1986-05-16

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Navy will begin shelling the Hawaiian island of Kahoolawe as part of RIMPAC 86 exercises with the United States. We do this despite strong opposition from the Hawaiian Senate and Congress, despite pleas addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by Hawaii's two Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and despite the pleas from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and hundreds of individual Hawaiians that we stop this process.
Over the years Canadians have prided themselves on their scrupulous regard for U.S. interests and, on occasion, have bemoaned and lamented the fact that our U.S. friends appeared not to reciprocate. Today, we are in the wrong. Today it is the Government of Canada which refuses to listen to the pleas of our friends when they remind us that the United States Registry of Historic Sites has designated 544 locations on the island as having historic and religious significance. It is time to listen to our friends and to act fairly.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised the matter of the Handford nuclear reactor, which is about 400 kilometres south of Vancouver. It is 23 years old and similar in construction to the Chernobyl reactor. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was not briefed on the matter. I want to put on the record some things that he might consider.
In 1964 there was a hydrogen gas explosion there. In 1976 there was a second hydrogen gas explosion. In 1973, 500 million litres of nuclear waste were flushed out through the Columbia River to the ocean. More recently, there have been
six shutdowns since January. A United States Government Department of Energy report of April 26 warned that the valve disc could break off and obstruct the cooling pipes around the reactor core and there could be a meltdown. They will have to spend $1 billion on the plant over the next eight years.
A Seattle newspaper has called for the reactor to be closed down and yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not know anything about this possible danger to Vancouver.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on some good news for the environment. A company in Welland has developed a mobile waste disposal unit with the highest PCB destruction efficiency rating in the world. The unit is called the Pyroplasma. Conventional units have a destruction efficiency rate of approximately 99.99 per cent. This unit has an unofficial destruction efficiency rate of 99.9999999 per cent.
The provincial and federal Governments are developing test procedures which will set permit application guidelines for the unit's use. The local public knows what the mobile unit can do and wants it to be used. Other Canadians living close to industrial dump sites have been asking for a solution to the toxic waste problem for years, and we believe we now have a solution in Niagara.


NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, this week is a special one as we celebrate National Police Week. The theme of this Police Week is the celebration of the 75th anniversary of fingerprinting in Canada.
In 1911, as a result of the diligent efforts of Inspector Edward Foster of the Dominion Police, an Order in Council signed by Prime Minister Laurier created a national bureau, and for the first time fingerprints were used as a means of identifying criminals. Seven years earlier in 1904, Inspector Foster had met with officials of Scotland Yard. It was then he

May 16, 1986
first heard of this system, and on his return to Canada he lobbied for a similar system. The rest is history.
The fingerprinting system is the most positive means of identification available. It can safely be said that Canada's record keeping and fingerprinting systems are among the best in the world. We owe a debt of gratitude to the ingenuity, persistence, and foresight of Inspector Foster, and also to the capable men and women of today's RCMP who are continuing the excellence of the fingerprinting system.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, a report in today's Le Devoir indicates that 59 per cent of Quebecers are dissatisfied with the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) that, notwithstanding his low opinion of Quebecers' know-how in economic endeavours, 59 per cent of them are dissatisfied precisely because of the Conservative Government's mismanagement of economic affairs. The issues of Domtar, Gulf, Matane, Port-Cartier, Desbiens and the shipyards immediately come to mind.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Secretary of State will apologize to Quebecers for insulting them by suggesting that they are not quite as competent as their English-speaking fellow citizens when it comes to economic matters.


TRIBUTE TO DESJARDINS GROUP
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to today's opening of the first Toronto office of the Desjardins Group.
Created in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins, the group's first caisse populaire opened its door in Levis. This co-operative financial institution is owned by more than four million members, most of them Quebecers.
Its 24,000 employees, supported by 18,500 volunteer board members, now administer $26 billion in assets through 1,400 affiliated caisses.
From its Levis head office located in the riding of Levis the Desjardins Group has launched a new expansion drive to diversify its clientele and its loan portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see the Desjardins Group expanding into the Toronto area. Let us pay homage today to all employees and management staff of the Desjardins Group, particularly to its founder Alphonse Desjardins.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in a matter of days, Canadian naval vessels will begin shelling the sacred Hawaiian Island of Kahoolawe despite the fact that the State's Senate and Congress formally demand that the five RIMPAC countries, Canada, Australia, the United States, Japan and New Zealand, stop the bombing and return the island to Hawaiian control. Canada has consistently ignored this plea, and in 1984 under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was the only foreign country to shell the island.
Japan, and now New Zealand and Australia, are refusing to participate in the shelling, out of respect for the indigenous people of Hawaii.
[DOT] (ino)
This island is of deep cultural, religious, historic, and scientific significance. There are 544 recognized archaeological sites on the island. It is not just the Hawaiian people who are outraged at the insensitivity of the Conservative Government. All major peace and church groups have registered their protest.
Would Canadians stand by and witness a foreign military bomb Vancouver Island or the Queen Charlotte Islands, or shell our graveyards? No, they would not. Given the dozens of letters I have personally received on the issue, Canadians will not stand for our complicity in this act of military hooliganism.


EXPORTS TO PACIFIC COUNTRIES
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, last year Canada's exports to the Asia-Pacific region were $15.2 billion, surpassing our total exports to western and eastern Europe combined. Thus the recent visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to meet with top leaders of Japan, China, and Korea was both timely and important.
The success of his major initiative is evident in the positive responses received from Japan in respect of easing its building codes, which would assist exports of B.C. lumber, and Korea's agreement to cut tariffs on canola and open up its markets to
May 16, 1986

B.C. coal. Our trade with China will benefit from the additional $350 million interest-free financing announced to support Chinese purchases of Canadian goods and services.
The Prime Minister's visit was vital in creating new friendships and understandings between our nations, for it is only from such a base of knowledge and mutual respect that we can build the foundations for expanded trade and investment opportunities on both sides of the Pacific.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced recently that the Canadian and Japanese governments have negotiated a bilateral agreement on co-operation in the field of science and technology.
The agreement identifies our objectives in this area and provides for a wide variety of joint initiatives, which will have substantial economic benefits for Canada and Japan. Such agreements have always proved to be very profitable for Canada. About 75 joint projects have already been initiated in this way.
Our Government recognizes the importance of research and development for Canada's future, and will continue to promote growth and entrepreneurship in this field.
As the Member for a riding where the technology sector plays a very important role, I am very pleased with this agreement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on April 15, I asked a question in the House about two Francophone defendants in Newfoundland who were seeking the right to have a trial in French. For the first time in this country's history, our Government has challenged before the courts their right to have a trial in French.
This morning I heard that the two defendants were appealing the decision and that the federal Government insists on having the trial continue in English, without first obtaining a ruling from an appeal court on the question of whether or not they have the right to be heard in French.
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by this Government in this case is shameful, and I would urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to change that position.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30 Employment and Immigration Canada sent a letter to Mrs. Helga Muselmann of Hawkesbury, Ontario, stating that she had one month to leave the country because she and her husband were in breach of a ministerial permit.
The breach in question is that the husband has been convicted of a crime. The crime he committed was that he beat up his wife, a crime which the victim rightfully reported to the police. The conclusion is that this woman is now being asked to leave the country because she reported a battering husband.
I call upon the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean), who is also the Minister responsible for the status of women, to take the necessary steps to allow Helga Muselmann and her children to remain in Canada. Otherwise all immigrant women will conclude that, if they are beaten by their husbands, they had better keep quiet or they will be deported by the Government.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to share some good news. Today I want to share with the House the Government's latest economic successes. The Bank of Canada rate, set yesterday, is the lowest since 1978. The inflation rate in Canada for April dropped to 3.9 per cent, and unemployment is at a four-year low of 9.6 per cent.
These are figures to make all Canadians rejoice, but I should like to focus on my own Province of Saskatchewan for a moment. In that province our Government is responsible for creating 21,000 new jobs. The economy is booming. Bankruptcies were down 10 per cent last year, and exports in the first three months of 1986 were up 12.7 per cent over the same period last year. Housing starts were up 32 per cent in April compared to April, 1985, and building permits are skyrocketing.
Whatever the Opposition wants to have Canadians believe, these facts speak for themselves. Our economic policies are working, and that is what counts.

May 16, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have a question relating to the Prime Minister's appointment of Chief Justice Parker to conduct the inquiry.
On August 21, last year, the Chief Justice of Canada, Brian Dickson, was speaking to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Halifax, and he had this to say:
1 think we must approach with reluctance judicial participation in royal commissions and inquiries.
Chief Justice Dickson went on to say:
Judicial affiliation with such commissions presents a serious threat to the reality and image of judicial impartiality and independence and, in my opinion, in most circumstances, is undesirable.
Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice of the Chief Justice of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I tried not to follow any advice. I think Chief Justice Dickson said "in most circumstances", as the Leader of the Opposition just quoted. This is an exceptional set of circumstances. I think we have acted properly. I would think that most Canadians would applaud the appointment of an impartial person.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Not many inquiries could be more politically charged than this one, Mr. Speaker, and 1 think Chief Justice Dickson's point has been made.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT ORDERED PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my second question to the Prime Minister is as follows. I have read the terms of reference of this inquiry. Has the Prime Minister ordered Chief Justice Parker to hold a public inquiry? Is he going to give Opposition parties the right to retain counsel to represent them before the inquiry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice is bound and governed by the Inquiries Act which allows him to act as he sees fit in this area.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL TESTIFY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, doesn't the Prime Minister believe the judge might have ordered a public Inquiry?
In any case, my third question is as follows:

Will the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, both having accepted responsibility in the matter since September 9 for the enforcement of the conflict of guidelines, be testifying before that inquiry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that will be up to Chief Justice Parker as indicated in the letter of September 9 to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, that the appointment of an impartial person would be appropriate. We have done that.


Mr. Broadbent:: Not for conflict of interest.


Mr. Deans:: It is not appropriate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will, of course, follow whatever he feels appropriate.


ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the propriety of dragging a judge into a matter like this. The Chief Justice of Canada last August referred particularly to the dangers of bringing judges into:
-matters of great political sensitivity and controversy-
We are not talking here about the laws, we are talking about an administrative policy, the guidelines introduced by the Government to fulfil a campaign promise. How could there be anything more politically sensitive and controversial, and won't the Prime Minister recognize the impropriety of dragging the Bench into a matter like this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is a pretty unworthy statement, Mr. Speaker. On May 7 last, as reported at page 12880 of Hansard, the Member asked this question:
Is there not a duty on the part of the Government-to do an independent investigation and verification-
That is exactly what we have just done. We have done what the Member requested. Now you are on the other side of the street, as usual.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TERMS OF REFERENCE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about that independent investigation, particularly why the terms have been drawn in such a narrow way. If it is found that a conflict of interest exists on the part of the former
May 16, 1986

Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, should the inquiry not be able to look into all of the activities of the Minister, whether or not they are known to this House and the media? If a conflict of interest is found to exist, why is the inquiry limited only to looking into matters which have already been raised?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference are broad and appropriate. We have full confidence in the independence of the Chief Justice to conduct the inquiry and make the necessary value judgments.


STATEMENT MADE BY FORMER PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, not only is Chief Justice Dickson opposed to using judges for this kind of political decision making, but last year's annual report of the Canadian Bar Association made exactly the same point. I would like the Prime Minister to consider the following observation made by a former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker:
It has been abundantly evident, however, that judges should not be used to preside over royal commissions in which matters of political controversy are of the essence.
Why did the Prime Minister not accept the good advice of Mr. Diefenbaker and keep the judges out of political decisions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of Canada said that this should be avoided in most circumstances. We have done that. We are not trying to involve anyone in political decisions. This requires an impartial view, and we felt that the Chief Justice appointed was the most appropriate person.


MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that what is involved here is not a matter of law? We are not asking the judge to determine whether the former Minister broke provisions of the Criminal Code. What is involved here is the moral responsibility of the Minister and, related to that, the moral responsibility of the Prime Minister to enforce his own guidelines. A judge should not be involved in that kind of process. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not a view which is shared by all Members and all previous Prime Ministers. Previous Governments have acted from time to time in these circumstances in the same way. We believe that, irrespective of the background, a man of competence and impartiality can bring about an appropriate result which will be helpful to the country and democracy.
Oral Questions


REACTION TO PREVIOUS INQUIRY FINDINGS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that, when the same judge was responsible for a similar inquiry at the end of the 1960s, as soon as he brought down his report there were criticisms of partisanship and unfairness? If he is aware of that, does he not understand that he is politicizing the judiciary, which ought not to be done?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: That is an improper question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the Canadian tradition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that question comes awfully close to-


John Edward Broadbent: To what?


Mr. Speaker:: -comments about the judge.


John Edward Broadbent: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Maybe he could rephrase his question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify it for you, if it is needed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I am asking the Prime Minister-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Is that in order or not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! I am trying to tell the Hon. Member that the question he asked, as I heard it, was, in my view, out of order. Can he rephrase his question in such a way that I can accept it?


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the same judge brought in a report at the end of the 1960s on a similarly delicate political matter there were immediate accusations by the media of unfairness and lack of objectivity? If he is aware of that, is he not aware of the position he is putting the judge in by giving him a political mandate? He is putting the judge in a position which no judge should be in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. That's a statement.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian tradition is that once a man or woman accepts an appointment to the Bench, his or her political past-


John Edward Broadbent: You're asking him to make a political decision.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let him answer the question.

May 16, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: -does not enter into the matter. We presume that all the federal judges are going to be as independent and impartial as they have traditionally proven to be.


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. During his absence on official business the Prime Minister was unable to witness the most blatant example of stonewalling that this House has ever seen, which has caused the image of the Government to be tarnished. In view of this I would like to ask him if he would not undertake to ask the Minister of National Defence to step down as Deputy Prime Minister to be replaced by a more suitable appointee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE APPLICATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister refuses to replace the Deputy Prime Minister, could he at least give the House the assurance that he will remove the responsibility for applying the conflict of interest guidelines from his purview, considering the example given by the Minister in the past two weeks here in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the position I announced in my replies this morning reflects the Government's position, which is entirely appropriate.


JUSTICE'S APPOINTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises with respect to the position into which the judge who has been chosen to conduct the Stevens conflict allegations is being put. As a judge who was, in fact, appointed and promoted by Conservatives, as a former Tory riding president, and as a judge who conducted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member knows full well our rules about comments about the judiciary. I am prepared to hear his question, but I must remind him that comments about the judiciary are out of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the inquiry report prepared by the judge in question was denounced as a whitewash and a political hatchet job for the Conservative Government of the day, and as a double standard by respected journalists of the day, I want to ask the Prime Minister, in view of those antecedents, does he not recognize he is putting the judge in an impossible position and opening
him to precisely this kind of attack on his political independence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He was
appointed by Mr. Diefenbaker, promoted by Mr. Trudeau, and he conducts himself, as with all judges, honourably in the conduct of a commission of inquiry. Mr. Justice Tom Berger, as I recollect, formerly of the NDP, was appointed a federal judge and conducted a commission of inquiry, and did so very well with no reference to his political roots.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Tom Berger was not looking into allegations of misconduct by an NDP colleague.


TERMS OF REFERENCE
Svend Johannes Robinson: In view of the fact that at the time Mr. Justice Parker accepted his previous commission of inquiry he emphasized that he accepted it because he was examining facts, and his findings would have no direct political effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Does the Prime Minister not recognize that this commission of inquiry is fundamentally different, and the Prime Minister has no business asking a judge to embark on an inquiry of this nature, which is properly conducted by the Parliament of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The terms of reference are clear, and they are, I think, very adequate, and will allow the Chief Justice to conduct the kind of inquiry that is required.


STATEMENT MADE BY PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Upon the Prime Minister's return to Canada he said that the Conservatives are erecting a new standard of morality day by day in Canada. The manner in which the Deputy Prime Minister stonewalled this Parliament for two weeks refusing to answer legitimate questions of the Opposition with respect to the Stevens' affair-does that represent his concept of a new morality in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 was
referring to a ministerial resignation pursuant to the British parliamentary practice where we have differed sharply from the previous Liberal Government which insisted on a resignation only when a Minister was close to being indicted.


INQUIRY CONCERNING FORMER MINISTERS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he kindly name the former Liberal Ministers to whom he referred in that response?
May 16, 1986


Mr. Gauthier:: Put up or shut up, Mulroney. How is that?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that such a reference to hon. gentlemen by name is out of order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: He won't answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if that was a question, the record speaks for itself.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-APPLICATION TO SPOUSES OF MINISTERS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since he indicates that the new standard of morality relates to the resignation of Ministers, perhaps I could refer him to his letter to Ministers on September 9 last year when he said that Ministers have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest arising out of business activities by their spouses. Is it the position of the Government that it is appropriate for the spouse of a cabinet Minister to do business with companies that are involved in a major way in doing business with the Minister's Department?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Member for Nickel Belt, presumably on behalf of his Party, asked for the appointment of an impartial, independent commissioner. That is exactly what we have just done, giving him the appropriate terms of reference. I think that should answer the apprehensions of the hon. gentleman.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED BY PRIME MINISTER IN LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1985
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My question is not related to the inquiry but to the principle set forth by the Prime Minister in his letter of September 9 last year to the members of his Cabinet. Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for the spouse of a Minister to do business with a company involved in business dealings with the Minister's department?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the subject matter before the commission of inquiry, and the chairman of the commission will pass judgment at the appropriate time.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PRACTICE IN AWARDING CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the contract-letting practices of the Department of Public Works. Yesterday, in reply to questions from reporters, the Minister of Public Works said: "I've always said that as long as the basic criteria are observed, namely cost and competence, I certainly don't mind showing my gratitude to people who deserve it." How can the Prime Minister reconcile this statement with his new morality code which he referred to earlier today and yesterday?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member will understand that the matter with respect to particular charges being laid is before the courts and it is not appropriate to raise any reference, directly or indirectly, with respect to that matter, in order to ensure that justice will be done impartially in the Canadian tradition. As far as ministerial responsibility, accountability, and the method of dealing in any particular Department are concerned, I believe my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, yesterday fully and clearly answered the whole question with respect to the way in which business is done. It is all above board by tender and is done according to law.


CONTRACTS AWARDED WITHOUT TENDER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister said that. The Minister did say yesterday that everything is done by public tender. We have a list of 2,000 contracts, since September 4, 1984, 1,000 of which have never been offered by public tender. Half of the contracts have had no tender in amounts in excess of $5,000. How can the Minister explain that today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I can explain it by saying that we are using the same Treasury Board guidelines that our predecessor, the Liberal Government, instituted. It has been a long standing tradition.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I was in the Ontario provincial Legislature during the last public inquiry in which Justice Parker took part, as far as I am aware. Does the Prime Minister not recognize the impossible situation in which he is placing the judiciary when he asks it to inquire into a

May 16, 1986
Oral Questions
matter which in fact involves the conduct of Ministers of the Crown as it relates to the exercise of their responsibilities to the Parliament of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 in the House of Commons, the Member for Nickel Belt, speaking on behalf of his Party, asked for the appointment of a judicial inquiry into this matter. This is exactly what we have done.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will also know that on May 9 I asked that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure make the inquiry. Does the Prime Minister not understand that it is more appropriate for Members of Parliament to pass judgment on the ethical standards of their peers than it is to ask a judge to come down with an inquiry which cannot satisfy either side in the argument, no matter how careful he is?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt, specifically asked on behalf of his Party for the appointment of a judicial inquiry necessary to have-


Mr. Althouse:: He is the House Leader.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Are you repudiating your own colleague? You better be careful because he has quite a temper. He asked for the appointment of a judicial inquiry and that is exactly what we have done. I am sorry that there is disarray in the NDP, but that is not unusual.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Could the Minister confirm that the contract for the CN Marine ferry awarded last March to Davie Shipbuilding Limited at Lauzon contained a provision asking the president of Davie, Mr. Saunders, to meet with the various parties involved in the Quebec shipybuilding industry with a view to rationalizing these shipyards? Is that correct? Yes or no?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the day before and the day
before that, I said that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had asked parties across the country-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Does the contract contain a provision, yes or no?


André Bissonnette: I mentioned that we had asked the people involved in our shipyards across the country to get together and let us know the best way to upgrade and increase the productivity of Canada's shipbuilding industry.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING SOREL SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister doesn't want to answer the question because he is ashamed. Why does the Minister refuse to say that the CN Marine contract contains a provision in which Mr. Saunders is asked to meet with the industry with a view to rationalizing and phasing out the shipyards at Sorel? Why won't the Minister admit that a provision exists, and if it does not, why doesn't he table the contract in the House?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, no, there is no provision that says Mr. Saunders is to shut down the Sorel shipyard.
 * *


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Public Works said that the Government has a godfather system whereby Conservative MPs can obtain information and occasionally other things from the Government for Conservative supporters in opposition ridings in Quebec. I assume this also applies outside the Province of Quebec. Since one half of the contracts are not tendered, will the Prime Minister explain why the Government not only looks at the merit of the applications but also at whom the applicants supported in the last federal election campaign?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is not unknown to political Parties to have Members of Parliament going into ridings that they do not represent in order to see whether or not they can either receive the benefit of advice in those ridings or convey some of the truth as they see it in those ridings. There is nothing unusual about this, and any suggestion that this is some sort of sinister arrangement would mean that all those New Democrats who come to Saskatoon West should be kicked out.


John Edward Broadbent: They are not coming with government contracts.
May 16, 1986


CONSTITUENCY ASSIGNMENTS OF GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since this involves Government contracts, half of which are not tendered by the federal Government, will the Government House Leader provide us with a list of all Conservative MPs who are assigned to each one of the 71 opposition Members and tell us what instructions are given to his Conservative MPs about Government contracts?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I would not comment on the admissabil-ity of that question since it has nothing to do with ministerial accountability. It has to do with the fact that-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Patronage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -in the New Democratic Party there are Members of Parliament who are given responsibility for certain areas and certain constituencies. This is not unusual. Any suggestion by the Hon. Member that there is something wrong with this system is simply not a strict, correct statement of fact.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a press release which referred to a higher than normal rate of radioactivity in the State of Vermont, which is on the U.S. border with Quebec. Could the Minister inform the House whether our people are at risk and whether there is any danger involved for our dairy producers in connection with the problem mentioned in the U.S. press release?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Levis for his question and his concern for the health of Quebec residents.

I wish to tell the Hon. Member that we continue to monitor the very high levels at Montpelier, Vermont, which have not been reflected in Quebec. I can assure residents of the province, specifically those in Montreal and Quebec City, that the radioactive levels we have detected in rainwater and in air have been very low levels, commensurate with the other levels across the country I have given in earlier days. There has been some radiation found in milk in Montreal, none has been found
Oral Questions
in milk in Quebec City. Again, that level is well below any set safety standard. We will keep on checking.
The fear that there were the same high levels in the province of the Hon. Member as found in Vermont has not been experienced. I wish to assure all Hon. Members and residents of the province that there is nothing to fear as we now know at this time.


AIRPORTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. It is a follow-up to the Metropole investigation. On May 13, 1986, the Leader of the Government in the Senate was quoted as saying: "When I learned a deal was in the offing 1 made sure my wife stayed out of the arrangement". How did the Leader of the Government in the Senate know a deal was in the offing?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, were the Minister of Transport here today I think he would remind the Hon. Member that the responsibility of the Government was to ensure the orderly transfer of security arrangements from one company to the other. The Government was advised that the company Metropole would be the company in question.


SENATOR'S KNOWLEDGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Senator had no involvement with his wife's business, given that we already know the wife is a shareholder in a company which is directly doing business with a Crown corporation, how did the Senator even know about the pending change in arrangements?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, as I just attempted to indicate to the Hon. Member, all parties involved in the security at airports were advised. That includes the Government.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MINISTERS' MEETING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who might be aware that we are on the brink of a trade war with the United States over free trade in softwood lumber. He might also be aware that the envoy process is going nowhere and that the clock is running on a

May 16, 1986
Oral Questions
U.S. countervailing action. My question is for the Prime Minister because it involves Canada's largest industry.
Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether there was any consensus for action on softwood trade at last night's summit meeting involving Trade and Forestry Ministers from across Canada, including our Minister of State for Forestry and our Minister for International Trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot answer that question. I will be happy to enquire and report to my hon. friend as soon as possible.


MINISTER'S TELEVISED STATEMENTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. Would he care to explain the comments made last night on BCTV by the Minister for International Trade who indicated that retaliation to the potential 30 per cent duty to be imposed against Canadian softwood is being considered by Canada? What U.S. goods is the Prime Minister planning to put on that hit list?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of that comment. Obviously, I do not accept the premise of it. I can tell my hon. friend that for two weeks, among other things, I have been constantly promoting the interests of the lumber industry across Canada through the Far East, as well as-and this will interest the Hon. Member-the interests of Expo 86.



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. There are numerous forest fires now burning out of control in all of the maritime provinces. I am especially concerned about the forest fires in Northumberland County which have destroyed thousands of acres. Can the Minister advise whether provincial authorities have contacted the federal Government as yet, seeking assistance through the Emergency Measures Organization?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious situation in New Brunswick. As of 9 a.m. this morning there were between 37 and 40 forest fires in the province, 16 of them out of control. As of 10 a.m. this morning the federal Government had received no request from New Brunswick for resources, although those resources, where we might be able to offer aid through EMO, have been inventoried so that, if called upon by the Government of New Brunswick, the federal Government will be able to act immediately.
I might add that, notwithstanding the serious situation, I am advised that there is no serious threat to life in any of the areas that are subject to the conflagrations.



REPORTED CONSEQUENCES OF ARTILLERY PRACTICE

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous question. It is also for the Minister of National Defence. This morning I spoke with officials of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown who indicated to me that one of the major forest fires burning was a result of the use of live ammunition during artillery practice in the tinder-dry forests. Will the Minister explain what our Armed Forces personnel are doing shooting with live ammunition into the forests during these sensitive times? As a result of the fires established and the losses which will inevitably accrue, what compensation is the federal Government considering for the people affeded?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the allegations which have just been made by the hon. gentleman certainly will be the subject of close inquiry and scrutiny by the Department now that he has raised them in the House of Commons.



COMPENSATION INQUIRY

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Defence. Since one of the major fires was caused by the Canadian Armed Forces resulting in a number of towns being threatened in the Gagetown area, including the evacuation of many hundreds of families, what compensation is the Minister planning for these people?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made a statement of-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Of fact.


Erik Nielsen: -a statement which he probably concludes is fact. Surely the prudent thing to do is to establish whether or not what he says is the case and is in fact true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Then you should ask.


Erik Nielsen: I think the very prudent thing to do is to allow me now to cause the necessary enquiries to be made in the Department to determine whether or not what the Hon. Member says is in fact true.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Why does the Minister
May 16, 1986

continue to approve the spending of $10 million by Dream-street Limited to do a phoney research project to compare the production of red and white holsteins with that of black and white holsteins, when this project has been soundly condemned as useless by the Holstein-Friesian Assocation of Canada, the University of Guelph, and the Co-ordinator of Research for Agriculture Canada? What is the pressure that keeps the Minister approving this project and spending $10 million of taxpayers' money?


Mr. McDermid:: Remember who brought that stupid scheme in.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague surely knows that there is no pressure involved. He must know that this is the residue of one of the most ill-conceived programs ever brought forward by the previous Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This is so in the opinion of all the knowledgeable tax experts in this country and is something which, incidentally, the Leader of the New Democratic Party was one of the first to note, to give him credit. It has turned out that we have had to audit all of these programs to ensure that the taxpayers' interests are being protected. I cannot comment on the state of this particular application because of the provisions for secrecy in the Income Tax Act.



APPROVAL OF PROJECT

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is reported that this research project was turned down about three or four times before it was finally approved last November. Can the Minister indicate if the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister made representations to have the project approved late last November or early December?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell my colleague that there were no such representations, as far as I am concerned. Even if there were, as I said earlier I cannot comment because of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, daily mail delivery may be a thing of the past following a decision of the Government to be announced in six weeks' time. The Minister responsible has said that he could talk about delivery three times a week and he could talk about delivery four times a week. I ask the Minister not what he could talk about but what he is talking about. Will the
Oral Questions
Canadian people have input into this decision before the Government totally destroys the postal system in Canada?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered this question many times this week. We have been requested by the Minister of Finance to find the best possible way to bring the post office to self-sufficiency in a short period of time. Alternate-day delivery is just one of the alternatives that is being examined. It may not be retained but it has to be examined.



PUBLIC'S REQUEST FOR SERVICE

George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he is searching for ways to fulfil the request of the Minister of Finance. What about the request of the Canadian people for better mail service rather than a return to the Pony Express?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I can answer that by saying that we have to deal with the deficit and we are committed to bringing economic renewal to the country. It is the representations that the Prime Minister makes in other countries that bring good news here to Canada.



LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I take it that the Prime Minister is aware of the May 8 letter of President Reagan to Senator Packwood indicating the President's intention to take unilateral action on Canadian softwood lumber. Would the Prime Minister not agree that there has not been a clean launch to the free trade issue? Has he not been doublecrossed by his friend, President Reagan, on the softwood lumber issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that had been asked and answered many times prior to my departure. I stand by the answer I gave. I do not know what unilateral action the hon. gentleman is talking about. We are satisfied that there will be a clean launch to the talks.



CANADIAN POSITION

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister has been away and that these are more recent developments, would the Prime Minister inform himself of these more recent developments? Considering that this is Canada's largest industry, would he indicate to

May 16, 1986
Oral Questions
the House right now that he is prepared to fight for this industry, to oppose American countervailing tariffs, and to get himself informed about this issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be informed about it. This Government is promoting the interests of that industry not only in the United States but around the world. We are actively seeking out new markets and we are trying to deliver relief to the industry which so desperately requires it. That is why we have been working so hard on behalf of this and other industries.
 * *



THE ADMINISTRATION


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put another question to the Prime Minister regarding the Parker inquiry. If we consider the precedent of the Estey Commission, the Government of the country is certainly going to be well represented, and as the Prime Minister has said, handsomely represented, by counsel at the Parker inquiry. Will the Prime Minister allow the Opposition to be equally represented at that inquiry and to be paid by the Government as the Government's own representatives will be?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to intrude upon the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the inquiry. Representations can be made to the Commissioner under the Inquiries Act and he can make whatever determination he thinks is fair.



REQUEST THAT TERMS OF REFERENCE BE AMENDED

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that he can control the parameters of the inquiry by amending the terms of reference. Since it is quite obvious, because of the Estey precedent, that the Government will be represented at public expense by counsel, will the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party be equally well represented and paid at public expense?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not controlling any parameters. The inquiry has been asked to deal with the matters raised by my right hon. friend.


John Napier Turner: You set the terms.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course we set the terms as the Government must. When my right hon. friend was Minister of Justice, he was called upon from time to time to consult in that area on behalf of the Government. We have done exactly what my right hon. friend did when he was Minister of Justice in the
Government of Mr. Trudeau. Representations can be made to the Chairman of the Commmission and he will exercise the same good judgment in that as he will, no doubt, in all other matters. He is entirely free, and given his remarkable competence and impartiality, I am sure he will make the right decision.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Several weeks ago the Minister of Finance, speaking in Durham, indicated that the Auto Pact was definitely not on the table in the free trade talks with the United States. Would the Prime Minister therefore repudiate the statements made yesterday by Peter Murphy in the United States who said that Canadians have assured him that all items, including the Auto Pact, will be on the table?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the American representative, Peter Murphy, were repudiated by the American Ambassador, Thomas Niles.



AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARDS

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, of course it is Mr. Murphy who is in charge of the negotiations. Will the Prime Minister also choose between the Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Murphy and make it clear that marketing boards are also excluded from these talks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would always be reluctant to choose against someone by the name of Murphy, but clearly 1 would choose our Agriculture Minister.

[ Translation]



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
The Minister is considering various alternatives to reduce mail service so as to comply with the February 26 Budget constraints which fly in the face of the five-year plan advocated in the Marchment report.
Does the Minister agree with the Marchment committee recommendation that consultations be held with urban
May 16, 1986

residents who do not have home delivery service, and when will he consult them?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, my response to this question is that indeed the Marchment report raised a number of concerns. We are now examining its recommendations and we will comment on them when our operating plan is unveiled.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET CITIZENS' COMMITTEE

Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister meet with the Saint-Leonard- Anjou citizens' committee which is not satisfied with the service? As requested in my May 2 letter, will he meet with the committee before making a decision?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's letter dated May 2 in which he asked me to meet with his constituents. Of course I will act on his request before announcing the policy.



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with promises made to eight farmers who are faced with farm foreclosures. The Minister of Agriculture promised legislation before Christmas. The Minister of Finance had such legislation in his Budget. The Prime Minister himself mentioned it at the end of April and said that there would be legislation before the end of June. Can he now tell us what that legislation will be, and which Minister will be presenting it to the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we of course are working to pass what is probably the most exciting and best legislative package that has been passed by any Parliament-


John Edward Broadbent: In the history of mankind.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: - in the history of mankind. That legislation is a priority item and I hope I can count on the support of the Hon. Member in order to put the matter through quickly and expediently.



TIMING OF INTRODUCTION

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister then explain to the House why the legislation was not put before us prior to Christmas as promised by the Minister of Agriculture? Will we again miss the June deadline set by the Prime Minister himself?
Privilege-Mr. H. Gray


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the legislation is in the best form possible and has the widest consultation in order to make sure that all Members of the House who look at things objectively will pass it quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke for one question.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, on or about November 9 of last year, a Kitchener, Ontario, couple were assumed to have perished in Lake Huron six days after the initial search and rescue operation was called off. Because of pressure, the Minister ordered another five hours of search on November 6. Why did he ignore the many requests from the family, from the community, and from members of his own caucus to continue the search for a longer period of time?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I presume that question is directed to me. The Associate Minister of National Defence has been dealing with the details of that matter. If the Hon. Member would put his question when the Minister is back in the House on Tuesday, he would be delighted to respond in detail to him.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated to the Member that it would be for one question.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) raised a question of privilege on Wednesday on which, at his request, 1 indicated that I would rule today.
It is clear that no court or inquiry may "call into question statements made by Members of the House of Commons in Parliament" or "pass judgment on the proceedings of the House" or "infringe on the freedom of speech of the House".

May 16, 1986
Business of the House
The Hon. Member for Windsor West asks the Chair to find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege as evidenced by the intent expressed in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
It is also clear that it must be possible to investigate the substance of an allegation once made in the House, although the making of an allegation during a proceeding in the House is protected by absolute privilege.
As the Hon. Member for Windsor West himself recognized, it would be difficult for the Chair to determine whether the purpose of an inquiry was "to improperly examine statements made in Parliament" in advance of the inquiry being created.
The Hon. Member asks the Chair to find, rather, that an intention to create such an inquiry has been expressed and as such would of itself be either a breach or an attempt to intimidate Members.
A breach of privilege cannot be hypothetical-it must have occurred-and therefore the Chair could not find an expressed intention to be a breach unless it were of itself a threat.
As the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and others suggested, the Chair examined more than the one answer of the Acting Prime Minister. Taken together and as a contextual whole, I cannot find that the answers impinge upon the privilege of freedom of speech of Members of Parliament. While the Acting Prime Minister indicates his intention that the substance of accusations and allegations made against the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion be investigated, I can find no threat, real or implied, that any Members may be called to account for anything they have said in the House, nor can I find a prima facie case of an attempt to intimidate Members and restrict them in what they might say.
I cannot find, therefore, that the basis of a question of privilege has been established, and I am therefore unable to accord this matter precedence over other business.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook to address the question of the order of the business of the House for the first few days of next week, in any event.
There have been consultations among the House Leaders, and I am able to report that upon the return of the House after the long weekend we will consider second reading stage of Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands; followed by second reading stage of Bill C-109, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, SRTC; followed by second reading stage of Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
We will monitor the progress of these pieces of legislation. There are other items which I have discussed with the House Leaders that could be brought on for debate if we make progress on the Bills I have mentioned.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Government House Leader might take into account the fact that there is a large number of opposition days yet to be allocated and consider giving us some advance notice of when he will be calling those days.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am certainly aware of that. I think we all agree that one of the dilemmas in respect of this particular trimester is that we have an inordinate number of allotted days, 13 in all, to fit into an otherwise constrained timetable.
I have attempted to do my bit for democracy in the Opposition by giving five allotted days this week, and I will attempt to give as much notice as possible in respect of the other ones which will be brought forward on a timely basis.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the interest of democracy, I think it would be appreciated by those of us in the Opposition if in similar circumstances we might not have five consecutive days but rather have them interspersed throughout the period so that we might deal with matters as they are current.
The Minister will recall that I requested an opposition day for April 14, which we were unable to get. For the future, perhaps we could try to schedule them a little more evenly throughout the period.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I accept that representation. Unfortunately the proposition put forward presumes that the Opposition cannot find five important issues to debate in any particular week.


Ian Deans: It presumes that if we ask for one, it is important.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last year the Government House Leader gave us an agenda some time toward the end of May. We are now into that period of time, and I am just wondering whether he will give us an agenda of work for the 30-odd days which remain before the summer recess. Of course we will start extended hours on June 12. Could he make it known in the next few days so that we can plan accordingly?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that topic is the subject of discussion with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in House Leaders' meetings. The idea is that we all want to see what can be done in terms of the remaining days. I am trying to bring forth a reasonable list of priority items which we might address, and I think there is the prospect of making progress, to the credit of the Opposition as much as anyone.
May 16, 1986



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to the following eight petitions: Nos. 331-341 to 331-348 inclusive.



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the thirty-fifth report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PETITION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of people in Kamloops, British Columbia. They are very concerned about the recent decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration	(Miss	MacDonald)	that	would	see	workers'pension benefits being deducted from their unemployment insurance	benefits,	effectively	eliminating	the	benefit	to
workers of the pension package. They ask the Government to change its mind, to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That this House urges that the Government of Canada insist that the Government of the United States regard the fulfilment of responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as an obligation, rather than a concession, and further urges the Government of Canada to renegotiate the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to include toxic substance control programs to restore water quality in the Niagara, St. Clair and St. Lawrence Rivers for the benefit of millions of Canadians and Americans and that such negotiations should lead to the adoption of the zero discharge principle already embodied in Annex 12 of the Agreement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was in 1982, when Charles Ross, a former commissioner of the International Joint Commission, proposed in reference to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which had been renewed in 1978, a national process and conference modelled on the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. The committee consisted of scientists representing the National Research Council of the United States and the Royal Society of Canada. It endorsed this proposal for a conference on the Great Lakes which would focus attention upon the importance of the Great Lakes as a resource and upon the severity of the problems facing it.
Therefore, in December last year the joint committee of The Royal Society of Canada and the National Research Council of the United States recommended that the parties to the agreement, namely, Canada and the United States, hold a binational conference on the Great Lakes and that they establish a preparatory committee to develop a draft statement of principles and a draft action plan to be acted on formally at the conference to be held before the end of the present decade.
You may be wondering why I put this statement on the record, Mr. Speaker. The statement when it was produced last December was urging Parliament to take the recommendation into account very seriously, and is one of the reasons that I, on behalf of my Party, am putting forward this motion today. There is a need to renegotiate or at least review the agreement with the U.S. on the Great Lakes water quality.
In November, 1984, there was an interesting document produced by the Niagara River Toxic Committee in which Canadian members of the committee recommended that there be a toxic substances control plan for the Niagara River. This was the result of intensive studies. In addition to that, water quality objectives should be stated in the Great Lakes Water

May 16, 1986
Supply
Quality Agreement for toxic substances in the Niagara River. These two recommendations are in keeping with the supporting and detailed material attached as annexes to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but they are only annexes. Annex 1 specifies water quality objectives for certain toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, and Annex 12 refers to persistent toxic substances and mentions specifically:
The intent of programs specified in this Annex is to virtually eliminate the input of persistent toxic substances-
I will come back to this later when I will touch briefly on the concept of zero discharge.
The point here is that you have another group of scientists, in this case all Canadians, who pursue very firmly the necessity, and raise it in the public's mind, that we should have a toxic substances control plan for the Niagara River and that the objectives in water quality should be stated in the agreement.
Moving on again to another document, the 1985 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. In this we find some 21 recommendations. They all converge into one conclusion, at least they strike me as converging, on the necessity of definitely reviewing and where possible renegotiating certain aspects of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I will read only recommendation No. 1, which has been brought to the attention of the public by media. Subsequent reports make the 1985 report significant and valuable. Reading from page 9, recommendation No. 1 is as follows:
The Great Lakes jurisdictions explicitly recognize the effects of air emissions on water quality in general, and on Great Lakes water quality in particular, in the formulation of air quality statutes, regulations and standards.
This statement in a way is vindicating some of the statements and even a publication issued by Environment Canada under the title Storm Warnings which the Minister has decided not to circulate because he feels that he has, in his judgment, a better knowledge of what the public should read and should not read. I would like the Minister to read this specific recommendation and reflect on it in depth. He would probably then reverse his decision because this very same matter is raised in a report that predates the publication of that brochure entitled Storm Warnings.
Another reason for a review or renegotiation, depending upon which of the two would be more effective, is the very important and complex but indispensable question of compliance of the United States and Canadian regulatory system with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Nothing can be said that is adequate to stress the importance of this compliance, which is so essentia! for the working of the agreement. It is complex. It touches on several jurisdictions but it has to be done eight or nine years following the signing of the 1978 agreement. Therefore, the compliance aspect is extremely important. I would like to stress this in the strongest possible terms, even in the very short time available to me for the Government's consideration and action.
It is true that the November, 1984 cuts by the Government in toxicology research with the Guelph Centre and the
Canadian Wildlife Service do not make our position stronger. Surely an intimate knowledge of the agreement per se, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, would make a difference, I submit, in the pursuit of a good plan for Canada, for Ontario, for Quebec and for any other province that in the long term would benefit from and would support it.
In this respect I have to put some starch into the collar of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) because I have the impression that he has not done his homework.
I will read for the record, and for him, a passage or two from the agreement itself which was signed on November 22, 1978. In Article II the first Purpose reads as follows:
The discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated.
This is a principle signed by both parties in the agreement. 1 am sure that the Minister takes seriously the Canadian commitment to that agreement and that he will hold the Americans bound. Yet in statements that he makes inside and outside of the House he conveys that somehow we should be grateful to the American jurisdiction, namely, EPA, for its even taking into consideration that something better be done in this area. It is as if it were a great favour due to us because of our smiles and statements of servile obedience to the dictator that perhaps have been given to the Minister by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), meaning that we must be nice at all costs. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The Minister must understand that there is an agreement which both nations have signed. Canada takes its commitment seriously and the Minister has the duty to ensure that the other party to the agreement also takes its commitment seriously.
There are other specific objectives contained in this agreement. I will briefly touch upon Article IV which says:
The Specific Objectives adopted pursuant to this Article represent the minimum levels of water quality desired in the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System and are not intended to preclude the establishment of more stringent requirements.
The Minister would do well to do his homework and become intimately acquainted with the wording and clauses contained in this agreement. If he does not do his homework, he cannot speak effectively for Canada. In the last week he has performed in a shaky manner. He has produced a shaky press release which I must bring to your attention.
In the third paragraph on page 1 reference is made to the understanding which has been agreed upon by the administrator of the EPA and the Minister of the Environment. It says that they, namely, the Minister and the administrator, suggested-note the word "suggested"-that a 50 per cent reduction of certain-note the word "certain"-toxic chemicals, taking into account applicable water quality and drinking water standards may be achievable-note "may be achievable"-by 1995 or sooner. We have the words "suggested", "certain", and "may be". What does this kind of press
May 16, 1986

release achieve when the plan has not been announced and the wording of the statement is so vague? I urge the Minister to make that plan public and end the secrecy surrounding it.
There are other passages in the press release which really defeat the logic of any objective reader, but time does not permit me to put them on the record. When there is a suggestion of a 50 per cent reduction, when toxic chemicals are referred to as "certain toxic chemicals", and when it says that the target date "may be achievable by 1995 or sooner", it is not very convincing. This accounts for the reaction of groups which have already commented in very critical terms about the announcement made in Washington.
This leads me to the performance of the Minister as a negotiator. Quite frankly, I could not believe my eyes when I read in The Toronto Star of May 13 that the Minister had castigated the provincial Ministry of the Environment of Ontario for trying to scuttle a proposed clean-up agreement with the U.S. by demanding what he termed "unrealistically high standards". I do not know on what basis the Minister of the Environment for Canada can describe as unrealistic the standards set by his colleague from the Province of Ontario who shares with him the political responsibility for what happens through an agreement which is being worked out. If the Minister feels that certain standards are unrealistic, he should be forthcoming and explain why, rather than going public with what he is quoted as calling a "perception". In that article the Minister is also quoted as saying:
I'm prepared to be disabused of that perception.
Have you ever seen a better example of double talk? On the eve of a meeting in Washington with his U.S. counterpart the Minister of the Environment for Canada says that the Ontario Minister of the Environment is setting unrealistic standards and, in the same breath, he is indicating his willingness to be disabused of that perception on that eve of the meeting in Washington with his U.S. counterpart. Who in his right mind as a negotiator for Canada would, on the eve of a meeting with the representative of the other party to the agreement, go public on a disagreement among Canadians? That is unacceptable.
The Minister owes the House an explanation for that kind of silly, irresponsible and incompetent performance. If there was a disagreement between him and the Minister of the Environment for Ontario he should have worked it out in private. He should never have gone public with it. He made it public knowledge that the Government of Canada is in disagreement with the position of the Government of Ontario. If you were the negotiator on the other side of the table, Mr. Speaker, you would focus on and push for the lesser of the two positions. This is why we are gradually moving toward the adoption of a second-class plan. That is not fair, it is not right, and it is not in the interests of Canada.
When speaking for Canada the Minister of the Environment should put forth the unanimity of the views of the provincial Ministers of the Environment. That is the least he can do. If there is a disagreement, he should keep it to himself. A
Supply
difference of opinion is something for Canada to resolve internally. It should not be proclaimed publicly here and in Washington to the benefit of the negotiating team on the other side of the table. I was profoundly disappointed by the Minister's action. I do not see how he can function effectively in this kind of an environment.
I am also disturbed by my impression that the Minister has not done his homework and does not understand that both Canada and the U.S. made an undertaking in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The U.S. is not doing us a favour by abiding by the content of this agreement. The Minister of the Environment does not yet seem to have understood this. This is a binding commitment. Certain parts of this agreement now seem to be in need of review and renegotiation as urged upon us by the Royal Society of Canada, the National Research Council of the U.S., and other reputable and substantial bodies in North America.
I am sure the Minister will get up and say that this is the first agreement, and the first time, and use other such wording which he has expressed in Question Period. The Minister is building on work which was done before he came on the scene. The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement provided a building block. The study produced in November of 1984 by the Niagara River Toxic Committee is another building block. The study by the Royal Society and its counterpart in the U.S. is another building block. This is a gradual process. Now the Minister is in the driver's seat and he has to deliver. He must remember that his predecessor, in May of last year in this House, made a pretty strong statement promising some programs between Canada and the EPA on toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes.
1 will conclude by saying we have moved this motion, and it is the second motion in 1986 on this crucial matter, because we can see that the well being of the economy and the health of Canadians of this and future generations are at stake here. This is a generational issue.
In the eight months since the Minister has been appointed he has not made one statement on his own initiative on this important matter unless prodded by us. Finally, Canadians at large, from Montreal to the west, are very nervous about this issue. I hope in his speech the Minister will reassure us that he understands the importance of being the negotiator for Canada, keeping the ranks together on the Canadian side, rather than giving away a bargaining position, and second, that he understands fully the power and the strength that he can derive from the proper, correct and decent interpretation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions which have to do with information. During the Member's comments he was discussing what has happened historically. He left out some of the important factors and accomplishments he was not able to achieve in his time as Minister of the Environment. Most of what he is talking about has to do with information.

May 16, 1986
Supply
I would like to make two points on the informational aspect. 1 would like to know if he understands that this plan, the negotiation that has occurred between Canada and the United States, which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) in Canada has related by way of communique, has committed us, both the Americans and Canada, to providing the necessary information that is not available to Ontario, not available to the United States, but which is necessary to establish the loadings, targets and the timetables to reach the objectives we have committed ourselves to of 50 per cent. That is the first point.
Second, since he is familiar with events happening in Ontario and at the Ontario Government level, I wonder if he could tell us whether he will use his position as Member of Parliament for Davenport to reach an agreement to actually clean things up? Will he use his good office and his contacts with the Minister of the Environment of Ontario to see if he will release the necessary information to the Americans? The information is necessary for us, in co-operation with them, to clean up the St. Clair River.


Mr. Caccia:: I find both questions extremely naive, to say the least. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary realizes who is in Government. He is in Government and his Minister is in Government. I get my information from clippings in The Star. If the clipping is incorrect the Parliamentary Secretary has the time to correct the substance of the clipping.
I do not mind at all. To expect me to operate as a mediator on his behalf, or on his Minister's behalf, or to obtain information for him is naive, I am not any more familiar than he is with what happens in Ontario. That is not the point. The point is that his Party is in Government. His Party has the responsibility to deliver. His Party, through the former Minister of the Environment in May, 1985, made a very strong statement at that time. I was happy to hear that because it showed that the predecessor to the present Minister was very keen to work out with Washington in May, 1985, a strong agreement. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary remembers that.
Here we are a year later reinventing the wheel, talking about technical documentation, something that I thought was agreed upon a year ago, or that perhaps emerged last October when the head of EPA came to Ottawa. We have been kept completely in the dark. We do not know the contents of that particular plan, which I understand has been made public south of the border.
We can only go by what we know; a statement in May of 1985, a visit to Ottawa in October of 1985, then questioning the Minister in March, 1986, his commitment to excavation and destruction, and that is all.
If he sees in me the capacity of an alternate Government to obtain documentation and to negotiate on his behalf, I thank him for the high esteem that he has for me, but I am afraid he is overestimating my powers.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to do for the Member of Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is give him solid, clear
information so that he might function from the same reasonable and accurate base that we are functioning from here. The necessary technical data for how much toxic material is going into the Niagara River and how much is totally going out is, indeed, part of the plan. We have a very rigid, close time frame in order to accomplish those determinations. What I am doing is telling the Member from Davenport that that is precisely a part of the plan. It is a very specific part of the plan and it is information that is not theirs.
I am also telling him that part of the reason it has been so difficult during this period of time, and part of the reason it has been so difficult from October until now in order for the Minister of the Environment in Canada to take the necessary leadership that he has taken now in coming to an agreement, is that if on the Ontario Government-and clearly he has political liaisons there and I think no one would argue that, himself included-the Minister of the Environment in Ontario wants to be even-handed and co-operate, as is necessary to clean up the problem, he is going to have to be open with all of us and provide the necessary information that is available only to him so we can get the job done. I am really giving him two pieces of information. I am letting him know that we, for our part, and the Minister of the Environment in all of his actions, have encouraged the co-operation of Ontario and look forward to their co-operation in any way possible in order to achieve a successful conclusion.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary seems unaware of the fact that the data on what goes into the river is already contained in a detailed study by the Niagara River Toxics Committee of October, 1984. It is a thick volume with detailed charts, containing all the emissions, industry by industry. It is right there. The data is coming out of our ears, as far as that is concerned. He can find it on pages 10 to 15 of the summary of that report, namely, the Niagara River Toxics Committee report of October, 1984.
As to the leadership of the Minister of the Environment, this is where I have difficulty in understanding what he means when leadership entails going public on a disagreement among Canadian Ministers of the Environment. What kind of leadership is that, I ask him? Does he consider that leadership?
Second, does he consider it leadership to go around, as the Minister does, trying to create the impression that in Washington they are doing us an enormous service, favour almost, by doing whatever he implies in this press release, rather than having the strength given to him by virtue of an international agreement. That is where the leadership would be. It is not this subservient attitude by which we thank Washington for paying attention to Canadians when there are so many problems with the environment in the United States. There is an agreement, with a very clearly defined set of principles. That is the basis on which the Minister of the Environment should be working, rather than creating the impression with the Press Gallery, as he did yesterday, that we should be grateful.
May 16, 1986


Mr. McMillan:: What accord did you get from the Americans?


Charles L. Caccia: As we did with acid rain, we laid out the foundation on which the Government could move. We did the preliminary work. There was an agreement with the provinces with respect to acid rain. There was an international agreement as well as a study by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to assign a certain amount of money for the modernization of non-ferrous matters and so on. The basis is there. The world did not begin in September, 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, while 1 do not want in any way to play down the importance of the pollution problems in other parts of the country, I want to spend most of the few moments I have in this debate speaking about the affects of pollution on Lake Ontario. I believe this particular area deserves at least one or two days of consideration, but I will attempt to deal with it in the 20 minutes that I have.
I suggest that we fail to grasp the significance of the problem if we do not consider it an act of criminal proportions when industries pour their killer pollutants into our drinking water. I realize that it is a difficult question and I appreciate that some would rather describe its significance in more muted terms. However, the facts are clear that for many years industries and municipalities, particularly those along the Niagara River, have been aware of the degree to which they were detrimentally affecting the future water quality of Lake Ontario as a result of much of what they dispose finding its way into the waterways of Canada.
What if such action were taken privately? For example, let us assume the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) lived outside the city and had some pollutants left over from a job which he undertook. If he could not find a satisfactory way to dispose of them and decided to pour them down his neighbour's well, he would be taken to court and put in jail for such a criminal act. In my opinion, that is a situation that is paralleled by what is happening to our drinking water in Canada as a result of what is being allowed to take place within the United States.
1 see the Parliamentary Secretary screwing up his nose. The facts are clear that for many years the U.S. administration, as well as the Canadian administration, has been well aware of the implications from pollutants being disposed of either through toxic waste dumps or directly into the Niagara River.
Governments have pussy-footed for so long in trying to deal with this matter that the clean-up operations will now become the responsibility of the public purse when it ought to have been the responsibility of the corporate sector. The cost of meeting that responsibility will be immense.
Supply
I make that statement with some anger because I recall that when I spoke about the same kind of problems 18 years ago we received the same basic answers. We were told that further discussion must take place, that through the negotiation process we will find a way to solve the problems, that there will be certain progress forthcoming and that they would implement the proper technology if only it existed.
The Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will recall a meeting in Stouffville, north of Toronto, that was held in the early 1970s. It was a public meeting held in a school gymnasium with at least 1,500 people in attendance. We were attempting to discuss whether it would be appropriate for liquid industrial waste to be poured into a deep well and pressurized into the ground.
It sounded like a simple process until one began to consider the consequences. Much of the water that serves the northern part of Metropolitan Toronto is drawn from that area. The faults that exist within the rock formations of that part of Ontario are such that any pressure would allow those pollutants to be forced through the ground into the water table. As that debate raged, there were those who actually thought there was no danger because such seepage would take so long that the pollutants would be cleaned up by virtue of passing through the soil. It was suggested that those who held that opinion could put the pollutants in their backyards. In other words, let those who produce the pollutants get rid of them. Perhaps industry would be more concerned and conciliatory in dealing with these problems if they had the responsibility of disposing of these pollutants as well as finding new and innovative uses for them in the manufacturing process.
That argument has been made as a possible solution to the matter. The only problem is that when given the responsibility of disposing of these pollutants, they were put in steel barrels, trucked out to the country and dumped in farmers' fields or along the road. That showed the degree of commitment and concern for the environment by those who were supposed to be trying to protect it.
I repeat that I believe such acts are of criminal proportion. I believe a number of people would share this view, perhaps to a lesser degree. Companies along the Niagara River, primarily but not entirely within the United States, are putting their killer pollutants in our drinking water. This will continue to happen for many years to come, notwithstanding the Minister's latest sojourn into Washington.
My attitude toward this problem is that the pollutants in those dump sites which have been identified should have been and must be dug up and disposed of in an area far removed from the waterways. I say that the Minister used to hold that attitude as well. If we cannot dispose of industrial waste, we must find new and more innovative ways of holding it until adequate disposal can be determined. This can only be done in areas far removed from the major waterways and major sources of drinking water.

May 16, 1986
Supply
I seem to recall that the Minister was an advocate of that very method, which was to dig it up, take it away and put it into containment areas until such time as technoloy catches up. We will then be able to dispose of it satisfactorially, neutralize it or do whatever one must do with it. That was the position of the Minister. Unfortunately, it no longer seems to be the position which we are advancing in the discussions. It is certainly not the position 1 hear coming across.
If I am not mistaken we now hear Mr. Thomas and the U.S. administration suggesting that they have come up with a new way. We will all get straws and suck it up. At least, that seems to be what they are proposing. The suggestion seems to be that somehow over the next 20 years we will find a magic, innovative way, yet to be discovered, to suck this stuff out of the ground. And to do what with it? I am not absolutely sure. However, it is a wonderful suggestion. How long will it take? It appears that the process which Mr. Thomas has yet to bring forward as a workable and practical means of dealing with the problem will take many, many years. In fact, it has been suggested that it will take a period of between 30 and 50 years before all of these pollutants can finally be gotten out of the- God knows how many perhaps 80

dump sites, large and small, which exist along the U.S. side of the Niagara River. In the meantime we must hope that it does not keep leaking. That seems to be the answer. However, if it leaks in the meantime we will just have to hope that no one takes sick as a result of it.
I think people across the country have to understand that what we are talking about is a river which contributes 83 per cent of the tributary flow into Lake Ontario. In fact, the river itself almost totally determines the environmental health of Lake Ontario, which is a source of drinking water for nearly four million Canadians.


Charles L. Caccia: And nearly one million Americans.


Ian Deans: We are not talking about the drinking water from some tiny lake which if closed off for human consumption purposes as a result of its waters being unfit for drinking could be replaced with some other source. Since the early part of the 1970s we have seen the detection of a wide variety-and I could list them-of chemicals, some in low and some in much larger concentrations, flowing into this river and subsequently into Lake Ontario.
While I was mentioning the four million Canadians who drink this water and who rely upon it as their sole source of drinking water, the Hon. Member for Davenport said that there are an additional 1.5 million people, I believe, who use Lake Ontario as their primary source of drinking water. The Niagara River problem and the pollution in it is one which has been with us, I suspect, for as long as the river has been there. However, the detection of major problems started back in about the late part of the 1940s-if I recall correctly it was in 1948-when the International Joint Commission issued a report on the sewage, bacteria, chloride, phenyl and other substances which existed in the river and, therefore, within the
lake. From 1948 to date there has been report after report showing the deterioration of the lake, the deterioration of the fish, and the deterioration in the quality of all aspects of that body of water.
In 1974 the Department of the Environment reported widespread contamination in terms of mirex and PCBs in fish, in gulls and in gull eggs as determined by the Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program, in Lake Ontario. In 1976 the Great Lakes Water Quality Board compiled a list of over 400 chemicals, some of them natural and some of them manmade-chemicals nonetheless-which were in the water, sediment and fish in the Niagara River.
In 1978 the same IJC, the same water quality board, reported 38 new toxic chemicals found in the Great Lakes environment, again including dioxin in fish. In 1980 the Canada-Ontario Review Board of the Niagara River Environmental Baseline Report reported high levels of toxic chemicals in the lower portions of the Niagara River, the part leading into Lake Ontario, and when compared to what was found at the opposite end, the in-flow from Lake Erie, in 1980, there was a report of elevated dioxin levels.
In 1981 there was a special report on pollution in the Niagara River and then there was the creation of the Canada-U.S. Niagara River Toxics Committee. I think at that point a great many of us breathed, if not a sigh of relief then at least a sigh of hope. It appeared that after numerous reports going all the way back to 1948 we had a group which was committed to doing something.
In 1983 the Canada-U.S. Water Quality Board reported that there were decreasing concentration trends for certain of the chemicals. I would say that was as a result of the vigilance of environmentalists; the Government of Ontario and the federal Government of the day had begun to identify the outflows which were occurring, where they were and what was causing them. I also pay recognition to the efforts being made as the result of certain of the manufacturers beginning to recognize their responsibilities. People were beginning to show some conscience with regard to the effect that that was having, and little by little we now start to back the problem up. However, I am afraid it is not being done quickly enough. Then, the Niagara River Toxics Committee released its report in 1984, something which my colleague who spoke before me dealt with.
I do not think there is any doubt as to what the problem is. The Niagara River continues to be a cesspool. It continues to feed into Lake Ontario. There are many along that river who do not give one hoot about what they are doing to the quality of the drinking water because they do not have to drink it. There are others who pay lip service to their concerns without being prepared to take the type of appropriate action. I wish to say to the Minister that among those is the administration within the U.S. itself which, for years, has fought tooth and nail against committing substantial sums of money to the clean-up. This is something the Minister knows. I am not telling him something he does not know. The former Minister
May 16, 1986

is also well aware of the fact that the administration in the U.S. backed away when faced with the problem of having to extract from their corporate taxpayers the moneys necessary to effect the clean-up which they themselves required as a result of their own actions.


Charles L. Caccia: Yet they find the money to build nuclear submarines.


Ian Deans: Yes, that is right, they find the money to build nuclear submarines. The priorities are really a bit of a puzzle to people such as myself, and I am sure to many others.
This debate gives us an opportunity to put into perspective what we are seeing. It is not a new debate. It is a debate about a problem which has been with us probably since the beginning of the building up of the banks of that particular river and Lake Ontario. However, this problem has reached the point where, unless there is an emergency attack upon it, and unless it happens now and not in 1995, the effect of allowing it to continue will be one of disaster. The timing required to clean up the great lake of Ontario, will be such as to make it virtually impossible for people to continue to draw their drinking water from it into the year 2000. There is more which needs to be done.
I have a couple of minutes left and I will finish my remarks when we resume at 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I understand 1 have only a couple of minutes left. I want to end where I started.
It is indeed an act of criminal proportions to pour into the Niagara River the industrial waste that is going into that river and it can only be treated as such. If we understand them correctly, we consider the proposals made by Mr. Thomas, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to be in the main inadequate. In certain areas, they are a step in the right direction.
We agree that plans to pre-treat municipal industrial discharges of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River and plans to more strictly control and monitor companies discharging industrial waste into the same river are a step forward. The plans to determine whether or not cleanups are required at approximately 60 lesser known toxic waste dumps along or near the river are a step forward. However, when discussing specific proposals to clean up the largest and most dangerous
Supply
dump sites along the Niagara River including the Love Canal, Hyde Park, 102nd Street and the S-Site, Thomas apparently made it clear that EPA action does not envisage the actual digging up of the deadly toxins. These toxins are slowly seeping into the drinking water of almost six million people, four million of whom are Canadians. Instead, he is going to suck these up with some magic process he has not yet developed. The cleanup proposal outlined by Mr. Thomas is completely unacceptable.
I would call upon the Minister to make Mr. Thomas aware that the House of Commons, and I think I speak for most Hon. Members, will not accept anything less than an immediate start with adequate funds on the cleaning up of the mess that was created as a result of years of inactivity and negligence. If that cleanup is not undertaken, then we must find alternative ways of solving this extremely dangerous problem that has been allowed to develop over a number of years, notwithstanding the fact that information relative to the problem of the killing of Lake Ontario by Niagara River pollutants has been availble. Unless that problem is resolved, we will not be able, when the time comes, to clean up that water sufficiently to find it suitable for human consumption.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) relates to industries, and particularly those in the Hamilton area. I think the Hon. Member might be able to offer some comment on this.
The Hon. Member spent a fair amount of time during the part of his speech I heard talking about the industries and their disposal practices and techniques. He mentioned that industry was a major if not the major contributor to the problem with which we are faced regarding toxins in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes Basin in general. I think members of the NDP often have difficulty removing the stereotype from industries. I think there is a valid point to be made here. Are all industries the same?
When the Hon. Member refers to industry, does he mean every industry? I think there are many examples of industries which in fact exceed the guidelines established and limits imposed through regulation or other means. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain would care to reflect a little on whether or not industry is the only cause of the problem. I think it is at least fair to recognize the efforts that have been made by some industries which have had some success, and on the other hand to identify and do something about those industries which have not responded in that way?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I take that question to be a serious one. Of course in part the answer is that not all industries are the same. It would be a little foolish for me to leave the impression that I believed that; I certainly do not. Certain industries have made an effort and have been assisted in the making of that effort by public funds. However, there are industries operating in Hamilton-and my colleague just

May 16, 1986
Supply
provided me with industries operating on the United States side of the Niagara River-which have been identified. The major pollutants in the Niagara River, the area upon which I concentrated primarily, have been clearly identified.
The most significant point sources of priority pollutants of the Environmental Protection Agency are the following: Buffalo Sewer Authority; Niagara Falls, New York Waste Authority; Bethlehem Steel; Niagara Mohawk Power; Atlas Steels, Ontario; Olin Corporation; Spaulding Fibre; the Town of Tonawanda, New York; the Town of Amherst, New York; and Donner-Hanna Coke, New York. In the area about which I am speaking, the primary producers of pollutants are almost entirely on the U.S. side.
If we are to have this matter cleared up, we have to treat it as a criminal matter. It is not an offence against the social fabric of society; it is a criminal matter. If people know that what they are putting into the rivers and lakes of the country is likely to make it impossible for that water to be used by plant, human or marine life, then they are committing an offence of a criminal nature. Having had it pointed out, there can be no acceptable explanation or excuse for continuing it. It is that simple.
Once it is pointed out to a company, a town or a city that it is polluting to the point where the water quality is being destroyed in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to recover from it, and peoples' lives are being placed in danger as a result, it has to be treated as a criminal matter. If that company, town or city continues to do it, it must face criminal charges. I speak for myself in that regard. That is my opinion of it, that is how I feel about it, and that is how strongly I take the position.
I do not think that slapping a weak fine on someone will make any difference, and begging them to change their wicked ways will not solve the problem. Therefore, 1 say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I recognize certain industries and municipalities are worse offenders than others. They should be told to stop now and, if they continue, that their principals will go to jail if found guilty. If they have no other way to remove the pollutant, they have either to decide not to use the product any longer or to find an appropriate way to store it until some satisfactory method is found to treat it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the forthrightness of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in treating my first question in a serious manner, as it was a serious question. My second question is also a serious one and relates to available technology. I will not give my comments in the form of a long preamble, but I wonder whether the Hon. Member would describe his impression of available technologies. In his mind, what are the differences between extraction and the present proposal of the United States, which is being monitored in a way that will prove whether or not there is effectiveness and what has to be done?
It would be helpful for those of us on this side of the House to understand his sense of the situation. I would not necessarily
blame him if in my opinion it was not accurate, but I would like to know what he thinks about extraction versus the proposal which he described as a straw, a proposal which really has a lot more to do with leachates than the simple sucking about which he spoke.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me put it into context. I am speaking about the proven method of extraction; going in, digging it out, and removing it from the areas of greatest environmental concern. That can be done in a relatively short period of time. It will require a considerable amount of time, effort, and work to do it. I accept that. However, if we accept a method which has yet to be proven or yet to be developed satisfactorily, it will take 30 years to 50 years, by Mr. Thomas' own admission, to achieve the result he anticipates could be achieved if it works.
My view is that we do not have 30 years to 50 years to wait for the clean-up which must take place. I well appreciate that the leaching operation, during the period about which we are talking, from an excavation point of view will be difficult to contain; of course it will. However, it will be more difficult or equally difficult to contain it in the other operation, and it will go on for much longer in the other operation if it takes some 30 years to 50 years to solve it.
In terms of existing dumps, it is my opinion that the excavation method is the only method which can be proven to work right now and can be proceeded with immediately. This must be kept in mind.
With regard to the future, I have held for years that no one should be allowed to introduce a new method of manufacturing which requires some form of disposal of industrial waste without producing concurrently the method to be used to dispose of the waste. If one wants to produce a new coolant, lubricant, or a new liquid into a process-it does not have to be a liquid, but that has been the major problem-one must produce at the same time the way one intends to deal with what is left over after it has been used. I believe that would go a long way toward solving the future problem. As far as the problem we have right now, I just cannot wait for Mr. Thomas to work it all out.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if I were to clean up the Niagara River with the help of Hon. Members of the House and the Canadian people, my first suggestion would be to start right here in the House of Commons by clearing the air and by introducing Hon. Members opposite to a much needed dose of realism. The issue of toxic clean-up is too complex and the consequences too serious to allow for naivete, much less for grandstanding and for playing to the galleries-especially to the Press Gallery.
Let us deal in facts. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed in 1972 and was revised in 1978. It covers all boundary waters, including the Niagara River, which lie within the Great Lakes system from Duluth, Minnesota, to Cornwall, Ontario.
May 16, 1986

We know that there are more than 800 toxic chemicals present in the Great Lakes waterway alone; what we do not know, as I have pointed out in the House and elsewhere, is what affect most of those chemicals have upon the environment, including upon human health. However, we do know enough to be alarmed and to act.
Although my hon. friend's motion does not mention the fact, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is one of the great success stories of North American environmentalism. The facts tell us why: the total phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie- and I use it only as an example-once listed as "dead", have been reduced by almost half. The rotting algae that made it largely unusable have virtually disappeared. Restrictions in the use and disposal of organochlorine in the Great Lakes basin was a major factor in the ten-fold decrease in the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, one of the most deadly forms of dioxin in herring gull eggs in Lake Ontario between 1960 and 1980. In 1983, the mean annual concentration of DDE, DDT, HCB, mirex and total PCBs from two herring gull colonies on the Lake were lower than at any time since monitoring began in 1974. The decreases range from 55 per cent to 98 per cent.
Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, our ability to clean up the havoc we have created in the Great Lakes has been outstripped by our skill at dumping more junk into them. We have to go beyond the present agreement to address the current problems in the Great Lakes and to prepare ourselves for the future. That is why it is fortunate that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is up for renewal this very year. It, along with the International Joint Commission, has been a very effective instrument for co-operative action by Canada and the United States.
We must recognize though that the situation in the Great Lakes waterway has a different meaning for Americans than it does for Canadians. Ironically, although the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes provide drinking water for about 20 million Americans in all and about nine million Canadians-and here I am treating the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence system as one because they should be viewed as such-only 8 per cent of Americans derive drinking water from that system compared to one-third of all Canadians. When there is a problem in the Lakes, as there is, it constitutes merely a local or a regional concern to Americans and their federal Government, albeit a serious one.
In Canada, by contrast, the situation is a major national issue by virtue of the proportion of the total population affected by the pollution. For example, while we are appalled at the leakage of toxic waste dump sites along the Niagara River, Love Canal, 102nd Street, S-Site, Hyde Park and so on, Lee Thomas, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has to deal with similar problems all over the United States, not just along the Niagara River.


Charles L. Caccia: They are not covered in the agreement.
Supply


Thomas Michael McMillan: In that sense, his deep concern, and I don't doubt it, must be spread among more sites than is the case in Canada, where the effects of "hot spots" are concentrated largely in one part of the country. That is why, in discussing a new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canadians and Americans approach the bargaining table with different perspectives and a different sense of urgency, not because, I stress, Canadians are somehow purer and more environmentally sensitive than Americans, but, rather, because American problems are more widespread in a more populated, more evenly industrialized country. It would be well to remember that essential fact before we start sanctimoniously lecturing the United States on the conduct of its environmental affairs in particular cases, because our record as Canadians is pretty checkered too.
Ninety per cent of all the toxins that offend the Niagara River originate in the United States. Only 10 per cent do so in Canada. Partly as a result of the work done by previous Canadian Governments and previous Ministers, among whom I include the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and perhaps partly out of personal interest, Lee Thomas has become particularly determined to find a solution to the Niagara. Given that the United States has, unlike Canada, numerous Niagara type environmental dump site time bombs ticking away in all parts of the country, Mr. Thomas' focus on the Niagara per se should be welcomed by all Canadians.
This week, he and I discussed the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, a four party framework that will coordinate the individual action plans of the U.S. and Canadian governments, New York State and the Province of Ontario. The Management Plan is designed to define clean-up action and to schedule substantial reductions in toxic chemical loadings to the river.
Let me make two points, Mr. Speaker, about the plan. First, the largest share of the work is obviously going to be carried out by the Americans since the problem is overwhelmingly American in origin. Second, the American component of the plan, as originally presented to me by Lee Thomas, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in Ottawa on October 17, 1985, did not meet our expectations or objectives, and I told him that.
Since then, after extensive meetings among officials and scientists of all four jurisdictions, after many direct personal representations by myself to Lee Thomas, to his agency and, through his agency, to the Government of the United States, significant improvements have been made to the original plan. In other words, the United States has been steadily more accommodating and co-operative in dealing with the problems of the Niagara River with each passing week in the last year. That is a fact. Although we are not being given, and I would not accept, empty gestures devoid of any real chance of progress, it would be unrealistic to act-certainly it would be ludicrous in the extreme if I, as Minister, were to act as though I could dictate the terms of the U.S. Government's own action plan for this purpose, however much I would like to do so.

May 16, 1986
Supply
Americans, I think, and I say this as a grandson of an American, are basically rational human beings, however irrationally they might perform on the world stage from time to time. If you want to sway them, you have to be able to present a strong case and Canada certainly has a strong scientific and factual case to present. Americans will not accept, and Canada does not need, attempts at persuasion that are grounded in ill manners, shrill sermonizing and in taking cheap shots.
Canada and the United States have been negotiating on transboundary water related issues for nearly 80 years, twice as long as I have been living on the face of this earth. Much progress has been made in those eight decades, but never before in the history of our two countries, until this week, have we achieved an agreement on a major reduction in toxic loadings in any Canada-U.S. waterway, let alone in the Niagara River. Yet the problem is long term and the solution will remain the same, despite our current progress.
At this point we have an agreement, an accord, an understanding, an entente, a meeting of minds, if you will-deficient in some ways, imperfect as human instruments frequently are, and certainly not what I would have preferred in an ideal world. But the agreement is a very good start toward solving a problem that has bedevilled Canadians for more than half a century.
Americans and Canadians are now committed to establishing specific goals to cut toxic loadings substantially. Our immediate target for our two countries is a 50 per cent reduction by 1995 or sooner. I stress "sooner". It will be very clear by July, 1987, whether we can both advance that timetable and increase the reductions. At that time, high level scientific discussions will make it possible to refine targets and dates. I stress that the plan addresses all of the toxic subtance problems in the Niagara, including municipal and industrial point source contamination, dumpsite leakage and run-off.
Canada would certainly prefer to deal with the dump site problem by excavating. As the Hon. House Leader of the NDP (Mr. Deans) pointed out, that is a preferred option. I am talking about completely removing toxins, sediment, debris, embankments and all other contaminated materials to be found on both sides of the Niagara River, especially on the American side. If the Americans were to excavate only the worst sites in and around the Niagara frontier, they would have to deal with an area of several hundred acres. The size of all of the dumpsites in the Niagara area is equivalent to the Province of Prince Edward Island, from which I come. We are talking about a lot of space, a lot of toxins, a lot of sediments, a lot of debris, and a lot of embankments to be excavated. Once the material was dug up, it would either have to be removed to a safer place, if such could be found, or destroyed completely.
There are three considerations to take into account consistent with the preferred excavation model, three major
technological obstacles weigh heavily on American officials and scientists in that connection.
First, as Canada's Pollution Probe has noted, based on work on excavation it has been doing on contract for Environment Canada, digging up the dumps is highly risky because the buried chemicals are, by definition, extremely volatile and emit dangerous fumes that could injure workers and area residents.
Second, even if the millions of tonnes of excavated material could be handled safely, which is a big assumption, the political problems, in the best sense of the word "political", aside from the scientific and technological problems, present enormous obstacles to the completion of the option we prefer. The problems of relocating the amount of toxic materials with which the toxic chemicals have come in contact with over the years are horrendous. Canada is not the only country in the world afflicted by the NIMBY, "not in my backyard", syndrome. The Americans have a real problem, given their uniform population, finding any community in which to locate the substances until such time as they can be incinerated safely.
Third, if the material were to be incinerated instead of relocated, the Sheer volume of material to be destroyed presents technical problems, as well as genuine threats to human health and the natural environment. I am now talking about incineration rather than relocation or the process of excavating. Indeed, massive incineration, which would be involved, given the sheer volume of the chemical substances at stake, would produce pollution often as bad as, if not worse than, the substances being burned, including cancer-causing dioxins.
As a result of the technological and scientific considerations, the Americans favour extracting the toxins and destroying them on site. There is a problem of semantics. People tend to use "extraction" and "excavation" as though they were synonomous when they are, in fact, two different processes. Rather than excavating the sites themselves, extraction involves treating the sites and handling them in such a way so that they become virtually hermetically sealed units from which the toxins could be extracted. Mr. Thomas acknowledges, however, that excavation might well need to be applied at certain sites and that extraction would be used only where it was more effective than excavation in dealing with wastes that had seeped into surrounding bedrock.
To guide both countries in choosing the safest and most effective method for each dumpsite, whether using extraction or excavation, Mr. Thomas and I agreed to mobilize the best scientific minds in both countries for a major international working conference to be held over many days, even weeks if necessary, probably in Toronto, in the fall.
1 emphasize again that the plan to which I am referring is not the one which, in isolation, other things being equal, the Government of Canada itself would have devised if it were putting together a program for the Americans. However, it reflects a major impact by Canada on the American approach
May 16, 1986

to this highly complex and difficult environmental problem. That impact would have been denied us if we, and I in particular, had mounted a campaign in the United States or in Canada of empty rhetoric of the kind, if 1 may say so with all due respect to him, too often characteristic of the mover of today's motion.
It is ironic that the Member for Davenport accuses me of returning from Washington with a second-rate plan mended together for public relation purposes. 1 will set aside for the moment the question of how many arrangements, let alone first-class ones, he was able to make when he was Minister of the Environment for longer than I have been to date.


Charles L. Caccia: We laid the groundwork for you to do this.


Thomas Michael McMillan: If I was truly interested in playing to the grandstands, as the Hon. Member for Davenport has been saying, I would have chosen the route he frequently prefers: shrill rhetoric disguised as policy, inflexibility masquerading as philosophy, and rudeness defended as resolve. It is easy to cast oneself as a hero prepared to settle for nothing less than the perfect plan. According to that kind of environmental theology, it is preferable to let the rivers spoil with toxins until perfection can be achieved in some ideal world than to act now to deal with the problem in the real world. In my view, the goal of perfection is a prescription for procrastination. Some people would prefer a plan that will never be agreed upon by anyone but themselves to one that, whatever its imperfections, helps us get on with the job. That is not my approach, Sir.
In conclusion, while some people waste their time figuring out how many environmental angels can dance on the head of a pin, my Department and I are busy making the environment better, not for angels but for Canadians, their children, and generations of Canadians yet unborn. We recognize that the management plan is not the end of the road. In a sense it is, instead, the beginning of it, in that we have a long way to go before anyone will feel safe bathing in the Niagara River let alone drinking directly from it. Our goal is nothing less, as, 1 believe, is the goal of the Opposition, than the restoration of what was once the mighty Niagara, a symbol of our shared continent and of a commitment to real work, real solutions, and real progress in the real world. I think that what happened in Washington this week was, by any standards, an important step along that road.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, why is the original plan which was produced in October of last year still unknown? The public and the Opposition could at least measure progress against that plan in order to know what the significant improvements are.
Secondly, why is the present plan that he and the EPA administrator discussed still unknown? Thirdly, why did he choose to make public his difference of opinion with his colleague in Ontario? I asked him this question in my speech and I think he owes an answer to this House and the Canadian
Supply
public. Given the statement he made at the beginning of this week before going to Washington, it seems to me he has to prove it was not irresponsible to break ranks on the Canadian side and give Washington an idea that Canada was receptive to two different levels of quality. That is why we are saying it is second-rate stuff.
If the Minister does not believe in basic thinking, in principles and guidelines in an approach to the environment, if he wants to play it by the seat of his pants, he did not mention once in his speech that there is an agreement between the two countries. Lee Thomas, with all the problems he may have, has an international obligation to us. The Minister seems to be totally unaware of that fact. He has not done his homework. He has not done the studies needed in order to put forward Canada's position. He persists in creating the impression that the EPA is doing us a favour by contemplating the problems along the Niagara River. It is not a favour. Lee Thomas has an obligation to Canada but that does not seem to get through the skull of the Minister.
I have asked him three questions, 1 hope he will answer them because they are important. Why the secrecy over the plan? Why did he go public on his differences on the Canadian side before going to Washington, and while in Washington?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it puzzles me that the Hon. Member for Davenport, as a former Minister of the Environment, would not understand the process. There was a Niagara River toxic chemicals committee report. It was a general study or analysis of the condition of the Niagara River. On the basis of that report, there were to be four action plans, each done by one of the participating jurisdictions: the Government of the United States, the Government of the State of New York, the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada. Each was to have its own action plan in the context of the Niagara River toxic chemicals committee report, addressing the same problem from different perspectives and jurisdictions.
What we are talking about, as far as this plan is concerned, is the American response to the committee. It is their action plan, not mine. I was invited by Lee Thomas to participate in the improvement of an American action plan. We have a Canadian plan, an Ontario plan, a New York State plan, and, of course, the Americans have a national plan. It was not my plan. It was not mine to release. It was an internal American Government document designed to be made public by them on their own schedule. That is point number one.
His second question is why we do not release the new document. I have been working on that action plan hand-inglove with the Americans almost every day since October 17, 1985. My officials have been directly involved, many of them have gone to Washington for this purpose. 1 also worked on it myself on a one-to-one basis with the head of the EPA. Even as I went to Washington this week, the plan was not completed. Had it been, I would not even have gone. My purpose in going was to see if we could give it one more shot. We did. In particular, we agreed on a statement that would

May 16, 1986
Supply
represent an understanding between the two countries on the way in which the U.S. Government action plan would be implemented. In that sense, the statement added to their action plan.
For example, I am not even sure whether there will be mention, in the document to be released, the 50 per cent reduction we expect to achieve by 1995. That is an understanding woven into the text of our distillation agreement this week. This will be a companion document to their action plan and will be seen together as constituting the one action plan the U.S. Government will be taking hand-in-glove with us, Ontario and the State of New York, in the context of the Niagara River toxic chemicals committee report. That is your first answer.
Why do I not release the October 17 document so you can judge how much of a change there has been? It is not my document. Why have we not released the new document? Because it has just been changed in a major way this week as I left Washington. Instead, we released a distillation of what was agreed upon. The new document is being printed and will be released by the Americans in due course, on a schedule they will have to devise.
In response to the second or, if you want to look at it in a different way, the third question about Mr. Bradley, it is not my style to engage in public altercations with my colleagues among the environmental Ministers. I have been working with Mr. Bradley day in and day out on many questions, acid rain being one. I think I have had a good personal rapport with Mr. Bradley. I like him, respect him and I think that is mutual. However, I must say that I viewed with a great sense of frustration his antics and those of his Department in connection with our negotiations with the Americans. I was getting feedback from the Americans with whom I was trying to get a deal for all of Canada that they did not trust him.


Ian Deans: Whoops!


Thomas Michael McMillan: That they did not-


Ian Deans: That is not a good thing.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Let me put it this way. I will say this to the House Leader of the NDP-


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question and answer have taken an inordinately long part of the 10-minute-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Oh?


Ian Deans: No, hang on a second. All I was going to say was that in the process of making-


Charles Joseph Clark: It is an attempt to cut off an answer you do not like.


Ian Deans: No, I am quite happy to hear the answer. I am concerned about the long-term implications of an answer
which leaves the impression that the U.S. administration does not place any trust in a Minister of the Crown in Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Ian Deans: I am just concerned about that. I think it results from long, involved answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).


Thomas Michael McMillan: I would like to conclude my answer by saying there was a strong feeling among those with whom I was negotiating that there was a breakdown in good faith between the Ontario Government and the Government of the U.S.-


Ian Deans: That is a better way of putting it.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -on an important bilateral agreement. I had to distance myself from the person viewed as responsible, if I was to get a deal with the Americans that was a credit to Canadians and that was going to protect their health and their natural environment. I was not interested in being party to or identified with an exercise that was viewed by those on the other side of the table as a sham. Certain Canadians were going down to Washington, looking the Americans right in the eye, saying everything is fine, smiling benignly and sweetly, and then returning to Toronto and saying something completely different to The Toronto Star, which the Americans, after all, read. That is not good faith. I am not a champion of the American ethos or the American cause; they can do that themselves. I am a champion of the Canadian cause, and I distance myself from anything that is detrimental to it, and that is exactly what I did in that instance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Very short question.


Ian Deans: I want to preface my very short question by saying that I do resent the fact that the question and answer took eight and a half of the ten minutes allotted. I think it is the responsibility of the Chair to make sure there are brief questions and answers. That is what this was intended to be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not think it appropriate for a Member to make such a remark, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) knows that. There is a different situation in every question and comment period. There are recourses for Members if they want to extend that question and comment period; they can make a request to the House, and the Member from Hamilton Mountain is aware of that. I would ask him to put his question, because time is limited.


Ian Deans: I hope you exercise the same judgment in other cases.
Let me say to the Minister that I find his comments about the Minister of the Environment in Ontario offensive; not
May 16, 1986

because I support him, not because I think what he did was right or wrong, but I do not think it helps the Canadian cause to create an argument in Canada over what is the appropriate way to deal with the issue.
I would say the same thing to the Minister in Ontario, that it does not help our cause to have an argument on the floor of the House of Commons over whether or not one or the other of the Ministers can be trusted.


Thomas Michael McMillan: That was the question.


Ian Deans: It could have been answered in a different way.


Thomas Michael McMillan: That's the answer.


Ian Deans: If that's the answer, well, fair enough. Remember when you start that it goes on ad nauseam and causes us in Canada to look stupid, quite frankly. It could have been answered better, if you will allow me, and briefer too for that matter.
Did the Minister get some inkling as to how the technology proposed by Mr. Thomas will work, when he proposes to be able to start utilizing it, and how many dollars have been committed by the United States administration to this on an annual basis for the next five years?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: On a very short answer, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).


Thomas Michael McMillan: I must say, for someone who wanted short responses, he ensured that I would have a difficult time acceding to his request by weaving into his question three separate, highly technical considerations. The simple answer is we have begun, the two sides have already begun.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the opinion of the House that we allow the Minister to answer the question as completely as the House wishes and not be limited by time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If the Hon. Member from Gander-Twillingate is putting that proposition to the House, is there unanimous consent to permit the Minister to answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed, unanimous consent.


Thomas Michael McMillan: There is some impression, created in part by the Hon. Member's colleagues, that somehow the plan that we have agreed to would not begin to be implemented until July of 1987. That is not true, we have begun already. We set 1995 as the target date by which we hope to achieve a 50 per cent reduction. There is a lot more science needed to be mobilized
Supply
to identify the exact toxins in the river, and the different sources. We know enough to justify action, but we do not know enough to define the date and the percentage with the kind of precision we require.
By July, 1987, we hope to be in a position, following all the scientific mobilization we will set in motion, to specify with more certitude the 1995 date and 50 per cent reduction. We hope it may be earlier than 1995, and we hope the reduction will be larger than 50 per cent. How much is it going to cost? It is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. We cannot put a price tag on it.


Ian Deans: I asked how much has been committed on an annual basis?


Thomas Michael McMillan: This is the typical, if I may so, NDP approach. If it does not have a price tag, it is not effective. What we are talking about is the full mobilization of the scientific and technical resources of the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, the Government of New York State and of the United States Government itself. How do you put a price tag on that kind of mobilization? How do you do it?


Ian Deans: That wasn't the question. I didn't ask you to put a price tag on it. I asked you to tell me how much they committed annually for the next five years for the cleanup?


Thomas Michael McMillan: What is that if that is not a price tag? What is the difference between cost and a price tag? I am saying you cannot quantify the expenditure of money that the foreign Governments are going to have to devote to this cause over at least the next decade.


Ian Deans: I asked how much they had.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I do not think you could do it even for one year. For example, there are a lot of hidden costs. How do you put a price tag or a cost on the civil servants, the scientists and the technicians within Environment Canada, within Health and Welfare Canada, and within other Departments that are being mobilized within the Government of Canada for our part of the bargain? That is not to say that we cannot, in general, state with some certitude that it is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, and whatever it is going to cost it will be an awful lot less than the cost of not doing anything.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, a word of advice to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: On a point of order?


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps I misunderstood the request which was being made, but as I heard it, it was that the questioners would be permitted to continue raising questions with the Minister, not that it would apply just to one questioner.

13376

May 16, 1986
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary also on the same point of order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, what I specifically understood and agreed to in giving unanimous consent was for the Hon. Minister to finish his response to that statement. I think other Members need an opportunity to speak on this important subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Let me thank all Members for their generous contributions, but my understanding was to the effect that the Minister be permitted to finish his answer.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, you were absolutely correct, but I can tell by the Parliamentary Secretary's response that there is no sense in my asking the House for unanimous consent to allow the Minister to be questioned. I was going to say to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party that he has a tendency recently of giving speeches as he walks through the door. It is extremely difficult for the translation people, the camera crews and the microphones to pick up what the Hon. Member is saying, but you will notice how much respect he has in the House; everybody listens even when he speaks in the corridor, even the Speaker.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) says that unless there is a price tag on it it is not effective as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned. After the record of this Government I would say that if it does have a price tag on it their philosophy is it is not necessary.
One only has to go back to the actions of this Government since they took power. On the subject of toxic wastes and on the subject of the effects that chemicals have on the environment there were cuts. We saw this incredible decision made by the Government of Canada, by the Department of the Environment, for which this Minister is now responsible. To my knowledge all of the studies that were done affecting wildlife and the effect that toxic chemicals have on wildlife were cancelled, from British Columbia right to Newfoundland. The Centre of Toxicology was also cancelled. We saw the study in British Columbia on the shore birds cancelled. Some people might say it is not very important to study how shore birds are reacting to certain elements in this environment. Then it went across the Prairies and cancelled the study on the effects of herbicides on the reproduction of ducks. Some people may say that this is not a very important study.
The Government then came to Ontario and cancelled the study on herring gull eggs and the effect that toxic chemicals along the shores of the Great Lakes were having on those birds. Some people may say that that study is not very important.
The Government went on to eastern Canada and laid off people associated with the study on the effect of insecticides and some herbicides on birds in Atlantic Canada as a result of
aerial spraying. The results of that study would apply right across the country because chemical spraying on forests kills food for the birds. As a result of those studies, scientists were discovering that the very chemicals used to kill the insects that were the food for birds were actually killing the birds as well. Given that record, how can the Minister of the Environment stand up and say the Government has been doing a wonderful job since it came to power?
The National Research Council has had a number of projects cancelled. For example, there is the study on the effects of acid precipitation and toxic waste dumps on the quality of ground water in Canada. An updated scientific analysis of the key issues in the assessment of polychlorinated biphenyls that was requested by the Government of Ontario was cancelled. Some may say that that is not very important, but the fact is that polychlorinated biphenyls were originally used in Canada as a coolant in electrical transformers. They were outlawed in this country because PCBs were a toxic material that could have very serious effects on humans. The fact is that, unlike the United States, we have no way of getting rid of our polychlorinated biphenyls. The power corporations, the electrical companies, telephone companies and the provincial governments put them in casks and stored them in vacant mines and old buildings across the country. There is very little control or monitoring.
An examination of viruses in water and their impact on human health was cancelled. That study was requested by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Canadian Public Health Association. The study of viral infections of fish and their impact on fisheries in Canada, requested by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was cancelled by the Government since it came to power. The Minister talks in glowing terms about what the new Government of Canada has done in the area of toxic wastes, the use of chemicals and their storage. Is it any wonder that people who are knowledgeable of the facts ask what the Minister is talking about?
The Minister was very critical of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Minister of the Environment under the previous Government. I recently read a transcript of a meeting that was held with the former Minister of the Environment and some environmentalists and scientists. It dealt with an interesting major development in your province, Mr. Speaker, and in fact, perhaps in your riding or close to it. They were talking about a biotechnological orientation national fermentation complex which would produce Bacillus thuringiensis from a mixture of potatoes, which they would get from the Chicoutimi region or elsewhere, and fish-meal that they would get from the Gaspe or elsewhere.
The reason I raised this subject is that today in Newfoundland, for example, chemical aerial spraying is probably taking place to kill either the balsam woolly aphid or the hemlock looper. The chemical being used is fenithrothion. According to the studies I have seen, fenithrothion is one of the most illogical chemicals to be used in aerial spraying over a large area. The studies conducted by the National Research Council
May 16, 1986

show that when that chemical is sprayed over large areas of forest land, it kills the reproductive systems in the very birds that kill the insects for which the chemicals are meant. Yet, that is the only chemical registered by the Department of Agriculture in its pest control program to combat the hemlock looper.
At this time of year, we are also seeing aerial spraying of toxic chemicals on the forest lands in other parts of Canada. We also see forest management in parts of Canada in which chemicals are being used experimentally as a forest management tool. Not only is it used to destroy hardwoods that cannot be used in the paper-mills, it is also used for the reproduction of forest lands with the type of forests they need.
We see a policy in Canada and in many other countries whereby the Government intentionally approves plans to spray toxic chemicals over entire forest areas, encompassing hundreds and hundreds of miles. The toxic chemical is supposed to control the insects that eat those parts of the forests that people want for economic purposes. However, while the chemical kills harmful insects, it also kills the insects that are necessary in the ecology chain.
The Government of Canada has made an attempt to eliminate the use of chemicals by aerial spraying. It took place at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre in Ste Foy, Quebec. The one thing they did was discover an insecticide which is not a chemical. It was an incredible discovery. As I mentioned before, it is called Bacillus thuringiensis.
Representatives of countries from all over the world came to Quebec to see the studies which were ongoing by the federal Government over the last eight to ten years. They came from Japan, China, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They even came from countries where chemicals are not used to control forest insects but where bird hatcheries are used instead. In other words, the logic is that if birds eat insects in controlled forest lots, then bird hatcheries could be used to get rid of the insects which needed to be got rid of. When people were looking for such an insecticide, it was found that the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Forestry Service, was also searching for a way not to use chemicals over our forest areas. Today, Canada is known around the world as the country which did all the experimental work in this area. This firmly establishes Canada as the country which led the way in the discovery of a non-chemical solution which could be used over forest lands. As the former Minister of the Environment knows, today, in most of the provinces, this non-chemical insecticide is sprayed over forest areas.
I am sure the former Minister of the Environment will be interested in what I am about to say. I am sure he will be absolutely shocked to discover that the entire research team at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre has been terminated. It was in the process of further experimentation on other types of forest insects. The team was considering mosquitoes and black flies. Would you not love to have black flies controlled
Supply
without the use of chemicals, Mr. Speaker? That is what the research being done by Dr. Smirnoff was about to accomplish. As I understand it, Dr. Smirnoff reached retirement age and the new Government refused to allow him to continue his work. I cannot understand that since this Government introduced a Bill after his retirement which states that it is not necessary to retire at the age of 65. As I understand it, this world-renowned gentleman is now teaching at Laval University. I believe he is studying the papers done in biology for Ph.D. theses. But his research has been terminated. Why? Because it was cut back by the Government. The Government said that it would continue research in other parts of the country.
When the present Minister of the Environment is so quick to criticize the former Minister, he should think about what the former Minister did. I can assure Hon. Members that he never would have been party to a Government decision to discontinue this research team in the Province of Quebec which was doing such world-class research work.
We can stand up as often as we want in the Chamber to talk about this chemical problem and the problem regarding the storage of chemicals here and there and those which are seeping into the water supply. However, we should realize that today, in 1986, under the authority of the federal Government, and mostly under the jurisdiction of the provincial Governments, we have large planes which spray toxic chemicals over thousand upon thousands of acres. When one takes a walk in the woods and wonders why the birds are not chirping, I can tell Hon. Members why they are not chirping-


Gary Michael Gurbin: Because there are no bugs!


George Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary says because there are no bugs. Well, that is probably one of the reasons.
To bow to the pressure of the industries in the U.S. which produce these chemicals, a great many of them for registry in Canada, is certainly not acceptable. It is also not acceptable to bow to our own lobby in Canada which says that the fastest way to grow a profitable tree as far as forest management is concerned is to use these chemicals.
The record speaks for itself. The present Government has done a great deal to discourage those people who were working with and associated with environmental concerns and scientific research. I believe the biggest step backward ever taken by the Government was when it terminated the tremendous work being done by the previous Governments in Canada, dating back over the last 10 to 15 years in terms of searching for and finding a non-chemical insecticide.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cadieux):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I felt some comment was necessary because my hon. colleague from Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker) mentioned the Laurentian Forest Research Centre which happens to be in my riding. Since I am fully

May 16, 1986
Supply
aware of the bacillus thuringiensis discovery and the steps taken by Dr. Smirnoff to have his assistant take over research on the budworm, I would like to pass on some information which he omitted to give in the course of his speech.
First of all, research in this area has not been abandoned. It is continuing, especially in the Chute-a-Galets centre located in the Parc des Laurentides between Quebec and Chicoutimi- actually closer to Chicoutimi.
I may also point out to my hon. colleague that today, the researchers who work at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre, in my riding, are moving to new quarters. They are right in the middle of moving day, so to speak, and cannot be ready to work right away. They are closing their old offices and moving to new premises that are not quite finished yet.
They do not intend to abandon their research in this particular area.
They are also pursuing another line of research on the budworm, that is, they are trying to make certain evergreen species more resistant to the budworm.
I think my hon. colleague is mistaken and has omitted to pass on this particular information, and I therefore welcome this opportunity to set the record straight, since this happens to be a subject I know very well.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection of the Hon. Member. I have in my possession a chart which outlines the complete reorganization made by the present Government as it relates to insect behaviour, insect control, pesticide evaluation, registration, pesticide technology and all research work done in Canada.
To put it in the words of the Canadian Forestry Service, there has been a reorientation of that particular work. As described by Dr. Smirnoff, who is known throughout the world, the reorientation as a whole tends to suppress research into the successful use of Bacillus thuringiensis for the operational control of the spruce budworm conducted in the Laurentian Forest Research Centre. He says that this is quite unbelievable considering that the insect pathology unit of the centre is the only unit in Canada and even in North America to have an international reputation in the use of Bacillus thuringiensis against the spruce budworm. He says that this is a blind decision and, as the former Minister of the Environment asked me to point out, this letter is under the signature of Dr. Smirnoff. I did not receive his permission to read that letter, and perhaps I should have before I did.
Government representatives should be down on their knees pleading with Dr. Smirnoff not to leave the Laurentian Forest Research Centre since he is the only thing they have going for them internationally. He is the only man who ever discovered a non-chemical insecticide to fight forest insects. What did they do instead? I have the letter here proving it. They turned him
down. They told him that he could not have an extension. They said that that work was terminating in that centre.
I am glad to hear the Hon. Member say that some work is still continuing in that centre. However, the work that is continuing is certainly not as complete without the services of Dr. Smirnoff. I do hope that the Government will see the light and pay attention to the international journals which print his articles and speak about him and I hope they will try to get that man back working for the Canadian Government.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a comment about the intervention of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).
If, instead of allocating substantial amounts to pure research and very sophisticated laboratories and spending so much money on large research buildings, for which we must now pay maintenance costs even though they are empty, the previous Government had allowed co-operation between private business and the research sector, we would not be faced with these problems today.
We now have to bear the consequences of your mismanagement when you were in power.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, that sounded as though it could have come from the mouth of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I congratulate the Hon. Member for actually being able to copy what those people say on a daily basis.
The hon. gentleman said that the former Liberal Government wasted money constructing research buildings and carrying on research when it could have had the private sector conduct that research in co-operation with the Government. He says that the Government would not have had to waste money paying all those salaries and buying all those test tubes. He is saying that that was not necessary. He is saying that we could have built tents but not buildings and that we did not need the person-years. He claims that if we had not over-spent on research, we would not be in the bind we are in today.
I presume the Hon. Member is talking about the almighty deficit of the Government of Canada. If the previous Liberal Government spent too much money on research, then my goodness gracious, he must really have a case in every other area contained in The Oxford Dictionary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cadieux):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) did not understand what my colleague was saying. He said that you mispent the money allocated to research.
May 16, 1986

i would like to emphasize once more that Dr. Smirnoff is a remarkable man who has made great strides in research and wonderful discoveries.
1 can assure the Hon. Member that I keep myself well informed. 1 have visited the centre personnally and I am aware that work is going on at Chute-a-Galets. I repeat that the research centre is still looking at non-chemical methods to reduce or eliminate the spruce budworm.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member said that I misinterpreted the remarks of her colleague and that I had not understood his remarks correctly. I did understand his remarks absolutely correctly. I know what he was saying. I can only deduce that he was referring to the Budget, and I am certain that I heard him correctly. However, in trying to solve that problem, it should not be blamed on the people who work in Quebec.

The people in Quebec are not responsible for the problem. The Government is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cadieux):: The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell something else to my colleague for Gander-Twillingate. One thing that he is forgetting is that the provincial Government is involved in all sectors of forestry research. There are agreements about this sector and a political will. The federal Government must respect the wishes of the provincial Government.
This is another factor to consider.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is only one area for which the federal Government is responsible under the Constitution of Canada as it relates to forests, and that is research. The Hon. Member is absolutely correct in saying that the provincial Governments control the forests as such, but the federal Government has a responsibility for research, and that is what we are talking about here today. The only role the federal Government plays in the use of chemicals in forest areas is in approving the chemicals that the provincial Governments can use. That is the problem we have with this Government.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 would hope that this debate will be kept at a non-partisan discussion level as it proceeds. I would like to begin by stressing the importance of the crisis that faces us in the Great Lakes region. It is because of the significance of that crisis that this motion has been moved today by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). It is a part of his and our continuing efforts to make certain that public awareness increases and, as a result, Government action is taken.
Supply
I do not want to spend a lot of time on this matter because I have spoken about it before. However, I stress that the recent excellent report of the Royal Society of Canada assessing the 1978 agreement between Canada and the United States, to which the motion refers, came to some very sober conclusions. It concluded that the more difficult programs, such as controls on diffuse sources, remediation of contamination from landfill sites, development and implementation of measures to control in-place pollutants, and a more general comprehensive strategy to control atmospheric deposition of toxic substances, have been slow in advancing. In short, movement on the very heart of the problem has been least rapid, and the agreement before us paid little attention to it.
Perhaps that does not catch the imagination of people as does a study of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which was released this week. That study referred to dioxin contaminants in fish in the Great Lakes. It found that contrary to the information we have been receiving from the provincial Ministry of the Environment and from the federal Department of the Environment, over 41 parts per trillion of dioxin were found in a number of species of fish in different parts of the Great Lakes system. It showed that Lake Ontario had the highest dioxin level, with levels as high as 41 parts per trillion, as I just indicated.
That information tells us that people are eating fish with dioxin levels well above health standards. Also, it tells us that there is a potential for that dioxin to move further into the food chain and to be higher concentrated throughout the system, so as to make the entire situation significantly worse.
It is a crisis which has been marked not only by studies but by the emergence of local groups in areas throughout the Great Lakes Basin, partly in response to the basic conclusion of the study of the Royal Society of Canada that the Great Lakes Basin was the most polluted part of North America when it came to toxic substances. In Windsor there has been the formation of a group known as the Clean Water Alliance which met recently with the Minister when he visited that city. The Alliance put across very strongly the great public concern which exists in respect of the issue.
The sense of crisis comes not only from those of us in the Opposition, but from the federal Government itself, which issued a report card yesterday on its own performance. I would not say that the over-all report card was modest, but 1 think some of the marks are perhaps a little higher than I would give. However, in respect of toxic wastes, it was dead on. It said that the Government deserved an F or a failure in the control of toxic wastes. It made the point quite clearly that poor disposal practices were emerging as Canada's number one environmental problem. It also indicated that urgent actions were required to identify health risks, to set standards, and to implement control measures.
That is the reality which we in the Great Lakes Basin face. It is something which I do not think any Government,

May 16, 1986
Supply
Parliament or country should tolerate. We in the Windsor area have seen it dramatically demonstrated with the pollution which was discovered and formed a backdrop to concern about pollution issues in the St. Clair River, the so-called St. Clair blob. Some Hon. Members of the House may think that that blob disappeared once the Minister reported on it in January. In fact, our information indicates that there continues to be seepage from the Dow Chemical site in Sarnia, and that the blob itself continues to re-emerge in smaller quantities.
That is certainly and very thankfully true, but it tells us about the basic problem of dealing with dangerous substances in the drinking water which flows downstream to the communities in which people live. Fish live in that water, and that water evaporates into the air and falls back down on our crops. We may not know as much as we would like to know about those dangerous substances, but they clearly have the capacity or potential to cause cancer in human beings and to generate other health risks.
With this as the backdrop, what do we make of the agreement which the Minister brought back from Washington? As the person in my Party who deals with the trade issue, I was particularly interested in examining its details. I see that the two Ministers who deal with this issue are talking to each other at the moment. I was interested in discovering whether we have succeeded in this document in getting a tough and effective accord with the United States on environmental issues. I thought it might give us some indication of whether we would be able to do likewise in respect of trade issues.
As 1 examined the document, my sense of grave disappointment increased line by line. In his speech today, the Minister tried to suggest that in effect it was an accord or an agreement between the two Governments. If one examines carefully the press release, for that is what in fact it is, one will find that there are only two or three points on which commitments were actually made. If this is not the case, I urge the Minister to rise after my speech to make a point to the contrary.
In fact, this press release as one reads it carefully says only that the Minister and the head of the EPA agreed that it is necessary to achieve significant reductions in the loading of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. That is wonderful, but it does not exactly represent tremendous progress. They committed their agencies to complete a technical documentation of the pollution control measures needed to reduce direct discharge to the river. They also agreed, as we go further down in the document, to co-ordinate existing pollutant control activities, to establish a common basis for assessing the toxic chemical loadings in the river, to identify priorities for control measures and to evaluate the success of these measures.
However, no place within this document, Mr. Speaker, is there any commitment whatever to make this issue a priority, to take action, or to carry forth a massive effort to deal with a pollution problem which has made Lake Ontario the most
polluted part of the Great Lakes system with dioxins, according to the EPA study that has just been released. Instead, we see this extremely weak phrase: "both agency heads stated that it is highly desirable to establish goals for the reduction of toxic loadings". As an example, they suggested that a 50 per cent reduction of certain toxic chemicals, taking into account applicable water quality and drinking water standards, may be achievable by 1995 or sooner.
I am not a lawyer and I am not a Minister, so I do not have to look at this through rosy glasses, but I can recognize flimflam when I see it, and that is what we have here. We have emptiness wrapped in words and no commitment to the people of the Great Lakes Basin that that particular problem will become the priority that it should become.
I have to come back to an assessment of the Minister's performance since his appointment. I do this with some reluctance because I had very high hopes for the Minister when he was appointed. I think in his early days in office, as he reacted to the emergence of the blob and worked closely with people like Jim Bradley in Ontario, we had effective action being taken for the first time. The report that dealt with the blob itself was a good report, and the Government showed its good faith quickly by saying it would implement all 24 of the recommendations within it.
Frankly, since that period I fear that the Minister has entered what one can only call the Conservative mold for up and coming Cabinet Ministers. It is a mold which concentrates on image. It is a mold which concentrates, as we saw in the speech this morning, on insults to the Opposition. It is a mold which talks about participation and consultation, yet it leaves a group like the Clean Water Alliance in Windsor feeling very very unhappy with the so-called consultation which they had with the Minister. They felt it was contrived, that the time was far too short for them to communicate and discuss effectively the crucial issues, as they saw them, that affect the Great Lakes Basin.
We see something that seems to mark the new approach of the Conservative mold, the attack on the provinces. It has been evident in the free-trade context with the 90 day deadlines being massively overrun and with a continuing shout from the roof-tops by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that there is one Government that speaks for the country and that is the Government in Ottawa.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Steven W. Langdon: You would think that Pierre Trudeau was still Prime Minister.
In addition, there has been an attempt, which also seems part of the mold, at control of communication, control of output from the Ministry, evidenced in this case by reductions and changes in policy which have been especially evident at the regional office levels in the Department of the Environment.
May 16, 1986

I hope that this is a temporary passing phase for the Minister, that perhaps the lessons of his own home island will come home to him and he will break out of the mold and try to go back to some of those hopes he kindled with a great many groups when he was first appointed. I fear that will not take place and the country will have to look for others to give some policy direction on the environmental quandary we face.
There is a direction we have tried to set out based on a philosophy of zero discharge, stressing independent monitoring of industrial companies rather than leaving them the right to police their own pollution, stressing the need for much stiffer penalties when pollution does emerge from industry and stressing tough action with our own dump sites. We would speak with much more authority on dump sites in the Niagara Escarpment if we had acted with equal dispatch in excavating dump sites in Lambton County which are dangerous to the people who live down river from that area.
If the Government is looking for direction, another direction is to give more help to municipalities so they can start to handle the sewer problems which are quite serious in the case of Windsor, for example. Finally, we should be much firmer when we negotiate with the United States. We should never see ourselves in the situation where a federal Minister attacks a provincial Minister in order to get an agreement with the United States. Instead, we should look for firmness. We should look for commitment to this country. If we do that, I think we can solve this problem.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, there is one particular point I am going to make in response to the speech just made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). While I in no way want to take away from the importance of and need for action on the difficulties which we face with the toxic chemical situation in the Niagara River, I do want to correct one point. That point is with regard to the relative level of the problem in other areas in North America.
Categorically this does not really represent the worst problem, even in North America. In fact, evidence will be presented next week at the World Large Lakes Conference on Mackinac Island which will show that we suffer no more from the pervasive influence of toxic chemicals than anywhere else on this chemical globe. In many instances we find that we are better off than other parts of the world, both developed and developing countries. This is not to suggest that this is not an important problem in many areas. However, in terms of perspective, I just want to correct that one point made in the Hon. Member's comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was the conclusion of the report of the Royal Society of Canada, not something which I brought independently into the debate.
Supply


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that the Hon. Member brought it in independently. I just thought that the information should be available.
The essence of the motion moved by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is timely, but it is redundant. This motion is predicated on either an incomplete assessment and understanding of the situation and circumstances which exist today, or a desire to, in some way, take away from the work that has been done, the achievements that have been recorded, and the leadership that has been shown by the Government of Canada through the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) in co-operation with other jurisdictions, including Ontario and the United States of America.
I would like to focus my remarks on several somewhat difficult and technical areas. One premise of this motion has very much to do with the relationship and obligation, if you like, which exists through international arrangements beginning with the Boundary Waters Agreement of 1909 through to the 1972 and 1978 Great Lakes Water Agreements. In some ways this is a dry discussion, but it is important that the Member for Davenport understand this so that in the future, instead of bringing forward a motion such as this, he will be able to work from the proper information base and the proper understanding of what those international agreements and understandings represent and mean and what we and the United States have done in terms of complying with them.
I will leave the Boundary Waters Agreement of 1909 and go straight to the 1972 agreement. This agreement initiated a process which has continued to evolve. The 1972 agreement established a foundation on which to build by defining a set of principles to guide the preservation and enhancement of the Great Lakes. The most important of these principles were, first, the setting of water quality objective in the lakes, second, the establishment by the parties of a commitment to undertake all reasonable and practical control programs and, third, the institution of a surveillance and monitoring program which would assess the effectiveness of the control programs and the emergence of any new problems. When a revised agreement was signed in 1978 it preserved the basic principles while, at the same time, broadening the scope of the agreement and introducing the Great Lakes eco system concept.
What has really happened is that we have not only not made concessions but have met the obligations of those agreements. As that agreement is worked out and enacted between the federal Governments in the two respective countries, it becomes subject to the overview, suggestions and control of the IJC. The IJC is a body, the very presence and existence of which depends on the agreement of the two respective Governments to commit themselves to its determinations and findings. Rather than having a magic wand which we can wave to ensure that we or they will do this or that, we have an agreed upon process which is very dependent upon the cooperation of both Governments and upon the reasonable agreed upon action of the International Joint Commission for its effectiveness.

May 16, 1986
Supply
1 would argue very strongly that this process and the obligations which flow from it have not only been complied with, but have been respected in every way. It is a process which is evolving very greatly. Why is it an evolutionary process rather than an absolutely black and white regulation? It was only about 50 years ago that we were cleverly beginning to create very complex chemical molecules which were, in many ways, of great benefit to society. We began sticking atoms together in ingenious ways for pharmaceuticals, plastics, and pesticides, many of which were capable of enduring for a long period of time.
We could criticize our ancestors for ignorance of the persistence of chemicals and the analytical techniques which would come along to reveal the existence of chemical substances throughout the environment in vanishingly small concentrations, but that would not help to solve our modern-day problems. Instead, we must take positive, co-operative action. Rather than criticize, we could marvel at the wisdom of generations ago of recognizing the need for co-operation to not pollute the waters of the Great Lakes. I refer, of course, to the Boundary Waters Agreement which was entered into in 1909.
Having discussed the process in a way which I hope explains the redundancy of the motion of the Member for Davenport I would like to suggest that no one in the House could challenge the success of the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Its main focus was to resolve the phosphorus problem in the Great Lakes. Members will recall that, as the Minister mentioned in his remarks, in the 1960s phosphorus was choking the Great Lakes. It was over-fertilizing them, leading to massive amounts of algae blooms. These blooms would die and wash up on the shore, creating foul-smelling masses of unsightly decaying algae. They would die off each fall and settle to the bottom of Lake Erie, in particular, robbing the lake bottom of its oxygen supply and making fish breeding impossible.
We agreed with our colleagues south of the border to get the necessary treatment facilities to remove the phosphorus from the Great Lakes System. It was a costly undertaking. It cost $8 billion. I would like to remind Members of the House and Canadians in general that the Americans paid for three quarters of the cost of this $8 billion project in 1972.
In dealing with phosphorus, we set specific targets to deal with modern-day problems. Today we are also setting specific targets. The results in terms of the phosphorus problem has been abundantly clear. Concentrations have gone down and those lakes are now being restored to their once great status. Clearly in this area the U.S. Government accepted the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as an obligation and delivered in the end a bona fide, solid performance.
The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been much harder to implement. This is not surprising because dealing with 1,000 complex chemicals is 1,000 times more difficult than dealing with one. The U.S. acceptance of the
1978 agreement as an obligation has meant steady, methodical improvement with relation to our discussions with them as the Government of Canada. Both the U.S. and Canadian Governments have banned many chemicals like mercury, PCBs and dioxins. To make further progress, we will have to.continue to co-operate. We have secured this week a U.S. agreement to set specific targets and take specific action on the Niagara River. This is clearly an acceptance of the obligation. However, there is more.
The U.S. Government also agreed this week to apply the strictest standards to the Detroit incinerator in order to save U.S. and Canadian citizens from toxic air pollutants which would fall into our shared water resources. I hope the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor appreciates the very successful representations the Minister of the Environment made on behalf of the Government of Canada to the EPA.
In contrast with what the House Leader of the Official Opposition said in newspaper articles, this is a commitment to not allow the operation of that plant without complete compliance with the U.S. Clean Air Act. That means millions of Canadians, to say nothing of Americans, will be spared the increased health risks which would have occurred if that plant had been otherwise allowed to operate. That is a real success. That is one of three or four things which were on the agenda and which this Government was able to secure on behalf of Canadians in discussions with the EPA.
There is still more. As the 1985 International Joint Commission water quality report shows, most toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes have declined substantially since the 1970s. Chemicals which have seen dramatic reductions include DDT, mercury and many others. This is not Government propaganda, but the objective report of a respected bi-national body of highly qualified environmentalists. The Great Lakes Basin is not the most heavily-polluted ecosystem in North America. I made that point at the beginning and I make it again. That 1 am sure will be of interest to all Members as the information is released next week in the discussions which will take place on Mackinac Island.
I do not know how much more evidence Hon. Members opposite need to convince them that we are making progress. We have never claimed that we have been totally successful. We know the objectives we have established, both in accepting the fact that there should be zero emissions of these toxic materials, but also in the very practical way of looking at a realistic goal of a 50 per cent reduction by 1995. We know these things are not perfect but they are real, solid progress and they have been achieved through successful negotiations in good faith with the U.S.
The record also shows quite clearly that areas along the St. Clair River, which in 1977 were polluted along 21 kilometres at the bottom of the river itself, have been reduced to only 10 kilometres. That is to say, since 1977, through action already taken by previous Governments and continued by this Government, we are now dealing with an area of concern on the bottom of the St. Clair River which is approximately one-half
May 16, 1986

the original size. In co-operation with the Province of Ontario, we are taking the necessary positive steps to reduce this degradation even further. It is clear that we are threatened less now than we were then, but we still have a long way to go. We can only take the next steps in a co-operative fashion with all Governments at all levels.
Consider the areas of concern described by the Water Quality Board of the IJC in its 1985 report. The Governments of Canada and the U.S. have agreed to take a methodical, step-by-step approach to cleaning up these areas of concern. The steps agreed to include the full description of the problem, the development of concise action plans with specific dates and targets, and the monitoring of the situation after these action plans have been implemented in order to establish that the desired conditions in the areas of concern have been restored. We are on that step-by-step route for most of the areas concerned in the Great Lakes Basin. We must all co-operate to see this process through to succcess. We must not throw adversarial hurdles in our path.
Hamilton Harbour is one of the areas of concern described in the Great Lakes Water Quality Board report. There is little to be proud of in the emissions at Hamilton Harbour, but even this degraded area is on the relentless path to renewal. We have to help the process with co-operative and positive action, not negativism.
To this end, we have invited the IJC to play an even larger role in our work. It has the authority, both under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, to look at our standards, laws and regulations and to assess them as to their adequacy on both sides of the border in order to resolve the common problems in the Great Lakes Basin. We are so confident in the successes which we have achieved in the Niagara River area this week that we are inviting the IJC to look at our plan to restore the quality of that area of the Great Lakes Basin.
I said at the outset that the Hon. Member's resolution is both timely and redundant. Since the U.S. Government recognizes its obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the actions it is taking with us are timely, let us not divide our energies and be conquered. In the field of international agreements, the pen is surely mightier than the barbed tongue. The prophet of gloom is doomed.
There is one other point I would like to add from a technical point of view in discussing this subject. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), in considering excavation versus the alternatives for the dumpsites, left out one critical factor. Having established that our preferred option would be to dig all this stuff up and get rid of it somewhere, we have to at the same time recognize the reality of needing to get on with the job as quickly as possible and doing it most effectively.
There is a technical aspect which is difficult for everyone to grasp. No one knows for sure, nor can they until additional work has been done and assessments made. The problem is that we know we must contain so far as possible whatever
Supply
chemicals there are in whatever area. Having been there for so many years, you can see the chemicals oozing out of the walls along the side of the Niagara Gorge. You can see the rot coming out. Chemicals have leached through bedrock and, even if there were excavation of many of those sites, it would still represent a continual and considerable environmental problem.
One of the options, which may or may not be real because it has yet to be determined, is that by removing the water and the contaminants therein contained, we may be able to reverse that leaching process. Instead of going toward the river, it would come back toward the dumpsite. It could then be removed and destroyed. That would be a technique which would have obvious advantages as opposed to simple excavation, and still being left with the problem of having to destroy the materials we have removed.
With that additional technical point, I think the House would want to recognize the ongoing interest of the Hon. Member for Davenport, but would like to suggest that he look at those agreements again. I think there has been a serious oversight in his estimation of what is contained in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978, and what they really mean. Second, insofar as possible with whatever information we can give him, he should be in a position to look at the realities of technology and what is real and what is not.
Finally, through assessment, and this gives me confidence as a Member of Government and as someone who is paying as close attention as he can to this matter, I think we have the start of solid action here for the first time in a long time. We have in place, through solid agreement, the mechanisms and the best technology available to make sure that the agreements are adhered to and that our efforts are effective. If they are not, we obviously have to take other action.


Charles L. Caccia: I want to reassure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, who has given us a fine speech according to a well prepared text, that I have looked closely at the agreements. That is what makes me say that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), if he had done the same, would not need to go cap in hand to Washington in order to obtain the co-operation of our neighbours on this matter.
Having said that, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at his own press release, the one issued in Washington on May 14, and provide me with an answer to my question. The press statement recognizes that the administrator and the Minister agreed it is necessary to achieve significant reductions in the loadings of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River, which is a great statement, as you know, because it was made a year before by the predecessor of the present Minister of the Environment. It indicates the two had agreed on co-ordinating the existing chemical pollutant control activities in establishing a common basis for assessing the toxic chemicals, loadings, et cetera. It mentions, in identifying priorities for control measures, evaluating the success of these measures, which are

May 16, 1986
Supply
all very marginal activities that do not come to grips with the question of cutting the emissions.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent, in the establishment of the goals that are outlined or referred to in the third paragraph of the press release, namely that both had stated it is highly desirable to establish goals, to what extent the 24 recommendations outlined in the 1984 Niagara Toxic Chemical Committee report have been incorporated in the goals? Can he tell us that?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I can respond to that question. What I have to tell him is that the American action plan, which flows from the agreement that will be reached between the Governments, hopefully including Ontario and New York, are the only specific things that we will have access to. If he is talking about all specific 24 recommendations, I have to tell him clearly that I never sat down and tried to put 1 to 24 against specific things. In that sense I cannot answer the question. We know that within a period of two weeks or less the specific action plan for their part will be produced. That is number one.
Number two, if he reads only the first paragraph of the communique, he will know that the agencies are committed to complete by July 1, 1987 the technical documentation of the pollution control measures needed to reduce direct discharges. That means specific targets and dates. He and I have already had a discussion over the technical problems there are now which make it impossible for Ontario, New York, or any other level of Government to say any more than that, because while there are very specific findings in specific areas, 61 or 66, whatever the number is, there is not agreement, nor even a complete way of evaluation. There has not been agreement on how the full loading is going to be evaluated at one end as compared to the full loading at the other end.
The Hon. Member will know there have been a variety of figures ranging from one to nine tonnes of total load in the system. For that reason, until that additional information is available, it would be irresponsible for anyone to try to do other than this ambitious and very action orientated commitment by July 1, 1987. It would be nice to be able to say more and be accurate. It is just not technically possible, and no one can say that it is.


Steven W. Langdon: If I could start with just a brief comment to recognize the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary stressed- which I had in fact included in my notes to make as an aside- that the incinerator solution in Detroit is something that we feel is the result of the kind of forceful representation of our case to the United States that we would hope would routinely take place on these cross boundary issues. It is something very much appreciated.
Second, a brief preliminary point is just to note the point that I raised surreptitiously as a point of order, which is that it is not the Opposition which is claiming that the Great Lakes Basin is a pollution disaster point, but instead a neutral group of both Canadians and Americans. In the report of the Royal
Society of Canada and the National Research Council of the United States, they say their committee finds substantial evidence from the results of studies done by both the U.S. and Canada that the human population in the Great Lakes Basin is exposed to and accumulates appreciably more toxic chemical burden than other human populations in similarly large regions of North America for which data are available.
My question is to try to pin the Parliamentary Secretary down, because he once more has repeated the suggestion in his speech that, in fact, there is a commitment to a 50 per cent reduction by 1995 in toxic loadings with respect to the Niagara Escarpment.
I ask him specifically where in the press release, which is the only documentation we have and which I have in front of me, there is anything which even implies that that is a commitment? What we have instead, as I suggested, is a flim-flam statement that says, as an example, they suggest that a 50 per cent reduction may be achievable by 1995 or sooner. That is very nice, but it is not the kind of commitment which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, as a technical person, and others throughout the country would look to see as a real promise to achieve that goal.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the appreciation of the work that was accomplished in so far as the Detroit incinerator. I just mention in passing that another subject on the agenda was the progress on acid rain, and there are some good signs and some good activities in keeping with the commitments that have been made through the summit meeting with the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). We have had an update on that, which we are encouraged by, and we look forward to additional actions in the near future. We also discussed some of the nuclear repositories that have been suggested and are keeping the Canadian position and concerns of that development very much in the forefront in our discussions with the United States. I can mention other aspects as well.
With respect to the second question, it is academic whether it was him or the Royal Society report. I was not attempting to discredit him or the Royal Society report, I was merely trying to give additional information. The academic aspect is that it does not take away from the problem in any way. That is not what I am trying to do. I am simply indicating that while it is as serious as everyone believes and we should be working as hard or harder than we are now, it does not seem to represent the same level in comparison to the other problems in North America.
Let me try again to make my point with regard to the 50 per cent objective. Our goal is to achieve 50 per cent by 1995 or sooner. It is impossible to set those precise targets and dates until we have a firm and complete data base from which to work. The problem is that such a data base does not exist. While good information is available, it is limited and does not tell us about all of the leaching that comes out of the walls-
May 16, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Debate. [Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to the motion moved by my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. Caccia), 1 would like to say that I was somewhat surprised earlier today when I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) rise in the House and start off his speech by denigrating my hon. colleague's motion and describing it as redundant and even useless.
1 find this surprising, because first of all the motion is not negative. We often have Opposition motions that censure the Government, which is not the case here. This motion is positive from beginning to end. It does not censure the Government. It acknowledges what has been done so far. It mentions existing agreements between Canada and the United States on removing pollution from the Great Lakes. It asks the Government to do more, which is only normal, and I fail to see why my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, is trying to lessen the importance of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should look at what the motion says and try and find whatever negative aspects it may contain. The motion says, and I quote:
That this House urges that the Government of Canada insist that the Government of the United States regard the fulfillment of responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as an obligation, rather than a concession, and further urges the Government of Canada to renegotiate the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to include toxic substance control programs to restore water quality in the Niagara, St. Clair and St. Lawrence Rivers for the benefit of millions of Canadians and Americans and that such negotiations should lead to the adoption of the zero discharge principle already embodied in Annex 12 of the Agreement.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the motion does not even criticize the Government. It asks the Government to take some additional steps, and in my comments I intend to ask the Minister for some clarification. I also intend to ask him to act more specifically in certain areas, but I am not going to start by kicking him in the shins and tell him that he didn't do a thing, although you must admit that during the year and a half this Government has been in power, in some areas, at least as far as my own region is concerned, some more specific action could have been taken.
To get back to the motion of my colleague from Davenport, it will at least have given Parliament the benefit of a full day's debate on the quality of the water of the Great Lakes, which is something I can only applaud.
Mr. Speaker, the Montreal riding I represent, the riding of Saint-Jacques, may seem very far from the Great Lakes. And it is. It is hundreds of miles away. However, we are closer than we think.
The St. Lawrence River binds us together and ties us closer, but it is not necessarily to our advantage when it comes to pollution. The riding where I live lies along the St. Lawrence River, all the way from Atwater Avenue to Papineau Street. Unfortunately it has been years since Montrealers-at least
Supply
those who live in my neighbourhood-were able to enjoy their proximity to the river water because the port of Montreal covers the full extent of my riding. Thanks to certain initiatives taken by the previous Liberal Government, an opening has been made through the port of Montreal so that we now have a window through which downtown Montreal residents can have access to their river. One problem remains to be solved, however: now that people have access to the river they are quite upset to realize that they cannot enjoy it as much as they would like to for the simple reason that the water of the St. Lawrence River does not lend itself to the kind of activities which people generally look forward to. Perhaps they can take boat or canoe rides, but they cannot play in the water, go for a swim or practice scuba-diving because it is prohibited as a result of pollution.
At the risk of being somewhat sentimental, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that some of the fondest memories of my younger days- or of my life, for that matter-relate to an annual visit we made when I was living downtown at the age of eight or nine. It was almost an annual pilgrimage. My parents were not rich by any means, but they managed to save a bit of money to take us for a whole day to Belmont Park close to the Riviere-des-Prairies. Not only did we enjoy ourselves in the various rides, but the best part of it was going for a swim in the Riviere-des-Prairies at the end of the afternoon. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has been years since people have been allowed to swim in the Riviere-des-Prairies.
At the risk of letting on that I am getting older, I was thinking earlier that you have to be at least 45 to remember people swimming in the St. Lawrence River and to recall the great beaches along its shores. I can understand your smile, Mr. Speaker, as I have just betrayed the fact that I am over 45 even through I may not look it. In any case, for young people today, the St. Lawrence is not a river where people swim, it is a dump, and as a certain Minister of the Environment said a while ago, it could even be described as a cesspool.
Naturally, a lot of the pollution does not necessarily come from the Great Lakes. A lot of it comes directly from the Montreal region. For instance, the sewers of a centre with a population of some two million people certainly do a lot of damage to the water of the St. Lawrence. There is also the fact that surface waters contain a lot of lead because of the very dense automobile traffic in the greater Montreal area, and there are also the industrial wastes from a number of plants as well as waste from the many cities and villages upstream from Montreal as far as the Ottawa River and all the way along the St. Lawrence up to the Great Lakes.
Mr. Speaker, a major part of the pollution in the immediate vicinity of Montreal is being cleaned up gradually thanks to initiatives of the city of Montreal and the various Governments. The newspaper of Saturday March 1 pointed out one thing which is certainly cause for rejoicing, namely the fact that the great sewage treatment plant in Eastern Montreal will provide some breathing space for the St. Lawrence River, called "this chronic patient" in the newspaper, when it

May 16, 1986
Supply
becomes truly operational in two years. That is the objective. But, of course, treatment will not solve all environment problems, because all the pollution in the Great Lakes, which has been described by some Hon. Members who spoke before me, ends up being carried by the St. Lawrence waters and creating problems in the Montreal area. And even with all our efforts to treat our own local effluents, something else must be done to clean up the St. Lawrence River at its source, that is the Great Lakes, because that pollution comes from the Great Lakes.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity some three years ago, if my memory serves me right, to attend meetings of the Joint Canada-United States Great Lakes Commission. I was suprised to realize that the Canada-U.S. agreement, the Agreement on the Great Lakes Waters Quality, the so-called Boundary Waters Treaty, covers an area that is very large but stops in the vicinity of Cornwall, right at the door to the Province of Quebec. This means not only that the area covered by the Boundery Waters Treaty stops at Cornwall, but that funding also stops at Cornwall. And so does the expertise of that international body, and this is what I am concerned about.
Also, concrete steps taken by the Government of Canada to try and prevent pollution in the Great Lakes from reaching Montreal fail to go beyond mere words, and the Cornwall area.
One of the best reports on the St. Lawrence waters' pollution situation in the Montreal area, especially in terms of its originating in the Great Lakes, was published on April 14 in Le Devoir. It was written by Louis-Gilles Francoeur, who suggested that the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes agreement could be extended to cover the St. Lawrence River. I will go further, and suggest that it be extended to the St. Lawrence River because as severe as pollution may be in the immediate area of the Great Lakes, even though it is just as bad as far down as Montreal from the Great Lakes, the problem remains unsolved.
The Minister is aware of the situation, and in the same Le Devoir of April 14, we read:
According to the federal Minister of the Environment, Ottawa is prepared to negotiate a comprehensive plan with Quebec to clean up the St. Lawrence, and would even be willing to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. agreement on the Great Lakes and extend it to the St. Lawrence River system, which is receiving increasing amounts of the toxic substances dumped in the world's largest bodies of fresh water by industries in Ontario and in the U.S.
Which is more or less what I was trying to say earlier, Mr. Speaker, but in more elegant prose. 1 shall go on, to show how well disposed the Minister seems to be, at least according to this article, where he says:
I am quite prepared to discuss with Quebec the possibility of the province becoming a partner of the federal and Ontario Governments in this project-
He was referring to projects included in the Great Lakes Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that all that rhetoric which we appreciate and endorse have not led to concrete action. This Government has now been in office here in Ottawa for a year and a half but nothing has happened, except eloquent speeches
in which we are told that pollution in the Great Lakes is appalling, and following his trip to Montreal the Minister- fully briefed by his political advisers, I would imagine-now tells us in the House that the situation is terrible in the Montreal region and that something has to be done about it. Yet nothing concrete ever came out of his visit.
Again I quote some of the comments the Minister made when he was in Montreal:
The federal Minister of Environment emphasized that Ottawa "is prepared to sit down with Quebec" to draft an "over-all plan" to fight the river pollution. The Canadian Government has the same responsibilities towards the St. Lawrence River as it has towards the Great Lakes-
These are reassuring words, and I will certainly not take the Minister to task for saying that. It being so, I would simply ask him: What are we doing to reduce pollution in the Great Lakes and in the water system which extends as far as the Montreal region?
And I am still quoting the Minister who, after giving some examples of what could have been done, became very cautious when asked whether Ottawa would invest as much in cleaning up the St. Lawrence as for the Great Lakes. It is very easy to say that there is a serious pollution problem in the Montreal area and that the federal Governement should sit down with Quebec to discuss it.
However, when we ask specifically how much the Canadian Government is willing to spend, the answers become more evasive.
When the Minister was asked how much money he intended to spend, he answered: The Government of Canada has the same commitment to the St. Lawrence system as to the Great Lakes. However, the Minister added that he could not reply to the question and clearly state that an equal amount would be allocated because a lot of very complex factors had to be considered.
The St. Lawrence pollution problem in the region of Montreal will therefore be judged as important as the Great Lakes, pollution problem, but when the Minister is asked to provide equal funding, he answers that he cannot do so.
Mr. Speaker, that is what find unacceptable. 1 have nothing against the good intentions of the Minister. On the contrary, 1 congratulate him about his good intentions.
However, I am asking him to take practical action-
In other words, as is said in English, he should put his money where his mouth is. If he were to do only that, then federal money would be added to the money which is already being spent in the Montreal area, since we are already depolluting the damage which we are doing to our river in that area. Let us have the federal Government give us a hand to try to kill the pollution which comes from the Great Lakes.
May 16, 1986



I therefore conclude by saying that the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Agreement should, and not could, apply also to the St. Lawrence River.


Mr. Warner:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) made some comments which I certainly share since my constituents also occupy an area along the St. Lawrence River. We are quite concerned about the pollutants in the Great Lakes system and how they affect the St. Lawrence River. This concern relates to the efforts of one of my constituents, Mr. George Williamson of 1603 Princess Street in Cornwall.
There are something in the order of 500 to 1,000 man-made chemicals which are discharged into the Great Lakes system. We must be concerned about these pollutants. As an individual, Mr. Williamson has certainly made an effort to do something about the pollution of our waters. It is something in which all people can participate, Governments included.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques mentioned that sewers empty into the St. Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes system. The efforts of municipal and provincial Governments, as well as those of the federal Government, are required to do something about these pollutants.
Mr. Williamson of 1603 Princess Street in Cornwall has developed a $30-product which will clean sink drains without the use of chemicals. The product uses only pure, clear water in a pressurized system which is adaptable to all faucets. There are no chemicals, there is no mess, there is no danger, there are no plumbing bills. It is something that can be used in all homes, in industry or in Government offices.
Mr. Williamson of 1603 Princess Street in Cornwall will certainly be glad to hear from anyone who is interested in contributing to elimination of toxic chemicals which are in such common usage in drain cleaners. Would the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques be interested in using this product?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner) is offering me a sample of the product in question, I would be glad to try it. As I said earlier, there are more than two million people in the Montreal area, so it does not take much from each individual to make a river absolutely polluted. A good many of the sewers are now cleaned up because there is a plant in Montreal, but the problem is not entirely over. It will take two more years before all the sewage is treated before being returned to the river. Meanwhile, we could be using this product of Mr. Williamson.
I believe that a good part of the Hon. Member's riding would fall within the area which is under the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes Agreement. His area can benefit from all the expertise and funding of this joint international organization
Supply
whereas we in Montreal are on the outside. That is why I have been pleading that the area covered by this international agreement be extended to Montreal or even to Quebec City. The St. Lawrence River has to carry all the stuff that is dumped into the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, if we want to solve the problem in Montreal, we have to buy Mr. Williamson's product on our own. We are not subsidized to do that, though 1 am willing to try it. However, in the Hon. Member's area, he can use Mr. Williamson's product, but he can also use all the services of the joint commission, something which I cannot do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to support the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).

I did not anticipate this opportunity but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome it very much.
The specific subject matter of the motion dealing with the Great Lakes, the St. Clair River and of course the St. Lawrence River is of particular significance to me as it is to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), who, like me, represents a riding in the great City of Montreal. I will return to that subject in several minutes.

Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out that the Lachine Canal, which has extraordinary recreational potential for the city of Montreal, is also located in my constituency. That canal is so badly polluted that even canoes have been banned.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that I have a personal interest in this matter on behalf of my constituents and the residents of the City of Montreal.
Before I deal with the specific motion, I would like to place it in a larger, global context. Those of us who have been following the environmental debate around this planet realize that our biosphere is truly in peril. As particular environmental problems reach crisis proportions in one country and another, those nations feel compelled to act. However, it has been a slow process and of course the essence of the motion put by my colleague serves to illustrate some of the problems that occur in environmental policy when different nation-states are involved.
Nations have always been slow to get into gear. Polluters are not often quickly detected. Only recently, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) fingered five major polluters of the St. Lawrence. However, polluters are not always easy to detect and they are not all located within the boundaries of the country suffering the effects of pollution. What better example

May 16, 1986
Supply
could there be than the example of the Great Lakes and that great St. Lawrence Seaway System.
International discussions can easily become deadlocked in an attempt to assign blame on one side or another or in an attempt to come to agreement on how to clean up the situation. I suppose the celebrated acid rain debate is a perfect example of this. The President of the United States has finally acknowledged that acid rain is indeed a problem. Upon the return of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from Washington, the President's admission was heralded as a major breakthrough in bringing the acid rain situation under control. Meanwhile, people not only here in Canada but in the United States gradually watched their forests waste and their maple trees die. At that point, we had only got to the stage of agreeing that there was a problem.
I suggest that we who live on this wonderful planet earth and in this magnificent biosphere are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, albeit an important tip. There seems to be countless problems dotting the landscape. There are countless time bombs just waiting to explode. Almost every time I pick up a scientific journal, I read about another threat to the biosphere. For example, we are told that the ozone layer is being depleted. That means that the consequential greenhouse effect is likely to change climatic conditions and raise temperatures. As we know, tropical rain forests are being depleted, thus affecting the biosphere, the atmosphere and the oxygen content of the atmosphere. We know that the deserts are growing. Of course, the subject matter at hand is recognized by all as underlying the dreadful pollution that affects our water and causes poisons to accumulate in our air.
Undoubtedly, many Members of the House have seen some of the recent studies which have gone beyond the issue of acid rain to the issue of other toxic substances carried in the air. These in turn will create serious medium and long-term environmental problems.
I suggest to my colleagues that the consequences of our biosphere being in peril are almost beyond our imaginations. Another ice age may come. The polar ice caps may melt. Huge sections of low-lying land are likely to be flooded. Plant and animal species are likely to disappear. Of course farmland may no longer be able to bring forth the crops and bounty which have made those of us in this country one of the best fed and healthiest people in the world. Indeed the situation is a very, very serious one on an international basis, and one which all Governments must be called upon to address.
As we discuss the situation as it applies to our Great Lakes and waterways system, I raise today with my colleagues the question of what we as individuals, not just as lawmakers in the House of Commons-or it may be Congressmen or Senators in the United States or other elected representatives in other countries-can do and should do about the situation. Let me offer from personal observation what I consider to be good news about what has happened in our environment,
largely through the efforts of individuals. Those Members of the House who are my age or approaching my age will have noticed a dramatic difference in the attitudes of individuals toward the environment. I remember growing up as a youngster both here in the Province of Ontario and later in the Province of Quebec.


Gary Michael Gurbin: How long ago was that?


Donald James Johnston: Perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of it, but I recall how litter on our highways was deplorable and accepted, by and large. Cigarette cartons, packages, tin cans, and beer bottles were thrown out of the windows of automobiles as if it were the way to dispose of such items. It is seldom today that I see anyone throw litter out of a car window. It is not simply because we have anti-litter laws. I suggest that the culture has changed. Indeed there has been a greening of Canada and of America in the minds of our citizenry. People are becoming more responsible in terms of collecting garbage, in terms of keeping the landscape under control, and even in terms of their own individual pollution of lakes and rivers. I think individuals are much more conscious of the importance of preserving the environment, especially for generations to come.
Unfortunately there are issues today which really affect the environment and create a spectre of the kind I just described, namely, putting our biosphere truly in peril. Unfortunately those issues are really beyond the reach of individuals. They are and must be the subject of public policy. Of course, individuals will be there to ensure that politicians have the political will to make sure that the Great Lakes are cleaned up, that our waterways are not polluted, and that the kinds of doomsday scenarios from an environmental point of view which I have described will not occur. I believe that is happening. When one looks at surveys of public opinion, one sees that indeed the environment is very high on the Richter scale of public concern, as it should be. Hence, it will find its way into the public policy of all nations where environment has become a matter of great public concern.
I suppose one of the problems in the minds of many people is that while important, the environment may still be seen somewhat as a luxury for which inadequate funding is provided in a period of recession, or the axe falls on the environment when there are cuts to be made. As I just said, it is true that the environment is a legacy which we must leave for future generations. Unfortunately too many people in public life do not yet recognize that the future has a constituency. I believe that the future has a growing constituency, that people are becoming more and more concerned. I mentioned the polls and so on. The very fact that such debates are occuring in the House of Commons and in legislatures across the country is evidence of the fact that that constituency is growing.
However, I fear that often political programs to monitor, to protect, or to clean up our world will land on the chopping block, just as critical programs in research and development
May 16, 1986

land on the chopping block. It is up to us on all sides of the House to ensure that that does not take place.
While cuts in environmental programs and while cutting back on monitoring the circumstances of our biosphere may indeed have a marginal impact upon reducing the dollar deficit about which everyone is perforce concerned, we must recognize that in this case we are simply substituting a major environmental deficit for a dollar deficit. That environmental deficit in the long term will result in many, many times the impact or the value of a cutting exercise.
Unfortunately I am nearing the end of my comments this afternoon. I see I have approximately four minutes remaining in which I should like to talk about the great St. Lawrence system that in part is the subject of the motion. The motion calls for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to be extended to include toxic substance control programs and to restore water quality in the Niagara, St. Clair, and St. Lawrence Rivers.
My home is in Montreal, a great and vibrant metropolis. It is on an island at the confluence of two wonderful rivers-the Ottawa River and the St. Lawrence River. It is surrounded by lakes, by beaches, by smaller islands, by rapids, and by inlets. The area should be an absolute paradise for fishing, swimming, sailing, canoeing-all manner of water sports and recreation. As well, of course, it should provide good drinking water for the population of the area. Effectively the waterways are sewers. They have been polluted through decades of wasteful and thoughtless abuse.
I have already mentioned the historic Lachine Canal. Some years ago a group came to me and asked, because the Lachine Canal cuts through my riding, whether it could hold a canoe race on that canal as part of the summer games. When we applied for permission to conduct such a race, it was denied because the pollution level of the canal was so high that it was
Supply
considered to be a health hazard, not to swimmers, not to water-skiers, but to canoeists. Parks Canada denied our people, with good reason, the right to conduct a canoe race on the Lachine Canal.
I should like to refer to one last example which I do not think is partisan but concerns another Liberal function.

Last year, we had the Liberal Associations from approximately three or four constituencies together for an evening boat tour on the St. Lawrence River. It was a grand night. There was dancing, there was a buffet, etc., and during that tour with my colleagues, my wife, my children, my friends, my friend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who was also there, I was struck by the fact that it was impossible to have a swim in the St. Lawrence River, that swimming was dangerous. Despite that beauty all around us, we were cruising around on a completely polluted river.

It is a wonderful area to which the public is effectively denied access and is at risk, if it accepts access, of being ill and effectively using a sewer, which drains the Great Lakes, for recreational purposes. It is a situation we can no longer tolerate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 3(2), this House stands adjourned until next Tuesday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 20, 1986