1985-03-05

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That this House condemns the Government for its negligent and irresponsible approach to the protection and management of the environment, for its cuts of wildlife, meteorological and parks services, for abandoning Canada's past initiatives on the national and international levels to combat acid rain and to restore the water quality of the Great Lakes, and for thereby jeopardizing the health, economic well-being and the heritage of the present and future generations of Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion speaks for itself. We on this side of the House regret the performance of the Government on environmental matters and it has forced us to put forward today this motion of non-confidence.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) boasted about the long list of achievements on the part of his Government. He did not have the environment in mind, I am sure, otherwise he would not have indulged in self-congratulatory sentiments, as he did. We live, on the one hand, in a country where its citizens want the environment to be given priority, and this we have learned from public opinion polls. On the other hand, we have a Tory Government which pays lip service to the concerns about the environment which have been expressed by Canadians and delivers what, Mr. Speaker? What has this Government really delivered with respect to the environment in the past six months? That is the question.
Has this Government given the environment the high profile which Canadians expect? The answer, regretfully, is no. Has this Government created jobs in the environment? The answer, regretfully, is no. Actually, it has created unemployment through the cuts announced to the wildlife service and the National Research Council, through the interpretation centres, as well as other initiatives. Has the Government, through the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), met with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in order to discuss the quality of the water of the Niagara River and the Great Lakes? The answer, regretfully, is no. Has this Government strengthened the environmental protection measures which were developed since the inception of Environment
Canada in 1972 by successive Liberal Governments? And I would, of course, recognize with due respect a fine Minister for the environment, the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). The Government has not strengthened the environmental protection measures which it inherited from the Liberal Government.
Has the Government strengthened the support Canada gives to finding a solution to global environmental issues? Here again, regretfully, the answer is no. Sadly enough, this Government has reduced Canada's contribution this year to the United Nations environmental program.
Has the Government celebrated Parks Canada's centennial by way of new park acquisitions or by way of a bold new program for its second centennial? The answer, regretfully, is no, certainly not. It has reduced Parks Canada's budget by $13 million.
Has the Government strengthened our future in renewable resources of energy so as to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels? Here again, regretfully, the answer is no, certainly not. It has disbanded the fine scientists and technicians working in this field at the National Research Council and increased the number of unemployed scientists and technicians in this country by wiping out the entire soft energy research unit in the NRC.
Has this Government accepted the plea by native people and fishermen along the Fraser River Valley who asked for a postponement of one year in the construction of double tracks proposed by Canadian National? The answer here, regretfully again, is no, certainly not. It has rejected their plea because this Government has not got the guts to act as it preaches.
Has this Government told the United States administration that we do have in Canada a program in place between 1980 and 1990 to reduce our sulphur dioxide emissions which contribute to acid rain by 25 per cent, and that parallel to that we have a unanimous commitment by federal and provincial environment Ministers to cut it by 50 per cent by 1994 by way of a plan for modernizing our non-ferrous industries? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. This Government has neglected the unanimous federal, provincial and public support for these measures and actually thrown away our bargaining position, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did last December, perhaps with a pathetic intention of currying favour with the Reagan administration.
Has this Government reached out, Mr. Speaker, to environmental groups and administrations? Has it sought their views before making these cuts, given them its long-term vision and generated a climate of confidence? Well, the answer here
2722

March 5, 1985
Supply
again is no, certainly not. I am told there are many letters written last fall that are still to be answered. The morale among the non-governmental organizations and interested people is low. Their confidence in this Government is seriously damaged.
Well, Mr. Speaker, because of time limitations 1 have to stop here in this analysis, but we should ask ourselves at this point why is it that this Government is treating the environment in such a way despite last summer's promises? Is it because it does not understand the crucial importance of the relationship between the environment and the economy? Is it because it does not understand the crucial relationship between the environment and health? Is it because it understands the environment in isolation, like a luxury item? Is it because it sees the environment as a commodity which can be traded, sold, exploited at will? Is it because it is incapable of conceiving the environment as a common good which belongs to us all, be it water, air, soil, fish, all of which have to be managed carefully because we want to preserve it for future generations of Canadians? Is it because it is incapable of seeing and considering the environment as the foundation of our health and the foundation of our economy?
[DOT] (i1 IS)
There is evidently a conceptual deficiency on the part of the Government that makes me conclude that the future of the environment in the next few years looks very bleak indeed. Add to this the unfortunate fact that the Prime Minister has chosen as a Minister a person who gives the impression of considering the environment a bore, a nuisance one has to live with, rather than the exciting, meaningful and fascinating world that it is. It is a wonder consisting of the interaction of air, water, soil, flora and fauna, the coming together of living forces each with a role and a meaning from the amoeba to the sea lion, composing that wonderful and dynamic totality we commonly call nature.
We still have, thank God, a terrific Department called Environment Canada to which my colleagues and I would like to pay tribute today. It consists of fine and dedicated civil servants, men and women committed to the well-being of our economy and our health through a sound management of the environment. The only problem with Environment Canada today is the poor judgment of the Prime Minister when he appointed the present Minister, and his insensitivity to the necessity of correcting his mistake. Every day that goes by without bringing in a new Minister, the Prime Minister demonstrates his lack of commitment to the promises he made during the election to environmental groups and Canadians at large. What a sham!
The Prime Minister bears the main responsibility for the fact that the state of the environment has deteriorated in the past six months. He has chosen the wrong person as Minister. He has downgraded Canada's role at home and abroad in combating acid rain, an issue which is so close to the hearts of Canadians. He has given away Canada's bargaining position with the U.S. administration. He also bears the responsibility
for sending out the wrong signals by allowing cuts in the industrial and regional development fund where the dollars are to be found for the modernization of our non-ferrous smelters.
The Minister of the Environment has allowed cuts in the environment programs of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the interpretation centres, without consulting the provinces, despite the promises made in the Speech from the Throne, and without consulting interested organizations. The Minister has failed in the important role of building bridges with non-governmental groups and environmentally interested individuals. They are reporting that they feel abandoned by the Government. The Minister has not yet addressed the crucial and complex issue of water, particularly in the Great Lakes. She has yet to meet with the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
So far the Minister of the Environment has not made a speech of substance for the public record, except for replies in the House and one ceremonial speech last week. There has been no intellectual, political contribution on her part to the environmental issues of our times. There has been not one ounce of contribution to issues such as South Moresby and Meares Islands, which are sensitive issues for millions of Canadians today who want these areas preserved for future generations. There has not been one ounce of contribution, intellectually or otherwise, to water quality and quantity and what water means to future generations of Canadians.
There has not been one ounce of contribution on the issue of herbicides and pesticides as they are used in agriculture and forestry today, and the search for alternatives. There has not been one ounce of contribution on the long-term but important issue of the greenhouse effect on our climate. There has not been one ounce of contribution on the issue of nuclear winter, which is the ultimate environmental issue. There has been no contribution on issues between the environment and health and the environment and our economy, which is based on natural resources and therefore must rely on a properly managed environment. There has not been one ounce of contribution to the Canada Parks centennial and the future of parks extensions, with respect to the future of the North and the great potential there for parks before the land is locked up.
There has not been one ounce of contribution with respect to whether Lancaster Sound should be used for tanker routes. There has not been any contribution on Canada's role in UNEA and our global role in the environment to sustain the fine reputation that we as a Government, as a nation and as Canadians have earned over the last decade.
Last week in the House, the Minister of the Environment gave no visible support for her colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), who were visibly distressed in their efforts to postpone the CN double tracking in the Fraser River Valley for one year, as recommended unanimously by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

March 5, 1985

In conclusion, in this litany of misery our country is without a Minister of the Environment. At best, it has a phantom or a Minister that never was.
The Prime Minister has not backed up his words with action. While he has been great on public relations, he has done nothing of substance so far with respect to the environment. He has shown poor judgment by appointing the present Minister of the Environment. He has given away the store in our bilateral relations with the United States on acid rain that are coming up this month in Quebec. Not only has he disappointed them, he has angered Canadians from coast to coast. Therefore, we have moved our motion of non-confidence because the record of the Tory Government over the past six months is simply a sham.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Is he rising for questions and comments?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am rising to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments prior to resuming debate?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is overreacting. Quite often he implied that the Government seems to have lost its bargaining tool with the U.S. administration. I do not know how he can say that because the President of the United States will be in Quebec City on March 17 where he and the Prime Minister of Canada will discuss at length the question of acid rain and possible future controls and co-operative agreements. I think the Member for Davenport should bear in mind that the President and the Prime Minister will be discussing this matter in the near future and should take that into consideration in the very negative comments which he made in the last few minutes.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) for his words of encouragement. I urge him to raise his voice in his caucus.


Mr. Nunziata:: He is just a book-end.


Charles L. Caccia: He has 12 days and I urge him to speak on behalf of his electors and Canadians at large, who I am sure he wants to represent. I urge him to impress very firmly on his leader and the Cabinet that Canadians have high expectations from this meeting of March 17 in Quebec City for the very reasons he knows, we know, and everybody in this Chamber knows.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier wishes to ask a question or make a comment.


Mr. Gauthier:: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on an interesting and extremely relevant speech.
Here is my question: Earlier this morning the media reported that the United States will tighten up controls on leaded gas emissions in an attempt to eliminate lead from gas by 1988. As former Minister and our party's critic in environmental matters, could the Hon. Member tell us what he thinks of that objective and what measures Canada might take to do away with leaded gas in the not too distant future?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Speaking for myself, and I am at one with everybody else on this issue, I heartily welcome the decision made by the American Environmental Protection Agency. That decision will go a long way towards reducing gasoline lead content to what may be the lowest level worldwide. And what did we do in 1983? We took the necessary steps to match the American performance by 1986 with respect to leaded gas. Last May, when the American Government announced its intention to reduce gas lead content further still, I strongly supported this initiative and I hope that the commission mandated by the previous Liberal administration to set future target levels after 1986 will draw inspiration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest decision. It means that, in two stages, we might reduce gas lead content to the same level as the Americans, perhaps later even though our common goal is to protect our children's health.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about this matter of removing lead from gasoline. Does the Hon. Member realize that there are thousands of farm machines in this country that were made to use leaded gasoline? If we ever get to the point where all lead is removed from gasoline, there will be a monetary burden on the shoulders of our agricultural community. Those machines are there. They should be good for 10 or 12 years. We should not simply nullify the investment of our farmers and ignore the fact that they need lead in gasoline to operate their equipment. I am a little concerned when I hear people saying that we will remove all lead from gasoline by a certain date. We should have some consideration for those people who bought machines which can only be fueled with leaded gasoline. I should like to have the Hon. Member's comments.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to comment. It is the voice of cavemen which we have just heard. I will try to elucidate a little on it. This is an issue where a choice has to be made between lead and health. There is a point when health has to come first on the farm as well. The utilization of

March 5, 1985
Supply
gasoline which has a high content of lead in the long term is not good for farmers. It is not good for the produce of farms because lead deposits find their way into the soil.
I appreciate the fact that there is a difference in urgency between rural and urban because of volumes and densities of consumption. The volumes of gasoline burned in the city and therefore the depositing of lead at the street level has certainly led to great concern in terms of the health of children in many capitals of the world. The fact is that the content of lead in blood of children in a city like Mexico City where there are no restrictions on lead content is very high compared with the situation in Tokyo where gasoline is lead free and where traces of lead are not found in the blood of children.
Any pathologist could prove and demonstrate that the presence of lead in blood, particularly in the early life of a human being, leads to disturbances, cerebral disadvantages and health conditions which we would not want to generate in children anywhere in the world, whether they are in cities or on farms.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the record indicates that the amount of damage which would be done in rural areas is minimal, if any at all. I do not think it is right or fair to say that we will let farmers pay the bill again. Let us get some expert advice on this matter before we start saying that every ounce or every gallon of gasoline will have no lead. There is a place for lead. These machines were made for leaded gasoline. A small amount, pathologists have told me, in a rural area does not amount to a hill of beans. I think we have to give some consideration to the farmers of the country for a change.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the Progressive Conservative view is that machines come before human health, I will leave the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I didn't say that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: That is implicit in the Hon. Member's remarks. If he cannot take the heat, he should not make such remarks in the House. Evidently he feels that health on the farm is not important, that machinery comes first and that the health of children and adults should not be safeguarded.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I didn't say that at all.


Charles L. Caccia: I do not know how many in his own Party would subscribe to that notion. Quite frankly, I think I have answered the question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have not answered the question at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Unfortunately, the period for questions and comments has expired. We will now resume debate.

Debate. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to recall what has been done by this Government and my Department since we came to power.
The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has taken his Party's usual somber, dramatic and strident approach in having us believe that this country is at death's door. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is setting himself up as the saviour of humanity, of Canada, of wildlife, of the health of Canadians, and as an expert on acid rain and hazardous products. He knows the pressure groups, which are friends of his, and he is going to tell us he would have done a much better job.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative Party have always been very clear in our choice of words. We said that we were here to undo the harm done by the previous Government's extravagant spending, a Government that made us live on credit for 15 years and which emptied the coffers of all the departments before we came to power. I have some examples in my own Department, of contracts that were signed between September 4 and September 17. There was a rush to empty the Treasury, and since that time they have been complaining loud and clear because the present Government has been obliged to make cutbacks. However, Canadians have realized it was time the Government stopped living on credit. Canadians have a lot of sense-a lot more than the Hon. Member for Davenport.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what I have accomplished in my Department, and despite all the somber remarks by my colleague, I can inform the House that after my swearing in, I was in my office at 8:30 the next morning, having talks with my officials. Two weeks later, I met Canadian Environment Ministers at a federal-provincial conference in Newfoundland, and I asked their support for the major plans and priorities I was setting up for the Department. Unlike the Liberals, however, I did not feel obliged to tell any reporter who wanted to listen what I was going to do in the months to come. All these decisions will be announced in due time. Mr. Speaker, I therefore met with the Ministers of the Environment who were assembled in Newfoundland, and we set up a common action plan to deal with the most pressing problems confronting Canada's environment. Unlike the former Government, we sat down together, we developed strategies, we talked, we understood each other and we shared responsibilities. Can the Hon. Member for Davenport say as much, after he told people on American television, and I shall quote him in his own language so he will understand me clearly:

Keep your garbage in your own country.
March 5, 1985

That, Mr. Speaker, is typical of the attitude of the previous Government which is criticizing us today for taking the time to sit down with representatives of our clients, for taking the time to consult and to reach an understanding with the provinces instead of getting carried away by all kinds of action plans that are totally useless. In fact, the only thing my hon. colleague produced during his mandate as Minister is a lot of grand statements. In this Government, we do not make grand statements, Mr. Speaker. We act.
At the beginning of October, I met with my federal and provincial colleagues and we sat down to set up a strategy. At the end of October, with my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, I signed the Skagit Agreement between British Columbia and the State of Washington. This agreement has been in the works for 42 years. Mr. Speaker, that is one accomplishment. After only six weeks, a Minister is still new to the job, but this Minister, after six weeks, signed an agreement that had been in the works for 42 years. Because it had not been feasible to conclude the agreement, Mr. Speaker? Not at all! Because the previous Government did not feel like helping the provinces solve their problems.
Finally, in October I met with the Habitat Foundation and shed some of the responsibilities of my Department, entrusting them to a private organization which has since made tremendous progress at a far lower cost than would have been the case if it had been the federal Government. I can also assure you that I have frequent and entirely cordial consultations with the Habitat Foundation.
In early December, I met with representatives of Canadian steel mills. They told me it was the first time a Minister of the Environment spoke to them and sat down with them to try and assess their problems. It was the first time a Minister said: Let us solve the acid rain problem together!
I have also met with representatives from the mining and chemical industries to discuss the control of hazardous and toxic products. Furthermore, I went to London to prepare for the Economic Summit. With my Environment colleagues, we got together to try and set up and prepare the subject matter that will be discussed by the Prime Ministers and representatives of the countries taking part in the Bonn Economic Summit in May.
And that is not all. While my colleague spent days with newspaper reporters telling them that I was unable to perform as a Minister, I was setting up a federal-provincial conference-again with the Ministers of Environment-to hammer out an agreement on acid rains. Throughout Canada, this has been hailed as a historical agreement which, for the first time, will enable the provinces and the federal Government to set their own acid rain reduction standards. That is what we have accomplished in six months, not to mention some other things.
Supply
In January, for instance, I was in Toronto to attend a meeting of wildlife Ministers, the first time ever for a federal Minister.
Well, as my colleague points out, here is someone who does not understand Canada's wildlife problems, who could not care less and who supports the Department of Environment as something that must be supported since there is no other option.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the rhetoric of my colleague on the other side of the House no longer fools Canadians. That is why they voted for an open Government on September 4, a Government which has little use for empty talk but which takes action and tells them: We do have problems in this country. We are overburdened by the deficit, but we will pull through by working together. That is the kind of language they have not heard in 22 years, Mr. Speaker.
It was with all those considerations in mind that I took over the Department of Environment and targeted five major priorities during my term in office. That is more than my colleague has ever done.
Within and without Canada, I stress the fact that an unpolluted environment is the prerequisite of economic growth. That is why I convened for March 11 a conference on environmental and economic issues where environment specialists and businessmen will sit at the same table for the first time in an attempt to solve problems rather than create conflicts by distorting situations beyond recognition.
Mr. Speaker, that national consultation on the economy ought to broaden future perspectives and is our response to Canadians who have told us in a recent poll that they are quite prepared to reach for their wallet if that will help solve environmental problems. According to the poll, most of them would readily contribute between $5 and $15 per capita to come to grips with what everyone knows are very complicated problems.
During the same time, Mr. Speaker, I cut departmental staff by some 405 person-years, but no one has ever mentioned the 6,000 public service jobs eliminated by the Liberal Government between 1979 and 1981. But they did try to turn those 400 person-years into an issue, making quite a fuss about it and claiming that Canada's environment and wildlife were in dire straits. What about those 405 person-years which represent about 300 public servants? The number is steadily going down. Here is the situation: All positions have been filled, except for 35 to 40. That is what my Opposition colleague and some newspapermen following his trail kept repeating throughout the fall to describe what they termed the dangerous situation of wildlife in Canada.
The Department still has several thousand employees and a budget of $800 million. I think that Canadians are in favour of our withdrawing as much as possible from very costly programs which can be taken over by volunteers and innovative

March 5, 1985
Supply
private sector interests, and I suggest that the Wildlife Habitat Foundation is the best example of that.
My colleague claims that I have shown no concern for water resources, Mr. Speaker. We did show concern for water resources and settled some outstanding issues about five weeks ago. We renewed the water agreement with Ontario, we looked into the situation of the Great Lakes and we are now busy setting up monitoring facilities. 1 have had several conversations with the Chairman of the commission of inquiry on water management in Canada and we are looking forward to receiving his report and recommendations in the near future. I can assure my colleague that I will implement the Pearse report recommendations to the extent permissible by my departmental resources. The Chairman of the Pearse Commission is already quite pleased with our support and the discussion I had with him.
We want to cooperate with the people instead of taking unilateral decisions in our Ottawa ivory tower. Consultation does take time and I intend to take all the time necessary to make the process work. I will unveil very important decisions in the next few days and I am convinced that the Canadian public is quite satisfied with the Government at this time. Canadians realize that 22 years of inertia in federal departments cannot be eradicated overnight, that it will take some time. The economy must be handled very rationally and very carefully, and the Canadian public is certainly not complaining, unlike our hon. friends opposite. In poll after poll, Canadians have shown they are happy to see a Conservative Government of our caliber leading the country.
They say I have done nothing about acid rain. Might I remind the House of the Montreal agreement with the provinces and the action plan we promised and which is still being pursued. That is one of the promises we made during the election campaign. We are preparing for the Bonn Summit. An agreement is to be signed with Sweden in early April and another agreement under the auspices of CITES in Brazil at the end of April, and at the OECD in June, and all these decisions require a tremendous amount of research and planning. When people complain that I am hiding in my office, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed in my office, but I am preparing strategies for action and discussing problems with my colleagues and making decisions, and obviously, I do not spend my time sitting at the door of the Press Club on Wellington Street. Besides, it is a bit cool for that sort of thing these days, although I might consider doing so next June.
I make a habit of working in my office with my departmental officials and not announcing decisions until they have been finalized and can be made public. I am very happy and proud to be Minister of the Environment, and I promise my hon. friend opposite that my mandate at Environment will be a very fruitful one and that it will not compare in any way with his own mandate.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if she would explain to the House why she has not reconstituted the parliamentary committee on acid rain.
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: With pleasure. In fact, I would like to see the sub-committee re-established. At my request, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tried to meet with the Hon. Members opposite to seek their approval for re-instating the sub-committee, and he told me that it had been impossible until quite recently.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to verify that reply, because it is total news to us.
Would the Hon. Minister explain to the House why she has cut the Canadian Wildlife Service by 25 per cent?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend who is so concerned about the Canadian environment had the same concern for these matters, he would have attended the committee meeting this morning and would know about the information I am giving him at this moment.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Minister explain to the House why she did not consult with the provinces before she undertook the cut of 25 per cent?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will consult 26 million people before deciding to re-allocate priorities in my Department, because the funds at my disposal are restricted as a result of uncontrolled spending by the previous Government for which management was of no concern at all. Today, I must reserve the person-years and funding available to my Department for essential matters such as hazardous products management, management of Canada's water supply, acid rain and a number of other very costly projects.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned how it would be her disposition on enviromental matters to take her time, consult, and that we would have to wait to see the quality of her decisions, rather than announcing her every move to the press. If that is her philosophy, I wonder if she could explain why she took absolutely no time for consultation with respect to the cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service, why those cuts were made so swiftly, and why the Deputy Minister is quoted as saying that swiftness and secrecy with respect to the cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service were of the essence when it concerned those particular cut-backs?

March 5, 1985


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Obviously the Hon. Member is very close to certain people who are currently striving to protect redundant jobs at any cost. Knowing he is from the New Democratic Party, I do not hold that against him, I would say this is a rather normal thing. I will certainly not consult with the Canadian people once more before assuming my responsibilities as a Minister and a manager within my Department.
I think we have arranged those cuts so they could be presented to Canadians as an integrated scheme and Canadians have remarkably well accepted the results of our review. So much so that the polls that followed gave the Progressive Conservative Party a stronger showing than the election polls carried out last summer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand the Minister correctly? She used two words in her speech. She used the word "extravagances" as it related to past Liberal extravagances. I know there were some past Liberal extravagances. I know there were some past Liberal extravagances, but I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether the services which she cut in the Canadian Wildlife Service were what she regarded as examples of those extravagances.
A few minutes ago she used the word "redundant", and said that I, as a New Democreat, had styood to defend redundant jobs. Could she tell the House if she regards the work which was being carried out by the Canadian Wildlife Sevice-and which was cut by her-as both extravagant and redundant? That seems to be the tone of her remarks.
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Spearker, this is exactly the kind of speech we have been hearing day after day in this House. If Hon. Members opposite would do their homework rather than quote things we never said, it would be much better.
I have spoken of the previous Government's wastefulness, and even my colleague from the NDP has to admit that there has been tremendous wastefulness. I do not think he would have the guts to rise in his place today and say it has not been so. I was absolutely not referring to any program in my Department.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if there were extravagances, why did this Government not cut those extravagances instead of cutting other programs which it now does not have the nerve to define as extravagant? Yet that is exactly what we are led to believe from the remarks of the Minister. She has not made an effort to defend or justify the cuts, except in terms of the over-all fiscal policy of the Government. If she is going to do that, she must tell us why these particular items were cut and why other items were not cut. She has not done that today. She had an opportunity to make her case in the House and she has failed miserably to do so.
Supply


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, not only have I justified all the cuts I allowed, but I justified them before the Standing Committee of the House on Fisheries and Oceans. The Hon. Member was in attendance. I am therefore amazed that he should pretend not to know and to be shocked, since he was there. That was at least three months ago. I justified each and every cut, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of withdrawing any of them, because I justified all of them in the context of our federal mandate and the integration of the private sector's and the voluntary sector's efforts with the Department's efforts, something that had not been done before because there was no concern for consultation.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) for her excellent speech. I would like to ask her a question concerning the March 11 conference between her Department and the people concerned with the environment, especially industrialists. Could she provide us with further details on that conference?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "conference", but I think it would have been more accurate to describe that as "consultations". There will indeed be representatives from the business community, the financial sector, environment protection groups and officials from my Department. Together we are trying to clear up the situation and come up with a strategy for putting our resources in conmmon, in order to solve the most urgent environmental problems. But those problems are very costly and complex, and we will have to rely indeed on all the abilities and the energies that exist in Canada in order to solve those problems.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to put words in the Minister's mouth, as she suggested. However, on November 13 the Minister announced via a press release that 416 government jobs in her Department would be terminated. Today in her speech she said that 405 positions had been eliminated. Further on in her speech she said that 300 public servants would lose their jobs. Far be it for me to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I would like some Tory translation of these three conflicting statistics. In Tory language, how many people lost their jobs as a result of the Minister's cuts?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, the figures that appeared in Hansard referred to person-years. However, a person can occupy a position for three months or six months or nine months or twelve months. So there are more person-years than persons because there may be temporary jobs.
For instance, there were about 300 persons involved. I do not have the figures before me, and I apologize for any mistake I may have made, if it was 305 instead of 300 person-years. However, I am not too worried about that. I did not bring all the figures with me. What I can say is that all the

March 5, 1985
Supply
individuals who lost their jobs have been redeployed elsewhere, except for between 35 and 45 employees. In fact, we are confident, as I said to the two presidents of the unions in question, that we will be able to find jobs for these people by March 31. I am not making any promises. I am just saying that we are confident.
Finally, I think some Hon. Members would have us believe this is a very dramatic situation, while in fact only a few units are concerned. I might remind the Hon. Member opposite that the Liberal Party, his Party, cut 7,000 positions in the Public Service of Canada between 1978 and 1981, and nobody mentioned the fact, especially not the Liberal Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. We will resume debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to learn the meaning of the word "hysteria". I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for giving us the opportunity to debate the approach of this Government to the protection and management of the environment. If there is one area where this Government has clearly failed, where it has clearly stumbled since its election, it is in the area of the environment.
The Government has failed in two ways, Mr. Speaker. First, it is doing things which it does not have a mandate to do. At no time during the election campaign did the Government indicate it would take the attitude it is now taking towards the environment. Second, the Government is making many mistakes in what it is doing and these will come back to haunt us for years to come.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) sees fit to leave the House in the midst of a debate on the environment.


John V. Nunziata: It shows how much she cares.


Mr. Hawkes:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) rises on a point of order to say, I presume, that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) should not allude to the fact that the Minister has left the House. I believe the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill knows that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that this is further evidence of a continuing unwillingness on the part of the Minister, with the exception of the one time she appeared before the committee on December 20, to engage in a dialogue, either with Members of Parliament or with the public, as to the advisability of the cuts she has made.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this Government has failed and stumbled with respect to the environment and I would like to go over a few of those areas. The first area has to do with
the cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service. In the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to which the Department of the Environment reports, we have heard testimony after testimony, evidence after evidence and witness after witness to the effect that the cut-backs which were made by the Minister to the Canadian Wildlife Service are a very serious error and will damage not only the environment but the ability of the Canadian Government to manage the environment by causing itself to lose the expertise of so many people.
Rather than quoting over and over again what witnesses have had to say in front of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to call the attention of the House to an article in the magazine Equinox for March-April, 1985, which I just received yesterday. It is entitled "What Price Wildlife?" The sub-title reads: "Venerated at Home, Respected Abroad, the Canadian Wildlife Service becomes an endangered species". I commend this article to those Hon. Members in the House and to those of the public who may be interested in the effect of the cut-backs to the Canadian Wildlife Service.
Even though I have been paying attention to the issue, obviously, as the environment critic for my Party, I hadn't quite realized just how ridiculous and absurdly stupid some of these cuts are until I had the opportunity to read this article, which pointed out the full human and environmental dimensions of some of the work which was going on. I will not say much more about the Canadian Wildlife Service cut-backs except to quote the last paragraph of this article, which I think puts it extremely well. It paraphrases what Tony Keith, a biologist in the Canadian Wildlife Service, has to say:
What Keith is saying is that sooner or later, some prairie slough will fill with the floating carcasses of ducks, killed by untested chemicals from a cropduster that accidentally overflew a field. Anthrax and brucellosis will cause bison to totter and fall to the muskegs of northern Alberta, and there will be no wildlife veterinarian to treat them. National park wardens may even come across the bloodied body of a camper, the victim of a grizzly attack that might have been prevented with another season's research into bears' feeding habits. And the public outcry may then be so loud that the politicians who are today making the cuts will be forced to rehire the very biological expertise they now dismiss as surplus to departmental requirements. Canadians will have learned the hard way about the true costs of casting out decades of accumulated ecological knowledge for the sake of quick-fix adjustments to one year's federal budget.
That is the kind of short-sightedness, Mr. Speaker, which these cuts represent. It is the kind of short-sightedness which I am still hopeful will be condemned by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry itself. That committee has shown some leadership in this House by unanimously recommending to the House some time ago that the double-tracking of the CNR in the Ashcroft subdivision be put on hold because of the environmental consequences as well as the question of the well-being of the native people. I am hoping that that committee will show the same kind of leadership with respect to the cut-backs to the Canadian Wildlife Service. No one has come before the committee to say a good word about the cuts and any committee worth its salt, after it has heard this unanimous evidence, must then say itself that these cuts ought to be reserved by the Minister, and soon, because many of them are about to take place.
March 5, 1985

What else has the Government done with respect to the environment? It has already been noted that it cut back on its contribution to the United Nations environment program, which was embarrassing internationally. It is just further evidence of the way in which this Government is falling into line behind the United States and its attitude toward UN programs. The Minister of the Environment celebrates the hundredth anniversary of national parks in Canada by going ahead with a $13 million cut to our national parks and by rambling on about the privatization of them.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I first raised the issue of the further $13 million cut in this House just before Christmas and no one paid much attention then. But we see the cut-back coming now to our national parks. That is the way the Conservatives celebrate the centenary of our national parks, and it is now talking about privatization. Is there not a Tory in the crowd, an Hon. Member sitting opposite, who knows that at the very least our parks are public? We can argue about other areas of economic activity but I thought we had come to the point where we did not have to talk about whether parks should be privatized or not. Yet that is the sort of ideological silliness and extremeness which we find on the part of certain Hon. Members opposite, and the Minister of the Environment in particular.
What has the Government done with respect to renewable energy and the environmental benefits of developing that energy option as opposed to many of the other options which we have concentrated on for so many years? It almost wiped that option out completely while going ahead with the uncritical attitude towards the nuclear option which was so characteristic of the previous Liberal Government.
What has the Government done with respect to doubletracking and the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and, by the way, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with respect to that action? We still have no assurances as yet that that double-tracking will not go ahead until all of the concerns of the native people, the fishermen and the people who are concerned about the salmon habitat have been met. In fact, we witnessed a debate last week in which a Conservative majority on the other side of the House prevented a vote from taking place and prevented a debate from being extended. I must say at the same time that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the chairman of the committee abstained from that obstruction, and that is to their credit. There we had one afternoon where Parliament almost seemed to be working. It almost seemed as if some independence was going to be exerted by Parliament and its committees over the Government with respect to this important environmental issue. But where was the Minister of the Environment? She was not even around for that.
Another environmental failure by this Government was the decision taken with respect to the herbicide Allachlor and the way in which the Department of Agriculture has been allowed
Supply
to continue the policy established over the Liberal decades of letting the users, that is to say Agriculture and Transport, have the final say over what is used instead of the people who are making recommendations from a health or environmental point of view, being the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of the Environment. That is a question of structure and the low priority given to environmental concerns in the bureaucracy or the hierarchy of ministries, if you like. This has to change if we are to be able to address some of these issues. I had hoped we might be able to see some of that change if we had a strong Minister of the Environment. Instead, we have hardly a Minister at all. So I am not very hopeful on that score.
With respect to Canada-U.S. relations and the whole question of acid rain, Great Lakes water quality and so on, what have we seen? We have the Shamrock Summit coming and we still have not seen any action by this Government with respect to an announcement that it will move to reduce auto emissions to the standard pertaining in the United States. Are we going to get that announcement before March 17? That would have been something the Minister could have talked about. We still do not know. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), instead of having to make a private telephone call to Mr. Reagan as the paper reported this morning, then might have something to show. He might be able to say that we have come up to scratch with respect to auto emission standards and now we expect them to come across. We then would not be in the position of having to acquiesce to the argument that I am sure the President will make, as he has done time and time again, about the need for more research.
The United States has really not accepted that this is a problem. As an article by David Suzuki in The Toronto Star on Saturday says, Mr. Speaker, the demand for absolute proof is a polluter's cop-out excuse. That is exactly what is going on with respect to acid rain in the U.S. That is why I welcomed the Prime Minister's remarks some months ago about having to go to the bargaining table with clean hands. If that was not just sort of a preliminary for not doing anything, then we need to see some action to indicate the Prime Minister was serious. One of the ways he could show us he was serious would be by making an announcement about nitrous oxide before March 17.
We could have full reinstatement of the herring gull program instead of one out of six people in the program being reinstated. That would be a sign that we were serious about at least monitoring Great Lakes water quality, if not doing anything about it. But instead the Minister announced that she was reinstating the program, and a month or two later we find out that one person out of six has been reinstated. That work is not being done.


Mr. Fulton:: It is called fraud.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I agree. It was a fraudulent announcement, meant to mislead people and take the heat off the Minister for a little while. Maybe it did in an insignificant way, but people have come to know that the program has not been reinstated.

March 5, 1985
Supply
But that is one of the things the Minister could do and which the Prime Minister could do if he wanted to sit down with clean hands at the bargaining table on March 17.
Again with respect to the herring gull program, we see an article on the front page of The Globe and Mail yesterday about the inadequate registry of birth defects we have in this country. That is something, of course, that we cannot immediately dump on the lap of the present Government. That inadequacy belongs to previous Liberal Governments. But if the Government was serious about trying to move in that environmental area, it would take steps to make adequate its registry of birth defects. It would take steps to make adequate environmental monitoring programs like the herring gull program and then we could have some confidence. Part of the problem is that you listen to the Minister but you never get one squeak of passion about the environment. Not so much as a murmur or a moan. Nothing. You would hardly even know she was the Minister of the Environment. She could at least have the decency to get up and sound as if she regrets the fact she had to make these cuts. But you do not even get a sense that she regrets it. That is the thing that causes us real despair. If the Minister could get up and say this is the burden of necessity and she wished she did not have to do it, that is one thing. But instead she gets up and talks the fiscal language game and implies these programs are extravagant, redundant, a luxury which can be sacrificed. This is what causes despair as much as the cuts themselves. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) says the Minister is Canada's answer to James Watt. I am afraid that is so true.
The Americans do not have any problem standing up for their interests. They are trying to put the heat on President Reagan now to take a message to Prime Minister Mulroney concerning our laws on generic drugs. Why can our Prime Minister not take the same kind of firm message to the United States at the Shamrock Summit?
I am not just sure how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but I have a few more things I want to comment on and then I would like to move an amendment. I would like to spend a little more time on acid rain because this is a question of maturity, of how we relate to the U.S. As I said before, the U.S. does not have any problems sticking up for itself. We just had an experience in Manitoba where, because Manitoba and Canada and the people were firm on the Garrison River diversion project, the North Dakotans are saying that they are going to prohibit the import of Canadian electricity. I guess that is what you call a mature response!
That is the kind of mature relationship that the Minister wants with the United States. Or is it, of course, because I say that with tongue in cheek? On the other hand, a Bill has been introduced in Congress saying that if Canada does not clean up its act on acid rain, they are going to ban imports of Canadian electricity. So on the one hand we are getting it because we are environmentally sensitive, and on the other hand we are going to get the same penalty for not being environmentally sensitive. So sometimes our neighbours to the South do act irrationally. What I am saying is that if the
Prime Minister is serious about having a mature relationship with the U.S., then he needs to go to that table, hopefully with clean hands, and then he will be able to be firm with the President over acid rain and other issues.
I mentioned before the question of renewable resources and the need to develop them and the fact that funding for them has been wiped out. But they never were given a very high priority when you compare the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been poured down the drain in the nuclear industry in this country as a result of technological vanity and the refusal to criticize that industry, which was so characteristic of the previous Liberal regime.
I have an amendment which I think would add a great deal to this motion and would put the environmental picture more in balance if it were to be accepted by the House. Therefore I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), that after the words "Great Lakes" the following words be added:
-for continuing the long established bias toward the environmentally dangerous option of nuclear power over alternative and renewable energy sources,
If I have any time left, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the proposed amendment. With the permission of the House I would like to take the proposed amendment under advisement before I rule on its admissibility. In the meantime I suggest we continue the debate on the main motion with the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who has two minutes left.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word about the issue of nuclear power versus other sources of energy. To myself and a lot of Canadians who are concerned about the environment, this is the central or paradigmatic question. How you view the role of nuclear power determines your understanding of environmental issues. As long as we continue to pour inordinate amounts of money into that particular energy option while we spend trifling amounts or nothing at all, as will be the case under this Government, on renewable energy sources, we are committed to a technological world view that ultimately will be destructive of the environment which we all say we care about. That is why this amendment is important and why we ought to debate it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) talked about lead in gasoline. I do not think it is difficult for Members of the House to understand that that is an important health consideration in the City of Toronto. His response to the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) seemed to indicate that he thought the environment in western Canada on the Prairies has identical health hazard implications with regard to leaded gasoline. I suggest he might want to visit the Prairies.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill is from the west. Does he think that the Department of the Environment and
March 5, 1985

the Minister of the Environment, because of a health hazard problem in Toronto or Montreal, should put forward regulations which govern farming on the Prairies? Is that the way national policy should be developed? The Liberals always did it that way. Does the NDP support the Liberals in that, or should we have different policies across the country because the environment is different across this country? This is a big country with a lot of differences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill does not have to answer the question because I believe it relates to the speech of the Hon. Member for Davenport. However, if he wishes, he may.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I understood the second half of the question to be directed to me. I would like to take issue with the view expressed by the Hon. Member that it was the Liberal way to have the Department of National Health and Welfare make a recommendation and then apply it uncritically right across the country. In fact, the Liberal record is that the Department of National Health and Welfare did not have much say at all. It made lots of recommendations, most of which were not heeded. I do not think the Hon. Member was paying attention all those years while he was watching the Liberal Government. If he had been paying attention he would have seen that it was as I said it was. The Departments of National Health and Welfare and the Environment did not have much clout. It was the Departments of Agriculture and Transport which made the decisions. The quality of those decisions, and whether those decisions with respect to health hazards ought to take into account certain realities, is another matter. The Member has the Liberal way all mixed up.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Member made an excellent speech. Because of the pressures of time there were two items which he did not deal with at any length. He did not really talk about the Liberal record in this area. We must recognize that the problems we are facing at this time are not new. These problems did not occur after September 4. Acid rain, the lack of progress in negotiations with the United States, and the problems we face in so many fields, are a result of many years of Liberal Government. We must remember that it failed to protect the environment. I would like to hear the comments of the Member on that.
The other item which I think is important and which has become public recently is that the Atomic Energy Control Board has completely failed to control and regulate the nuclear industry in the country. There is information that workers have been forced to inhale radiodactive dust, that radioactive materials have been left in towns because there is lack of adequate storage, and that the Atomic Energy Control Board refused to listen to its own research staff when making its decisions. I have called for an inquiry into the role of the Atomic Energy Control Board and the nuclear industry in the country. I would like to hear the Member's view on that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the first point the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) made is a good one, but I would
Supply
like to spend most of my time on the second point with respect to the nuclear industry. Over the years the Liberal Government had a totally uncritical commitment to the nuclear industry and the nuclear option. Any attempts to have a critical review conducted ended up in an internal departmental review. There were no public hearings or public discussions on what was involved in a continuing commitment to this option.
The Conservatives were different in 1979. One of the first things they announced in 1979 was a parliamentary inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle. What happened to that, Mr. Speaker? All we get now is an odd statement from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) about the possible commercial benefits of nuclear power or, even more frightening, ramblings from the same Minister about the commercial benefits of Canada becoming a radioactive garbage dump for the rest of the world. I can show you the comments of the Minister in a letter to the town council of Gimli in that respect, Mr. Speaker.
The Government has a totally commercial view of the nuclear industry. That means that we will not get an inquiry or debate. Canadians will not be invited to talk about the kind of energy future they want. It will be full speed ahead, business as usual, just like the Liberals when it comes to nuclear energy. That is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Davenport asked me a question informally and I would like to put it on the record. He asked, "What about uranium mining in Saskatchewan?" In this House in 1980 I stood up in the course of a debate on a Private Member's Bill of mine calling for a moratorium on nuclear power and said that I was against uranium mining in Saskatchewan, no matter who mines it and no matter who happens to be in power. I still take that position. Fortunately, that is now the position of the Saskatchewan and the federal New Democratic Party. There is complete unanimity within the Party with respect to uranium mining and the need to phase it out.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, it bothers me that the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on the one hand asks the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) why she is cutting research. On the other hand, when he talks about the President of the United States, he says he wants research. Is the Member for research or against research in the environment?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is about the dumbest question I have been asked in a long time, but I will try to answer it. We do not need more research on acid rain. We know we have a problem and we must act. We must continue research on the consequences of pesticides in sloughs in prairie Canada or other things which are working their way into our environment, because we must learn how to act. The only straw man that the Member sets up is himself.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hills seemed to attack the cuts and ask for their

March 5, 1985
Supply
rescission. Given that there is limited money and that we want to help senior citizens in this country, which of these cuts should be rescinded in preference to using the same money for senior citizens?
Mir. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the self-righteousness of the Hon. Member for Calgary West knows no bounds. Why does he not talk about the increased budget for the Prime Minister's office? Why do we not hear about that when he sheds crocodile tears for the senior citizens of this country? He has his nerve, getting up and falsely making us choose between helping the environment and helping senior citizens. Why did we not hear about the Prime Minister's office? Why did the Hon. Member not mention the 57 per cent increase in the Prime Minister's office?
Incidentally, when the Conservatives were in opposition they continually criticized the Prime Minister's office as being the source of all evil in the country and the tool that was destroying Parliament and democracy. Now that the Conservatives are in power we see a 57 per cent increase in the Prime Minister's office. And the Hon. Member for Calgary has the nerve to get up and say that we must make difficult choices between senior citizens and the environment. We must make difficult choices all right, but it is not between the environment and senior citizens.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the Member deal with the specifics of which cuts should be rescinded because they are more important than aid to senior citizens, for example? Which of these cuts is more important than aid to senior citizens?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear that I think all of the cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service should be cancelled. However, the Hon. Member and his Government has not given us an honest answer yet with respect to the other side of the spending question concerning tax expenditures. When the Government comes clean as to the S30 billion to $50 billion that it is spending in the form of tax expenditures, we will be able to get an accurate picture of what is happening. At that time we will know all of the ways in which the public treasury is being drained of money, not only through spending on programs but through spending in the form of revenue that is never collected. We have yet to get such a statement from the Hon. Member or his Government. Once we have that statement we will know that the Government is serious about fiscal responsibility and is not just looking for ways in which to pursue its own ideologies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is ready to rule on the proposed amendment. The Chair must rule the amendment out of order because it would add to the main amendment. I cite Beauchesne Fifth Edition, page 168, Citation 482:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion.
The Chair is of the opinion that if the proposed amendment was accepted it would in fact lead to a different debate. For those reasons, the Chair rules the amendment out of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, might I point out that in speaking to the motion, the Member who moved the motion spoke about the fact that the Government had cut funds for renewable energy resources as part of his rationale for moving the motion. As far as the amendment and what it speaks to is concerned, it was part and parcel of the over-all argument for the advisability of the main motion.
I suggest it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the whole question of how we manage our energy future and whether we invest in something which has long-term environmental uncertainties, like the disposal of radioactive waste or whether we invest in solar energy, is clearly a question of the management and protection of our environment. I cannot understand why you would see fit to rule my amendment out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The decision has been made. The text of the motion is the pertinent part, not the speeches of Members. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).


Mr. Gary Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Members-


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the Parliamentary Secretary. On Opposition days it is customary that the rotation system be applied whereby, after a round of speeches is completed, the speaker from the Party that moves the motion is recognized first on the second round. I respectfully submit that you might want to continue this fine tradition.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, having been in the House for approximately six years, I believe there is a great deal of variation. It was not abnormal to move from the Government side to the Opposition side, always starting with the Opposition. That seemed to be the precedent that was established today. The second speaker was from the Government, so that the fourth speaker and sixth speaker would be from the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will take the remarks of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) into consideration. However, for the time being the floor is given to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue debate and try to deal with some of the questions that have been raised. It is my opinion that some of these issues which have been introduced into debate are red herrings. I am accustomed to hearing debate from the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and have been impressed by their generosity, understanding and sincerity. However, in the last two or three months it has been difficult to maintain that impression due to their inability to understand and apply constructive criticism to the Government's efforts on behalf of the environment.
March 5, 1985

Let there be no mistake that our Government intends to provide the action that is needed in order to ensure that our environmental scene will benefit all Canadians and protect our future heritage.
The Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) wishes to apologize to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill for being unable to listen to his comments. She had other obligations which required her to be elsewhere and it was difficult for her to rearrange her schedule because the motion was introduced as late as possible yesterday. However, she will read the Hon. Member's speech in Hansard.
Let me try to explain the position of both Opposition Parties with respect to environmental issues, as I understand it. On November 8, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave the clearest indication ever of the conditions under which the Government must operate. We opened the books as much as possible to explain the economic situation we faced. Many of the departments did their best to reduce their expenditures in the short time they were given. This included the Department of the Environment which, after considering its full range of programs, had to decide which programs could appropriately and reasonably be cut back.
In spite of the positive advances that we have made which I believe all Canadians support, Members opposite have for some unexplained reason decided to approach this issue on a personal basis, as is evident from the comments made by the Member for Davenport. I think they have lost sight of the objectives and requirements with respect to the environment of Canada.
One of our first steps, even as an Opposition Party, was to support a new park for Canada in this centennial year of Parks Canada. The Minister stated as recently as several weeks ago that under the Conservative Government and her Department there is a definite and increasing future for national parks in Canada. I cannot guarantee that it would be established on the exact terms of reference with which all Members would be completely content but that commitment has been made and I believe it will be honoured.
The background alluded to by one of the questioners of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, the background to this whole situation with the environment, is one that cannot be discussed without ascribing some responsibility, particularly to the Member for Davenport. If there is one piece of testimony that says it all and one that should not be viewed as politically partisan, it would have to be a document that was produced and released at the end of last year called "Time Lost". The committee was chaired by the former Member for Sault Ste. Marie. Members from all Parties served on that committee. There were those who distinguished themselves, such as the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), and the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who is well known to all people concerned, especially on the acid rain issue. What this committee which had been reconstituted from 1980 to 1984
Supply
found was that there had not been any accomplishment. The Minister in the previous Government had really not been able to accomplish anything, although he had brave words, passionate statements and press releases almost every day from his Department. But if you come right down to the nitty-gritty, Mr. Speaker, what he really ended up with was an empty hand. He was not able to produce. It may not have been all his fault. It may have been the disposition of people with whom he had to work in the Cabinet, and for that I can only offer him my sympathy.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Now you know what it is like.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Hon. Member opposite reacts and responds quickly. He says "Now you know what it is like". This Government has been in place for six months.


Charles L. Caccia: Far too long.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Commitments have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I believe statements made in the past few weeks by the Prime Minister repeated very clearly and soundly that we intend to fulfil our commitments. He has recognized the difficulty in dealing honestly and effectively with the President of the United States and in accomplishing the needs that we have on our own domestic scene to reduce the terrible environmental burden of continuous air pollution, particularly as a result of acid rain.
The Hon. Member has asked about auto emissions. In contrast to what occurred before, there were hearings which took place in 1984 which brought all of the interested parties, all of those affected and concerned, together to consider all of the specifics that one must consider when one talks about controlling auto emissions. We have a very bad record in the control of auto emissions. I do not think the previous Minister who was criticizing us today has much room, if he is honest with himself, for standing in the House and affronting the Minister of the Environment after three or four months, a period that has been filled almost continuously with consultation and efforts to address in a serious way the problems we have to face. The commitment has been made for action, Mr. Speaker. We will be judged on the basis of whether we can produce that action.
The background for this debate is also around the centennial year for Parks Canada. Parks Canada started out 100 years ago with several individual Canadians, actually two people, who did not like what was happening. I think the CN was involved at that time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: One hundred years ago, it was not the CN.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I think so.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The CN did not exist. You must mean the CP.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Excuse me, I apologize, it was the CP.
The interesting point, and the point that I raise now, is that this is a reflection of something we need to get back to. It is one of the things that this Government and this Minister has

March 5, 1985
Supply
been trying to do and which will be shown in the future to be very effective. It is to listen and to work with individual Canadians, be it private enterprise on an individual basis with voluntary organizations or whatever, to try to develop, protect and maintain environmental standards and conditions in the best interests of all Canadians.
The most specific and recent example is the Creston Valley Wildlife Interpretive Centre. During the budget cuts announced on November 8, it is clear that the Wildlife interpretive Centres, five of them across Canada, face closure. In working with a local group in British Columbia, that particular interpretive centre will now remain open and will continue to remain open partially with support of the provincial Government and the Minister of the Environment of British Columbia, Environment Canada and the Minister of the Environment, and private voluntary groups. That is an example we hope will be repeated, perhaps not in exactly the same way but in a similar way in Wye Marsh. This is an example that can be repeated right across Canada.
In the same vein, hearing the criticisms of the wildlife cuts, there has always been a disposition that this is the only way, that there is disaster and everything will fall apart because the cuts have been put in place. Members are not happy with some of the restored programs.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They have not been restored. That is why we are not happy.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Always there is a sense that it cannot or will not be done because the same program has not been replaced in the same way.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Restore them and we will be happy.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If we talk about the herring gull program to which there has been reference today, one person out of six from that basic program was restored. He is now working out of a separate place with other support systems. Maybe that whole program is not back in the same way, but that program, the parts of it that we feel are very important for longitudinal studies, we have every right to believe can be maintained in an effective way for the purposes intended.
The notion I am trying to communicate is not so much a question on any specific, but to argue that because we did things in a particular way, because we collected tax dollars and hired certain people to do a certain job in a certain way, that is not to say there is no other way that we cannot accomplish a similar or a better end. It has been pretty impressive to see some of the communications and to witness some of the discussions that are now under way to try to address some of the problems we all accept are there. I am speaking not only of programs that have been cut but of programs that we have not yet considered, and perhaps of chemicals that may yet be discovered to be dangerous. This whole area of organizing, funding and supporting that type of activity is something that does need, not just another person here or there, but rather a constructive approach. It needs a unified, organized approach, although there are other ways. I have no doubt about this, in
which we could probably be more successful. I want to point out to Members opposite that not only have we not neglected this area, but I think in the end we will be in a better position than we have been historically.
There is another area, almost another level, that I think Members who want to address the environment have to be able to work with. There have been some comments back and forth about our need to engage the United States in a meaningful agreement in order to solve our own problems. I do not think there is any debate on that point. The approach we had been taking over the past several years in attempting to accomplish that has been very impressive. Time after time the comments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport only antagonized, polarized positions and resulted in making it more difficult to achieve that very important goal. Not only were we not doing our own homework or cleaning up our own backyard, but we were polarizing the international situation in a way that made it very difficult to reach a successful conclusion.
We have entered a new era of co-operation. I think we have a new capacity to achieve a very important and successful agreement on issues ranging from acid rain to toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and to things which affect the environment in total, even in terms of wildlife and migratory birds and the agreements which are necessary. In the past three or four weeks we have done a number of positive and constructive things. With that as a background, we can expect to see the Minister of the Environment and the Department of the Environment fulfilling the mandate all Canadians expect and want them to fulfil. I am sure they will serve the interests of Canadians.
I am not sure how much time I have remaining, but I should like to make a final point. An idea which has been advanced in the past six or seven months concerns budget cuts, deficits and our international relationships. It started out last May and June with an OECD economic summit in Paris dealing with the environment. I attended that meeting with the then Minister of the Environment. We had a long series of discussions. The funny part is that he now seems not to recall the important discussions which occurred at that time. They indicated that we would have to consider very seriously the environment in relation to the economy, not just the cost of clean-up but the whole range of economic activity in which any modern nation is involved and the impact it will have on the economy. In fact, the conclusion reached-and I think it will be proven in the future-is that clean air is cheaper. If we do it right, most efficiently, most effectively and probably most economically, in the end we will all benefit in a large number of ways. It is not like the hard-nosed economic sense which most people would associate with things like productivity and efficiency; it is in the whole range or gambit of things which affect our daily lives, which very much affect our quality of life and the environment of the whole globe.
I should like to leave Hon. Members opposite and the House with the assurance that I for one-I may have some advantage
March 5, 1985

over Hon. Members opposite in being a little closer to it-have no question that the Government at the end of its mandate will have proven that in fact it is capable of doing what Canadians want done in the environment in a whole range of areas, from acid rain to auto emissions. We will be judged at that time. I hope Hon. members opposite in judging us will give us credit, if it is earned, when the time comes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who just spoke. With respect to the cuts in the wildlife service, time and again when people appeared before the committee they were asked whether there was any other way to do these things, particularly on the research side. It was not necessarily on the wildlife interpretive side but on the research side. They were asked whether there was anyone in the private sector, in the university sector or in any sector whatsoever who would pick up this work. The answer was always no. Does the Hon. Member not recall that evidence being given before the committee? He is acting now like he was not even there.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the problem was that I was there.


Mr. Nystrom:: Was that a problem?


Gary Michael Gurbin: The confinement which I am trying to help Hon. Members opposite get around-the two of them who have spoken so far-is that they are not hoisted on their own petard yet but they are caught in their own box. The short answer is that it is entirely possible that others can do this work. I will readily admit that I did not know for sure. There have now been serious discussions which allow me to answer that it is possible for others to do the work, even in research. I think that is the important question. Even wildlife groups think it is quite possible for interpretive centres to function properly. Both the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Canadian Nature Federation have suggested that that was entirely reasonable, that they should be able to function.
The research part is the one with which we have been having trouble. There have been discussions now which lead me to be able to answer very honestly and very directly that yes, it is possible. We are working on it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have a supplementary question for the Hon. Member. I notice that he was unable to cite any witnesses who claimed that this kind of work could be done in the private sector or in the university sector. I stand by my original claim until I have real evidence to the contrary, not just the optimism of the Hon. Member, an optimism which is clearly in his own self-interest to promote.
Will we have an announcement with respect to nitrous oxide emissions before March 17? I addressed that in my speech, and I would like to know whether or not the Prime Minister will have that announcement in his hot little hands, so to speak, when he goes to the bargaining table with the President?


Gary Michael Gurbin: On the first part of the question, I accept fully the comments of the Hon. Member that it is in my self-interest
Supply
to suggest it would be possible. I have no hesitation in doing that. I would not like to do that and expose myself if I thought it might cost me too much in the future.
The other point which I think is important to include in that is that interested wildlife federations almost unanimously suggested-I have one reference here and I remember another one from another group-that cuts were possible. They felt that they were fully possible, maybe even more cuts in the wildlife services. It was very clear from their point of view that additional cuts, if they were to be made, should be done in a certain way. However, each of them indicated that they thought that was entirely reasonable. They thought we could be more efficient and manage ourselves better. I just wanted to put that on the record, to make sure it was clear.
In answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, the only thing I can tell him is that the Minister of the Environment, obviously in co-operation with the Prime Minister, is working as hard as possible to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to the commitments we made as the Conservative Party during the election campaign and since. I hope he will not be unhappy with the results.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary was present when the witnesses appeared before the committee. Perhaps he could address himself to a particular point. The Government had all kinds of opportunity to bring other witnesses before the committee, if it had wanted to, to stand and say what kinds of cuts should take place. It could have had people from the Department and so on. The Minister did not really back up the cuts. None of her officials really backed them up. Every witness said that those were the worst possible cuts. They said that if there were to be cuts in Environment Canada, they could cut in certain areas, but that the areas cut were areas which were not extravagant and not redundant. Would the Parliamentary Secretary now agree in the House, on the basis of the evidence heard by the committee, that those cuts were the worst possible ones which could have taken place in Environment Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to that question after the daily routine of business this afternoon.
It now being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1985


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) to tell the House of Commons when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) was first made aware that marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage. I have asked the same question on numerous occasions, but the Government has consistently refused to answer. Why? What is it hiding? Is the Prime Minister afraid to admit that he was improperly involved in the case? This stonewall of silence would make Richard Nixon look life a rank amateur.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) rose to babble on, as he usually does, when I asked my question again, notwithstanding that my question was directed to the Solicitor-General. It was interesting to see the Minister of Justice come to the defence of the Solicitor-General when, only two weeks ago, he stabbed the Solicitor-General in the back by calling for his resignation, and calling him politically incompetent.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice said that the Prime Minister was told that marijuana was found the day before charges were laid, that is, October 25. That is absolute and utter nonsense. The marijuana was found on September 25. The Solicitor-General was told on September 26. It was national news on October 20. How then can it be said that the Prime Minister did not know until October 25?
To suggest that the Prime Minister did not see a newspaper or hear a newscast between October 20 and October 25 is ludicrous and misleading. It is a deliberate misstatement of fact. Surely the Prime Minister became-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the people from the Beauce area and the rest of Quebec are already reaping the benefits of the decision they made last September 4 when they elected a Progressive Conservative Government which has now been in office for six months. Yesterday, we celebrated its anniversary. A change in attitude and a more human approach to problems are two elements which should be noted enthusiastically and emphatically. Our attitude toward the provinces is also noteworthy. We have recognized the legitimacy of the duly-elected Quebec Government and we shall continue to promote co-operation.
As mentioned by Raymond Giroux of the newspaper Le Soleil, the Canadian Government wants to prove that dialogue and exchanges are preferable to constant efforts to destroy everything.
Mr. Speaker, things have changed over the last six months; people are no longer treated with contempt, arrogance and a complete lack of consultation. We have cleaned up the political atmosphere. Things are starting to work at every level. People realize that we want to listen to them. They have claims and grievances, and we are attentive to them.
As the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said recently, we are fortunate enough to live in a rich country, not only in terms of material resources level, but also human resources, because we have a free, rich and diversified society where everyone enjoys the unique privilege of building the life he wants to live as he pleases. As a Government, we shall have to make decisions which are likely to be difficult. We must show confidence in the future and those who govern the country. Together, we shall continue to build a Canada which can meet the aspirations of the people from Beauce, Quebec, and the rest of Canada.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we have seen a 25 per cent reduction in public sector jobs, cuts in legal aid and rent subsidies, a freeze in welfare payments, and the withdrawal of funding for women's programs. The Socred practice of restraint has been particularly disastrous for women who have lost both the services and the jobs which existed to deliver those services.
Women are the primary beneficiaries of social services, legal aid, subsidized housing, minimum labour standards, and of a number of other programs denounced as excessive and unnecessary by the executors of restraint. In spite of all this, there exists the ongoing efforts of women in British Columbia to meet the ever-increasing economic, social, and supportive needs in their communities. I speak for my own riding of Kamloops-Shuswap which reflects much of this aftermath of restraint.
I would like to go on record in praise and support of the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre, the Kamloops & Salmon Arm Women's Emergency Shelter, the B.C. Native Women's Society, the Rape Crisis Centres, and all other services in my constituency that continue to address the burdens of women, burdens augmented as a result of economic restraint.
Women should not be expected to carry the major responsibilities for correcting inequities. It is clear that equality for all of us, in every sense of the word, requires major changes in
March 5, 1985

our economy. This can only happen when all sectors of our society share the responsibility. The Government of Canada can play its rightful role in this regard by funding those groups and organizations serving the needs of women and which support the basic principle of equality for women.



EFFECT OF WORLD PRICES ON SUGAR PRODUCERS

Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Parliament about the current world sugar situation and how 1,500 Canadian sugar beet producers in Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta are being affected.
The world cost of producing cane and beet sugar is about 15 cents per pound. Eight-five per cent of world sugar trades at guaranteed domestic prices which range from 22 cents in the U.S.A. to over 40 cents a pound in Cuba. The EEC subsidy alone is 15 cents a pound. This price is guaranteed by quotas, tariffs, and subsidies. In Canada we face a situation where some 15 per cent of the world surplus determines our price, which is 4 cents per pound U.S. and, as such, we will surely lose our producers.
Canadians consume about 1 million tonnes of sugar, of which 90 per cent is imported. The amount of money leaving Canada for that sugar this year is about $80 million U.S. However, in 1980 when the price of sugar was 43 cents per pound, the cost was $800 million. Therefore, a healthy domestic sugar industry is good for consumers as protection against unstable world prices, for our foreign exchange account, for our manufacturers of machinery, and for our producers.
I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Cabinet to make a short-term investment in this industry to ensure its survival, followed by the development of a longterm national sugar policy to put us in step with the rest of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to increase to 30 per cent the number of women sitting on various boards, commissions, Crown corporations, decision-making committees and regulatory agencies, although he did not deem it necessary to promise an increase to 52 per cent, which would have reflected the percentage of women in society.
However, the Prime Minsiter has yet to appoint more than a very few women to key positions. We can now see that the
commitments made by the Conservative Party as regards positive action programs in the public service, public agencies and crown corporations and the elimination of obstacles of economic equality between men and women were more the result of a desire to please the voters than of a willingness to make room for women at the various decision-making levels.
All these promises are along the same lines as the recommendations of Judge Rosalie Abella, whose report does not seem to provide much inspiration to the Conservative Party. This is regrettable.
Needless to say, women's status should not be a partisan issue. The Prime Minister should therefore act quickly to give Canadian women the equality they deserve.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the determination, dynamism and undeterred confidence of socioeconomic groups in my riding will soon witness the fruitful outcome of their efforts.
A major agricultural research station is now under consideration in my riding. The probable establishment of such a station in Temiscamingue will meet an urgent need of the agricultural community and it has the unanimous support of all social and political interest groups. This is an important issue for the economy of my riding, since the proposed agricultural research station is estimated at close to $8 million and would create hundreds of jobs.
The first step towards this worthwile endeavour has been made possible through the co-operation of Agriculture Canada which will soon hire two scientists who will take up residence at and be affiliated with the University of Quebec at Rouyn with a view to making surveys and launching the agricultural research station project.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend Agriculture Canada for its support and co-operation in this project.
Mr. Speaker, the project will have significant economic fallouts throughout the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region and make my riding one of Canada's leading agricultural development centres. At long last will Temiscamingue see the concrete outcome of its agricultural calling.

March 5, 1985



STATUS OF WOMEN


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this week is the International Women's Week and I noticed in the annual report of the Department of Employment and Immigration that Canada Employment Centres last year allotted 32 per cent of all jobs in Canada to women. Only 32 per cent of the jobs went to women, although women account for 42 per cent of the labour force in Canada. Why the discrepancy? Even Mr. Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration stated on December 5 before the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and I quote:
To the extent that our job creation programs have a smaller proportion of women than their share in the labour force, that will have a depressing influence.
Even the Assistant Deputy Minister is frustrated, Mr. Speaker.
Before Christmas, we also had Mr. Justice Abella's report, which was replete with recommendations to change or correct that discrimination against Canadian women. There were many recommendations on affirmative action, justice, equality between women and men in Canada. Six months have already gone by since the new Tory Government was elected, and they had ample opportunity to make their studies. Let them act now!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, some in the farm community have expressed concern over the contents of the discussion paper Tax Issues in Agriculture. The paper starts with a description of the economic environment in which tax policy must be considered, and then discusses, in turn, the three issues of tax deductions of losses by part-time farmers, taxation of capital gains, and the concept of agribonds.
It is unfortunate that many of the statistics which are quoted in the paper date back to the 1981 agricultural census and 1982 Revenue Canada figures. The conclusions which could be drawn from these data would clearly be erroneous in light of the urgent situation facing agriculture.
Fortunately, tonight marks the first meeting of the parliamentary committee which will study these important agricultural tax matters. Thus, while the discussion paper has provided a useful background for consideration of these issues, it is important that the input of the agricultural community be secured through the committee's hearings.
The evidence presented to the agricultural tax committee will provide more up-to-date information on the present status
of the agriculture industry. The mandate of the agricultural tax committee is to listen to the briefs presented, and to report expeditiously to the House. It is hoped that the recommendations concerning Section 31, capital gains and agribonds, will constitute an important and vital contribution to the budgetary formation process.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Since this is International Women's Week, and with all due respect for the Chair, I feel I must inject a bit of humour into the proceedings. Ten years ago, we had International Women's Year and a year later, March 8 was designated as International Women's Day. From 1976 to 1978, the only Member of this House to mention the fact was Mr. Stanley Knowles. I wish to congratulate him on his openmindedness. He was ahead of his time.
In 1979, the House sat only two months, from October to December, as veteran Members will recall. In 1980, the House started its session in April, so of course no one had a chance to make any special reference to International Women's Day. In 1982, we had the bells episode, which we are not likely to forget, and in 1983-84 everything was back to normal. There was a reference to the good work done by our Government. In fact, this day has always been used to congratulate the Government on its good work and its effort to improve the status of women.
Today, I would like to make an exception, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to congratulate the women of Canada. In ten years, the number of women in the House has tripled, from nine Members in 1975 to our present number of 25. This augurs well for the next generation of women Members. We have also proven that competence is not a matter of age, since we cover two generations here in the House. I therefore wish to extend my congratulations and words of encouragement to the women in this House and to the women of Canada. Keep up the good work-we are on the right track!



ABORTION


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if a nuclear bomb were dropped on Ottawa probably 50,000 humans would die, and every newspaper and every government in the world would call it a disaster. Yet, every year in Canada, some 50,000 human babies are murdered and it is barely news-
March 5, 1985

worthy. Perhaps it is because we do not really realize what happens when a baby is aborted.
Modern technology has enabled Dr. Bernard Nathanson to use a sonogram videotape to picture a 12-week old child in the womb being aborted. A hollow plastic tube with a sharp tip is inserted and, using suction from a vacuum, the feotus starts to be torn apart. The baby retreats helplessly to the far side to escape the device, but it pulls off her legs and disembowels her. She struggles, her head falls back, and her mouth opens in agony. Then a pair of forceps crushes the brain, and another child is murdered.
The sonogram proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the feotus is alive. It is a human being. He or she cringes and tries to escape death. We can watch and see the gruesome picture of a child being brutally murdered. The mouth opens in a cry for help. Can't you hear that silent scream?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During a recent visit to Newfoundland several people, including people in the media and the Public Service, brought to my attention a concern regarding Clause 54 of the Atlantic Accord which was recently signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland.
In answer to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, on February 27, the Prime Minister said that he would be willing to look at that particular clause which, as it is now written, would effectively prohibit the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from developing a refinery capacity to use offshore oil. Will the Prime Minister give us his undertaking that he will, in consultation with his colleagues in Newfoundland, reopen that clause?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the entire agreement was negotiated with the view to being of assistance in developing the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, clearly we would place an appropriate construction, and a helpful and positive construction, on any clause which might be so interpreted by some people. I can tell the Hon. Member that is not the view of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in any official manner, nor is it the view of this Government. We believe very strongly that this document reflects an important instrument of growth and new prosperity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Oral Questions INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In reading that clause, the use of Hibernia oil is only available to facilities which are already in place on the day the legislation implementing the Accord is proclaimed. There are no facilities currently in place in Newfoundland. Therefore, Clause 54 would mean that offshore oil would have to go to refineries in Quebec and the Maritimes. Despite the interpretations he may have been given, would the Prime Minister, together with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, look at this matter again? I urge him to renegotiate that clause.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not the interpretation which I would give to Clause 54, nor is it the interpretation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and her provincial colleague. Having said that, inasmuch as the entire thrust of the negotiations was to be helpful to Newfoundland and Labrador in getting this tremendous resource developed-it having been neglected for 13 years by the previous Government-clearly any doubt in a matter such as this would be resolved in favour of the Province of Newfoundland.


COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we hope that is so, but that is not the advice I have, nor is it our interpretation in reading that particular clause.
Would the Prime Minister be prepared to table in the House, if it exists, a study that would substantiate claims which are being made by both Petro-Canada and the Government of Newfoundland that it would be cheaper to build a new refinery rather than de-mothball the current refinery in Come-By-Chance? The Prime Minister should understand that, under Clause 54, the scrapping of Come-By-Chance would, in effect, scrap any future prospects for Newfoundland for refining of its own products and building a petrochemical industry.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the situation which he describes is not the intent of, nor will it result from the Atlantic Accord. I believe the Government of Newfoundland has other plans for the facilities which he mentioned and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on that without first holding consultations with Newfoundland.

March 5, 1985
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week, he tried to evade the issue by giving different answers every day when questioned about the Domtar case and by varying his reasons for rejecting the subsidy request. We now know that his Minister, supported therein by the Prime Minister, will not give Domtar the requested grant. Other options such as a tax credit where mentioned, but we now know that Domtar is already applying the maximum amount of tax credits to which it is entitled under the present legislation. We know that a loan guarantee will not change Domtar's risk ratio for the $1.2 billion project. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he is now prepared to consider a third option, namely, an interest free loan, to help Domtar carry out its project?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the Hon. Member that my Government intends to work together with the Government of Quebec and Domtar to find a formula for helping the company. I think that has been our position since the very beginning. Furthermore, there will be talks, on Friday I believe, with Mr. Levesque, and I expect that the Domtar case will be on the agenda. I do not think anyone questions our desire to offer our sincere co-operation. As the Hon. Member is aware, we were obliged to turn down a request for a grant of $100 million, but that does not preclude some form of co-operation in other areas.
REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND MR. LfeVESQUE


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be stalling for time when he refers to discussions that will take place this Friday, since he knows as well as I do that Premier Levesque has no authorization from Domtar to settle this case Friday with the Prime Minister of Canada. He knows perfectly well that Premier Levesque cannot act on behalf of Domtar shareholders.
My question is therefore: What is the Prime Minister going to negotiate with Mr. Levesque Friday, on the backs of Domtar employees? What does the Prime Minister intend to negotiate, when he knows perfectly well that Mr. Levesque is not authorized to negotiate on behalf of Domtar?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying that Mr. Levesque has no authorization. Of course not. He controls the company.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think I should add, for the record, that the Domtar request was made under the previous Government. A request for $100 million was submitted to the previous Liberal Government on April 19 last year, and the Liberal Government refused to act on it.
I think I should mention in this connection that we received a document from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Producers Association, stating their philosophy and recommendations. The main one is as follows, and I quote:

The advisory committee is deeply skeptical of the wisdom of Government making major capital grants for the expansion of manufacturing capacity in pulp and paper. We believe that expansion should occur only in response to market forces.

That is the document that was submitted to us, signed by Mr. R. R. Pinard, Executive Vice-President and CEO of Domtar Inc.
That was confirmed at a meeting on October 23 of last year. There is one question that arises, considering that you know we are going to help Domtar. Is the position of. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Prime Minister, his answer is turning into a bit of a speech.


THE SENATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister would agree with me that the Minister of Justice from time to time has a colourful and direct way of stating the truth. Since the Minister of Justice said yesterday, referring to the august body of the Senate, "I can't see that the Senate performs any really useful function"-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Justice is clapping. Considering that this useless body costs Canadians almost $1 million a week, would it be correct for me to assume that the proposals which senior Ministers of the Cabinet decided upon this morning to circulate to the provinces for reform, include the direct abolition of the Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that the Senate performs absolutely no useful function.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is because he is not Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Wake up, guys!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 5, 1985


John Edward Broadbent: I understand.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can think of one useful function that the Senate fulfils. I want to tell my hon. friend that we have received, as usual, the complete and brilliant advice from the Minister of Justice this morning in this regard. We will be consulting with the provinces and, as soon as I have something, I will be back to my hon. friend.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PROPOSE ABOLITION OF SENATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the views of the Minister of Justice-I am trying to be very temperate-on this institution, and the well known views of the Deputy Prime Minister and, I dare to say, hopefully half of the Cabinet, not to mention 80 per cent of the people of Canada who correctly see the Senate as being useless and costly simultaneously, and since it takes the same section of our Constitution to abolish the Senate as it does to provide any other amendment of substance, will the Prime Minister give us his assurance today that he will propose to the provinces the correct, democratic action, which is to abolish this abominable institution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would give that assurance to my hon. friend if the Leader of the Opposition would stand up right now and say he seconds that motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are so many Hon. Members rising, I cannot figure out who is rising to ask a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase the Prime Minister: "There is no hack like an old hack".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON ABOLITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that the only issue that separated the Liberals from the Conservatives in the recent election campaign was the issue of patronage. It is clear that the only difference between them is that the Prime Minister wants Conservative patronage instead of Liberal patronage.
I put this very serious question to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Prime Minister made a serious issue of patronage during the election campaign, which the people of Canada took very seriously, and considering that this Party will support him all the way on its abolition, will the Prime Minister do the correct thing and try to mobilize the people of Canada and the provincial Premiers to abolish the Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the issue, unfortunately, is rather more complex than my hon. friend suggests. We cannot, unfortunately, use the kind of procedure which he recommends with-
Oral Questions
out running into a veto by our friends in the other place. It was for this reason that I requested the support of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. If that support is not forthcoming, I can assure the House that, in co-operation with the New Democratic Party, we will make moves to clean the place up, notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberals who are clearly led from the Senate on some major issues. We are trying to support the Leader of the Opposition as best we can.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit appalled by the attitude of the Prime Minister. He is the Prime Minister and, if he wants to abolish the Senate, he has enough Members to do it. He does not have to play games with anyone in this House and cop out like that.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with his argument that the government is trying to get out of a hole for which others are to be blamed and by reading a statement of one of the Domtar vice-presidents a few moments ago to the effect that no company should be receiving assistance, was the Prime Minister trying to tell us that he does not intend to provide any assistance to the Domtar project in the Richmond constituency?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the
contrary, and this was not a statement by a Domtar vice-president, but a statement on principle by the Forest Industries Advisory Committee, with all the members of the executive committee, who, for their part, made a statement in principle in favour of the national association of which Domtar is a member. One of those signing this statement was the executive vice-president of Domtar. However, this is a statement on principle by the pulp and paper companies which are asking us not to make any donations; however, we shall try to find a formula which could help the Windsor project.


GOVERNMENT AID TO DOMTAR-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES FOR EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that if the Canadian Government were to provide a $100 million subsidy to Domtar at this time, it would recover its entire investment within three or four years, because this would create $1.2 billion of economic activity in one of the regions of Quebec where there is the greatest need of economic assistance at this time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we shall see whether the figures quoted by the Hon.

March 5, 1985
Oral Questions
Member are really accurate when we scrutinize them. However, we should be told once and for all whether the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, is in favour of a direct contribution of $100 million. Is the answer yes or no? This is what we would like to know?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning changes in the drug patent laws which are being urged on us by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, when he meets with President Reagan and discusses this question, he will give the President no assurances that Canada will change these laws in a way which will increase substantially the price of prescription drugs to Canadians?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member by quite simply telling him that in conjunction with pharmaceutical and generic companies we are now looking for a solution to that problem of pharmaceutical licences, and I can assure him that in so doing we are attempting to safeguard the best interests of Canadian consumers.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the reason I directed my question to the Prime Minister was that the media report this is a question which will be discussed by the Prime Minister and the President.


ATLANTIC ACCORD-CLAUSE 54
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has today been very cautious with respect to his answers concerning Clause 54 of the Atlantic Accord. He knows very well that clause allows for refining of Hibernia crude in Newfoundland only if such facilities exist in Newfoundland on the day this legislation is proclaimed. He knows as well that currently there are no such facilities. He knows Petro-Canada wants to scrap the Come-By-Chance refinery and has publicly said so. Will the Prime Minister not recognize that Clause 54 will place the Province of Newfoundland in the same position with respect to Hibernia oil that we find ourselves in with respect to Churchill Falls hydro power, that is, we lose forever any right of recall of a resource for use in the Province of Newfoundland? Will he not recognize that basic and fundamental fact?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Official Opposition cannot find anything good to say about the Atlantic Accord since it is the most important and beneficial document ever to be signed between the two levels of Government since Confederation. If you are looking for bad news, you can read anything you want into Clause 54. The intent and thrust of that clause was to give first refusal or prior access for Newfoundland to Hibernia, and also to ensure continuing and full access in the future.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Official Opposition but the Nova Scotia Minister of Energy who cannot find anything good that he wants to opt for in this Atlantic Accord. It is incredible that the Minister would stand up and say that anyone can read anything they want into Clause 54. That is precisely the problem, and we want it clarified.


POSSIBILITY OF DRUG PRICE INCREASES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Given that Mr. Hunter, director of the Competition Branch in his Department, has estimated that these increases could run as high as $750 million a year, will he assure the House and the people of Canada that his Department and the Government will not agree to any changes in the legislation which will mean substantial price increases for the people of Canada?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again I will merely repeat what I said. We shall try to find a solution that will safeguard the best interests of Canadian consumers.


USE OF OFFSHORE OIL
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Government move to make absolutely clear that Newfoundland does not foreclose any future right to utilize Newfoundland offshore oil in the Province of Newfoundland, to create jobs for Newfoundlanders? Will the Minister not give that clear commitment today?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the position outlined by the Hon. Member was the position taken by his Party when it was in government. It was not the position taken by our Party. The whole thrust of the Atlantic Accord is to bring industrial benefits to Newfoundland and ensure that this Province shares and participates in the offshore resources.
March 5, 1985


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister and it deals with the impending Shamrock Summit. He just refused to give assurances to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North that the interests of Canadian consumers with respect to the price of drugs would be defended at that meeting. We also notice that Canada has had to cave in on things like Star Wars and foreign investment.
In light of this mature peer relationship he wants to establish between Canada and the U.S., can the Prime Minister tell us why it is that he is reduced to considering having to make a telephone call to the President, on the eve of the Summit, to see if, in return for all these concessions, we might not get something token with respect to acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the Hon. Member refers. He seems to be offended at the prospect of a reasonable and civil relationship between friends and allies. I know it is deeply offensive to the NDP to get along with people.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Or with each other.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Or with each other. But I can assure my hon. friend that it is our judgment that the people of Canada want the Government of Canada to get along with the provinces, the regions, and our friends, neighbours, and allies around the world. That is exactly what we are going to do.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting along with people and living on your knees.


REDUCTION OF POLLUTING EMISSIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a report in the paper that he might be calling the President to ask for a concession on acid rain. Will we be hearing from the Prime Minister before March 17 that the Government will be moving on the reduction of nitrous oxide emissions here in Canada so that, with respect to the Prime Minister's remark about going to the table with clean hands, we will have something to show in the way of action here at home concerning acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is it about the NDP that causes them to be concerned that when you conduct yourself in a civil way you presume there is some degree of subservience? We have conducted ourselves with honour and independence. That has always been the policy of Canada, and it will always remain the policy of Canada with our friends and neighbours.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the question, we will have a statement tomorrow.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A large number of Canadians are purchasers of our country's Treasury bills. Those bills are purchased at a discount without any reference to an interest rate. Is it the opinion of the Minister of Finance that the profit earned on those bills is taxable income? What arrangement has the Minister of Finance made to remind people who have purchased those bills that they must pay income tax on the profits earned?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. The discount on Treasury bills is income. It is taxable, and not to report that taxable income is an evasion of tax. I have been concerned about this for the past two or three years. I have discussed this with officials and with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. We have been in touch with members of the investment community to advise them that if people are not reporting this income it is evasion of tax and will be dealt with accordingly.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the suntanned Solicitor General. I would like to ask him about the report commissioned by Commissioner Simmonds into the RCMP handling of the Hatfield investigation. Is that report ready? If it is not ready, in what stage of readiness is it? When does he expect to receive it?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the report is not yet ready. It is substantially complete and, when it is ready, I will be informing him and other Members of that situation.


ALLEGATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO PREMIER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, will the report also cover allegations made by Premier Hatfield subsequent to the commissioning of the report by Commissioner Simmonds, that members of the RCMP were out to get him and to bring down his Government? Will the report deal with that as well?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we shall have to wait until the report is received before we get into any such details, if in fact they are made public.

March 5, 1985
Oral Questions NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


APPLICATION OF POLICY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Prime Minister Lange of New Zealand has said, in the context of his Government's refusal to allow nuclear capable ships in its ports: "We want no part of nuclear weapons ... we do not ask, we do not expect, the United States to come to our assistance with nuclear weapons or to present American nuclear capability as a deterrent to an attacker". Is the Canadian Government prepared to take its own "no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil" policy to the same logical conclusion?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am not going to comment on the position of the Government of New Zealand, except to note that New Zealand is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and we intend to continue to honour our obligations and play a full and prominent role in carrying out our obligations as a member of NATO.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, by implication the Minister is saying that New Zealand is not a loyal member of the alliance to which it belongs.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs accepts, uncritically, the American nuclear umbrella as a so-called protection of Canada. When the Prime Minister meets the President, will he accept uncritically all aspects of American nuclear policy, including MX missiles, star wars, and ASAT testing and development?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that inflammatory question is, of course not. Canada has taken consistently, and with particular vigour since the election of the Government on September 4 last, a position that indicates that we intend to assert vigorously the sovereignty of Canada, to respect the values that are important to us, and to defend them in a way that respects our sovereignty. That includes, among other things, closing the holes in the DEW Line so that Canadian security and sovereignty will be protected in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: That's no answer at all.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have one other point to make, Mr. Speaker. If this fresh interest in having the NDP join NATO-


Pauline Jewett: Don't be silly. Why don't you answer the question?


Charles Joseph Clark: -was based on the view that New Zealand is a member of NATO, then I suggest the NDP had better inform themselves.


Pauline Jewett: What a dummy.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He will recall that two months ago today I wrote to the Commissioner of the RCMP requesting a criminal investigation into the awarding of certain government advertising contracts. My colleague, the Member for York Centre, wrote to the Minister of Justice concerning the same topic. Is the Minister now in a position to inform the House whether there will be such an investigation, recognizing that two months of delay is a long time, and that justice delayed is justice denied?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may wish to comment on this matter, but the most recent information I have on the situation is that the Commissioner had not made a determination that there is need for such an investigation.


RCMP-REQUEST THAT SOLICITOR GENERAL SEEK IMMEDIATE INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that two months have already elapsed as I indicated earlier, since I filed that request with the Commissioner of the RCMP, would the Solicitor General now be in a position to indicate to the House whether he himself intends to ask the RCMP to immediately initiate a criminal investigation on those matters?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to suffer from the same misunderstanding that many on that side do, that the Solicitor General directs the RCMP to conduct investigations, or interferes with their operations. I tell him, and others, including the former Solicitor General, that that is not the role of the Solicitor General.
March 5, 1985


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Does he support the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972? Does he agree that any violation of that treaty would threaten world peace?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada supports that treaty. We intend to remain vigilant and active in our support of that treaty. We intend that the actions of Canada will remain consistent with our support of that treaty.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Prime Minister would not answer the question himself, in view of the fact that he is meeting with Mr. Nitze tomorrow.


DEPLOYMENT OF DEFENSIVE WEAPONS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Would the Prime Minister inform his American visitor that Canada wants the ABM Treaty to continue in effect to prevent deployment of defensive weapons systems?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best answer to that question, since we live in a parliamentary system and want to expose our position, warts and all, to Mr. Nitze, is to relay that view of the Hon. Member.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the Government's decision not to remove urea formaldehyde foam insulation from a number of government buildings, including the postal facility on Eastern Avenue in Toronto, has the Government decided to lift the health hazard ban on urea formaldehyde foam insulation?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not lifted the ban. I will take the specifics to which he refers under advisement.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In December, when the Minister of Finance offended the Italian
Oral Questions
Canadian community with an insensitive remark, the Prime Minister refused to apologize. He has received a copy of a letter written to the Solicitor General from the National Congress of Italian Canadians, as have I, in which they complain of the "insensitive and on its face, discriminatory comment" about the Member of Parliament for York South-Wes-ton. They used the term "Nunziata" in the letter. In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister make an apology on behalf of his Government to the Italian community, particularly to the National Congress of Italian Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the specific point to which my right hon. friend refers. I would be happy to look at it.
I did receive a copy of a letter from another Liberal backbencher prior to Christmas, and I believe a copy was sent to my hon. friend. I responded in my personal name, because it reflected my views and that of my Government, and I said that as far as I was concerned, the tremendous courage, dignity, and the remarkable contribution that the Italian community has made to Canada is one that we salute. We have nothing but genuine respect and support for the magnificence of the contribution that Italian Canadians have made to Canada.
Should anything at any time be said by anyone on this side, inadvertently or otherwise, that is in any way contrary to that, of course it would be something that I would immediately regret and repudiate.


REQUEST THAT APOLOGY BE CONSIDERED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we welcome that statement, but in view of the fact that the National Congress has made what essentially amounts to a formal protest, I would like the Prime Minister to look into it formally and decide whether, in his good judgment, and reflecting the remarks he just made, a formal apology should be made.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look into this. As I recall, just prior to Christmas I wrote to the Hon. Member-I believe I sent a copy to the Leader of the Opposition-and I referred to the tremendous regard in which we hold the contributions of Italian Canadians. However, I will look into this, and should there be even the slightest iota of a comment by anyone at variance with that, I assure my hon. friend that it is not the view of anyone on this side, and I am sure it wouldn't be his.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have just completed a tour of women's centres in British Columbia, all of which are suffering from very inadequate funding while their

March 5, 1985
Oral Questions
clients are suffering increased unemployment, poverty, and increasing violence. In view of his promises to Canadian women, will he guarantee that women's services will have a priority for summer job placements under Challenge '85?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government has already told Canadians that women's issues were part of its priority in Challenge '85 and many other programs. For example, we are working toward the Prime Minister's goal to have 30 per cent of appointments made of women in Canada.
I think women in British Columbia, as well as in the rest of Canada, can rest assured that they will find the place they deserve in Challenge '85 and any other programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: With all due respect, I think that was a very naive reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Youth. Why has the Government, her Ministry, and the Ministry of Employment and Immigration not required a specific affirmative action plan as part of the Challenge '85 Program which would guarantee at least 48 per cent of those jobs to women students? That has not been done. Women want more than just lip service.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration knew as well as I did, when we were working on "Challenge '85", that there was no need for a quota, that women, young Canadian women, would themselves seek their due and take the necessary step to obtain their full share of available summer employment.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He knows that almost two years ago the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland signed an agreement to set up a Northern Fisheries Development Corporation for fishermen north of 50. That has not yet been put in place. What has the Minister done in this respect, and can he give an assurance that the $15 million which was set aside previously for funding that corporation, or adequate funds in any event, are still in place for it?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is an appropriate question, the answer to which is that discussions are going on between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland with respect to this issue. The amount of money that was allotted for the Northern Corporation is no longer available, but if the discussions that take place are worthy and useful, of course I shall do my very best to find the funds to proceed. I must say to the Hon. Member that I am sympathetic to the concept.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS WITH FISHERMEN
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister would be able to say that the Corporation would be in place for this fishing season. Can he give that assurance, and can he tell the fishermen on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and on the Labrador coast that he will consult with them this spring before anything specific is done?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I have been invited to his province to take part in discussions. If it is possible I will go and, if not, then senior officials of the Department will be there. I cannot give an assurance today that the Corporation will be in place for this season.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last year five qualified women in the Canadian Armed Forces, who happened to be lesbians, lost their jobs at CFS, Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. In view of the fact that these women pose no threat whatsoever to Canada's national security, would the Minister explain why the women were fired, and why he continues to allow a policy on the books which discriminates so blatantly against Canadian gays and lesbians?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, or should know, the existing regulations within the Canadian Forces make the Minister of National Defence very much a part of the grievance process. I am not aware of whether one or more, or any of the women involved, have triggered that grievance process. I am sure that the Hon. Member, having regard to his background and profession, would be the first to agree that I, being involved in that grievance process, should not be making any comment one way or the other until we establish whether or not they intend to grieve.
March 5, 1985


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF NO FURTHER DISMISSALS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, presumably the Minister knows that there is no grievance process in place for these women who were dismissed on that basis. In view of the fact that the Justice Committee has been asked by the House of Commons to study the whole question of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, particularly in the Armed Forces, is the Minister prepared, for at least as long as this study is under way, to assure us that no man or woman currently in the Armed Forces and qualified to serve there will be dismissed on the basis of his or her sexual orientation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last part first, there are regulations in place, and legislation in place, governing the conduct of servicemen and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.
With respect to the first part of the question, the Hon. Member leaves the impression with the House that there is no grievance procedure in place to be pursued by these women. That is incorrect. There is a grievance procedure that is available, and if they so wish-as far as I am aware they may have already done so-that process is available to them.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Science and Technology. One of the direct and devastating results of the cuts of black Thursday, last November 8, which eliminated the National Research Council's Energy Division, is the cancellation of CIDA's long-term program to reclaim lands from the desert in Africa. When the Minister cancelled NRC research support, was he aware of the damage that this would do to the fight against starvation in Africa? If so, did he suggest other ways of maintaining research for this critical project?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is stretching a long way the connection between the deprivation in Africa and measures which were announced by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, on November 8. In fact, if he is referring to reductions of funding for solar energy research projects, I have made clear in this House on many occasions that worthy projects will be continued, and adequate funding sources are available to ensure that such necessary research is continued.
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, March 4, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the misuse in the Question Period by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who improperly quoted what I was alleged to have said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said:
"I can't see that the Senate performs any really useful function any longer," he told reporters.
But he added that perhaps "It could be reformed in some way that would make it more useful and more in tune with democratic times, so I don't want to foreclose anything."
That is quite different from the incomplete, incorrect, in fact false quotation posed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party to the Leader of the Government in an attempt to trick the Leader of the Government into thinking that I had said something I had not said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to quote his words which are a breach of the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I was waiting for the Hon. Minister of Justice to tell me under what order he was rising.


John Carnell Crosbie: A common sense order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to say to the House that there perhaps should be in the rules a common sense order, but there isn't yet.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on the same common sense point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that is not a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 5, 1985
Petitions


John Napier Turner: -I would urge Your Honour, the next time one of us has a point of order, to give us the same generous time to make it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition rises on a true point of order, I will be happy to give him time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a real point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to rise at this point in time in view of the fact that there is a change of business and I want to make an announcement with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow.
Tomorrow, rather than as announced, as the first item of business we will be dealing with Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, to be followed, if we complete second reading of that Bill tomorrow, with Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
constituents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who wish to express their concern over capital gains tax on the sale of farm land.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon this Parliament to remove this tax and in so doing encourage the renewal of economic activity in the agricultural economy.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, 1 take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of London-Middlesex. The teachers of our youth are petitioning against the spread of pornography in Canada. In a recent magazine the capital was "exposed". I am confident that this Government will act to rid the country of this evil spirit.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 63, I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret):
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Because the list is rather long, Mr. Speaker, and there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable with the House I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read. I have indicated the list of committees to which the estimates will be referred to the Opposition House Leaders in advance of making this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 15c and 55c External Affairs Vote 20c
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture:
Communications Votes 2c, 10c, 30c, 55 and 70c Secretary of State Votes lc, 15c, 25c, 30c and 55c To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes LI3c, LI4c, 35c and 40c National Defence Vote 5c
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
External Affairs Vote 10c Finance Votes 10c and 30c National Revenue Votes lc and 5c To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes 15c and 20c
March 5, 1985

Fisheries and Oceans Votes 10c and LI5c To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
National Health and Welfare Votes 10c, 15c, 25c, 40c and 47c To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15c, 20c, 21c, 25c, 30c, 35c and 45c
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes lc, 5c and 20c Solicitor General Votes lc, 5c and 15c To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration: Employment and Immigration Votes 5c, 20c and 25c Labour Vote 25c
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
National Revenue Votes 20c and 21c Privy Council Votes lc and 5c Science and Technology Votes 25c and 30c Supply and Services Votes 5c and 10c To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 25c, 26c, 35c, 45c, and 66c Public Works Votes 5c, 6c, 10c, 65c, 75c, 80c and 85c To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Industrial Expansion Votes 7c, 50c, 56c and 58c To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport Votes lc, 16c, 36c, 37c, 45c, 46c, 76c, 85c, 90c and 110c


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 89, 106, and 233.


Mr. Angus: Since November 15, 1984, what are the (a) names (b) salaries (c) job descriptions (d) backgrounds of all Chiefs of Staff appointed to work for Ministers?
Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister):	
The Ministry	Chiefs of Staff
(as of March 4, 1985)	
(a) Prime Minister	[DOT]Bernard Roy
Minister of Veterans Affairs	Keith Bell
Leader of the Government in the Senate	Ron Lefebvre
Secretary of State for External Affairs	Jodi White
Minister of Employment and Immigration	William Musgrove
Deputy Prime Minister and	
Minister of National Defence	Peter Harder
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada	Jim Good
Minister of Public Works	Pierre-Claude Nolin
Minister of Transport	Jamie Bums
Solicitor General of Canada	Peter Meerburg
Minister of National Health and Welfare	Russ Wunker
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans	Claude Boisselle
Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion	Effie Triantafilopoulos
Minister of Agriculture	Jean-Carol Pelletier
Order Paper Questions
President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada	Robert Richards
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Ronald L. Doering
President of the Treasury Board	Jules Pleau
Minister of National Revenue	Sal Badali
Minister of Finance	Tom Trbovich
Minister of State (Multiculturalism)	Newton Steacy
Minister of Supply and Services	Norman McIntosh
Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)	Vic Little
Minister of State for Science and Technology	Kevin MacLeod
Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)	Dan Fenety
Minister of Labour	Greg Fyffe
Secretary of State of Canada	Michele Bedard
Minister of State (Tourism)	Les Mcllroy
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources	Harry Near
Minister of State (Small Businesses)	Jean-Louis Bouthillette
Minister of the Environment	Andre Robert
Minister of State (Transport)	Gary Ouellet
Minister of State (Youth)	Gilles Leveille
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs	Julien Beliveau
Minister for International Trade	Bruce Fountain
Minister of State (Mines)	Richard Lande
Minister of Communications	Steven Ash
Minister of State (Finance)	Elizabeth Roscoe
Minister of State (Forestry)	Dan Skaling
Minister for External Relations	Robert Letendre
Principal Secretary/Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister.
(b)	The permissible salary range for the Principal Secretary/ Chief of Staff is $97,090-$ 114,620. The salary range for a Chief of Staff is $50,000-$80,970.
(c)	Every Chief of Staff is to assist the Minister as directed.
(d)	The information requested in this part should be obtained directly from each individual upon request.


Mr. Kaplan: Has the Government studied the effect of immigration on unemployment levels and, if so, will the Government table any such resulting information?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: There are no recent studies on the effect of immigration on unemployment. The latest study to include this aspect of immigration was done in 1978. The study, prepared by Informetrica Ltd. of Ottawa, assessed the major macroeconomic implications of varying levels of immigration to Canada for the period 1978 to 1985 under varying sets of economic assumptions.
The report is available upon request from the Strategic Policy and Planning Division, Employment and Immigration Canada.


Mr. Howie: For the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, how many (a) men (b) women in New Brunswick were receiving (i) Old Age Security pension (ii) guaranteed income supplement (iii) the full amount possible under the guaranteed income supplement?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: (a), (b), (i), (ii), (iii). For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984 there were on average 32,552 men and 42,030 women in New Brunswick receiving Old Age Security benefits. For the same period an average of 20,629 men and 27,795 women

March 5, 1985
Supply
received guaranteed income supplement benefits. Out of the group who received guaranteed income supplement benefits 5,863 men and 8,658 women received the full amount possible.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia:
That this House condemns the Government for its negligent and irresponsible approach to the protection and management of the environment, for its cuts of wildlife, meteorologial and parks services, for abandoning Canada's past initiatives on the national and international levels to combat acid rain and to restore the water quality of the Great Lakes, and for thereby jeopardizing the health, economic well-being and the heritage of the present and future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker:: Questions and answers. Debate. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we proposed this motion and asked for this debate-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member for Skeena is rising on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to break into the speech of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), but I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) still has the floor for a couple of minutes to answer some questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I called questions and answers. No one rose.


An Hon. Member:: He did.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I called questions and answers. No one rose. With great respect, the Hon. Member did not rise when I called questions and answers. I then called debate.


An Hon. Member:: You didn't see him.


Mr. Speaker:: I waited. I called questions and answers. No one rose.


An Hon. Member:: He was up.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to Hon. Members, I was looking directly at the Member when I called questions and answers, and no one rose. I therefore called debate. With the consent of the House and with the consent of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), I am prepared to return to the three minutes remaining for questions and answers. Does the Hon. Member for Skeena have a question?


James Ross Fulton: I want this answer.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the House of which I know. Please put the question.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary was seized with my question immediately before we rose for lunch. It related to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry regarding the Canadian Wildlife Service cuts and the other cuts to the Department of the Environment. I want to solicit the views of the Parliamentary Secretary, as well as his views as a Member of Parliament, as to whether or not he would agree that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence, if not all of it, given by the witnesses determined that in fact those were among the worst possible cuts which could have been made. There were other cuts which perhaps could have been made, but those were the worst possible ones. Not a single witness, despite the fact that the Government had the opportunity to call witnesses from anywhere in Canada, supported the cuts made by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I think it is very clear, and I concur, that without exception the witnesses before the committee identified the sensitivity of the areas affected by the budgetary changes. I think that point is clear.
What I have to add in response to the Hon. Member's question is that there are a number of sensitive areas. I am not personally sure from hearing most of the witnesses, if not all of them, of the relative factors of some of the areas for which the Canadian Wildlife Service is responsible. If we were saying that they were not to be supported, that those programs were not to be addressed in some way, I think he would have a legitimate point. On the other hand, the $1 million fund, the consultations which have been taking place with the province, with the federations involved-only one so far and one upcoming-and with others, universities included, lead me to believe that the Department, the Minister and I would be very unhappy if we were not successful in seeing all the things done on behalf of wildlife research in Canada which the Hon. Member, other Hon. Members and I would like to see done.


James Ross Fulton: I have a very short supplementary question. If I understand the Hon. Member properly, what he is saying is that on the bulk of the evidence of witnesses from all across
March 5, 1985

Canada, including specialists in the field, it is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of those areas which were cut should be reinstated.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I tried to be as clear as I could in my response the first time. I could only reiterate that there has never been a denial of the recognition of the sensitivity and need for research in wildlife. The question is how it can be done most effectively. The Government is working on that aspect right now and intends to dedicate resources and effort to seeing that it is fulfilled.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have proposed this motion and requested a debate and a recorded vote because there is a growing concern among Canadians that the Government lacks a real commitment to our environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister spoke this morning. I am sorry she is not present in the House at this time; her Parliamentary Secretary was here a minute or two ago. I deplore the practice of a Minister responsible for the subject matter of an Opposition day not being in the House to listen to the speeches, remarks, questions and complaints of the Opposition. The same practice is developing during the course of debate on pieces of legislation, where the Minister might appear in the early stages of second reading and then disappear. I hope this large majority in the House of Commons will not promote the type of indifference to Parliament which we have seen displayed on recent Opposition days. 1 wish the Minister were here. At the moment there are very few Conservative members present.
1 am not sure that we have seen in the last few months since the Government took office is a case of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) losing battles in Cabinet over the cuts of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or whether the Minister even participates in those battles. She has given no major address in the country on the subject of the environment. We do not know, aside from the cuts, what the Minister's plans are. We hardly know what her views are. Members of the government back-bench have said, and I paraphrase them: "Don't fight the cut-backs; wait until you see the Budget of the Minister of Finance, there are going to be even more". The Minister did not mention that in her remarks this morning. I hope she will take the earliest opportunity to do so.
I urge the Minister to explain the logic of imposing even more cuts in this vital area and to make a commitment to standing up for our environmental programs. Even on the basis of public relations, which seems to be a consideration that rules Cabinet decision-making within this Government, where the pollster has replaced the Minister in the councils of government and ranks higher in the affections of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), if the Minister thinks she got heat over the November cuts to vital areas of the Department of the
Supply
Environment, even more cut-backs will raise temperatures through the roof.
As a Canadian and as one who has had the privilege and opportunity of travelling across the land over the years, particularly by canoe with my family on many of our waterways, from one coast to the other, particularly north of the sixtieth parallel and across the Arctic Circle and into the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, I am absolutely dismayed and disgusted with the cuts to the environment made by the Government. We in British Columbia and in western Canada are absolutely outraged.
I will cite a few examples. First there is the closing or the attempt to privatize wildlife interpretation centres across Canada. There have been cut-backs in services at Webb, Saskatchewan; Creston Valley, British Columbia; Perce, Quebec; Cap Tourmente, Quebec; and Wye Marsh, Ontario. I could refer to the migratory bird sanctuary in Vancouver, the delaying of work on the Fraser River dyking project in British Columbia on the largest flyway on the west coast of North America, and the cutting of projects which monitor effects of forestry pesticides on birds in Manitoba. I could refer to the herring gull egg monitoring program. It is a $250,000 program. In relative terms that is not much money. It employed six people. It was tracing the toxic chemical impact through examination of gull eggs and analysis thereof. It is important to our understanding of the impact of these chemicals on birds or on other animals, and eventually on us. It is critical that we know precisely what is the impact in order that we can find a solution that precisely meets the danger.
What has been the Government's response? It cancelled the whole program in November. No reasons were given. After a huge public outcry, it now claims to have reinstated it. I was in Toronto yesterday and made further inquiries. Before, that project had six people and now there is only one. That person has been told just to collect the eggs, note the chemical presence and not look at the impact. What good is that?
It has cut programs to reintroduce certain fox species to Alberta and Saskatchewan where they have disappeared. It has cut the program to monitor the build-up of agricultural chemicals on birds in Alberta, particularly edible fowl. It has closed weather stations right across the country. The one in Bissett, Manitoba immediately comes to mind.
I should also like to mention the Guelph Toxicology Centre. It was to be the first of its kind. It was to monitor and assess the impact of new chemicals, but the Government cut it completely. We know that there are some 800 different chemicals in Lake Ontario alone. The Niagara River Toxics Committee found 261 chemicals in the Niagara River, 57 of which are at levels known to pose a risk to human health. Without programs like the herring gull project and the Guelph centre, how will we know what these chemicals are doing to fish in our lakes, to birds that eat the fish or to humans who drink the water or eat the fish?

March 5, 1985
Supply
The National Research Council Environmental Secretariat has been eliminated, 400 top scientists. They explained environmental issues to the country by way of lectures and publications, research on lead, PCBs, asbestos, phosphates, heavy metals, mercury and other pollutants. Where will this information come from now?
The area of the Public Service which has been savaged most severely and which really outrages me is the Canadian Wildlife Service. There were 84 people cut, 25 per cent of the entire staff. These were highly trained biologists, technicians and environmentalists. They are closing our centres across the country. The finest brains in the world, some of them, in our environment and in biology, where are they going now? They are going to the United States, Asia and Africa. They were snapped up by any country that had any interest in the environment. For three generations the Service had contributed to the best environmental service on the globe, and it has been savaged.
The Minister says that the cut-backs will not, and I use her words, adversely affect the survival of this program. What a naive attitude! It is physically impossible to cut one-quarter of the staff and have no repercussions.

And it is the same story with respect to national parks. What are the Conservatives doing this year to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of Parks Canada? They raise entrance fees, reduce the number of employees, and force the management of many parks and reserves to eliminate some services. Nineteen hundred and eighty-five promises to be the year to visit our national parks, on one condition however: being able to get into them.
Mr. Speaker, we are incensed at the way the Government has been treating the Canadian Wildlife Service and the National Research Council. We feel insulted! Most Canadians do enjoy one common advantage: availability of and ready access to wide open spaces. Not satisfied with such savage cut-backs in our own national environment programs, the Government has also seen fit to reduce its participation in the United Nations environment program whose purpose is to seek ways to check desertic encroachment in countries such as Ethiopia where the tragic loss of agricultural land has led to untold suffering and innumerable deaths.
Aid programs of that kind are needed if we are to put an end to the dependency cycle and help other countries set up lasting agricultural programs. By reducing our participation in those programs, we can only become less familiar with the problems and contribute to make the dependency cycle even more acute.

My colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia), our critic on the environment, spoke eloquently this morning about acid rain killing our lakes, rivers and vegetation at an alarming
rate. The Minister of the Environment says this is no longer a priority. Her leader, the Prime Minister, seems to think that the United States Government has a case in taking no action because he says our record is not as good as theirs. The Prime Ministers says we have to do more, but the actions of his Government indicate that he is doing the reverse.
The Prime Minister says that acid rain is at the top of his list at the Summit with President Reagan in Quebec City on March 17. I congratulate him for that and wish him well, but as I have suggested in the House of Commons, he has already given the President an easy way out. The President is going to say: "Well, Brian, sure I agree, but you yourself said Canada has not done well on this, so why should we take any action if you are not?" He has already thrown his cards away.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As our environmental critic, the Hon. Member for Davenport, was quick to point out to the Prime Minister immediately when he heard the comment, the truth is that Canada has done very well in reducing acid rain. The former Minister of the Environment in the Province of Ontario agrees. We have a program to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 25 per cent by 1990 and by 50 per cent by 1994. The United States does not have that program. Considering that the United States produces 19.6 million tonnes of nitric oxide per year compared with our total of only 1.7 tonnes, we know where the responsibility must be shed across our neighbourhood and across the air.
The Canadian Press now reports that the Prime Minister is anxious to telephone President Reagan in the hopes that he can get, as one official calls it, at least a token gesture on acid rain from the President. Otherwise the meeting of March 17 will be a public relations defeat for this Government. All I can tell the Prime Minister is: Beware the Ides of March, because we have been getting a busy signal from the White House on that issue ever since President Reagan took office four years ago.
The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland have jointly agreed, despite the Atlantic Accord, to keep under wraps the publication of the Mobil Oil Environmental Assessment Impact Study on the production of Hibernia oil. That report was to be released two months ago. The Hibernia development will take place in the middle of one of the richest fishing grounds on the face of the globe. We urge that report to be published and to be released because it is very important environmentally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


John Napier Turner: I can turn now to the west coast. There was the tragedy of several fishermen drowning last October on the west coast when six vessels went down. There was an inquiry under Professor LeBlond which showed serious deficiencies in our forecasting. The Minister has taken some action. She has expanded the drifting buoys and she has automated shipboard programs. However, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union has called for a reinstatement
March 5, 1985

of a weather ship off the west coast as absolutely necessary. The LeBlond report calls for forecasting services to fishermen to be brought up to the standards provided for aviation. I urge the Minister on behalf of British Columbia to speed up the one position for a marine forecaster instead of waiting until October, 1985 to staff that position.
The problems of the environment are not solved overnight, we know that. It requires a long-term, serious and deep commitment by the Government to be a leader in this area. Apparently the Government of Canada under this new administration wants to let others take over. The Minister suggests it is the duty of the provinces-let the provinces do it; let the private sector intervene. The Minister says that provincial Governments will pick up the slack when federal programs are cancelled. All I can say is that this is not likely, especially when you consider that in Ontario, for example, the Ontario Government has cut some $29 million out of environment programs over the past two or three years. Mr. Grossman, the Treasurer, is promising to cut every Ministry even more.
I can tell the Minister that she will not get the money from the provinces. She should realize that once she cuts a program, it is finished. I can also tell the Minister that because of the costs involved, the private sector needs some leadership, cooperation and incentives.
We take this issue immensely seriously. Every Canadian has a personal stake in protecting our environment. It is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the priceless and precious wildlife in our vast open spaces, the lakes, forests and rivers which we enjoy. Those great national treasures are fundamental to life in this country.
I do not know of anything more important to Canadians than the natural heritage with which we have been blessed. No other country comes close to the variety of geography, panorama, wildlife or space. We have one-third of the fresh water of the world. We have rivers and lakes that provide limitless recreational and camping opportunities. We have a climate and an environment which challenges us in each of the four seasons.
Our national character has certainly been shaped by our geography. Our national character has been fashioned by the type of country we have been given and with which we have been blessed. For a Government not to recognize that, but to diminish and denigrate the priority of preserving that heritage, is beyond my understanding. I cannot tolerate it. Everywhere I go, and this is shared by my colleagues, at every public platform, at every question and answer session that we have in our universities, high schools and in our groups, the Canadian people raise this subject.
Two weeks ago I had a town hall meeting in Vancouver Quadra which 900 people attended. The environmental questions were absolutely uppermost on the minds of the people. Why is it, blessed as we have been, that the Government, as the custodian of our heritage and our natural environment, allows the cuts to be so shamelessly taken? Who sets these priorities? Why does the Minister not stand up for them? If she has not succeeded against the Minister of Finance (Mr. Supply
Wilson) or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), why does she not at least have the guts to say so? She should take that responsibility off her shoulders and say, "No.
I cannot succeed, but I will not be blamed by the people of Canada for what we are doing to our environment".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe that is why Canadians have reacted so strongly to the Government's tampering with the protection of the environment. That is why, since those cuts were known after the November 8 statement of the Minister of Finance, our Party has led the fight in the House to reverse some of those cuts. It is also why we in this Party will continue to lead that fight if the Government persists on this very dangerous and self-defeating course. We will do it in Parliament. We will do it in the country. We will fix the record in the public's mind, because what is being left undone by this Government is something that can never be repaired.
The environment is a permanent heritage. The renewable resources of Canada depend on it. The well-being and health of our citizens depend on it. The life that we have been given and the welcoming of tourists from all over the world depend on it. It is part of the Canadian heritage and character. It goes right to the fibre and bone of Canadian intuition and instinct. If the Government does not understand that, it does not understand the country. If the Minister wants to regain some of the promise she has lost, she had better stand up to her colleagues soon. She should go to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and say, "Look, I am being pilloried from one end of the country to the other and I am not being allowed to do my duty, to fulfil my mandate or to fulfil the expectations which the Canadian people have in me and in this Government. Either allow me to do it, Mr. Prime Minister, or relieve me of the responsibility".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that what you did, John?


John Napier Turner: I will ignore that particular remark. On this subject I know that the Right Hon. Member, who comes from High River and enjoys one of the most beautiful constituencies in the world, agrees with every darned word I am saying-


Charles Joseph Clark: No, he doesn't.


John Napier Turner: The right hon. gentleman has one of the great national parks in his riding, but the user fees and the expenses are going up. Instead of opening that national park in 1985 on the one-hundredth anniversary of our national parks, the Government, of which he is a member, is making it more difficult for Canadians to get into that national park.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
2754

March 5, 1985
Supply


John Napier Turner: The Parliamentary Secretary is smiling because the right hon. gentleman has taken the heat from his Minister. I want to say to him that I never expected a man who had the good fortune to grow up in High River to challenge a debate on the environment, and I hope that will be properly recorded for his fellow citizens.
I trust that this House will take into consideration the motion which we have put before it. Nothing is more fundamental for the future well-being of Canadians than the subject we have brought to the attention of the House. I want to thank the House for its consideration and attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and I certainly agree with much that he said. Of course, to many of us who have been concerned about the environment and the erosion of the environment over the last few decades it is refreshing to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party expressing those sentiments. I wish those sentiments had been expressed many years ago. I am afraid that the record of his Party when in government in dealing with Eldorado Nuclear and the waste and spoilage which that corporation caused in many parts of the country is not favourable. One could mention the testing of herbicides and pesticides and the pollution of ground water on the Prairies that the Department of Agriculture of previous Liberal Governments allowed. One could go on to mention waste disposal in Canada.
My question is: Is this a conversion of the Liberal Party? If the Liberal Party ever regains power, will we see a new agenda for the environment of Canada? Will he give us the commitment that the errors of the past are indeed of the past and that a new Liberal Government will set a new agenda for the environment of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there need not be any new commitment. The commitment has been there throughout the years of Liberal administrations.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), had the honour to inaugurate and establish more national parks than any other Minister in the history of the country. We have been at the leading edge of environmental protection. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), when he was Minister of the Environment, brought the acid rain question to the attention of Canadian people, as did his predecessor, Mr. Roberts. Our record stands on its own. We have no apologies to make. I have no doubt that the Canadian people, in their minds, will recognize that, whatever reasons they may have had for changing the administration on September 4, our commitment to the environment was not among those reasons.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) a question. First, I would like to note that I was not smiling at his comments with respect to the intervention of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), but merely at his extraordinary
gesticulations and comments about what happened within the Conservative Cabinet. I am not there, so I am sure I do not know. I am not sure whether the habit of the former Government was such that he knew that his Minister of the Environment was really impotent in the face of Liberal Cabinet Ministers.
My question is: Is he proud of the Liberal record as it relates to the environment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more proud of the record of Liberal Governments over the years as being the leaders and the pioneers of environmental protection. Certainly I am proud of that record.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I think be might want to take the opportunity to distribute the credit for public awareness of the acid rain problem more widely than he did a minute ago when he gave all the credit to the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the former Member from Toronto, Mr. Roberts. Is the Leader of the Opposition not aware that a special subcommittee of the House was set up to study acid rain, that it travelled the country and the world, produced reports and played a great part in creating the public awareness which we now have, of which we should be taking advantage? Out of respect for Parliament and the work of that committee, I think that the Leader of the Opposition should have something more to say.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for bringing that to my attention. With only 20 minutes in which to speak, I cannot cover all of the good aspects of what Parliament has accomplished. I second him in lauding the work of that committee which, after all, was set up by the previous Liberal Government under the Ministry of John Roberts. Our former colleague, Ron Irwin, then the Member for Sault Ste Marie, was the Chairman of that committee and did an excellent job. I would not have had time to mention that had the hon. gentleman not been kind enough to bring it to our attention.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) mentioned the Toxicology Centre at the University of Guelph which was cut out by the Government. I think that was a tremendous blow to the whole policy on toxicology. It was a model idea because it drew together federal and provincial Governments, the private sector, the University of Toronto and the University of Guelph. It was to be a centre of excellence which would not only develop new techniques, designs and models for handling toxicology issues, but it was also to be a national centre for the entire country which would train young scientists. It is a tragedy that that centre was cut out. Over a period of several years it would have received $16 million from the federal Government, $16 million from the provincial Government and about $8 million from the private sector. It really grew together in one location, under the sponsorship and co-operation of two large national
March 5, 1985

universities. The most frustrating and maddening part of this whole episode was not only that it was cut out after a director had been appointed, with the resultant floundering, but that I received no real answer from the Minister when I asked her in the House why it was being cut out.
Everyone seems to be concerned about pesticides and toxins in our environment which affect our health. We have concern with cancer and so on. The chairman of the board was a cancer specialist at the University of Toronto. When I asked a question of the Minister, she made some comment that the cost had jumped up from-I have forgotten the figure-about $15 million to $50 million. But in fact the actual cost of the plant was going to be about $21 million. Obviously, the Minister cannot know about each decision, but one would think that when a major national institution of this type is being wiped out by the Government, the Minister would take the time to familiarize herself with the situation.
There was an adjournment debate on this subject. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister usually reads from a prepared script with all the facts, figures and details in it. It was very disconcerting that the Minister made a couple of comments about the centre but did not go into the details. Obviously she still did not know what the centre was about or the national role it was designed to play.
So as a comment I will say that I was pleased that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned this centre. I think it is one of the most terrible decisions made by this Government since it was appointed. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he agrees with me.


John Napier Turner: I could not have put it better, Mr. Speaker. I know of the Hon. Member's abiding concern for the environment, coming from the place of location of the Algoma Central Railway. I have travelled on that train up to Wawa with the Hon. Member and others and I know what a great part of the country he lives in.
These cut-backs are not only a blow to the research which needs to be done but they are a tremendous blow to the scientific community of this country. Something we have tried to build up over the course of many years is our expertise. Dismissing this project, sabotaging the Canadian Wildlife Service, will just lead to the export of the expertise which we have developed over three generations.


Charles L. Caccia: That is something they cannot understand over there.


John Napier Turner: No country can afford that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) say that he was proud of the Liberal record. I wonder if he is proud of the fact that when Mr. Roberts was Minister of the Environment under the last Liberal Government, he desecrated the only park in the townsite of Banff by selling it to a
Supply
former Liberal colleague. It was a desecration of something which can never be changed. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is proud of that record?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot find much sense in the enthusiastic question of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I do want to say, however, that I neglected to mention the name of the man who sponsored the Guelph project, that is, Jim Schroeder, a tremendous Hon. Member of Parliament in his time. I wish he were here to listen to this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall resume debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped, in speaking in this debate on the environment today, that it would be treated in more of a non-partisan way. One would have hoped that Hon. Members, by the time they managed to get elected by their communities across this country, would have read enough, or know enough generally, to understand what is happening in the world. Right now, today, about six species of life on this planet are becoming extinct. What is happening around the world, Mr. Speaker, are changes to the basic architecture of the living environment which are irreversible. We have the introduction of certain toxics and all kinds of different materials as the result of the development of cities, transportation, the use of jet aircraft. All kinds of developments are changing our environment forever. We are tinkering with the basic living components of the world. I would have hoped that in a country such as Canada where we have a very literate and well educated population, a country with free press and excellent media, these kinds of irresponsible and rash decisions which are being made by the new Government simply would not occur. I would also hope, Mr. Speaker, that by now, with the thousands and tens of thousands of representations which have been made by well educated, interested and concerned Canadians to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the kinds of cuts which were made would not have happened and debates such as this simply would not have been necessary.
I do not think I can stress enough, Mr. Speaker, the real need for this Parliament to come to grips with the issue of the environment when we talk about sending the MV Arctic up into Zone I ice knowing that it is contrary to the regulations of Lloyd's of London and contrary to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head, but I know in fact it is true, Mr. Speaker. 1 have looked into the matter. It is only through an Order in Council that that particular tanker is going to be allowed into the Canadian Arctic.
When we examine the cuts, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to understand something about the person who made them. A recent article written by Warren Caragata, I believe, revealed something with which the Prime Minister should have taken issue before the Minister's appointment. Since it was not taken issue with before the appointment of the present Minister of

March 5, 1985
Supply
the Environment, it should take place now. With the same reasoning and on the same grounds that the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence, he should request the Minister of the Environment to step down from her Crown portfolio. The article is headlined, "Called Unfit in Previous Job, Tory Minister Sues Over Firing". The former Minister of National Defence rose in this House and said that he could not actively and properly pursue his lawsuit against the Citizen newspaper here in Ottawa as a Minister of the Crown. Using the same kinds of rules and guidelines used by the Prime Minister in accepting the resignation of the Minister of National Defence, I believe he should accept or request the resignation-even if it is only temporary-of the Minister of the Environment. Because of what is filed in the court documents, it is truly unusual for the Minister to remain in her portfolio while the air is coloured by these matters. I quote from the article by Warren Caragata:
Court documents quote Mrs. Blais-Grenier as saying that she was accused of falsifying minutes of meetings, hysteria, incompetence and intellectual dishonesty, was ultimately fired, and was unable to find similar work in the area of workplace health and safety.


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from the personal propriety of entering this kind of material into debate-which I leave to the personal judgment of the Hon. Member and will consider it an indication of the personal standards of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)-I think the Chair would want to raise the question as to whether it is appropriate for the Hon. Member for Skeena to be reading a newspaper article into this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would also like to make the point that the matter is sub judice at the present time. I feel that the Hon. Member should refrain from discussing the particular court case.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, to make sure that the Right Hon. Member from High River is aware of the situation, I will quote from an article in The Globe and Mail. I believe it is quite proper that this kind of information be made available to the Hon. Members of this House and to the general public. It is printed in the paper. The article goes on to state:
The fashion in which she was dismissed raised doubts about her competence, she said, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to find an equivalent post in the health and safety field.
Environmental groups and one source within the Environment Department itself, meanwhile, contend that Mrs. Blais-Grenier has shown similar behavior over the cuts in the wildlife service. Most asked, however, that their names not be used.
Ken Brynaert, vice-president of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, complained that, despite requests for meetings with the Minister to discuss the cuts, the association has not yet had even a reply. "You can't negotiate with her," he said. "She has been protected by her office."
Early in her tenure, the Minister confided in a private conversation that she had decided against a full range of briefings by her officials on the workings of the department.
She refused briefings, she related, because she did not want to be confused and because she had decided to learn on the job.
When you tie that article into the mosaic of what has occurred-and I hope the Hon. Member from High River listens as I tie together the reason for introducing that information into this debate-you can see why Canadians are deeply troubled by what was said during the Conservative campaign until September 4 and what has occurred since. They had no mandate from the scientific or corporate communities, the voters or any private interest group which made themselves available to committees of this House on which to base those cuts. They were made for other reasons, and I intend to reveal some of the reasons why I believe those kinds of savage cuts were made. Canadians have time and again indicated they are prepared to take a lower standard of living and pay more taxes to preserve the heritage of this country.
In a November news release, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) made it clear what his intentions were. He intended to cut S8.7 million from environment services, which encompass federal programs in wildlife, water, environmental protection and atmospheric services. He intended to cut $5 million from the Environment Secretariat and all its research facilities. He intended to cut Parks Canada operations by $19.5 million and to get rid of the Guelph Toxicology Centre at $5.4 million, as well as take $10.5 million away from Parks and Weather Services. We can discuss at greater length this matter and the loss of lives which are perhaps related to some of those cuts. But let us look at what the Conservatives had to say during the campaign related to the environment. I quote from the PC campaign handbook on the environment:
As a government:
We will make transboundary pollution problems the government's top
environmental priority.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? They get rid of the herring gull program, something which was recognized around the world as a base line scientific project providing important information on toxicology and the impact of materials coming particularly from the Niagara River, the Love Canal, S Site, Hyde Park and other dumps on the American side, as well as what is happening to Great Lakes water quality. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well the pressures coming from Cabinet not to allow committees of this House to hear certain witnesses on matters related to problems with the Great Lakes water quality. That is shameless commentary on a mandate which was improperly and irregularly taken from the Canadian people to seat them on that side of the House. The handbook goes on to say:
Instead of relying exclusively on diplomatic intiatives by the Minister of the Environment, as the current government has done, a P.C. government will also engage the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs in top-level efforts with their U.S. counterparts on such bilateral issues as acid rain, Niagara River pollution, and the Garrison Diversion Project.
I hope to learn during this debate from the government side what these steps have been to date and what kinds of ameliorative actions there have been in the U.S. Not one single nickel has been spent since September 4 by the Environmental Protection Agency from its superfund for the clean-up of the Love Canal, Hyde Park or any of the other dumps. As to
March 5, 1985

Garrison, we are fortunate that finally Congress has agreed to a sensible position, at least temporarily. But acid rain has yet to receive the kind of attention either in this country or in the U.S. that it deserves. We still have as much acid rain today as we had on September 4, if not more. The handbook goes on to read:
We accept and will act to implement all 38 recommendations of the all-Party House of Commons Sub-committee on Acid Rain.
Not one has been implemented since September 4, Mr. Speaker. These are great promises, but let us go on and look at the really key statement related to the cuts. It reads:
We will conduct a thorough review of all Environment Canada programs and expenditures, based on the twin principles of sunset laws and zero-based budgeting.
Where do they talk about 28 per cent cuts? It simply does not appear in the documents on which the Conservatives were elected. So let us look at what was cut.
The reduction of the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada by 84 person-years and $3.8 million will eliminate most of the Wildlife Research and Interpretation Branch, one of three CWS branches. Most of a series of projects grouped together in a program called Wildlife Research are to be cut. They involve 50 person-years and $2.2 million, and the operation of five Interpretaion Centres involving 32 person-years and $1.2 million. The Habitat Acquisition Fund, $400,000 and two person-years will also be eliminated. That includes most of the work carried out under the authority of the Canada Wildlife Act passed by this Parliament some 12 years ago. So those go out the door.
Let us look at some of the other things which will be added to the burden on the Canadian environment. First is the effects of toxic chemicals on birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Under that, the monitoring of effects of agricultural insecticides and herbicides on the Prairies is gone. Then we have monitoring of contaminants in birds on the St. Lawrence River and its estuary in Quebec. That is gone. The monitoring of the effects of presticides and herbicides and sewage and everything else on the Fraser River estuary, that is gone. Then there is the identifying and monitoring of the occurrence and effects of toxic substances in herring gulls and other fish-eating birds on the Great Lakes. That matter has been raised many times in this House and I must say that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) described it quite accurately as being a fraud. The Minister announced it was going to be cut and then, under pressure from the public, said it was reinstated. Many people in Canada, certainly in Ontario, expected that the program was being reinstated when the Minister put out a press release saying it was going to be reinstated. But we now know that only one person out of the six was reinstated. I have a few comments here from an article by Michael Keating which 1 think are worthy of being on the record. He said:
Last month, Mrs. Blais-Grenier announced that "the detection and monitoring of toxic substances in herring gulls will be continued," although some of the work would be done by another government laboratory.
Supply
However, the second laboratory is already fully booked with other work. There is no indication that it is equipped for-or has the time or expertise to handle- the specialized work of gull egg analysis.
In the meantime, the chemist in Hull who did the analysis of chemicals in gull eggs collected from around the Great Lakes has found a job in another department.
Only D. V. Weseloh, the biologist at the centre of the controversy, has been reinstated and he has been told only to collect the eggs, but not to make observations about the health of the gull colonies.
Mr. Weseloh and his assistant have previously found defects in gulls such as crossed bills, deformed feet, poor embryos, thin eggshells and other signs that pollution affects the birds' health.
Mr. Weseloh has been told not to bother recording these observations in the future.
What kind of responsible Government would tell a professional biologist that if he sees deformities or unusual biological occurences, he should not observe it. "Whatever you do, do not write it down. We do not want any more of that kind of stuff in the newspaper". If you look at the people whose jobs have been eliminated across Canada, Mr. Weseloh was the only wildlife veterinary pathologist in Canada. This morning the Minister said that the cuts were designed to get rid of people who were redundant and extravagant. That particular person was responsible for some of the key work related to migratory birds. He is responsible for the key work being done on the anaesthesizing of grizzly and polar bears, a very tricky and highly specialized field.
This cut will perhaps endanger not only biologists who work with bears in the parks and so on but others as well. When you find someone that highly specialized and doing some important international work, you cannot describe it as redundant or extravagant, nor can you claim it is replaceable. There is no one in any university or hospital in this country who can or will replace that kind of expertise. It is those kinds of savage and unnecessary, ill-thought out and irresponsible cuts that this House should be demanding be reinstated.
Another cut involves monitoring effects of forestry insecticides on birds in New Brunswick. A little bit of that has been replaced because of public pressure. Yet the Minister said this morning she was very proud of what she has done in the Department regarding these cuts. Those were her own words this morning. Under the program for the rehabilitation of endangered species, Mr. Speaker, studies on the reintroduction of peregrine falcons in eastern Canada have been stopped. The program for the reintroduction of the pine marten to Newfoundland, that is gone. The program for the reintroduction of the swift fox, black-footed parrot and the greater prairie chicken to the prairie provinces, that is gone. Biolectronics services are gone. Studies being done on the porcupine caribou and George River cariboo as well as on the Beverley-Kaminurial caribou herd are all gone. Also cut was the study on the impact of development on migratory birds using the Fraser River estuary. Environment impact assessment has been chopped. Support to federal services such as national parks and other federal lands, work on marten and peregrine falcons, wolves, elk, bears and caribou is all gone.

March 5, 1985
Supply
Under forestry, funds for studying the effects of spraying on migratory birds, song birds and wildlife habitat, which includes the effect that cutting and spraying practices have on small rodents, are all gone. The wildlife interpretation centres and habitat acquisition is gone.
It was not only the Minister of the Environment who was involved in these cuts, Mr. Speaker. This was a very carefully and methodically thought out process which obviously occurred at high levels within the Conservative Party. All of the networking programs which are under way at the NRC were chopped as well.
Funds were cancelled for the following programs under the air sub-committee: environmental impact of emissions from residential combustion appliances; analytical techniques for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in environmental media; indoor air quality and human exposure to indoor air pollutants in Canada; effects of gaseous pollutant mixtures on crops and forests; scientific criteria for the atmospheric deposition of acidifying substances in Canada; and aerial transmissions of microbial aerosols and its implications for human and animal health.
A report on fetal hazards, which was requested by Health and Welfare Canada and the Canadian Medical Association, was in its second draft when it was cancelled. A study on the pulmonary effects on humans of the wood processing industry, which was requested by the woodworkers in British Columbia, is cancelled. Also cancelled is the study on the environmental effects of salmonella on human health. Mr. Speaker, a study on the effects of poisons on human health has been cancelled. Also cancelled were studies on the aerial transmissions of microbial aerosols, the effects of manganese in the Canadian environment, and the effects of environmental lead on children.
Earlier today Conservative Members were asking my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, what is wrong with lead. The Government does not want to know. The Royal Society Commission on Lead asked for that study to be done, and then it was cancelled by the new Tory Government. This was a study of the effects of environmental lead on children in daycare centres near stop signs with cars stopping and starting all the time. Also cancelled were studies on the effects and interactions of trace elements on the cardiovascular system and on efficient monitoring of the environment for toxic elements and their compounds. Why would a government want to get rid of that kind of program?
A study on the effects of mine tailing wastes in the Canadian environment, requested by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was cancelled. A study on the effects of acid precipitation and toxic waste dumps on the quality of ground water in Canada was cancelled. How can we possibly accumulate the kind of research information we need on acid rain if these kinds of projects, which do not cost very much, are cancelled by the Government?
A study on pyrethroids and their effects on man and terrestrial and aquatic systems, requested by the National Research Council, was cancelled. At the time of cancellation, scientific analysis was over 90 per cent complete. An updated scientific analysis of the key issues in the assessment of polychlorinated biphenyls, which was requested by the Ontario Government, was cancelled. A study on PCBs, one of the most chronic and debilitating toxics in our environment, was cancelled. A study on the scientific analysis of the criteria for assessing the impact of organic chemicals, including pesticides, on ground water resources in Canada was requested by the NRC and then cancelled. What kind of government does not want to know what the effects of pesticides and chemicals are on ground water? Ground water provides sustenance to the majority of Canadians, but the Government does not want to know what the effects of toxic or chemical pesticides on ground water are.
A study on the scientific analysis of the criteria for assessing the impact of phenolic compounds on man and his environment was cancelled. Studies on cadmium in the aquatic environment, viruses in the water, biologically available metals in sediments, metal mixtures in the environment and viral infections of fish and their impact on fisheries in Canada were cancelled.
All one has to do is to look at the headlines in recent months to see how the public has received these cuts. The Tories delivered the crullest cuts to our wildlife. They cut 3 per cent across the board, except for the Canadian Wildlife Service where they cut 28 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this is irresponsible and reprehensible and the Minister should step down from her portfolio immediately.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. gentleman who just spoke for his speech. I can assure the translator and the young lady who is taking dictation that I will not read such long words as the hon. gentleman had to do in his speech to get his point across. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his speech.
I think that the cuts in the Department of the Environment can be divided into three categories: bad, worse, and ridiculous. I will give the House some examples. According to the Minister' own press release of November, 1984, she said that in Parks Canada improvements to existing parks, including maintenance complexes, visitor service facilities, staff accommodation, restorations, interpretation centres, and new land acquisition, will be cancelled to save $18.7 million in 1985-86. That can be classified as bad enough. It meets the Tory philosophy of cutting back immediately on what they think should not be continued.
I will now go to the next section, which I classify as being worse. It says that revenues will be increased by $9.2 million from increased entrance fees, camping fees, fishing permits, canal fees, golf course fees and utility fees. The new fee structure, according to the Minister, will more closely reflect those for similar services offered in the private sector. That is even worse, Mr. Speaker, than the first set of cuts that the Minister announced for Parks Canada. That is worse because
March 5, 1985

it affects every single person entering a national park. Those increases in the charges were made with no thought whatsoever to how it would affect all the people. According to this, anyone who lives within a national park will now have to pay $30 to go trouting. Those cuts are worse.
We now come to what I would call ridiculous and impossible cuts under Parks Canada. The first sentence indicates that alternative guide services, such as self-guided and volunteer guided tours, will be implemented on interpretation trails throughout the park system. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. That is impossible. How can you have volunteer self-guided tours in national parks? As I mentioned to the Minister before, you have to erect signs saying "Enter at your risk". You would probably have to leave a telephone number for search and rescue on the same signs. Can you imagine people visiting our national parks, going among the forests and bears on a self-guided tour? That is plainly and simply ridiculous. I presume that the Minister has enough in her budget to paint those signs to say "Enter at your own risk".
I will now turn to the cuts in the atmospheric environmental service. That is a service which really cannot be cut at all. When the Conservatives were running for office, they said they were going to increase that service and provide better weather forecasting. They were going to spend more money on personnel in the weather offices in eastern Canada. This was one of the big election promises. The cuts are bad in that operations will be streamlined by integrating weather stations at five locations: Goose Bay, Sept-Iles, Port Hardy, Prince George and Fort Nelson. That is bad enough. The next section, which I would classify as being worse, reads that according to the Minister, weather observing stations at Eddy Point, Nova Scotia, and Bissett, Manitoba, as well as the North Bay, Ontario weather office, will be closed. Rather than the promises to increase personnel in the weather offices throughout the country and to improve forecasts for fishermen and farmers, weather offices have been closed. These cuts could be classified as being worse.
We come to the third category which I would classify as ridiculous and impossible. The Minister says that those people wishing weather information additional to that provided by the media will be charged a fee for this service. That is just plain insane. The Minister has tried to skirt around the question of how one can charge people for phoning the weather office. I brought this question up in the House one day with particular reference to fishermen and those whose health and safety are affected. The Minister said in the Chamber, in grandiose fashion, that fishermen will not have to pay. For a moment I reflected on the generosity of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) in at least retracting somewhat on that policy. However, I began to question how one could know if it was a fisherman who was phoning the weather office. Will he have to give his social insurance number so that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can verify if he is a fisherman? Even if it could be determined that a fisherman was phoning the weather office, by what means could he be charged? When
Supply
I pursued this further with the Minister, I asked her the same question. She had to admit in the Chamber what she was bound to find out anyway, that she was incorrect. Everyone will be charged, including the fishermen and those people whose health and safety could be affected by that information. There was no way to exempt fishermen.
Today there is no possible way to charge someone for phoning the weather office. One would have thought that the Minister of the Environment would have discovered that. The CRTC will not allow her to do what she had asked Bell Canada to do, which was to make the collection for the Department. That cannot be done because it violates their licence.
There is only one option that the Minister can use to collect $1.3 million from Canadians who want to know what the weather will be but missed the forecast on the TV or radio. The only way to collect that money, which is listed in the Estimates as revenue of that Department, is for the weather office personnel to call back someone phoning the office in order to charge them for the call. In other words, it is giving more work to weather forecasters than they can do in the weather office.
Let us continue with the Minister's press release. There is a section which is bad with respect to the Environmental Protection Service. The Minister announced that waste management activities will be cut to save $ 1.2 million. That is bad enough because we have wastes in this country that are dangerous to Canadians. They are scattered in provincial jurisdictions, in vacant mines and in old buildings in the middle of the countryside. According to our regulations, there must be some monitoring taking place. There are provincial jurisdictions with provincial rules which do not even permit wastes to be transported across provincial boundaries without the permission of that provincial jurisdiction. It is detrimental to cut $1.2 million from a branch that deals with the safety of Canadians.
Even worse, toxicology research will be phased down with cut-backs on specific projects in certain provinces such as in your home province, Mr. Speaker. The ridiculous category concerns wildlife interpretation and research which will be restricted to migratory birds and endangered species. It is not possible to cut even $100,000 from the Canadian Wildlife Service without affecting migratory birds and endangered species.


An Hon. Member:: We did it.


George Baker: That is exactly what I wanted someone to say. The Minister also said that "we did it." She cut back on the scientific research that was being done on the shorebirds in British Columbia. They were migratory birds. She cut back on the entire research team that was studying the effects of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides on ducks, migratory birds, in the Prairies. That experiment should not have been discontinued because the research project was only half completed. Although the research team consisted of five or seven people, how important was that research? They discovered that the aerial spray that was used on those farms in western

March 5, 1985
Supply
Canada had actually caused the death of young ducklings. The question which arises is, how did it cause the death of young ducklings? Was it caused by the infecting of the food that young ducks ate, or was it actually caused directly to the duck itself? Those questions remain unanswered because that experiment on migratory birds has been cancelled. According to the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who is sitting here this afternoon, who stated in his Estimates that migratory birds would not be affected, we are now aware that they are affected by those cuts.
Let us deal with endangered species. As the Member from the New Democratic Party mentioned, the experiments with the perigrine falcon are finished. In Newfoundland, at the request of the Newfoundland Government, the Department of the Environment under the previous Government embarked on a project to save the pine martin in that province. That project has been cut. Two endangered species in Atlantic Canada have been affected by these simple cuts, as the Minister says, in the Canadian Wildlife Service.
The Minister stated recently that she was implementing another man-year to continue monitoring the porcupine cariboo herd that travels from the Northwest Territories into the Yukon, down through Alaska. In other words, this involves an agreement with two Territories, the United States and Canada. However, there was a cut in the monitoring management of another cariboo herd in this country through these cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service. That cariboo herd is in Labrador in Newfoundland. We all saw on television 10,000 cariboo going down the river. That entire initiative that was instituted by the federal Government upon the request of the Governments of Quebec and Newfoundland has been wiped out by these Estimates. The other one, apparently by reinstating one man-year according to the Minister, has been reinstated, that is the one that deals with an agreement with the United States. But the one on the Labrador coast, the Georges River herd, the largest in the country, is not being reinstated.
When the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board, who is in his seat today, make statements that they are not going to touch endangered species projects and migratory birds projects, I wish they would look at what exactly they are cutting because therein you would find the contradiction, Sir.
The debate so far has only dealt with the high profile items cut in this Department. Staying with the Canadian Wildlife Service cuts, there are grave consequences to the cutting of projects within the Wildlife Service that have to do with birds that are not endangered species and that have to do with animals that are not endangered species. I refer specifically to the function that was always there of the Canadian Wildlife Service to provide information to the Pest Control Division of the Federal Department of Agriculture for the registration of herbicides and insecticides.
The input into that very vital operation of the federal Government in the Department of Agriculture is required from the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is
also required from industry, but the only people who supplied the information on animals and birds was the Canadian Wildlife Service. They supplied it sometimes acting in conjunction with the National Research Council. How important is that, Mr. Speaker? How important is that cut made in eastern Canada to discontinue experiments being done on aerial sprays as it relates to insecticides? I will tell you how important it is, Mr. Speaker. If we go back about 20 years we will recall the registration of DDT in Canada. We all know what happened. Nobody in his right mind in this country today would say that we should approve DDT to be used as an aerial spray to get rid of the balsam woolly aphid, or the hemlock looper. No, not today. We moved from that particular product into phenitroth-ion and then when the research work was done on that, we moved into matracil, and we discovered, by looking at the research that was done on the wildlife in this country, that these particular products had problems. They, in effect, in the amounts being used in the products, were killing birds.
Why is that important? Birds are the natural predator of the very insect that we were trying to get rid of. Birds ate the spruce budworm. You would think, over a period of time, that if the budworm increased its population, birds would also increase their population. But there was a new element put into the environment, that of the aerial spraying of chemicals.
The Government of Canada has been instrumental in the world in trying to find a solution to the problem of chemical spraying. I suppose some of the Members here who have delved into the subject would know about the very valuable research being done by Dr. Schmirnoff in the Province of Quebec who invented BT, which is a non-chemical substance. Why? Because the chemicals killed the birds. In the beginning, with the types of chemicals we were using, it also killed the fish. It also gave rise to such terrible things as Rey's syndrome in children.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are telling me that I have a minute left. I wish I could go on until the official vote or until the Minister steps into the House so that I could tell her where she is wrong as far as these cuts are concerned.
To conclude, the Minister's cuts can be divided into bad, worse, and ridiculous. Let me add another category, that of impossible. The most important part of these cuts deals with things that cannot be cut. The government has to realize that there are certain Departments of the Government in this country today that are really operating on a shoe-string. To use those Departments for cuts is unfair and against the wishes of the Canadian people.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to thank the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) for his lucid view of the effects of the Minister's cuts on our environment. Why does he feel the Minister was wrong in this respect? He indicated her views were somewhat incorrect. Would he expand on that?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the most important aspect has really been lost to date by some of the discussions involving the Canadian Wildlife Service. The President of the Trea-
March 5, 1985

sury Board just made a comment, and I will overlook it because he was lost when he issued his financial statement. There were words in that financial statement that were not carried through in the cuts.
The reason I made the statement is that when you remove a service from such a vital area of input as the use of chemicals, not on the ground but in the air, and when you remove an input from the registration of a chemical that is being sprayed over an entire province and you remove a vital aspect in determining whether or not to use that chemical, how long you are going to use it, or what size the droplet will be, when you remove that vital information that nobody else is going to provide, then you are getting into an area that is very very dangerous.
If you look at Canadian history and examine what has happened over the years in this country, you see that there are people who have written books on the subject and articles that said that perhaps our mistake happened when we used chemicals in aerial sprays. Perhaps that is what happened. Perhaps we should be looking at what they do in Europe in controlled woodlots. Perhaps we should have bird nurseries instead of using chemicals. Perhaps there are other options that are open.
When one makes an across-the-board cut and says for public consumption, "I am not going to touch migratory birds and endangered species", the ordinary person says, "That's good. We all love endangered species. We all love migratory birds". In that way one gets away with the cut on the basis of immediate reaction from the public generally. Nobody looks at the long-term effects or the drastic effects that are in place. You are not looking at birds that were not endangered, you are looking at species that were not endangered, nor at migratory birds, and there is the whole point. Down the road, a future Government will come along and reinstate every one of those cuts. If things keep going the way they are, if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) keeps forcing Ministers to cut the budgets of their Departments ad hoc, if he keeps doing that in conjunction with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Government will not last beyond the next election.


Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this non-confidence motion before the House. Actually I am surprised that the Opposition has decided to condemn the Government for its negligent and irresponsible approach to protection and management of the environment. It would be shocking if that were true, if it had some basis in fact, but the resolution itself has no basis in fact. I should like to try to point that out during the next few minutes.
When we look at the environment and its protection, we have to look at more than just what is within the jurisdiction of one Minister or that Minister's Department. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government made a substantial and important move in appointing the Cabinet of the new Government and in appointing the Minister of State
Supply
for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). The Minister of State for Forestry is perhaps as important to environmental issues as any other person aside from the Minister herself. For that reason, we see right off the bat that environmental issues have at least two strong supporters with Ministries in Cabinet at the present time. That is a pronounced and dramatic improvement in the situation. In fact, it is the first time in almost two decades that an independent portfolio has been created in the Government of Canada to take care of forestry. What could be more important to environmental matters than taking care of our forests and the natural habitat of much of Canada's wildlife?
The Opposition has gone on at some length in regard to the substantial cuts made to environmental programs. Yes, there have been changes in priorities and cuts have been made. However, let us take a look at the budgetary summaries. I think they speak for themselves. In the Minister's summary it was suggested that almost $727 million will be spent by the Department of Environment in 1985-86. If we compare that figure with the one for last year, there is a $15 million cut, but we have to determine how much $15 million is in relation to the $727 million. We will soon see that the decrease is a little over 2 per cent. That hardly reflects the kinds of accusations which opposition caucuses have been making in this debate today. If we take into account the toxicology support which the Government is providing at the present time, I am told that we will find that the budget for environmental matters is actually up 3.8 per cent.
I could be a little more specific in terms of some of the support which is being provided to groups and organizations and to various issues across the country, but it is important to realize that there are more issues in the environment than the ones noted so far by the Opposition. There is continued support at the same levels to groups such as the Canadian Association of Geographers, the International Geograhic Union, and the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. There is continued support at the same levels as those of the past for the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Canadian Nature Federation. There is an increase in the budget for the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority. There is a new figure for the Wildlife Habitat Canada Foundation, a new injection of $1.3 million, which the Opposition did not point out during the debate so far. There is another increase to the Fur Institute of Canada of $500,000. If we continue through the Estimates we find an increase to the James Bay Agreement project, to the Red River Ring Dyking project and to the Qu'Appelle Valley project in Saskatchewan.
Perhaps we could look at the reductions. I suggest these have been omitted by the Opposition as well. If we look at the specifics-and perhaps I will not go into them-we will quickly see that the reductions probably reflect those programs introduced by the former Government in its last ditch attempts to be re-elected.
There are other contributions which I think are significant in terms of the over-all objectives of the Government. For instance, there is the contribution to the National and Provin-

March 5, 1985
Supply
cial Parks Association of Canada. It has been increased by 50 per cent this year. There is a new contribution to the Interagency Forest Fire Centre, which is important if wildlife is to be preserved and enhanced. We must ensure that our forest fire service is as good as can be. There is a new contribution to the International Council on Monuments and Sites. These are just a few of the other services which are also important to the activities of the Department of the Environment.
I would be pleased to enter into debate on the subject of specific cuts. As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I recently met with representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Service to discuss the particular cuts to that organization. I would be the first to say that I would rather not see cuts made to any organization, for certainly they-and this one in particular-play an important role in protecting environmental matters in Canada, wildlife in particular. During the discussion with the Executive Vice-President of that group, Mr. Brynaert, I had the opportunity to ask him whether or not, even with staff cuts of 84 people out of 370, the Canadian Wildlife Service could continue to perform its job. I think it is important to point out that the Government is under an obligation to Canadian people to try to be as effective as it can in the management of programs. We are facing a $34 billion deficit which we do not want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. It is important to find ways and means to make programs move effective. Obviously that overhead is crippling our economy. We must find ways and means to do things better. However, I will return to the question I asked of Mr. Brynaert as to whether the staff cuts and the budget cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service could be lived with, assuming of course that perhaps in-house changes could be made to ensure that services would continue to be provided. He suggested the following:
But I might suggest that it is probable that the Department could operate with those kinds of cuts-providing some thought and planning had gone into where those cuts were made.
This group is profoundly affected by the cuts, yet its Executive Vice-President was quick to agree that government could live with cuts, probably these specific cuts, with some thought and planning on how they would be administered.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) was somewhat concerned about what the Executive Vice-President had said, and he questioned him on it. In reply Mr. Brynaert said:
1 am sure there are areas where there could be cuts, cuts that would not have dramatic effect in terms of carrying out the mandate and the responsibilities of the Department.
I should like to focus for a few minutes on one area of the Department and its responsibilities, that is, the Atmospheric Environment Service. We tend to overlook many of the functions which the Department has to carry out in its day to day operations. The weather affects all of us in a more dramatic way than we often think. Perhaps yesterday's storm was an example of how weather affects our daily lives. Because of the work of the Atmospheric Environment Service, yesterday's storm was forecast accurately and important decisions were made on transportation, snow removal, store and office closings and cancellation of public gatherings ahead of time so as to minimize the adverse effect of the weather on a variety of activities. It is the objective of that service to ensure that adequate information on the atmosphere, ice and sea is provided for. Their goal, of course, is the safety of lives, security of property, greater efficiency of a variety of economic activities and the maintenance and enhancement of environmental quality.
The Government feels that it can carry out this mandate with its policy of providing greater efficiency in government services. I would point out that new initiatives are being undertaken, as I mentioned in the reflection on the Estimates a few moments ago. In this area, a broad program to improve weather warnings on the West Coast for fishermen and other marine users has been implemented. The Government has moved aggressively to provide improved weather services for fishermen. Following the West Coast storm of October 12, 1984, a study was commissioned to determine the circumstances which led to the sinking of seven ships and the loss of five lives. The study was carried out by Professor LeBlond of the University of British Columbia. It was completed in December, 1984. The Government has now announced a series of responses to the LeBlond recommendations.
In December, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) announced the number of weather observations taken by federal government vessels and that the recording of special observations for significant weather changes would be increased. He also indicated that co-ordination of fisheries openings and closings between the Weather Service and Fisheries vessels would be increased. In January, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) announced an expansion of the West Coast committee which co-ordinates marine safety activities for roe herring fisheries to include the salmon fishery. She announced research into the causes for severe Pacific storms and the development of techniques to better forecast these events. She announced improvements of procedures to exchange weather observations and forecasts directly with the fishing fleet on a real time basis.
In February, the Government announced the establishment of a marine weather forecast position at the Pacific Weather Centre, giving specialized attention to providing marine weather forecasts and the introduction of a wave forecast service for two offshore areas and the acceleration of research and development on wave forecasting techniques for coastal areas in order to implement a comprehensive coastal service by 1987. It also announced improvements to the communications system between government services to provide more rapid exchange of weather information and to improve forecast services to the fishing community. These are just a few of the measures that have been undertaken, including automatic weather reporting services on the coast and in the coastal channels that will make life safer for our fishing and marine interests.
I would like to mention briefly climatic services. The climate program is very important to the Canadian Government, the
March 5, 1985

provinces and Territories. We have involvement from all those groups, plus universities in the private sector. Research is being carried out on the effects of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This year, socio-economic impact studies are in process to gauge the probable effects of C02 induced climate changes on food, agriculture and on Great Lakes water resources.
On March 1, this Government announced a start of a one-year experiment which may eventually enable the Canadian public to obtain monthly and seasonal forecasts of climatic conditions on a regular basis. During the trial period, and I think this is interesting, selected organizations such as provincial Departments of Tourism, municipalities and fishery groups will be asked by Environment Canada to evaluate the format and usefulness of these experimental forecasts. Just imagine, if you will, in planning your holidays for this summer that you would be able to determine what the weather will be like in Prince Edward Island when you want to go there, and we welcome you all to our province.
In October of last year, Canadian astronaut Marc Garneau carried out successful experiments using the super sunphotom-eter aboard the U.S. space shuttle. The instrument was developed through joint efforts of the Atmospheric Environment Services Research Directorate and Canadian industry. It provides information supporting our continued research on climate as well as the stratospheric ozone layer and acid rain.
Over the past several months, this Government has provided additional funding for the completion of the report on the possible environmental effects of nuclear war. The study was completed by the Royal Society of Canada in early February. It describes the likely effects of a nuclear conflict on climatic conditions in Canada and around the world and, in particular, the so-called nuclear winter effect. The report is now being reviewed by Environment Canada and other federal Government Departments. I am pleased to announce on behalf of the Minister that she will be distributing to each and every Member of this House a copy of the report as soon as it can be printed so Members will have the opportunity to be apprised of the latest scientific assessment of this potential human and environmental catastrophe.
The demand for weather service continues to grow. It is widely used among government departments, federal and provincial, and in fact there were over 15 million contacts with the service in the last year. It certainly points out the need of providing this kind of service to the public.
Since 1976, the number of requests for information at the service has more than doubled. During that same period, staff members for the service have decreased by 10 per cent and expenditures remained nearly constant in real dollar terms. This productivity improvement has resulted from automation of AES operations such as the collection of wheather observation, preparation of forecasts, increased computerization of forecast methods and more rapid and widespread dissemination of products through an improved communication system. Obviously, the Government is providing better service and maintaining costs. In some areas, it was able to decrease costs
Supply
without imposing a further hardship on the Canadian taxpayer.
Improvements in the economies and the methods of delivering weather data and forecasts to the public have been achieved through a process of continuous review of staff deployment and technological improvements. In many cases, the service can be maintained at a lower level and still provide the objective of AES.
One way to improve efficiency, and I have already alluded to the fact that we can improve efficiency and productivity through automation, but one specific way that this has worked is the way in which AES has worked with high-tech companies in Canada. These companies have been able to build on the experience, and a number of them have a special but significant market niche for sophisticated scientific instrumentation which is now being sold in export markets. Because of the support of the Canadian Government, two of these high-tech companies building this equipment are now providing jobs to Canadian manufacturers who are selling this equipment abroad.
The Atmospheric Environment Service is responsible for the kind of weather reports and forecasts we hear daily. In fact, I would point out very quickly that they do provide in excess of
230.000	weather forecasts annually for 167 inland public forecast areas and all large population centres. They produce
130.000	marine weather warnings, advisories and forecasts annually for 101 marine regions. It produces 380,000 weather forecasts, amendments and warnings for 90 aviation areas and 170 airports. It also provides complete service for military operations.
There are some other things that the service provides which do not immediately come to mind, for instance, the long-range transport of air pollutants. AES provides the scientific leadership for the Canadian research effort concerned with the environmental impact of acid rain. In the area of toxic chemicals management, it looks at the persistent high concentration of toxic chemicals and how they would occur with increasing frequency over representative geographic areas. It provides scientific leadership in the areas of measurement, research and modelling.
Research on the following issues is also carried out: the danger to the earth's life-protecting stratospheric ozone layer which demands the use of certain chemicals, the effect of the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by man's activities, even the effects of volcanic eruptions that may have long-lasting effects on man through climatic change and by significantly adding to the acidity of rain.
The National Weather Service, which I referred to, employs some 2,350 people from coast to coast and in remote Arctic locations, However, it enjoys the unselfish participation of twice as many unpaid volunteers who daily measure temperatures and precipitation for the National Climate Archives. That volunteer service is very important to this country as a whole.

March 5, 1985
Supply
I am only pointing out these items in relation to AES so that the public and Members of the House will appreciate that there is more to the Department than the cuts and the kinds of negative items which the Opposition has brought forward in this resolution. I hope that my comments in some way have pointed out that the Government has not abandoned its commitment to the environment. Indeed, the Govenrment has almost held the budget intact despite an overwhelming need for deficit control. When we look at the $34 billion deficit and the need for control, and the mandate which the Government has been given to control the deficit, it is admirable that the Government and the Minister have been able to hold her budget almost intact. I am sure that the majority of the Members of the House will have the foresight to vote against the non-confidence motion when the time comes.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in the debate this afternoon on the opposition motion of non-confidence.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) rises on a point of order.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). This morning when the traditional alternation of speakers did not take place, I raised the matter with your colleague who then occupied the chair and drew his attention to the fact that when it is an Opposition Day and a motion has been put by an opposition party, there is a policy that every second speaker, after the first round of three speakers, is alternately selected among the moving Party and whichever other Party Your Honour wishes to recognize. I thought that point had been received favourably, and that is why I am now rising on a point of order in the hope that you will consider this representation favourably and recognize a Liberal Member as the next speaker, as it was our Party which put the motion on the Order Paper.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a second point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) rises on another point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the clear pattern in this House has always been that after the first round of speakers the number of speakers normally would be in proportion to the numbers of Members in the House. However, it has become a pattern in this session that on an Opposition Day there is one speaker from the Opposition, one speaker from the Government, and then back and forth, in order to give government Members a fair shake.
I noted in reviewing the proceedings this afternoon that there have been two speakers from the Liberal Party, one speaker from the New Democratic Party and only one speaker
from the Government. It would seem to me that it would only be proper for the Government to be at least represented equally in replying to the severe criticism which has been levelled against the Government by the Opposition. It is totally unfair that the Opposition should have the time it has had, particularly in view of the numbers in the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) rises on a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the points of order which have been raised, regardless of the merit of the argument which was raised about what the tradition might be or what the Chair should or should not have done, I would like to make two points. First, Mr. Speaker, you did recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and he had begun to speak. Second, in watching the House, the fact of the matter is that no one from the Liberal Party was standing when you recognized the Hon. Member for Regina East. I saw the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) rise, but by that time the Member for Regina East had already been recognized. As well, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) was trying to get the attention of the Chair. I am only trying to point out the empirical facts of the matter, without getting into what the tradition may be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All Parties now having been heard, may I point out, as a point of information, that on Opposition Days the only clear tradition is that the Party which has put the motion usually has one speaker more than the other Parties. That seems to be the only clear tradition.
It was brought to the attention of the Chair this morning by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that there seemed to be some imbalance with respect to the alternation of speakers. I also know it is a matter of concern to the Government. However, in this debate three government Members have spoken, three members of the Official Opposition have spoken, and two members of the New Democratic Party have spoken. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), whom I have already recognized, would be the third member of the New Democratic Party to speak. It is my understanding, if the debate had followed its usual course, that there would be one additional member of the Official Opposition who would speak on the motion.
On Opposition Days, until now, approximately 36 members of the Government have spoken, 26 members of the Official Opposition have spoken, and 24 members of the New Democratic Party have spoken. It is a matter of concern to the Chair on Opposition Days to see that the initial tradition is respected and that more opposition Members are able to speak than government Members. Of course, that is difficult to apply, considering the lopsided House which we have. Therefore, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East on debate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been pointed out by several Members, and in particular the Hon. Member
March 5, 1985

for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), that we are living in an age of very rapid industrial and technological change. One realizes that every year thousands of new chemical products are introduced in the market-place. Some of those products are foods, herbicides, pesticides and other chemical products. As well, different types of industrial practices occur. Different combinations of different chemicals are put together to produce a new product, or new types of by-products and industrial wastes, either in solid, liquid or gaseous form, are created.
In a highly industrial and technological society, there will be a very high rate of technological innovation. If we want to remain an industrial society, there is a technological imperative involved, that is, that we play a part in developing new products, chemicals and industrial practices in order that we remain competitive with other countries in the world. In fact, it is imperative to innovate continually in the industrial society.
Yet we know from past mistakes that in this rapidly changing industrial process mistakes do happen. Sometimes the mistakes can be fatal to the environment and to human health. That is why the state, as a social institution in a highly complex and industrial society, is so essential and important. It is the state which has the responsibility to ensure that no accidents occur, and that new products which are put on the market will not be harmful to human health or to the environment in present and future years.
The Government has a very special responsibility in an industrial society. It has a trust over our environment. It has to be a guardian over the quality of the land, the water and the air. It is a guardian for the present and for future generations. It is, therefore, with tremendous sadness that we see this newly elected Government, with its tremendous majority, decide to cut the Department of the Environment as one of its first acts. It is said that it has decided to cut from the Department some of the instruments which the Government needs in order to fulfil its role as the trustee of the environment. It is not only sad, it is shameful and it will not be forgiven by generations yet to come.
I would like to relate briefly some of the experiences I have had in the past in dealing with Liberal Governments. I would also like to refer to some of the chemical products which get on the market and the testing of those products for our health and safety. A number of years ago, when I was first elected, I became quite concerned with what was called the "IBT affair". "IBT" stands for International Biotest Laboratories in Illinois. This laboratory was the largest private toxicological laboratory in the world, I believe. It did the testing on just about all of the herbicides and pesticides on the market in Canada today and in fact in the United States as well. It did the tests to make certain that the use of these products would not cause cancer in the future and that, indeed, these products would be safe for the environment and for us as consumers.
Supply
It was discovered, Mr. Speaker, that this lab had deliberately falsified its tests. It had taken out dead rats and put in live rats. It had scratched out the results of its tests. A suit was filed in the United States, and several of the Chief officers of that company are now in jail. I brought this matter up in the House on numerous occasions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare at that time pooh-poohed me and said I was being sensationalist. The result was, Mr. Speaker, that the events in the United States, particularly in the courts, showed that I was not sensationalist.
Several of the products which IBT had tested had to be taken off the market. Governments, both in Canada and in the United States entered into an agreement to redo the testing of almost all the herbicides and pesticides on the market in Canada and the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, for a long period of time we had products on the market for which there was no accurate data proving that they were safe for human use and consumption. It became obvious at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the study of toxicology was essential in a modern contemporary industrialist society at a time when new chemicals were coming on the market at such a fast pace. It was not enough just to rely on the private sector to do those studies. Governments had to take this responsibility. It was recognized that it was a difficult field because there were very few trained toxicologists. It is an expensive field.
I as well as many others urged that an international public organization like the United Nations should become responsible for the toxicological studies which were needed to determine if all these new chemical products were safe to the environment, the users and the consumers. The establishment of a toxicology study centre in Canada was announced by the previous Government and was a truly important step. Unfortunately, we find that this Government has cut that proposal. We find that this Government now has cut the toxicological studies of the herring gulls. We find that the monitoring of of the effects on forests of the spraying of hundreds and thousands of pounds of toxic substances has been cut. We find that the program which monitored the effects of massive spraying of toxic materials on the Prairies has been cut. How unwise and how sad this is.
Previous studies, both in eastern Canada and in my home province, have shown that the poisons sprayed-and, indeed, herbicides and pesticides are poisons-collected through ground water into lakes and gullies is having a detrimental effect on the life chain. Studies have shown that at the base of the life chain are microscopic organisms which generally exist in the mud and the bottom of gullies and lakes, and there is an unacceptable high rate of deformities among these lower life forms in the life chain. These lower levels form food for fish, and fish form the food for the birds and for human beings. So, Mr. Speaker, these toxic substances are moving up into the life chain. That is why it is so important to have monitoring in place. Monitoring provides an early warning system to human beings. The destruction of the program, Mr. Speaker, which gives us that early monitoring system is irresponsible. It is stupidity to the highest degree, and we will pay the price in the

March 5, 1985
Supply
future. The few million dollars that the Government will save today, it will have to repay in hundreds of millions of dollars in the future as the toxic substances move up the life chain. How stupid is this action of the Government! How stupid it is to save a few millions today which it will have to repay a hundredfold in the future!
We know of the effect of thalidamide. We know of the heartaches and human suffering which that drug caused to untold numbers of people. What the Government is doing with this action is disabling the country from preventing the type of catastrophe like thalidamide.
In my own home Province of Saskatchewan, we know that there is some correlation between the number of miscarriages which occur after crop spraying time. This hard to put a correct statistical correlation on it, Mr. Speaker, because there are too many variables still involved, such as wind patterns. We know that the chemical spray is concentrated in certain urban areas. But I think it is fair to say that those who are knowledgeable in the field know that the chances for miscarriages increase because of crop spraying. Is it any wonder? Logic would tell you that. Obviously when hundreds and thousands of pounds of toxic substances are sprayed in the air, substances which are meant to kill weeds and insects, it can also have a detrimental effect on human health. So when the Government makes these cuts, it does a tremendous disservice to the present generation and generations to come.
There is also concern about the future, Mr. Speaker. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an amazing report around a year and a half ago. It warned that about 15 to 20 years from now we will begin to see the greenhouse effect. It predicts that this effect will have a tremendous environmental impact of a global nature. It warns that the build-up of carbon particles in the atmosphere will create a tremendous climatic change around our world, and we will begin to see it in our lifetime. That, Mr. Speaker, is just an amazing warning from an institution like the EPA, an agency which would not unduly alarm American citizens because of some false or whimsy reports. It was a well researched warning. Yet when we see the cuts this Government has introduced in the Department of the Environment, we begin to realize that the Government is not really concerned about the future. It is not concerned about things like the greenhouse effect; if it is 15 or 20 years away, forget it. This Government is only concerned about four-year terms. But environmental concerns are not just for four-year or eight-year terms but much longer terms. Private industry does not have those because the concern of private industry is the profit margin and the bottom line. Whether you like it or not, that is the nature of private enterprise. But Government should have a long-term concern, because if it does not, who in heaven's name in our world, in our society, has that concern? No one. It is the duty of the Government to become concerned, not just about this year or next year, this term or next term. This institution is the only one with the responsibility not for this generation alone but for generations to come. We are the guardians of our environment. We are the guardians of our world, and the cut-backs this Government has introduced mean giving up that guardianship. That is inexcusable.
One begins to wonder the reason for this. I mean, normally I tend to get along with the Conservatives; not the new right in the United States, they frighten the heck out of me but the traditional small "c" conservatives who think in terms of conserving, preserving and husbanding our resources. They have been critical of past Liberal Governments for squandering our resources and the environment for the sake of development for now and the heck with the future. I have always felt a very close affinity with those small "c" conservatives who believe in conserving. We have to conserve our resources, our environment, our energy, our fresh water and our air. We have to conserve these precious commodities because they are not inexhaustible. We are living not in an infinite world but in a very finite world. But now we see those very Conservatives are now destroying their own philosophy by cutting back on the Department of the Environment.
Why are they doing it? I see a pattern in the cut-backs in the Department of the Environment and in the NRC. Where are the cut-backs in the NRC? Are there cut-backs in Atomic Energy research? Oh, no. Are they in alternative energy? Oh, yes. Where are the cut-backs in the grants to oil companies? Oh, no, don't touch them. But there are cut-backs in developing alternative energy sources and home insulation. Everything that would help conserve and preserve is being cut back. I am afraid that the pattern is clear, Mr. Speaker. This Government here is not for the long term but for the good times.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is here to rape and to plunder the resources now and forget about the future. It is a Government which is for freeing things up for unfettered private enterprise. "Put away the silly environmental restrictions. We do not want to hear about deformities in herring gull eggs. We do not want to hear about deformities in primitive life forms at the bottom of our lakes. We do not want any of this early warning system. Let's have a go at it, let's rape and plunder and despoil our resources and the heck with the future. We are not going to be around for them to vote for; we are just concerned for things right now".
Well, Mr. Speaker, this tremendous irresponsibility, this stupidity that we will pay for many times over in the future, this is why I stand here in support of the motion of non-confidence. I hope and urge all Members of this House to vote according to their conscience and not according to their political affiliation and loyalties. It is the future of this country, its environment, its precious natural environment, and generations to come which are at stake.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a great point about the herring gull program. He will know that when that program started there was clear evidence that dioxins and
March 5, 1985

DDT in Lake Ontario were causing the gulls to disappear. However, he will also know that problem seems to have been solved in that the gull population has certainly expanded and seems to be in hand. Therefore, I was wondering why this program should be carried on. Would he perhaps tell us why we should carry on a program where the problem seems to be solved?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, using the Member's logic, we would never have had the program to begin with because there was not a problem to begin with. We instituted the program as an early warning system. When the problem started we were able to pick up on it.
I cannot agree with the Hon. Member when he says the problem is gone. Two years ago I, along with several of my colleagues, visited the Love Canal and Hyde Park dump sites. At the Hyde Park dump site there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of dioxin. Let me explain to the Hon. Member that one ten-thousandth of a part of dioxin, that is a little speck that you see in the sunlight on a dusty day, is enough to cause cancer and kill a person. At the Hyde Park dump site in Niagara there are over 100,000 pounds of dioxin stored. We know from the past that there has been leaching from that dump site through the Niagara River into the Great Lakes. They have found dioxins along the Niagara River. In fact, it would be a tremendous terrorist plot, if one were to write a terrorist novel, for someone to blow up some of those makeshift dams which exist around the Hyde Park dump site during a period of heavy rains. The Hyde Park dump site is a ticking time bomb. There is leaching of dioxins out of that site into the Great Lakes system.
We need the monitoring system as an early warning for us all. Not until those dump sites of sewage and industrial wastes around the Great Lakes have been cleared up should the early warning system be dismantled. As long as those dangers continue to exist, we must keep the monitoring system. To destroy that monitoring system is to pluck out your eyes. That is how dumb and stupid it is.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member does not know what is happening. The herring gull program has only been reduced from six people knocking open herring gull eggs to one person. Instead of using the intense control program that was in place, a much lesser control program will be maintained. That is all that is really necessary.
There are other ways of approaching the leaking dioxin. That is why more money is being spent on water quality control in the Great Lakes. Does the Member not realize that we must attack new problems as they develop? As you have been successful in solving one problem, you can withdraw money from that program and place it into another program. Is that not a reasonable way of handling it? Must we continue forever doing the same old thing without getting at the new problems in the environment as they develop?
Supply


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it dismays me to hear these types of comments and that type of logic. There is no recognition by the Hon. Member that this program is recognized world-wide.
I am dismayed to hear the Hon. Member say that the six people were only cracking open eggs. The Hon. Member is dealing with a very serious problem.
They have not killed the program; there is still one person left, he states. I understand that if the one person who is left in the program observes deformities in the eggs and offsprings, he cannot even report them. The Government does not want to hear any of that stuff because it disturbs people. It means that local people get upset, form committees, and demand more regulations on industry. The Government does not want more regulations on industry, so it shuts down the programs which supply the information that gets people all upset. The Government would rather have the people accept what is going down and not know and understand the dangers that exist to their health and safety. That is the attitude of the Government and of the Hon. Member and it is deplorable.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. There have been many government speakers who have been prepared to enter the debate this afternoon. The Chair has taken a decision, and I respect that. I would like the Chair's confirmation, before this becomes a habit or a precedent, that the Chair will entertain discussions with the Government to establish what the sequence will be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Considering the time we have left for debate, I will only say that the Chair will neither add to nor subtract from the decision that has been rendered.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) had a question or a comment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I find it very difficult to understand the holier than thou attitude which we have seen demonstrated all day today, particularly from the opposition Parties. I am getting the impression from the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that today is the first day of the last days of our lives, that the world is ending, but indeed it is not. The Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) referred to the word "impossible". Napoleon said that the word "impossible" exists only in the dictionary. The former Government, however, left us with trying to do the impossible in this country.
The financial corporate community of Canada has been saying that we did not go far enough on November 8. Many respected research organizations in the country, such as the Business Council on National Issues, the Conference Board of Canada and the C.D. Howe Institute, are saying that we did not go far enough with our cuts. They are saying that we cannot continue to live beyond our means in this country. The Member for Regina East spoke about cuts across the board. He spoke about all the Ministries and gave us a litany, as did many other Members this afternoon, of cuts. Does the

March 5, 1985
Supply
Member for Regina East think that this country can continue to live beyond its means any longer?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the PMO has increased its budget by 50 some per cent. I think most Canadians would rather have seen that money spent on wildlife and to protect the health and safety of our environment and water quality than to increase the propaganda arm of the Prime Minister's Office. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that there are other ways of solving our deficit problems. Doing it at the expense of future generations and the health and safety of Canadians is stupidity. It is a false economy because we will be paying for it a hundredfold in the future.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I wish to contribute to this debate by speaking about renewable energy, and in particular about research into renewable energy. I would like to speak about the serious questions that the cuts at the National Research Council energy division have raised about our ability to cope with the depletion of conventional energy resources, and the relationship of these cuts to the protection and management of the environment.
We live in a complex world, Mr. Speaker, and the decisions we make sometimes have consequences which we cannot foresee. Earlier today I asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) whether he was aware of the consequences of his decision to cut research spending on Canadian aid programs in Africa at the time that he made the decision. In answer to me he said that there is quite a distance between the cuts in basic research and the problems of starving millions in Africa.
I would suggest that it is not so, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that there is indeed a very direct relationship. On November 8, we had the elimination of the research program in renewable energy. In January, the National Research Council informed CIDA that it could no longer provide the research support for the programs that it had contemplated to provide for irrigation using Canadian technology in the desert. In February, CIDA responded by indefinitely postponing its program because this research support was not available. These connections may be hard for people to see.
I would like to suggest to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) and to his Cabinet colleagues that research is not conducted in a vacuum. Indeed, technology has application in many areas.
It is precisely the applications of this technology and the long-term consequences of the use of technology that we expect the Government to be studying when it makes decisions of this nature.
Let me review briefly the history of Canada's renewable energy. It was born out of the oil crisis in the mid and late 1970s. In the National Energy Program, the Government foresaw a greater role for alternative and renewable energy in Canada. I quote from an excerpt of the program:
The realities of the energy future indicate the wisdom of accelerated efforts to develop new and renewable energy forms-
This program was followed by the House of Commons special committee on alternative energy and oil substitution which studied this subject for one year. It took a half century perspective-I do not suggest that a half century perspective is too long-on Canadian energy development and presented some 65 recommendations to foster the introduction of alternative energy sources, technologies and fuels into our energy system.
Considering the variety of concerns including the depletion of conventional energy resources, environmental impact, regional energy disparity, strategic considerations, diversity in energy supply and social benefits, this committee argued that the twenty-first century would see a profound change in Canada's energy system away from hydrocarbons and toward sustainable resources. Support programs were gradually developed by the Government and an interdepartmental panel on energy research and development was established to co-ordinate the Government efforts in the areas of renewable energy, conservation, fossil fuels, new liquid fuels, conventional energy and nuclear energy. In 1983 and 1984, some $54 million was provided for the research programs operated by the NRC Division of Energy. The following programs accounted for some $41 million of research expenditures: heat pumps, fusion energy, solar energy, bioenergy, wind energy, hydrogen and energy storage. It should be noted that some three-quarters of this research was conducted by the private sector under contracts with the National Research Council. It is these programs and indeed the entire NRC Energy Division that were cancelled by the Government last November 8.
[Translation)
The renewable energy industry consists largely of small- and medium-sized businesses, many of which have been in existence for only ten years or less. Today, some of these companies are financially dependent on public research programs such as the one initiated by the National Research Council. About 500 companies are directly active in research, design, manufacturing, distribution and installation of various lines of products in the renewable energy field. About 225 companies are manufacturers who in 1984 employed about 5,000 people and had sales of nearly $530 million, $30 million of which to export markets. These companies offer products that have been quick to acquire an international reputation. Our future for exports looks promising, provided we can remain competitive at the international level. We export mainly to the United States but also to Africa, Central America, South America and Asia.
According to a study carried out in 1983 by Frost and Sullivan, a consulting firm, international sales of biomass-based products, photovoltaic cells, small hydroelectric turbines, windmills and solar-thermal technology are now estimated at $3.5 billion and are expected to reach $15 billion by 1990.
March 5, 1985



It is against this background that we learned on November 8 of the complete elimination of the NRC Division of Energy. The reaction from the industry can only be characterized as disbelief. Research contracts which had been approved and were about to be signed were cancelled. Firms which had been counting on contracts were forced to lay off personnel and cancel projects. In spite of the grand promises of the Government, there was no warning, no consultation and no alternative presented by the Government.
The reaction from the industry was predictable. It is perhaps instructive for Tory Members in the House to hear some of that reaction. From Vancouver, a Mr. P. William Bishop wrote to the Minister of Science and Technology on November 24. He said:
From this distance, the decision to cut the entire NRC Energy Division seems somewhat arbitrary. I am concerned that in your keenness to make cuts you may not have fully considered the impact on the private sector.
Mr. Bishop went on to refer to the superwindow program and the plasma lamp.
Cutting the research at this stage will in my opinion be an act of vandalism ... cutting back on private sector research in Vancouver is not why I have supported the Tory party for years.

Here is what Societe d'energie solaire du Canada Inc. Director Jacques Beaudet wrote in his letter of November 29 to the Hon. Member for Dollard:
For over ten years now, Canadians have made a lot of efforts and spent their own money to promote science, technology and the use of new energy sources. Government policies have helped put Canada's experts on the international scene ... It would be a shame if a hasty decision, perhaps inspired by short-term objectives, were to make Canadians lose all the benefits of work already done and supported by Government policies.

Let me quote one other comment from the industry. Michael Bein of Chelsea, Quebec, wrote the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on December 18:
I am all for getting rid of waste in government and reducing Canada's enormous budget deficit... but why use a chain saw when a scalpel, or at least a butcher's knife, will do?
Canada's fledgling solar industry stands to be wiped out, with something like 2000 private sector jobs lost, and with areas where we had a chance to be the world leader handed over to the Japanese on a silver platter. I am especially surprised that a Tory government would condone such an attack on small business.
It is hard to fathom why this particular decision was made. There was many questions that have been raised and very few answers offered by the Government. Last November 13, the Minister of State for Science and Technology said that this program was the least essential of all the activities of the National Research Council. We have no indication on what basis that determination was made. Obviously, many people in industry do not agree with him.
He also said on November 29 that the Government was:
-not sufficiently convinced of progress to the extent that special allocated funding should be continued in this area. Alternate energy could obtain funding for its projects through EMR and other government agencies. If proponents of
Supply
projects in the solar energy industry wish to come forward, their application would be considered alongside that of anyone else's.
He did not indicate any consideration of the effect of this decision on jobs, Canada's export potential, on regional development or on the environment.
Another question which comes to mind is why the Division of Energy was not consulted. On November 19, the Secretary General of the National Research Council was reported as saying that the decision about what program cuts would be made to fulfil the budget reduction were made by the Government, not the agency.
Another question I have is, why was this entire division eliminated rather than the reduction spread throughout the NRC? Savings in 1985-1986 are forecast to be some $32 million. The NRC last year had an over-all budget of $502 million. Why not cut back all programs by 5 per cent or 6 per cent and preserve this particular program?
Were other alternatives considered, such as cutting a small percentage of expenditures in non-renewable energy and thereby providing funds to preserve a smaller Division of Energy? There is no indication that that was considered.
The Tory Government says it favours small business. Why harm an industry made up of small businesses? As I indicated earlier, 75 per cent of the research managed by the National Research Council is contracted out to the private sector. What about the Wright report which recently studied all aspects of government research and development? It recommended that greater efforts should be made by federal labs to work with industry by means of contracting out and that due recognition should be given to scientists and administrators supporting these efforts. Why, therefore, cut a program which corresponds precisely to this recommendation, which presumably is supported by the Government? I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare the cost of this program, again some $50 million, and its benefits to other forms of government support for the oil and gas industry or, let us say, to the cost of cleaning up polluting industry. The folly of this decision becomes all the more remarkable: $54 million, the 1983-84 budget of the Division of Energy, as opposed to billions of dollars that are spent on loan guarantees, PIP grants and subsidies to the oil and gas industry; $54 million as opposed to billions that must be spent to clean up acid rain. The Globe and Mail in an article on February 16 reported that Canada's major nickel and copper smelter operators may have to spend over $ 1 billion on capital equipment to clean the air.
There is no comparison whatsoever between the $54 million, the amount is almost picayune, that was invested in a promising young industry, as compared to the billions of dollars spent on more mature industry in this country.
It is not just a matter of cost, Mr. Speaker; electricity exports to the U.S. are threatened. The National Governors Association made up of Governors from 50 U.S. states resolved last year to press for legislation that would prevent

March 5, 1985
Supply
U.S. imports of Canadian electricity unless Canada reduced its emissions that cause acid rain.
I would like to conclude my comments by saying that nothing other than the complete restoration of this budget would put this industry on sound footing. Our Party is also concerned about the deficit. However, when we look at this program and we see its relationship to the future of a promising industry in our country and when we compare the levels of support that are accorded renewable energy in many other countries, there is no foundation for this decision.
There has been much talk this afternoon about efficiency, about the necessity, the mandate this Government received, to control the deficit. That is true, Mr. Speaker, but there is another part to that. There is the part that says the Government must act responsibly, that its decisions must be made, as we have heard so often in the past few days, in the best interests of this country. The Minister of State for Science and Technology earlier today indicated that he did not see the connection between basic research and the problems of feeding starving millions in Africa. I would suggest that this is a totally irresponsible way to address the long-term consequences of research and development. I would suggest that the Minister of State for Science and Technology, if he has not done so already, meet with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and with other Cabinet colleagues and discuss some of the long-term consequences. The only conclusion that one can come to is that this Government, as has been suggested this afternoon, is only concerned with the shortterm. Its only preoccupation is with the next election.
Future generations of Canadians depend on our Government to act in a more responsible manner when it comes to a crucial issue such as our environment and research spending as it affects the environment.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(9), to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. Consequently, the question is as follows: Mr. Caccia, seconded by Mr. Rossi, moved:
That this House condemns the Government for its negligent and irresponsible approach to the protection and management of the environment, for its cuts of wildlife, meteorological and parks services, for abandoning Canada's past initiatives on the national and international levels to combat acid rain and to restore the water quality of the Great Lakes, and for thereby jeopardizing the health, economic well-being and the heritage of the present and future generations of Canadians.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.14 p.m. this Elouse stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 6, 1985