once it occurs in an area it continues to be a problem. It can be caused by poor handling of food anywhere in Canada. Probably the most common form is that it comes in the form of cysts from beavers. That is where the colloquial name has come from, "beaver fever". This cyst has got into the water supply in the townsite of Banff, and of course once it is in there it is very difficult to deal with.
The matter was reported to the Hon. Minister of the Environment, and the Minister decided he would have a study made in regard to this, which he did. He appointed a very excellent firm of consulting engineers, the Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd., and a very excellent report came out. The report indicated that the Banff water system has no facilities except chlorination to control giardia lamblia cysts, and chlorination becomes less effective at temperatures below 5 degrees Centigrade. It is worse in the winter months, and this is now the second year, when this has caused concern and sickness, and it is a very worrying thing. If notices continue to be handed to everybody who goes into the park and notices are posted in all public places not to drink the water, it is going to have the effect of keeping people away from that beautiful tourist area, which has taken years to develop and is now a world renowned area. People will not go to places if they are going to get sick while they are there.

:

January 27, 1983

Any consideration of water must also take into account the population which the system will serve. At the present time the Banff townsite has a population of probably 17,000, and the engineering firm said that by the year 2005 the population will be 35,000. That includes a reasonable amount of the one million people who travel through there, mostly in the summer months.
In view of the water projected demands, as the report indicates, the need for expansion of the water system is evident. I am not going to deal with that aspect today, but I am going to deal with this matter of the cysts that are in the water, and urge the Department to take a very definite stand in putting in an effective water filtration system.
Normally, in the Province of Alberta, if water does not reach a certain standard, the municipality is required by law to put in a water treatment system. Banff, of course, being under the control of the federal Government, does not come under the provincial regulations. If Banff was a normal town in Alberta, the town would have been ordered to find the money and put in a water treatment system, because it is essential that every municipality and every Government is careful to make sure we have good drinking water. Infected water is what is worrying the people of Banff today.
The importance of putting in a water treatment system has received a great deal of study. It is an expensive process. The engineers have come up with a suggestion that $10.2 million would provide a system that not only provides water that meets all the qualities of good drinking water but provides a water treatment system that would serve the people for many, many years. I think this is essential. When we say $10.2 million, it certainly sounds like a lot of money, but we have to remember that the federal Government has, in the last full fiscal year, collected more than $6.5 million from the Banff area, and that has been going on for many years because a million or more people go there, from all parts of the world, every year.
I think it is essential that we stop trying to use palliatives or bandaids in this particular area and face the issue and put in a water treatment system. That is the only cure. Medical people tell me there is no other way of effectively destroying the cysts and stopping the spread of this disease. What I hope never happens is that someone will die from this disease, and that is quite possible. I have a stack of letters from people who have become sick, very, very ill, from the water. Water was the common cause, the health unit doctor tells me. So it is essential that we get a water treatment system in Banff at the earliest possible time.
I strongly recommend to the Minister and the officials of Parks Canada that the recommendations of Stanley Associates Engineering be followed and acted on immediately. It is over a year since this has become a problem, and surely we should put our money where our mouth is and make sure that the people in that area have good, clean drinking water. That is an important part of our environment.
I think that any national park within a Province should come under the rules and regulations of the standards set by
Supply
that Province in regard to clean air and clean water. I think the national parks, because they are a separate entity, should not be excused from the standards that have been set by the provincial Governments. Certainly a number of people are concerned about it.
I want to give just one or two indications of how widespread the concern is. In the Banff School District, the Chairman of the Banff Community School Committee, which is an elected body, wrote to the Hon. Minister on June 21, 1982. It reads:
It has come to our attention that Parks Canada has not yet made a decision whether to install a water treatment plant in Banff, therefore we would like to strongly recommend that Parks Canada take immediate action to have such a plant built.
The problem of giardia lambia in the Banff water system still persists and it is a severe health hazard to the residents of Banff. In addition, one must consider the millions of tourists who visit the town annually and have no facilities with which to boil water to ensure that it is fit for consumption.
That is from local people.
Then we had a letter from a medical doctor from Quebec from the Laurenval School Board which reads:
I have just returned from a two week conference with the Canadian Education Association at Banff, Alberta.
He goes on to say:
The presence of giardiasis in the Banff water supply is a potentially dangerous situation with long-term ill effects possible.
This is from a medical doctor from Quebec who is very concerned that no action is being taken about this, and it is a serious matter. An ordinary, everyday citizen wrote that she suffered a great deal of illness, and she wonders why we are finding new wells and then putting that water into the water system that already has cysts in it. We could go on and on. I do not want to take the time of the House with regard to that but it is not just simply the local people who have complaints. It is people who are highly trained and people who realize what this giardis lambia can do to the human body. What the long term effects of it are is still something which is even more questionable.
The Department now has the set-up, and I think that Parks Canada will make a very serious mistake if they now start to try to bandaid this problem by digging new wells and doing this and that and the other thing. It will never be cheaper than it is right now to put in a water treatment system. A water treatment system is going to be required eventually, and it will never be cheaper than right now. I strongly urge the Department to give this serious consideration and to not let this situation continue.
I have one other letter from a medical doctor from Ontario who is very concerned about this. He wrote his own Member and said:
I thought you would be interested-
He went on:
Worse, however, John told me of the water supply in Banff, Alberta. Apparently the municipal water supply is provided from the National Park and is the responsibility of that Department.

January 27, 1983
Supply
And he said:
In every hotel room he states was a notice warning not to drink the water, but so far apparently nothing has been done to correct this.
We cannot overemphasize the importance and the necessity of good water and good air. Again I say it is the responsibility of every one of us to do our part in keeping our air and water pure. There is also a greater responsibility upon those in Government to make sure that town sites with 10,000 or
18,000	people will not be subjected to water that has cysts and parasites in it. That situation should be corrected at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Bloomfield:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Is this a local natural problem in the water table in the Banff area or is this an artificial pollutant that has come from some surface source?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the medical doctor told me that two beavers were found in the water supply system. The beavers were removed and were analyzed by the Health Department. The Health Department found cysts in the beavers. It was concluded that the cysts came from the beavers in that area and that the beavers got into the water system somehow. I believe that is the cause of the cysts in the water.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the system is contaminated, the pipes and the delivery system into the town?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This system brings water into the town. Parks Canada, in an attempt to help out, dug two wells with the idea of adding chlorine and so on to eradicate the cysts. But in bringing the water into the town supply, the water from the wells had to be joined into the water supply in which the beavers were found. Some dissolving occurred, but the cysts are still there and people are still getting sick. We need a water treatment plant, and with the use of chlorination this should provide one of the purest water supplies in the country.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). But before putting it, I want to mention something which I checked earlier. I have great respect for the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). I checked with one of my staff and it is true we had a misunderstanding with respect to the raccoon dog issue.
However, the Hon. Member for Bow River gives me an opportunity to follow up on something on which I also checked with my staff concerning comments made by earlier speakers in the Progressive Conservative Party regarding the relationship between big business and the chemical companies. Knowing that the Hon. Member is very long of political tooth, I thought I would put the question to him. The Special Committee on Acid Rain identified some of Canada's main polluters. Of the six they looked at, the contributions to the Conservatives and Liberals between 1974 and 1981 were as follows: Inco Ltd, $418,000; Algoma Steel $122,000; Hudson's Bay,
$66,000; Falconbridge Nickel, $62,000; and Suncor $34,000. An amount of $514,000 was given to the Liberals and $508,000 was given to the Tories. Nothing was given to the New Democratic Party by any of those companies.


Dave Nickerson: I am not surprised, you are not worth anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: When we talk about pressure tactics, the companies mentioned above were identified as among the ten largest polluters in Canada. How do political Parties and Members of Parliament in those Parties that get such huge sums-and we are talking about a half a million dollars- divorce themselves from that kind of pressure?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I have doubts as to the relevance of the Hon. Member's question. It hardly relates to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) during the course of his speech. However, with the indulgence of the House perhaps we could allow a comment from the Hon. Member for Bow River.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal Party can speak for itself. But the Progressive Conservative Party accepts donations in amounts ranging from five cents up. If people who believe in our cause want to contribute, they contribute with no strings attached. Under no obligation do we sell the health of the people for donations to the Party.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with the tone and the detail of the resolution today, I welcome the chance to speak in this debate. I would certainly not be telling you anything new or startling if I were to say that the public perception of the chemical industry these days is not a very flattering one. In fact, this was the subject of an article on the editor's page of a recent issue of Chemical and Engineering News. The title of the article was "Chemophobia," that is, fear of chemicals. It was about a phenomenon so widespread that this term has been coined to characterize it. It is interesting that we seem to like to put things into context and perhaps change our language in order to make something more relevant. Chemophobia reminds me of a story that I read. Unfortunately, I cannot remember who the author was, but he wrote: "We no longer live in the slums. We live in the inner city." He wrote, "Once I was poor and then I was needy. Next I was deprived, and the last thing 1 knew I was disadvantaged. I still did not have a nickel to my name, but I sure had a great vocabulary." We can add chemophobia to our vocabulary.
It is one of the ironies of our society that we demand the standard of living that chemicals, among other things, have given us, and we are unwilling to see that standard decline. Yet, at the same time, we seem reluctant to pay the full price that the safe use of chemicals demands. The thrust of the
January 27, 1983

article was that chemophobia has reached such proportions that the chemical industry has been, to a certain extent, paralyzed by it, and is on the defensive as a result.
A good part of the public's wariness stems from the sheer intimidation that a layman feels when confronted by a seemingly impenetrable mass of scientific jargon, more of the so-called Newspeak like chemophobia. This, and the fact that chemicals are all around us and not necessarily to be feared, was neatly brought home in an article run in a quality periodical. 1 believe it was the New Yorker. The ad simply consisted of an attractive and appetizing picture of a "natural" orange. Appended to this was a list of the chemicals it contained, which was as long as your arm.
I think it was the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) who discussed a problem which was very complicated which, in turn, indicated how complex the whole problem is.
I am glad to have an opportunity for a few moments to talk a little bit about the science of toxicology, what a toxicologist does and the role he plays in helping us to solve this most complex problem. Recently I had a chance to read a planning study about the establishment of a Canadian centre for toxicology. This was developed by the University of Guelph and the University of Toronto. While the study talks about centres in Guelph and Toronto, it looks as though this plan could easily be expanded to have national scope. I am very proud of the fact that one of the universities that is involved in this study is the University of Guelph which happens to be my Alma Mater. I think it is important to realize the potentials of an institute such as this and to see how lacking we really are in basic knowledge of many of the problems that are related to toxic substances in our environment. There are other terms which are again part of our Newspeak. We talk about things that are either gross or microscopic and we talked about micro or macro. We have no difficulty with chemicals which appear in such high concentration that they can be tasted and seen. They provide some warning about their presence. The major problem we will face in the future concerns those chemicals that are present in amounts that are infinitesimal. These chemicals only cause problems after they have been consumed constantly in these small amounts.
A fortunate fact to remember is that our environment contains natural sentinels to detect environmental problems. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talked about the beaver. No doubt, they were finding this illness in beavers. The fact that they found a cyst in the beaver and that the beavers were probably dying gave us some indication that there was a problem. This happens very often in our environment.
I would like to elaborate on the institution of toxicology. The proposal is to create this institution called the Canadian Centre for Toxicology. Although it will draw heavily upon existing strengths in toxicology of the University of Guelph and the University of Toronto, it will be an autonomous
Supply
institution operated in partnership with Governments, industry, labour and universities. I think this is an important consideration. It will have the credibility of an independent organization which adheres to the highest standards of scientific integrity. It will interface with other institutions across Canada to form an integral part of the total network, and will foster a co-operative approach among these organizations.
What will be the intent of this organization? They go on to say in this report that the dangers which the increasing use of toxic chemicals present to human health and the environment are now the subject of acute and valid public concern. They go on to say that these concerns arise because we do not know enough about these chemicals to weigh their long-term effects. The public does not believe that existing regulations provide adequate protection, and they demand more assurance. In some instances, the public in pressing for action, has been ill-informed but it is clear that some toxins do pose risks to human health and to the environment. The extent of these risks is poorly understood.
This new institute for toxicology wants to see major new efforts being made to obtain data on these compounds to regulate them wisely and therefore be able to reduce the risk of their use. Incidents of damage will continue to occur, and some will be disastrous, but unless such incidents are prevented, extensive and costly corrective action will be needed. We are seeing evidence of this today, costly, corrective, after-the-fact solutions.
Another danger we have is that public pressure might force unwarranted removal of important chemicals from the market and place our resource and secondary industries at a competitive disadvantage. I find the description in this proposal about the statement of need and intent to be very relevant to the debate today.
Another area in which we are deficient in Canada is research. I would like to talk for a moment about research in toxicology and what that means. First, what is a toxicologist? A toxicologist is a scientist in his or her own right. It is the science that deals with the effects of poisons on living organisms, from micro-organisms to man. It also deals with the effects on the entire living systems, a type of ecotoxicology. As well, toxicology increasingly deals with controlling, curing and avoiding the harmful effects of toxic chemicals on life.
Toxicology must determine the impact of toxic substances on man and his environment so that decisions can be made on the use of toxicants based on a valid system of risks and benefits.
I hope I have made it quite clear that I am very supportive of this institute of toxicology which these two universities have established and for which they are attempting to receive support.
I would like to close by saying that there are probably fewer than 200 trained toxicologists in Canada. If the science of toxicology is to be pursued, we naturally must train more of these scientists. During the last 30 years, a series of disasters have focused attention on the inadequacy of the science of

January 27, 1983
Supply
toxicology. I do not need to mention thalidomide, methyl mercury, dioxin or PCBs. There is a whole list.
1 would like to draw to your attention the fact that the necessity for training toxicologists, for learning more about these toxic substances and therefore developing a high category of toxicologists in Canada is very important. If for no other reason, I took part in this debate today to bring the importance of this science to the attention of the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have a few minutes to participate in this debate. Since there are only approximately two minutes remaining, I would just like to express my dismay and displeasure at the lack of leadership we have had from the Government across the way in environmental problems in the last 15 years. In fact, they have been in Government for the last 20 years, going back to the days of Lester Pearson. We are still polluting our lakes and air and creating an exceedingly unhealthy environment for all Canadians. I suggest that it is a damning indictment of a Government that is more concerned with the profits of its friends in the companies and corporations and with lining the pockets of the rich. I include my friend, the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Whelan), who is a born again capitalist like Ronald Reagan, as are the other Ministers in the Cabinet.
It is sad that they make that their priority while letting the environment suffer. The Great Lakes are being polluted and we are producing millions of tons of wastes every year. There are very few controls. The fish are being poisoned.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Mr. Speaker, is this a speech or is it a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 was trying to make a three-minute speech because one of the culprits in poisoning our environment is the Minister of Agriculture as a result of his very loose regulations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 62(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a question in the House which reads as follows:
In view of Ihc very depressed situation in the Canadian beef industry this year, with low cattle prices last fall and continuing high input costs for interest and farm machinery repairs, is the Minister planning to implement the provisions of the Anderson-Vandermeulen Report on the beef industry, or provide stabilization payments to producers this winter? What action is planned by the Government?
The Minister went on to say that he was having a series of discussions regarding this matter. I asked the Minister this question because on August 28 of 1981, the Minister of Agriculture announced that he was establishing a commission consisting of Mr. E. H. Anderson and Mr. H. M. Vandermeul-en to report on the state of the beef cattle industry in Canada. The press release indicated the whole range of tremendous problems facing the Canadian Agriculture Industry today, including input costs. In relation to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Vandermeulen, the press release also stated:
They will report to Mr. Whelan by January, 1982, on how the interests of Canadian consumers can be best served in a manner consistent with Canadian economic development while, at the same time, permitting the industry to expand and producers to make a living commensurate with their risk-taking, labour and management ability.
In fact, that report was made just about a year ago.
Mr. Anderson came to my constituency and held meetings with a number of beef producers both on Manitoulin Island and in the District of Algoma. We had a good chance to discuss the very serious problems with a representative group of producers. At that time, interest rates were much higher. The Government has taken some steps relating to reduction in interest rates for farm credit loans. We discussed with that group their interest in stabilization programs and the continuing problem of imports from offshore. Of course, this past fall we had difficulty when the Americans cut off our imports; not of live cattle but, rather, of red meat.
Those producers outlined a complete list of rising input costs, such as fertilizer, machinery and fuel costs, and gave a complete rundown of problems facing their industry. Most of those circumstances have not changed. Now, only a year later, input costs continue to rise. In fact, the returns for beef producers have not increased at all. This past fall, prices for cow-calf operators and general beef producers have continued to be unacceptably low.
Likewise, during our meeting at Algoma, we discussed stabilization and the problem of reconciling Provincial programs. Some of the western Provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta, have extensive stabilization programs for their cow-calf producers. We discussed the control of imports, the cost of interest and money and so on.
I must say that both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Vandermeulen really approached the problem with a very sympathetic ear to the producers. I hope the Minister will be able to make that report public. I know the producers would like to read it. In any event, I hope the Minister and the Government will move
January 27, 1983

very soon on the provisions of that report. Of course, it would be much better if it could be made available to Members of Parliament and the general public in order that they could see those recommendations. I am sure many of them are worthwhile.
The other question I put to the Minister was whether the industry would qualify this year for stabilization payments. Traditionally they had to be stabilized at 90 per cent of the average over the last five years. The Government should move to bring that to at least 100 per cent, and reconcile on a national basis the various provincial programs. Some Provinces have such programs. As far as I know, there is no stabilization program in Ontario this year. I hope the Minister will move on a national program.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) concerning the beef industry. Some people may be surprised that the constituency of Algoma has such a large beef industry. I have visited many times with the Hon. Member and I realize the importance the beef industry holds for his constituency.
I want to begin by recalling the conditions in the industry which caused me to ask for the Anderson Vandermeulen Report. We have had several types of reports and studies. I said that we needed somebody to put those together in order to come up with some solutions.
From 1979 to the present, beef producers in Canada have faced the most difficult period since the Second World War. Hog prices as well were low to 1980 and 1981, and began to pick up only in mid-1982. Bankruptcies among beef and hog producers in 1981 were very high; much higher than in 1982. Beef and hog producers in some regions of Canada appear to have been hurt worse than in others. Beef producers in the Grey-Bruce Peninsula of Ontario and parts of the Alberta industry appear to have been suffering the most. The Province of Alberta produces approximately 42 per cent of total beef production in Canada. Flog producers in Quebec have suffered major losses resulting in the first downturn in that industry in Quebec in some years.
I want to recall this, and I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of it. I proposed 100 per cent income insurance to the Provinces in 1978 for all products; beef, pork and all other agricultural products. This was turned down by the Provinces at that time. The same people are now asking me to please come forward with a plan which will stabilize this industry. They do not say, "like the one you proposed in 1978". That is what I proposed then. Even farm organizations turned it down. 1 had Cabinet approval. We then had the Clark Government which took the authority away from its Minister. They queashed the idea, saying it was too costly. Some Members on that side are now asking for that type of plan.
Because of the difficulties faced in this industry I asked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Vandermeulen to explore all its aspects,
Adjournment Debate
every part. As the Hon. Member for Algoma said, some Provinces do not have plans. Some cannot afford one, and some have hit-and-miss programs. They are all saying they want a national plan.
The study included not only an examination of farm-level marketings, but as well the packing, wholesale and distribution of red meats. The report was finalized in 1982, with translations and that type of thing, and it is now before Cabinet. We have had one or two discussions on it, and we hope to finalize them in the next three weeks.
As far as stabilization is concerned, there will be no payment if we just use 90 per cent. If we use 90 per cent of the five-year average, there will be a payment. We have made certain recommendations in accordance with the laws we have to abide by, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, 1975. 1 want a program that will get the most returns from the marketplace and not from the Treasury of the nation.


PRIVACY-MISUSE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION STORED IN COMPUTERS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Protection of privacy now lags far behind available computer technology. An unprecedented amount of information about Canadians is now in computer banks and we will see a very dramatic increase in the near future, but we have little or no protection against abuse or misuse of that information.
In answer to my question in the House on January 25, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) confirmed that the question of creating a new offence for the misuse of personal information is now under consideration. I would also like to see the Government give some leadership to those in the information industry, encouraging them to draw up voluntary guidelines respecting the use of information in their banks. Some industry spokesmen have said that the only privacy protection they can offer clients is their word, because the potential problems are complex, and they will have to wait for some years to see what the problems really are in order to develop appropriate ways of dealing with them. 1 would prefer to see a serious effort made now to increase confidentiality protection, and to build some measures of protection into new computer programs from the beginning.
Most Canadians welcome the exciting development of new technology which has delivered many new services and greater efficiency in many areas, and has unlimited potential to add to the quality of life. However, each new computerization of data compiled by hand, and each consolidation of information in data banks, spreads personal data further and further afield from the person who has responsibility for it.
Having good medical information in computer banks covering the years of one's life may be of great help if one arrives in a strange hospital and a good history is needed, but there is also potential for embarrassment if, for instance, that information is known and is used to make the case that someone has health problems and is not fit for a job which he or she

January 27, 1983
Adjournment Debate
very badly wants. So at every side there is an advantage and a potential problem.
Many home owners are now using computerized security services; doors and buzzers are wired to a device attached to the cable line and the systems send an electronic alert to the cable company in case of medical emergency, burglary or fire, so that the cable company can phone for ambulance, police or fire brigade, as the case may be. Many of these systems are being purchased by people who are very pleased to have an additional sense of security. In the interest of providing that security, the systems sweep the home at frequent intervals. Information about a family's routines, if it fell into the wrong hands, could in fact be used by the very criminals from whom the system was supposed to protect the home owner. The quickly developing two-way computer system which enables viewers to do credit card shopping, banking and select from electronic newspapers at home has enormous potential value in terms of convenience, particularly for people at home caring for young children or sick relatives, or for handicapped persons. There is potential to enlarge their frontiers enormously. However, information about financial transactions going into the wrong hands could be misused.
I raise this matter not in the interest of being sensational or over-emphasizing the problem, but rather in the interest of promoting reasoned, practical safeguards and solutions now while there still is time and before we are overtaken by events.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) raises a very serious matter and there can be no suggestion in my reply that there was any sensationalism either in the presentation or the subject matter she raises.
The Privacy Commissioners' Study was commissioned specifically to obtain guidance on whether the Government should act to regulate the use of the Social Insurance Number in Canada. While Ms. Hansen recommended that there was no need to regulate the use of the Social Insurance Number, she did point out that there was a problem associated with data-linkage, which is part of a more widespread problem concerning the unauthorized use of personal information. This is the very subject addressed by the Hon. Member for Trinity this evening.
The Commissioners' recommendation was that an offence be included in the Criminal Code to prohibit dishonest dealings with personal data provided to obtain a benefit or service, under compulsion of law, or has been placed for private use in the custody of another. The recommendation has significant federal-provincial implications since the area of data protection outside the federally regulated sphere to a great extent involves the Provinces. Although the Provinces have not yet acted in this area, the use of the Criminal Law power by the federal Government to regulate the use and exposure of personal information might, without provincial involvement, be
viewed by them as intruding on some aspect of their responsibility. The Privacy Commissioners' recommendation has been brought to the attention of provincial Governments and their views upon it have been sought. However, because of the nature of the issue, any proposal to act upon it would have to be subject to future consultation.
The proposal to create such a criminal offence is being reviewed as part of the Criminal Law review. Some part of the recommendation, as it relates to computerized personal data, may be incorporated as part of the recommendation regarding computer crime.
We are also looking at the wider issue of the general protection of privacy, more in line with what the Hon. Member was directing us to this evening. In some countries in western Europe this whole protection of computerized data is dealt with in a regulatory scheme. There is built in a process of review by the regulatory body to ensure compliance with the conditions of the licence. That use and disclosure scheme could be similar to the one now presently contained in the new federal Privacy Act.
Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am afraid it is. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SUGGESTED SCHOOL ATTENDANCE FOR RECIPIENTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) if he would introduce changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wanted to see some changes which would allow unemployed workers to improve their job qualifications by attending school while collecting Unemployment Insurance. I asked the question in light of the 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, for whom no jobs exist. The Minister chose to downplay the unemployment crisis in Canada and simply repeated the obvious fact that the Act already had some provisions for training. He did not deal with the fact, which I had mentioned in my question, that there were long waiting lists for UIC sponsored training programs. The Minister's answer did, however, faithfully reflect the policy of his Department and Government. It denied a tragedy taking place in Canadian homes and communities through unemployment, and ignored the possibilities for constructive action which could and should be taken. Many laid-off workers want to use the misfortune of unemployment as an opportunity for further training. Now is the time the Government should take seriously the need for and possibility of improving the skills of Canadian workers. Let me give a couple of examples from my own constituency, even though this is a national problem.
I know a young father, who is very concerned because he is beginning to develop some symptoms of the nervous disease known as "whitehand" which affects workers who have to use
January 27, 1983

vibrating tools such as power saws. He knows he cannot continue as a faller in the woods forever. He would like to use the time when he is laid off to take vocational training. All of the U1C sponsored programs in his area of interest, however, have waiting lists of up to two years. He does not want to waste the time when he is unemployed, but he has no choice. If he goes ahead on his own and enrols in a course, his Unemployment Insurance payments will be cut off. As a married man with a family, he cannot afford that and he worries that a few years ahead whitehand might make it impossible for him to keep his faller's job. This is the time it should be possible for him to take a training program.
Another young man worked at the Chemainus sawmill which was closed indefinitely last year. When he enrolled in a school to train as a mechanic, his Unemployment Insurance payments were cut off. When he appealed, his appeal was denied. I should like to read some excerpts from a letter he wrote which outlines his case. He begins:
I have been unemployed for some months now. I have been cut off of UI because the umpire, board of appeals etc. felt I am some sort of leech. This is not true. I am pursuing diligently even DESPERATELY the difficult task of finding work. I am only running into dead ends everywhere. I will take any job anywhere, anytime, anyplace-
Eventually I want to be a mechanic. The board of review seems to have seized on this to suggest I am picky about the jobs I will take. They say I want more than minimum wage. I ask you, WHO DOESN'T? 1 have worked at less than minimum wage on most of the tasks 1 have found since 1 lost my job.
It is the only work 1 can find. I took the attitude that maybe these small jobs might lead to something better, but unfortunately they did not. They did not last.
1 want a job that is permanent and full time. This is my idea of a job. The board of review seems to think because of this 1 will not take other jobs. This is untrue, my record speaks for itself. A review of my report cards will show I take any job I can get.
I am going to school to try to improve my chances of getting a job. What is wrong with that? I asked manpower to sponsor me but they refused. They said they would add my name to the wait list. There is a four year wait. The course is being cut permanently in about 5 months. So 1 took the course anyway on my own initiative. It is a lot of money but I am desperate for a job and in today's job market it seems my chances are getting worse and worse.
I am an insulted person, if manpower phoned me up and said they had a job for me 1 would not hesitate to take it.
The board of review had some interesting comments on the case. It found him a very direct and forthright youth, and said that they certainly admired his tenacity and ambition.
Surely in this period of unemployment, changes could be made to the Act which would allow unemployed workers
Adjournment Debate
greater scope of education. If they are taking training for jobs and trades in which a skill shortage is likely to occur, they should be allowed to do so while continuing to receive unemployment insurance benefits. We should not see another lost generation ahead of us, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) previously answered part of the Hon. Member's question here in the House. As he pointed out at the time, we do not have to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to enable people receiving benefits to go to school. The Act already contains a provision, namely Section 39, which provides that individuals directed to authorized training courses are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits for the duration of the course and for six additional weeks. These measures are not linked exclusively to the occupational training program since they apply to practically all authorized courses.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in its expenditures for job creation and training courses for the unemployed, the Goven-ment is not restricted to funds coming out of the Unemployment Insurance account. People who are not eligible for unemployement insurance benefits can receive allowances providing them with some financial assistance while they receive training. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are long waiting lists. But the House will agree that our most recent legislation on occupational training concentrated on courses that would prepare students for existing jobs. Not long ago, we had a very important conference here in Ottawa to discuss employment opportunities in the years to come, and the possibility of organizing training courses in such a way that the vast majority of unemployed Canadians would be able to receive training in high technology subjects and thus re-enter the labour market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. In accordance with the provisions of the order of Friday, January 21, 1983, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 31, 1983