1986-03-24

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order at the outset of the proceedings today with respect to the language used by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) during the Question Period on Friday, March 21. When I called for a point of order at that time with respect to the language of the Hon. Member, you responded that you had not heard the language to which I had taken exception.
In light of the seriousness of this point of order, I felt obliged to await the publication of the official record of the day so that I could determine whether the words had been captured by Hansard during the course of Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, if you will look at page 11745 of Hansard of last Friday, you will see that the Hon. Member made an interjection while the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) was asking a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). His reference to the Prime Minister is on the record. You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that his interjection led to disorder in the House at the time, which is an appropriate indication that unparliamentary language and disorder in this House should be dealt with in the usual way.
I can draw your Honour's attention to the many precedents set by yourself and your predecessors in office with respect to the unacceptability of the use of the word "liar" in the House of Commons. That is founded in a very fine and honourable tradition in this House, inasmuch as it is a protection of the use of free speech in the House without the interjection of character assassination of any Member of the House. We are all Hon. Members and should regard each other as such.
This is a matter of such importance that it must be dealt with so that it does not occur again and is not condoned. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Member absolutely withdraws this remark when he arrives in the House, that will close this particular incident.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Page 11745 of Hansard was brought to my attention early this morning as well. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), to whom the saying is attributed, is neither in the House nor on the Hill today. I would like the Chair to wait until the Member returns, and at that time to ask him whether or not he uttered the words attributed to him, and then to see what the Member would like to do with this. I, personally, would like to have had the point raised when the Member was in the House last
Friday when the event allegedly occurred, or at another time when the Member is here. I do not think it is worthwhile for us to speak of a would-be situation when the Member involved in that particular situation is not present. I would like to say no more than to ask the Chair to wait until the Member returns.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the comment attributed to the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) at the time. I have also had the opportunity to review Hansard as a result of comments made over the weekend in the media. 1 think the request of the Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) is appropriate. The Member must surely first be asked to affirm whether or not words attributed to him are in fact words which he is prepared to be responsible for, since the action taken at the time by the Government House Leader did not result in the Speaker admonishing the Member at that moment.
I want to say two things. I think that from time to time there is a tendency on the part of Members to say things which ought not to be said, and to use language which would be better not used. I hope that every Member pays attention to that. It is possible to raise difficult questions without resorting to slander or other kinds of character depreciation.
However, in reviewing this matter I find that the Speaker has on a number of occasions made it clear that not only must the offensive word have been used by the Member, but must have resulted in some form of disorder. I am not at all certain that that applies in this case. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that it becomes the responsibility of the Speaker to request that the Member for York South-Weston indicate whether he accepts responsibility for the words appearing in Hansard. Having accepted that responsibility, I would hope the Member would accept the further responsibility of withdrawing that allegation in order to avoid any disorder now occurring, which could well be the case if he refused to take that appropriate step.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, but this time on a more technical matter. You did not hear the comment and neither did I, but we all know that the proceedings of the House are now recorded both electronically, which means what is said in the House is taped, and by the stenographers who are here in the House and who also record what are called interjections.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the problems we had in the House when you failed to hear comments made by other Members, if the electronic Hansard as reproduced in the proceedings for the day is correct, then that is where the comment was read,


Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
because I did not hear it, and it is quite possible that the microphone picked it up. But are we to conclude, considering the decision you made recently when you said: "The Chair did not hear it", that no such comment was uttered in the House? Someday we will have to decide whether we want an electronic Hansard, transcribed from the tapes in the House, or a Hansard that is both electronic and also contains the interjections commonly made in the House. The problem is, how do we know which one is the official version? Is it the comments heard by the stenographers or the comments picked up by the recording machine?
Mr. Speaker, another question I think is just as important is what is referred to in English as "body language"-
-body language. Someone could make a gesture to you, and it has been done, which is quite unacceptable in our society today. That will not appear in Hansard. Yet you have seen it. How one describes that in Hansard is difficult to say. When a group of hon. gentlemen or gentlewomen get together they should avoid these kinds of gesture, but if one uses a gesture which is unacceptable in a society like ours, then there must be some way for you to bring it to the attention of the House and settle the question. The same applies to comments which you or 1 have not heard but which some electronic media recorded.
We are having a problem with a new development. Electronic recording is new in our system. It used to be that what the Hansard reporter heard was reproduced and checked against the tapes. Now I am taking it that it is what the tapes hear that is checked against what the Hansard reporters hear and that is the record. I would like you to maybe think about that and give us some instructions or directions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Whoever said them, there are unparliamentary words recorded in Hansard. The House knows that the Chair is no more delighted in seeing those words in Hansard than anyone else. In fact, it is quite appalled to find them there. That does not change the Chair's procedural difficulty. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows that when this matter was raised on Friday in the House there was a disorder created. I could see that. Has the question of disorder been met? The answer to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is, yes, it has. At least at the time. It was precisely for that reason at the time that the Chair in fact invited some comment at the end of Question Period. Hansard will show as well the Chair said specifically that Hon. Members may wish to raise something after Question Period, if Hon. Members had heard something.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am raising it after Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair's technical difficulty is clear in the comments that were made in response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council the last time this was raised. I must invite the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to look at those. At the same time I
sense from the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault) that there is a desire to wait to see if this matter can be resolved in precisely the way the Hon. President of the Privy Council indicated that it would be best resolved. 1 therefore propose to reserve for the moment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the First Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 529 will be answered today.


Mr. Manly: 1.	In (a) 1980 (A) 1981 (r) 1982 (d) 1983 (e) 1984 (J) 1985. how many contracts were tendered by the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	For the same years, how many were let to firms either headed by women or where women were full partners?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: 1. 1980-81	523	
1981-82	529	
1982-83	674	
1983-84	929	
1984-85	907	
1985- January, 1986	806	
Note: Included are all	service agreements (contracts and	
contribution agreements)	signed	under grants, contributionsand loans with consulting	firms,	universities, NGO's and federal and provincial Government J departments, including all "in-house" contracts (development funds) and all administrative contracts (CIDA Administration Vote) in the Consulting Services and Professional Services categories over $2,000 in value. Excluded are co-operant contracts (Technical Assistance).
2. Our records do not take account of this information.


[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), since this is the final allotted day the House will go through the usual procedure to consider and dispose of the Supply Bills. In view of recent practices do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bills be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Canada should, before the next Canada-U.S. summit, negotiate a treaty with the Government of the United States to cut acid rain-causing emissions from sources within the United States, which cause damage to our economy because such emissions are transported across the Canada-United States border.
That this treaty should be in the spirit of international co-operation exhibited by the Helsinki Protocol of July, 1985, already subscribed to by the Government of Canada and should include:
-the reduction by 1994 of transboundary fluxes of sulphur dioxide by at least
50 per cent by 1994, using 1980 as the base year;
-a specific timetable of emission reductions in order to meet the 1994 deadline; -a specification that such reductions will be applied to sources of sulphur
dioxide emissions which will yield the greatest benefits to Canada; and
That failure to enter into urgent negotiations for such a treaty would demonstrate a blindness to the long-term economic interests of both countries, considering the damage caused by acid rain to human health and to forests, lakes, streams, fisheries, agriculture, wildlife, the maple sugar industry and to buildings, monuments and structures.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Angus:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may have missed it but did you call Petitions?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Iain Francis Angus: I am sorry, I did not hear you.


Mr. Hovdebo:: I did not hear it either.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the House. Is that a request?


An Hon. Member:: We all heard you.
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, this motion, as you just read it, is a constructive motion. It protects Canada's interests. It puts forward a policy option which, I submit to you and Members in this House, is far better than the one pursued by the present Government. It is based on two principles. The first is that we have to clean up our act, and we have done so. As you will recall, in March, 1984, we agreed with the provinces that we had to go it alone. When that understanding was brought about, the then Minister of the Environment for the Province of Ontario, Andy Brandt, while being interviewed, made it poignantly clear by saying we have cut our umbilical cord with the Americans and we will have to start to demonstrate our political will.
In cleaning up our act we also started to solicit and elicit the support of the international community. That is why in the same month of March, 1984, we invited nine European nations to Ottawa. We then signed an understanding, a commitment, saying that we would cut emissions, independently from each other, by at least 30 per cent by 1993. In doing so we implicitly said that this is an international issue, that there are global interrelationships in dealing with this issue because of the damage that is caused by one nation to another by the transboundary movement of this type of pollution. There are also continental interrelationships, and it was for that reason that we invited to that conference as an observer in March, 1984 a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency.
We decided to go it alone, we cut the umbilical cord and we started cleaning up our act. We did so assuming an economic cost that eventually we hoped and trusted would also be taken up by our neighbours in this very important form of pollution clean-up, which in the long-term turns out to be an investment for future generations and their ability to operate economically, as they have to, within a clean environment.
Canada as a sovereign country has the right to the protection of our national resources, including the right of not being dumped upon. The same right, of course, applies to our neighbours, namely, their right not to be dumped upon by our pollution when it crosses boundaries and falls on their soil.
To put things into perspective, the United States generates some 26 million tonnes of sulphur annually of which at least 5 million enters Canada. We generate four and a half million tonnes a year. It is against this background that I say to you that we should not be gratified by President Reagan making what would seem to be great concessions in recognizing what turns out to be the necessity to carry out further research. God knows, we have research coming out of our ears.
The damage to our resources, be they water, forest, fisheries, agriculture, the farmers whose income depends on the revenue from the sale of maple syrup, is increasing and is becoming staggering. The issue here is the prevention of


Supply
damage in Canada, and the solution is in Canada-U.S. relations in order to remove what is becoming a common environmental threat. To remove that common environmental threat I submit to you we do not need further research. We do not need another five years waiting for something to happen that has not yet been discovered. We know the damage is there every day.
No matter how many times the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) engages in mutual backslapping with President Reagan the U.S. Government will not move. It will not take action, but it will take action the moment it recognizes and understands that there is economic damage. Until they realize and come to grips with the fact that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of cleaning up, we will be facing this stark reality, the solution of which will have nothing to do with special relationships, Shamrock summits and the like.
What is so distressing to the Canadian public and to us here in the Opposition is to realize that the Prime Minister failed to make, when he was in Washington, the economic case for Canada. He failed also to make the economic case for the United States. He failed because he, like the envoys that he agreed to appoint, does not understand the importance of pointing to the economic loss that is being incurred and will be incurred as a result of the acid rain damage in the forest industry, in agriculture, in tourism, in fishing and to building and structures across the land.
As you know, we in Canada are increasingly looking upon the environment as an element within which the economy functions. We do not see the environment as an option to the economy, but we see the environment and the economy as one unit; an economy that can only grow well and function well in the long term provided that the environment within which it functions is properly cared for.
At the two summits the Prime Minister did not protect the interests of Canada by way of a subservient attitude, by way of being afraid of saying things as they are, by not pointing out that it is unacceptable to continue to have dumped upon us millions of tonnes of sulphur every year, by not pointing out that the decent responsible behaviour in the international family of nations dictates this practice to be stopped, whether it is between Canada and the United States, the United States and Mexico, Scandinavia and the U.K., or Chezkoslovakia and the western Republic of Germany.
The Prime Minister brought the situation upon himself when he suggested or agreed to appoint the special envoys without realizing that they might end up recommending something that is against Canada's interest, namely, more research, as it turned out in the end.
Once the report was published in early January the Prime Minister did not have enough wisdom or sense to distance himself from the envoys' recommendation. Instead, he embraced the recommendations, thus, I submit to you, taking Canada back to the time preceding the Memorandum of Intent of August, 1980, where we find ourselves nowadays.
The Prime Minister has not achieved a victory. In actual fact he has played into the hands of President Reagan. Having left in Ottawa both the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who could have given him good advice, I submit, he bought the argument in Washington that the solution lies in waiting for the polluting industries to come forward and make the first move as recommended on page 29 of the envoys' report. Even had the Prime Minister mustered enough courage at that time to remind President Reagan of what he said in this Parliament on March 11, 1981, it would have been too late for the Prime Minister. President Reagan said, on March 11, 1981, as reported at page 8155 of Hansard:
We want to continue to work co-operatively to understand and control the air and water pollution that respects no borders.
How ineffective can one be in handling Canada's public interests in Washington with respect to acid rain? He had no position to put forward to the President based on the staggering economic damage caused to Canada and the United States as a result of inaction. He was left with a consolation prize of five years of commercial demonstration projects, if and when industry is willing to come forward. What a sham.
The Prime Minister did not have the guts to make a strong case for Canada on acid rain. The result is that now Canadians, every day for the next five years, must sit and wait while these commercial demonstration proposals by the polluting industries may or may not see the light of day, depending on whether the polluting industries are prepared to put money on the table. That is the position we are in.
While we wait for the coal-burning electric utilities to decide on whether or not to spend their money-and they have already indicated they have no intention to do so-our forests, lakes, buildings and monuments, our health and the interest of farmers will continue to be subjected to the corroding rain and we will suffer increasing economic damage. That Shamrock Summit was a sham.
Furthermore, along with the extravagant claims that the Prime Minister made in Washington last week, he raised the expectations of Canadians almost to the sky, creating false impressions. Only the years ahead will gradually, but inevitably, reveal the naked truth that in reality, not only with matters concerning acid rain, the emperor has no clothes. We will not benefit by one ounce of sulphur reduction in acid rain coming across the border.
The Prime Minister has pulled the rug from under Senator John Kerry and other American Senators and Congressmen who are presenting acid rain Bills. In the case of Senator Kerry, his Bill aims at reducing sulphur by 12 million tonnes a year, but as a result of the Prime Minister throwing his weight behind the Reagan research plan he is helping to kill any possibility that Congress might have of reducing emissions by way of senatorial or congressional Bills. In doing so, the Prime Minister has regrettably been led down a blind alley.


Therefore, we have the motion before us today. I invite Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament to support this motion because it is supportable by any independent thinking MP who recognizes the necessity to look for a solution which can only result from a process of frank exchanges with the Americans, particularly the Reagan administration.
There are millions of Americans who believe like us that it is intolerable to continue to absorb the damage that is taking place. Therefore, we have an important economic theme to put on the table and an important mission to convince the Reagan administration that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. We must engage them on that economic plane and, in order to be convincing, we must be equipped with the quantitative analyses that are necessary. The latest study which was carried out in 1981 by Tom Crocker, an economist at Wyoming University, indicated even then a yearly cost to the American economy of $5.5 billion. That cost is now greater. It is on this economic plane that we will make our point in Washington, not by engaging in this false hope that launching another round of research, as was launched in 1980, will enable us to achieve the kind of emission control program we need.
Canada has done its share, as have 21 other nations that belong to the EEC. That is why there is a reference to the Helsinki agreement in this motion. It involves a group of industrial nations that decided to address the problem in this manner, by commiting themselves to a 30 per cent cut at least by 1993. Unfortunately, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland and Turkey are major industrial nations which are not part of the agreement.
We face a situation in North America whereby we are intimately intertwined in finding the solution to the economic damage caused by acid rain. Just as the United States and Canada cause each other damage, the same can be said for the United States and Mexico.
The economic approach is the key to the solution to this issue. The approach followed by the Government of Canada by way of two summits has set us back. It has created false expectations. Canadians are being asked to wait another five years to see whether or not some action will take place. There will be no agreement, no program or deadlines to cut one ounce of sulphur emission until this research binge over the next five years is completed in 1991.
I regret to say that the Government has failed on the acid rain front. The Government may have thought that good public relations could convince President Reagan to agree with its policies, but it has failed. We are wasting valuable time and have lost another year. The second Shamrock Summit provided another opportunity to make a strong economic case to convince the Americans that their damages are equal to, if not greater than ours. The Government did not have the guts to advance our theme. The major player in Cabinet with respect to this subject was even left at home.
I hope that enough Tory MPs will see the merits of our approach we are proposing today, which I submit is the only
Supply
one that will bring about the solution to the acid rain problem we are facing in North America.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) accuses the Government of being shortsighted about the long term economic interests of our two countries, I think that, if we consider the number of years his party was in power without ever doing anything about the environment, they could be accused of being farsighted.
What did they do during all those years? They were a bunch of amateurs. In fact, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston), one of their number, in an article appearing in The Ottawa Citizen this morning appears to be just that when he tells us, for instance, about Mirabel, a matter that was decided with a snap of the fingers, or when he tells us that the National Energy Program proposed by Mr. MacEachen was in the Budget and that all the ministers were put before a fait accompli. More amateurism.
The Hon. Member for Davenport was a minister at the time, but if we are to believe Mr. Johnston's statements, he did not have access to Cabinet directly because it was a group in the Prime Minister's Office that was running the country. And they are the ones that engineered the Petrofina purchase.
So why didn't the Hon. Member for Davenport stand up at the time and argue about protecting the environment, when there were plenty of smoke stacks spewing forth pollution and trees that were losing their leaves? Didn't he notice them until now?
It is strange that he should notice all this on the very day that for the first time, our Prime Minister managed to elicit an official position from the President of the United States, who formally admitted the existence of serious acid rain problems and the existence of transboundary pollution.
He is saying all this today. He is making a big discovery, when our own Prime Minister has come back to this country with the assurance that $2.5 billion will be appropriated by the U.S. Congress to fight acid rain. These are the positive aspects the Hon. Member for Davenport conveniently forgot to mention in the House today.
I wish he would talk to us about his own achievements within the previous Liberal Government.


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do that, particularly considering the fact that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) first came onto the political scene on September 4, 1984. He does not know the history of Canada before that date, and that is a serious handicap.


Supply
As I said in my remarks, before he was elected we signed with the Americans an agreement dated August 5, 1980 to promote and increase research on acid rain; it was also aimed at drafting and concluding an international acid rain agreement between our two countries. That agreement dates back to the last year of President Carter's administration in the United States.
In subsequent years, especially from 1983 to early 1984, we tried to expedite negotiations with Mr. Rucklehaus, who was responsible for the United States Environment Protection Agency, so as to set up a reduction program concerning acid rain from the United States. On several occasions Mr. Ruckel-haus approached the White House with various programs, but to no avail. In February 1984 it became obvious that Mr. Ruckelhaus just did not wield enough political clout to obtain President Reagan's approval, so the provinces and the federal Government met here in Ottawa on March 6, 1984 and decided to proceed with an acid rain reduction program in Canada, without American participation.
That was when the Ontario Government Minister of Environment-a Conservative Party member-made this statement familiar to all those who know the history of acid rain in Canada. I will quote him in English:

We have decided to cut our umbilical cord.

At the same, in March 1984 here in Ottawa, we hosted an international meeting with nine European countries to establish a common front program, as I indicated in my remarks. In June that year there was a follow-up meeting in Munich where 21 countries joined this world-wide movement to fight against acid rain. Again in June 1984, the two Ministers of Environment of Quebec and Ontario as well as their colleagues from other eastern provinces attended a second federal-provincial meeting here in Ottawa to confirm the decision to combine their efforts in an attempt to reduce acid emissions in Canada between then and 1994.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what our Government achieved before September 4, 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).


Mr. Gurbin:: I appreciate the explanation of failure given to us by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Liberal critic for the environment. I have a simple, short question. We all know the memorandum of intent was signed between Canada and the United States in August of 1980. We have also heard the explanations of the Liberal critic for the environment as to what the second subcommittee on acid rain has described as "time lost". How many millions or billions of dollars was the Hon. Member's Party successful in getting the
United States Government to commit to acid rain abatement and pollution control during the period between 1980 and September of 1984? Second, how many times was the subject of acid rain ever the major single item at the summit meetings between Canada and the United States during that period of time?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's second question on the summit is one which is very important. I recall very clearly that issue was raised by former Prime Minister Trudeau during the 1984 Summit meeting. It was item No. 7 on the agenda and it had a full paragraph.


Mr. Daubney:: Item No. 7?


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, item No. 7. Canada's initiative was fully developed at that particular Summit meeting and it was subsequently enlarged upon in 1985, both at the London meeting of Ministers of the Environment and at the Summit meeting in the same year, 1985.
With respect to the Hon. Member's first question, we had to proceed alone because it was evident that the efforts of Mr. Ruckelshaus of the Environmental Protection Agency were not successful in obtaining a program of emission reductions in the United States by February of 1984. As of that moment, we pursued the matter with the Americans in informal meetings, including the meeting in Munich in 1984, and we provided them with the economic arguments which would make it necessary for them to agree to the adoption of a program, but evidently the Americans were not ready to do so.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is implying that the Accord which has now been discussed in Washington at the second Summit includes an amount of money which is earmarked for a reduction of emissions program, with a deadline, then I would like him to say so. This question remains, despite all the dancing which has taken place, despite the two summits and despite the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. I know that right now the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at page 30 of the envoys' report. That is contingent upon the industry coming forward and upon commercial demonstration programs. That is not a cutting program at all. He is confusing apples and oranges.
Therefore, we have not made progress on the side of reduction, of cuts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am pleased-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I failed to notice that the Minister was rising to speak. I have already given the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I would only ask him if he would consent to yield the floor to the Minister.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Minister would want to hear the comments of both opposition Parties before he responded. If the Minister tells me that he wants to speak now and not pay any attention to what we have to say, then I suppose I would be willing to yield the floor to him on that basis. However, if the Minister cares about what both opposition Parties have to say with respect to the matter, then perhaps he would like to listen and then respond to both at the same time.


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


Mr. McMillan:: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?


Ian Deans: You don't want to hear what we have to say?


Thomas Michael McMillan: I will listen.


Ian Deans: Why don't you respond to both at once?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether or not I wish to listen to the Hon. Member or his Party. I am entirely in the Chair's hands with respect to who has the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Deans has the
floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that we are going to deal with this matter in as non-partisan a way as we possibly can. I wish to say to the Minister that I appreciate him giving us the opportunity to put our views on the record in order that he might respond to both the motion put forward by the Official Opposition and our position in this regard.
At the outset 1 want to say that I note with interest that the motion is written in such a way as to be non-inflammatory, as best as one can be in situations such as this. I think the motion is put forward with the best of intentions in an effort to try to advance the cause of the battle against acid rain, as opposed to taking on some direct and narrow political interest.
In saying that I wish to make it clear that, frankly, we do not care to listen to the ongoing battle of whether the Conservatives or the Liberals have done more or less. That does not seem relevant at this point in time. It makes very little sense to point a finger across the floor at the previous administration and claim that somehow or other the problem was created by it. In essence, the problem is everyone's. It is the problem of every Member of Parliament. Whether the Liberals, the Conservatives or, for that matter, the NDP were in Government, I suggest the same course of action should be followed in trying to come to the satisfactory conclusions which must be reached.
In looking back over the recent history of the whole question of acid rain it brought to mind arguments that we have had going back 20 years about various different kinds of pollution. I was reminded of the problems that confronted Governments at every level in trying to introduce legislation which would adequately deal with the devastation that results from the
Supply
disposal of noxious, or even obnoxious, wastes. I remember spending a great deal of time on the question of the disposal of liquid industrial waste. I remember arguments taking place over many years with respect to the deep well process which was being advanced and which carried with it significant problems. There were the risks to the water-tables to be considered, particularly in areas surrounding major municipalities. The problems were serious enough to justify not pursuing that particular course of action. It was felt that the highly pressurized deep well operations being recommended were not suitable in many areas, if they were suitable anywhere, because of the faults in the rock structure which allowed the pressure to drive the poisonous liquids into the water supplies of municipalities. While that could not occur overnight it would inevitably happen over time. Therefore, it was felt that that type of solution was not adequate. It was a solution that was embraced to a large extent by industry because it was a simple and cheap solution. It offered a short-term way of dealing with the problem. I said then, and I say now, that it will prove to be disastrous in some areas in the not-too-distant future. The metropolitan Toronto area is one of these areas. The water-table there is somewhat north of metropolitan Toronto and it feeds much of the area, as well as feeding the northern, western and eastern outskirts of the city. The water-table is detrimentally affected by the allowing of liquid industrial waste to saturate the earth in areas north and northeast of Toronto. Having said that, I recall people telling me not to worry about it because the problem would be resolved in time. I was told that a solution was being worked on, and I waited.
There is also the question of nuclear waste, the disposal of it and the inappropriate ongoing manufacture of it in areas where there is no necessity for that to occur. I consider that there are many long-term problems associated with it which will affect not only Canada's disposal of it but which will affect Canada in the way the U.S. determines how it will dispose of its nuclear waste. We are now faced with serious questions on the borders of a number of our provinces, Manitoba being one which comes quickly to mind, where the U.S. administration is looking at disposal of nuclear waste in areas immediately adjacent to, if not right within, certain Canadian jurisdictions.
I say to the Government that that adds up to another serious problem which we have to confront. It is a problem which we have not yet been able to confront because technology is not now available to deal satisfactorily with this particular question. Yet we continue to develop more and more of the waste product while waiting and hoping that someday the technology will be in place to deal with it. There is no evidence to show that will be the case.
With respect to the question of acid rain, it is quite different. To a large extent the technology to deal with it is in place. There are methods available to deal with the spill of acid rain over the environment. There are ways available to cut back on emissions. There are ways to clean up those emissions. In fact, there are ways to bring the matter into conformity with what most of us would agree are limits which could be lived with in


Supply
the short run, and which would even reduce emissions in the long run.
In reading over the memorandum of intent of 1980, I thought that was the first step toward the recognition of what was becoming a very serious problem. 1 thought that, although there was no clear solution put forward, the memorandum set out the process which was to be followed. In fact, that process was followed with the general support of a great number of people from all political persuasions in every part of Canada. In fact, it was even followed by similar like-minded individuals in the United States.
As a result of that Memorandum of Intent, they set up the working groups that did the necessary research, that sought out solutions and that quantified and qualified the acid rain components and made recommendations. The Minister knows what the recommendations were so let me read them to Hon. Members of the House. When the final reports were put in on the Canada-U.S. working groups in February 1983, they concluded on the following six matters:
-acid rain occurs in eastern North America within, and downwind from, major industrial regions
That allows us to isolate to some extent the source of the problem. They went on to say:
-damage in both the short and long term is occurring in areas vulnerable to acid rain as a result of sulphur deposition -wet sulphate deposits greater than... (18 pounds per acre per year), in moderately sensitive areas, cause damage in lakes and rivers; in areas with deposits of below 20 kg/ha/yr no damage has been recorded
That gave us a sense of the important areas that were being affected. It gave us a sense of where we were to put our emphasis and where we could treat the problem with longterm but less immediate actions. They went on:
-the damage is primarily caused by sulphur deposits and the solution is to reduce them
-technology does exist to reduce emissions substantially
-if there are no changes in abatement programs it is forecast that emissions will increase through the remainder of this century.
We in Canada took that seriously. I say to the Liberal critic, the former Minister of the Environment, that while I am not entirely happy with everything he ever did, he at least did take the problem seriously.
Together with the jurisdictions most affected provincially, the Government did in fact move to try to put in place in Canada an adequate or at least an interim response to the problem. However, the problem continued because our friends in the United States refused to accept the findings. The administration of the United States, though it paid lip-service to it at the time, refused to accept that strict measures consistent with what were then being put in place in Canada should also be put in place in those areas of the U.S. that created the acid rain problem.
Since that time, though Canada has tried, I can say truthfully that our friends in the United States administration have done virtually nothing. Notwitstanding substantial expenditures, we continue to suffer. When we put acid rain on the
agenda for yet another summit meeting I anticipated not a further statement of concern, because we received a Statement of Concern and a Memorandum of Intent in 1980 and we received a Statement of Concern in 1981 when the President of the United States visited Canada and stood here in the House of Commons to address the House. He himself said at that time, if not in these words, certainly in words very similar to these, that he recognized the serious transboundary environmental problem that exists as a result of acid rain. I admit that those were not his exact words but that was his intent as 1 understood it at the time, and I still feel that that was his intent in rereading it.
The President of the United States, rather than continue with his somewhat farcical view that somehow acid rain was the result of bird droppings, did acknowledge that there was a serious problem. One might have expected that as a result of that acknowledgement, he would bring forward substantive programs designed to help ease the problem, but no, no such programs came forward.
We then advanced ourselves through to the Drew Lewis-Bill Davis era. I was willing to accept that the appointment of those two fine gentlemen was intended to achieve some solution to the impasse that existed between Canada and the U.S. administration on acid rain. I do not doubt for a moment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in appointing Mr. Davis, whom I have known for years, and Mr. Lewis, whom I did not know but have come to understand was concerned, intended not simply to have them restate the obvious but rather to advance the cause beyond the stage of rhetoric. Unfortunately, that simply does not seem to have happened. The report that was tabled by Messrs. Davis and Lewis in essence reidentified the problem but it did not, as the Minister himself alluded to some time ago, set out how the problem ought to be dealt with. Neither did it demand from the participants that there should be some clear and easily defined course of action followed.
In order to have this understood by those who might be watching, I should quickly point out what acid rain is. It is not something for which one purchases an umbrella, although an umbrella may keep acid rain off one's head. Maybe your hair will not turn the colour of mine if you have an umbrella to keep acid rain away from it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know.


Thomas Michael McMillan: It's too late.


Ian Deans: It is too late for the Minister and I, but not for everyone else.
What is acid rain? Environment Canada put out an excellent document which sets out in pretty clear and unequivocal terms what acid rain really is. I read from that document as follows:
Acid rain has been called the greatest environmental threat that Canada has ever faced. The rains and snows that were once cleansing and pristine have now become, as a result of human activity, dangerously acid and destructive.
Two common by-products of our modern industrial lifestyle-sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides-cause acid precipitation. When these pollutants arc discharged into the atmosphere, they can be transformed into sulphuric acid and nitric acid respectively.


They can be carried along by winds and fall to earth as acid rain or snow many kilometres from the original source of pollution.
Environment Canada then goes on to ask the question, as many people watching might want to ask, what are the sources of acid rain. The answer is as follows:
The main sources of sulphur oxide emissions in North America are coal-fired power generating stations and non-ferrous oil smelters. The main source of nitrogen-oxide emissions are automobiles and other vehicles.
Environment Canada has identified not only what acid rain is and how it happens but in essence from where it comes.
The next question is what is the impact of acid rain and the
answer is as follows:
Acid precipitation can have many harmful effects. It can increase the acidity of lakes and streams to a point where fish and other aquatic creatures such as frogs and salamanders cannot reproduce-
We have seen evidence of this. One need not be an expert to see the clear evidence of the destruction that has taken place in the lakes of eastern Canada. The document goes on:
-ultimately, they become extinct in overly acidified bodies of water. Acid rain can also increase the acidity of soil and, particularly in combination with other atmospheric pollutants such as ozone, is suspected of slowing the growth of trees or making them more vulnerable to disease.
It is quite clear that acid rain also erodes buildings and destroys monuments. It has a tremendous effect not only on the quality of life and the cost of maintaining buildings, but it has a tremendous effect on our food production and a tremendous negative effect on forest production. It affects our lakes and waters. Quite clearly this is a serious matter. Of over two million lakes in Quebec and Ontario, 43 per cent are vulnerable to acidification, and 10 per cent of the salmon rivers in Nova Scotia can no longer support salmon and another 10 per cent are becoming acidified. They go on at some greater length and go into the details of it.
However, the interesting point, which is obvious to anyone who looks at it, is that acid rain is the result of industrial activity and that that industrial activity is ruining the rivers, the lakes, the forests and even the soil upon which it falls. There are ways readily available to us to stop it. That last point is the crucial point. It is not some phenomenon which no one understands; it is not some phenomenon for which there is no solution. This is clearly understood by the scientific community and probably clearly understood by the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament.
We now face the crucial and crisis period. We have lakes and rivers which are no longer capable of sustaining wildlife. We have forests which are being destroyed by the continuous raining down upon them of sulphuric acid. We know how to stop it and, therefore, it is not sufficient to have from the President of the United States yet another statement which clearly takes only one tiny step toward the ultimate solution. In endorsing the Lewis-Davis report, the President of the United States does not-and I say it categorically-commit himself to a course of action. All we ask of him, at least in the first instance, is that he go forward today with a course of action, if not identical, at least similar to that which we in
Supply
Canada have already adopted, not only in our best interest but in his best interest.
I know my time is up, but I ask the Government to acknowledge that another motherhood statement, albeit acknowledging acid rain as a serious problem, does not do anything for future generations or even for the generations which are now here. We need some clear course of action. We need a timetable. We need a commitment, and we do not have it in what came out of Washington. Although there is intention to do something, I should like to think that we in the House could speak as one voice in saying to the United States administration: "You do not have the time for another study; what we need now is action".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Question or comment. The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins).


Mr. Desjardins:: Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to the remarks of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), but I must tell him that perhaps it would have been more appropriate if he or his Party had introduced the motion now under consideration. To me anyway, it might have been more credible than a motion sponsored by the environment critic of the Liberal Party. I would suggest that he has introduced this motion and expects us to take action simply because he and his Party were unable to do anything when they were on the Government benches, beginning in the early seventies when the acid rain issue was growing ever more significant. What he is advocating in this proposed bilateral treaty is precisely what he himself was unable to achieve.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is right in saying that there has been a lot of rhetoric on the question of acid rain. However, that is not our fault. We have been in power only 18 months and we have already taken practical action. We have affected funds and developed programs during this 18 month period. It is not our fault if some people believe that the problem of acid rain has existed for too long without any solution being found. We came to power only in 1984, but since 1968 or 1970, when the acid rain problem was already important, they have done nothing except make speeches.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain says that we are still at a rhetorical stage, but does he not believe that the whole issue of relations with a friendly foreign country is very sensitive? Indeed, what Canada has done as a country and what the Prime Minister has done to show some leadership was the most that we could do, namely clean up our act. You yourself have recognized that the Canadian Government took important action; you had the honesty to say that we took important action in our own country to improve the environment. Will the Hon. Member not have the honesty to recognize that we have cleaned our act and that the Prime Minister went to Washington to meet calmly with President Reagan


Supply
and to tell him: "We have done our duty in Canada and we are now asking you to do the same." President Reagan gave his answer the day after the second summit, as evidenced by the newspaper, La Presse which published an article with the headline "Reagan endorses fight against acid rain". Maybe this is still rhetoric, but the Americans at least recognize in fact or implicitly that the problem concerns them.
The Hon. Member said that there has only been rhetoric on the side of the United States and that nothing was happening. He was afraid that it would remain the same for quite some time. I would like to ask him whether he knows, as he probably does, that the American Congress is now considering Bill S-54 sponsored by senators from New England among others. This Bill, now before the American Congress, is being examined by the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. We have been informed that this is the most important Bill to have been debated by the United States Congress in the last 10 years. We have been told:
The Senate Bill goes further than the recommendations of this report and is in many respects different from many bills tabled in Congress in the last 10 years to fight against acid rain. In addition to the negotiation of a North American treaty on pollution-
This is what the motion debated today proposes.
In addition to the negotiation of a North American treaty on pollution, it proposes the adoption of an import tax on foreign products whose manufacturers are not subject to anti-pollution standards as stringent as those in the United States.
I would also add for the Hon. Member's information that Mr. Victor Maerki, assistant to Senator Stafford, who is sponsoring this Bill, says that this legislation has a better chance than the previous bills because of the Mulroney-Rea-gan meeting.
For the first time, the American President has recognized that acid rain is a real problem. This should remove one of the major obstacles to passage of this Bill by Congress.
This is what I would like to hear my colleague say, namely that major progress has been accomplished since we have been in power and practical action is now being taken in the United States. This was supposed to be a non-partisan debate and I therefore hope that the Hon. Member will have the honesty to make this admission.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague was asking me all these questions, 1 thought that he would not leave me any time to answer them. Quite frankly, I said I felt it was a desire, at least on our part and I suspect on the part of most people, to find a common voice. Therefore, I was a little disillusioned when the Prime Minister appeared to be delighted with President Reagan's response, because in truth the response of the U.S. administration has not advanced much in the last five years or six years. However, if the President of the United States had approached the acid rain problem with the same degree of resolve with which he approached the Nicaraguan problem, then I might be impressed. If the President of the
United States were prepared to put his reputation on the line in the battle against acid rain, then I might be impressed. My worry is that 1 do not know if the President really cares. From reading the reports-I was not there and I am only going from hearsay, quite frankly, and 1 admit that-I know that our advisors, our embassy people in Washington, had some difficulty in getting the President to do even what he did with regard to acid rain. He did not even want to endorse the Lewis-Davis report in actual fact. He had no interest in pursuing the acid rain question. It was only because we, the Canadian side, insisted that something be said about it that he even went as far as to endorse the report, albeit without setting out any clear way of dealing with that endorsation.
I do not know if the President of the United States understands it, but out of the 16,000 fishing camps and lodges in Ontario, 600 will be closed because of acid rain by the year 2000, and that will cost us $28 million and 600 jobs. One hundred and seventy-five million acres, which is almost half of Canada's productive forests, generate $14 million worth of product per year. These forests are affected detrimentally by the high levels of acid rain that is falling on them. Fifty per cent of the soil in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, and 87 per cent of the soil in Quebec is sensitive to acid rain. The value of the crops that grow in eastern Canada is $3 billion. I am concerned that over 86 per cent of Canada's population lives in areas of high acid rain. Given that similar statistics can be worked out for the geographic areas affected in the United States, I would have thought the President would have recognized, as we have, that immediate action is needed. We need a program now.
This is a nonpartisan issue. We do not differ on this. I am sure that the Minister agrees we should clean it up. I am sure the Minister agrees that the action taken by the Liberal administration was useful in the pursuit of that clean-up. I am sure we all agree that the major problem is the U.S. administration's inability, first, to understand the problem, and second, to move forward. I think we all agree on that.
Therefore, I do not know why we are arguing among ourselves about who did what to whom. Why are we not arguing about how we can get the best possible result from the administration of the United States? Why can we not send them a message that we are not satisfied with further discussion, investigation, and research? Let us do it by all means, but let us put minimum standards in place and let us enforce them so that we will not constantly have acid rain falling on everything that is important to us while they sit around waiting for the next presidential election.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Has the New Democratic Party House Leader read the Drew-Lewis report?


Ian Deans: Yes.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this motion, coming as it does from a Party that did virtually nothing to advance Canada-U.S. progress on acid


rain when it was in power, is as credible as a sermon on sexual morality by Fanny Hill. When the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) moved his motion he ignored history, refused to give the new Government due credit for a solid achievement in the environmental area, and demonstrated yet again a truism, namely, the Liberal Party never looks sillier than when it is attacking the present Government in a policy area where its own record in office was so appalling.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Despite the Cassandra opposite, the hon. gentleman who moved the motion, the course undertaken by the present Government on acid rain is bearing fruit and will bear even more results in the future, results which the previous Government was unwilling to seek and, therefore, unable to achieve. Their attitude to the issue is evident in everything the Hon. Member's Party did or failed to do when it was in power.
On November 18, 1980, the then Minister of the Environment assured this House that: "We are acting within our own jurisdiction to the fullest extent and exploring every possible avenue to press the United States to co-operate with us in this very important venture". I urge the Hon. Member who sponsored the motion, and all Members on all sides of the House, to use that statement as a measure against which to judge what the previous Government did or, to be precise, what it did not do on acid rain.
One thing it did not do was place acid rain on the agenda of any summit between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, CBC's Terry Milewski notwithstanding. There have been claims, the CBC's among them, that acid rain was first put on a bilateral summit agenda in 1981. However, Sir, by every reliable account, acid rain was not in fact on the agenda as a separate and major issue. It was only mentioned in passing, virtually after the fact.
The Hon. Member for Davenport takes issue with me, but according to a description of the 1981 summit contained in The Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs published by the University of Toronto press:
Mr. Reagan said that the United States favoured a prompt completion of the Alaska Gas Pipeline (and) said the United States wished to co-operate in studying and controlling transboundary pollution. His conclusion was positive and up-beat focusing, not on the differences between the two countries, but on their shared likenesses-
Geoffrey Stevens, now managing editor of The Globe and Mail, and then its Ottawa columnist, dismissed the entire meeting as a "triumph of style over substance".
On June 17, 1982, 1 had occasion in this House to quote the words of a distinguished former American chairman of the International Joint Commission who blamed Mr. Trudeau for Canada's failure to achieve a bilateral accord on acid rain. These are the words of Mr. Robert Sugarman to a Canadian audience:
There has never been a statement in the United States by the highest official in your Government-
Supply
-in other words, the Government of Canada-
-to the American people that has reflected the seriousness with which Canadians take the problem.
A week later Canada's Minister of the Environment, John Roberts, instructed Canadian officials, his scientists, to break off negotiations with the United States on the grounds that the Americans were not willing to work out bilateral emission standards with us. That, Mr. Speaker, was the former Government's idea of "exploring every avenue to co-operate".
Almost a year later, shortly after the Williamsburg summit between the then Canadian Prime Minister and the President of the United States, I asked Mr. Roberts, the Minister of the Environment, in the House of Commons during Question Period whether acid rain had been on the agenda of the Williamsburg summit, or whether the Prime Minister had raised the issue even informally with the President of the United States on that occasion. All I, the Parliament of Canada, and the people of Canada received was a statement that Mr. Roberts did not "know whether the acid rain issue was touched on in an informal way". The Minister of the Environment for Canada did not even know whether the Prime Minister of Canada had raised the issue, much less as a major agenda item at a bilateral summit between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.
I pressed him on that occasion by asking, first, whether Williamsburg might not have been an ideal occasion for raising the matter and, second, whether he thought that putting the issue forward might not assist in the acid rain campaign. I asked the then Minister of the Environment for Canada whether he, as Minister of the Environment, did not think it would have been a good idea for the Prime Minister of Canada to have raised the issue of acid rain at Williamsburg on the occasion of the summit.
Mr. Roberts' reply was astonishing for its insensitivity, even from a member of a Government which was giving insensitivity and arrogance a bad name. He dismissed my call as "an absurdity". He said it was an absurdity for me in Opposition to even suggest that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to raise the issue of acid rain with his counterpart, the President of the United States, at the summit meeting.
On April 13, 1983, I asked a question of the then Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, now a member of the Senate, Allan MacEachen. 1 asked whether he had made progress on the acid rain issue under the 1980 Memorandum of Intent at a meeting he had just had with U.S. Secretary of State Shultz. He said:
-that idea was tossed around at our meeting and it was abandoned because we finally concluded it would not lead to any further progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Michael McMillan: That is the vigour, Sir, with which the then Deputy Prime Minister of Canada viewed the urgency of the acid rain question in connection with meetings he was having


Supply
with his U.S. counterpart. On that occasion 1 was astonished, as were other Members of Parliament, to learn that the then Deputy Prime Minister of Canada had no concrete idea of how to proceed. All he would say was that he hoped the next time he and his counterpart met they would be joined by scientists and officials from both countries:
-to try to move this very difficult problem forward.
Seven months later the Hon. Member for Davenport, then Minister of the Environment, gave Parliament a genuinely frightening insight into the weakness and aimlessness of his Government's attitude to the vital issue of acid rain. When my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), asked about the possibility of U.S. acid rain legislation, as recorded at page 28983 of Hansard, November 18, 1983, he was told by that Hon. Member that the issue was one that:
-the President of the United States must resolve himself in order to come to a decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: In January, 1984, immediately following President Reagan's State of the Union address in which he said that he would study the problem, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), asked the Member who moved this motion today whether he could respond as to what the Government intended to do in view of the stalemate with the Americans on acid rain. The answer was that our approach is "to continue to make representations."
Clearly the real environmental problem was that the Party opposite was in a fog, had no idea what to do, and lacked the desire to find out. The Hon. Member's inability to deal with the issue may simply have reflected, with all due respect to him, his former leader's insensitivity to the importance Canadians placed and still place on the environment in general. Let me quote from Hansard of June 1 1, 1984, page 4528, when Mr. Trudeau rose in this House and tried to defend the recession his policies had brought to Canadians:
Now we are seeing Governments everywhere, provincial, federal, and in other countries, trying to balance this with the need to keep jobs going and the workers at work. High unemployment figures would be affected adversely if we were to close down some plants because they had not moved as quickly as we would like in reducing their levels of emissions.
Set aside for the moment the aspersions that those words cast on provincial Governments which have shown themselves ready to co-operate on environmental policies, at least as far as acid rain is concerned. Apart from that, the statement also slanders Canadians who have shown consistently that they care about the environment and are prepared to make reasonable sacrifices to protect it.
The present Government, working co-operatively with the provinces and industry, has already proven how miserably Mr. Trudeau underestimated what could be done by Canadians. Over the past 18 months the new Government has put in place the most comprehensive environmental protection program in Canadian history. At the same time it has created almost
600,000	new jobs and pulled Canada through the most grim economic times since the 1930s. All this it has done while whittling the massive deficit the Liberals bequeathed to Canadians.
In other words, the Government has demonstrated that it can pursue economic and environmental objectives in tandem without a trade off between the two objectives.
It is pitifully easy to list what the Liberal Government of the day did not do. It had no domestic acid rain control strategy in place. There were no specific goals by which each province would cut emissions, and no attempt to identify which specific sources in each province would be expected to reduce emissions. There were no plans to finance reduction programs.


Charles L. Caccia: There were.


Thomas Michael McMillan: There were studies of vehicle emission standards, and some go back as far as 1975, but there was no program for actually doing anything about them. Furthermore, acid rain had never been a top priority in bilateral discussions between the U.S. President and the then Prime Minister. Indeed, negotiations on the issue had been broken off altogether by Canada in 1982. The whole abysmal story of the previous Government's ineptitude and lack of concern was contained in the two reports of the parliamentary subcommittee on acid rain. I remind you that a majority of that committee's members were from the Government party. The second report of that committee was aptly titled Time Lost, symbolizing the time which had been lost in getting progress with the Americans on acid rain in the years the Liberals were in office between 1980 and late 1984.
The first step taken by this Government, after it was elected in September of 1984, was to categorically reject practised indecision, Yankee bashing and woolly commitments. We promised action, and we have been delivering, on the acid rain question as on others in the environmental field. We have in fact made more progress on the acid rain issue in 18 months than the Liberal Party was able to achieve in 18 years in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: We obtained specific commitments from the seven eastern provinces to reduce emissions by 50 per cent, or more than 2 million metric tonnes, by 1994, based on emission figures prevailing in 1980. Ontario and Quebec have already announced specific regulations to achieve the reductions necessary in those provinces. Other provinces will follow suit in a very few weeks. Negotiations have begun which will provide co-operative federal-provincial funding to implement these programs. As much, Sir, as $150 million will be provided for direct acid rain abatement from the federal treasury alone. Tighter light-duty vehicle emission standards will take effect for the 1988 model year beginning in September, 1987. Allowable levels of NOx emissions will be slashed by 45 per cent, equalling the American standards which were three times more stringent than those prevailing in Canada when the Liberals were in office. Specific technology projects designed


to demonstrate promising new technologies at non-ferrous smelters have already begun. The Government is spending more than $50 million researching new, cleaner methods of burning coal in Atlantic Canada. The lessons learned from the projects will help industry across Canada meet emission reduction targets.
Sir, last year, before the Quebec Summit, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told Canadians that we would have to put our own House in order before we could expect the Americans to move themselves on the acid rain question. That is precisely what happened. In the process the moral authority that we Canadians bring to the table when we negotiate the issue with our American friends has been greatly strengthened. Less than a week ago the Prime Minister secured President Reagan's powerful and unequivocal endorsement of the findings and conclusions of the special envoys' report. If Members opposite devoted a little less time trying to tell themselves that the report will have little effect, perhaps they would have a little more time to grasp its importance.
Let me summarize, since I have about two minutes left, what that agreement means. It means that the President of the United States has acknowledged that acid rain is a transboundary problem with serious implications for both countries. He has acknowledged the underlying scientific arguments. He has committed the United States to developing a bilateral accord-read it, it's on page 4 of the Envoy's report. He has committed the United States to establishing the bilateral machinery necessary to achieve such an accord. He committed the United States to implementing a technology demonstration program in the United States which is expected to result in near-term reductions in U.S. emissions affecting Canada. He committed himself and the American people to placing acid rain on the agenda of future summits.
In other words, he has committed himself to a process which will ensure that the acid rain question will not be removed from the bilateral agenda until the question itself is resolved.
I stress that these are solid accomplishments. They are not the whole solution, but a major part of the solution. These are solid specific gains in the fight against acid rain. I would urge the Hon. Member and his colleagues to read what the Prime Minister of Canada said to the U.S. people through the media immediately after the conclusion of his meeting with Mr. Reagan. He told them that "the acid rain issue has been kicked around, debated to death in Canada and elsewhere. We think that we have a reasonable plan in place to solve it, not perfect, but well on the way to an effective resolution. And that is what we're going to do."
Sir, I conclude on this note: Yesterday The New York Times described the Prime Minister's success on acid rain with the United States President in Washington as "the turning point on acid rain".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Thomas Michael McMillan: It is a turning point not because the problem has been resolved, but because both countries now finally have placed themselves firmly on a course to resolving the issue. In that sense it is not the end of the road; it is the beginning of the road, but it is an important beginning. I urge all Members of the House on all sides, in the words of the President of the United Stated himself in a different context, "to stay the course".


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


Mr. Althouse:: Having listened quite carefully to the Minister's excellent speech I wonder with reference to the motion that is before the House today, which essentially calls for recognition that it is something that we would all agree to, that in the opinion of the House Canada should negotiate a treaty with the Government of the United States to cut acid rain-causing emissions from sources within the United States. It goes on to spell out the amounts of these reductions that we should aim for. Is the Minister prepared to support this particular motion and this particular outline of intention which is put before the House today?


Thomas Michael McMillan: I think it would be premature for any Member of this House to make a decision on the relevant motion before he or she has heard all the points of view expressed on all sides of the House on the substantive question. For me to stand on my feet and say that I am going to take a hard and fast position on a motion in connection with which the debate has only begun would be the height of arrogance.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Perhaps I could rephrase the question then. Does he, as a Member of this House, believe that we should be negotiating a treaty with the United States to reduce acid rain emissions as this motion says?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, we are in fact negotiating with the Americans towards the achievement of an accord. 1 draw to his attention the relevant sentence on page 4 of the Drew Lewis, William Davis envoys' report, which both the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States have endorsed. It that says what remains is to borrow from the precedent of bilateral progress over the years on various environmental questions and "build upon those foundations a bilateral accord which will jointly address a common problem in the best tradition of the U.S.-Canadian environmental relations."
In accepting the envoys' report we implicitly accept the principle upon which the Hon. Member has based his questions.


Charles L. Caccia: May I ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) whether he has ever seen a copy of the May, 1984 report that deals with the modernization of non-ferrous smelters, which is available to him and which will provide him with an important component on Canada's plan of action in reducing our own emissions, considering his statement earlier that there was no planning before September, 1984? Would


Supply
the Minister like to confirm whether it is incorrect to say that the process of consultation with industry on car emissions was launched in the spring of 1984.
Finally on the question of summits, there is terminology that is causing some confusion. Regarding the question briefly touched upon earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary on the summit, I realize now that he was referring to a bilateral summit. To correct the record, I have to inform you that my reply to him dealt with the seven industrial nations summit of 1984. I realize now from the speech of the Minister that he was in his question referring to a summit in 1984 between Canada and the U.S. That was not the subject of my reply. In my reply I was referring to what was in 1984 I believe the Bonn summit between the seven industrial nations where acid rain was, and quite properly so, on the agenda, because these are the major industrial polluters in the world.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I certainly did not wish to imply, nor did I, I think, that no planning has preceded the decision by the Government of which I am a part to make much more stringent the allowable emission levels for light duty motor vehicles. Clearly a lot of scientific work and some considerable thought by Government, including previous Governments, had been devoted to the issue, but no progress had been made beyond the actual preliminary work. It took this Government to bring that preparatory work together and give effect to the controls to which I addressed myself in my speech.
The emission controls on light duty vehicles take effect in September of 1984 for the 1988 motor vehicle year. They will be 45 per cent more stringent than those that prevailed before, bringing out standards to the level of the Americans, which until now have been three times more stringent than ours.
On the second question, I think it is significant that-1 don't mean to be partisan here-the Official Opposition comes into this House and brings with it a laudable motion. But implicit in the motion is a criticism of the Government of Canada for the way in which it handled the acid rain question in Washington through the bilateral summit between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. When that Party was in office it absolutely refused to put the issue on the agenda, much less deal with it effectively once it was on the agenda.
When my Party was in opposition we asked repeated questions in the House during Question Period, following a meeting between the then Prime Minister and the President. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), myself and others would ask the Prime Minister and other Ministers if they had raised the acid rain issue and if so, what agreement was reached. We asked if an understanding had been reached, and every time, without exception, we were told, to our shock and disappointment, and that of the Canadian people, that the issue had not even been raised. Not only had it not been put on the agenda, it had not been discussed even informally. We would say: "Surely you took the occasion of meeting with the President of the United States in Williamsburg to express the concern Canadians have about the effects of acid rain on our environment and on the environment of the United States?" If this issue was not on the agenda formally, we thought that the then Prime Minister would at least have put it on a hidden agenda, raise it at a cocktail party or while walking the President to his car. The only response was that it had not been deemed appropriate.
No one occasion I was attacked by the then Prime Minister for even suggesting that it would have been appropriate for him to raise the acid rain question when meeting with the President of the United States in Europe for multilateral discussions. The Prime Minister said: "We cannot raise everything. When I see the President of the United States at a summit meeting of different countries, I cannot raise everything".
Acid rain is more than just another issue. It is the most important environmental issue ever faced by the United States or Canada. It is not just another bilateral issue, much less just another environmental issue. Acid rain is destroying our lakes, our streams and rivers. It is killing our fish and undermining our agriculture. It is devastating our forests and has even been demonstrated by science to have an effect on human health.
Members of the Liberal Party did not think it was important enough to raise the issue with the President of the United States even informally, much less formally. Now that Party has the gall and unmitigated temerity to come to the House and attack the present Prime Minister for the way he raised it in Washington. I do not know what you call it in your riding, Mr. Speaker, but in my riding and, 1 suspect, in Davenport, the attitude is called hypocrisy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for giving the House and all Members of Parliament the opportunity to direct our thoughts toward this urgent issue. I am sure every Member of Parliament recognizes that there is an urgent need for joint U.S.-Canadian action on the problem of acid rain.
I do not see any reason why the motion being debated today cannot be accepted by all Hon. Members in the House, particularly under the new rules by which the House now operates. There is no condemnation or question of confidence expressed in this motion. It is an outstanding way for the House to send a strong message to our counterparts in the United States Congress and the United States administration that while we have begun serious and concerted action in our country we know that the problem of acid rain will not be solved until they take some action themselves.
Canadians have known for a very long time that the acid rain problem is serious and is getting worse. As far back as 1981, our reputable, distinguished and accomplished National Research Council concluded in a very credible scientific report that acidic depositions, or acid rain, was a major environmental concern in many regions of North America and that it was a transboundary problem.


It was during the first session of the Parliament of Canada previous to this one that a subcommittee of the House tabled its well-known report, copies of which are still in great demand. That report is called "Still Waters: The Chilling Reality of Acid Rain".
One of its recommendations called for Canada and the United States to reach an agreement on the necessary legislation and mechanisms to substantially reduce transboundary air pollution as it relates to acid rain. It recommended that something be done by the end of 1982.
In this respect I want to take my stand, not for or against a Government, but with an all-party parliamentary group that understood the problem well enough to make a recommendation as forthright and vigorous as that. It reminds me once again that Parliament does have a role to play in leading Government rather than following it, cheering or jeering, as the case may be. If more parliamentary reports were adhered to and taken seriously, the kind of acton taken by governments would not be so open to criticism or challenge by the people of Canada.
I am delighted that the new rules we recently adopted will finally give Members of Parliament the opportunity not simply to follow, but to take the lead on certain crucial issues such as the issue of acid rain that we are debating today. It enables us to debate how we may encourage the people in the United States to convince their Government, their Congress and their administration to do a great deal more than they have in the past.
We know that the result of the recent meeting between our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States was no big deal. That is not just my opinion, because the Prime Minister himself said in the House that the agreement on acid rain was not a triumph, but represented progress. That is what we are debating today.
How much progress was made? I am not interested in the historical debate about whether it is more progress than was made in the past. I am more interested in the problems we face today and the damage that acid rain is causing in my region of the country. I suggest that an agreement which simply calls for more research but no real cuts in the level of sulphuric and nitric oxide emissions is not enough. It is certainly no triumph. It is certainly no big deal to recognize that acid rain is a problem and perhaps some money will be spent on it. That money will be spent if Congress agrees, and it is no easier to get money from Congress than it is to get money for new programs from our Government when we are facing a serious fiscal situation. May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.

Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is not acting wisely regarding stabilization payments for Prince Edward Island potato farmers. Island farmers fear the auctioneer will be long gone by the time the Government gets around to helping them out. Far too many farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy.
Farmers asked for help last fall. Here it is very close to spring planting season and there is still no word. Island potato farmers need cash in their pockets to pay last year's bills before they can start planning for the coming season. They need an assurance that help is on the way.
I call upon the Government to exercise wise judgment and approve funds for stabilization payments immediately. That is not all. The market price for potatoes must be restored to reasonable levels. To do that, the Government must also approve a diversion program to remove potatoes from the market. Our primary producers must be guaranteed a healthy return for their crops, and stabilization payments to cover their losses.



INDUSTRY


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, early in January I was contacted by an individual who had been a quality assurance supervisor at Fleet Industries, a company which makes aircraft and other military components. He told me many horror stories about unqualified personnel and improper inspection procedures at its plant, so I pressed both the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence to investigate.
These investigations have now been completed and it is apparent that their findings, as far as they went, have substantiated the allegations which were made by this individual. It is to be hoped that the company and these two Departments will now move quickly to correct the problems and guarantee the quality and safety of their products.
If these matters had not been raised by this individual, how much longer would they have gone unnoticed by the DND on-site inspectors, and the Department of Transport audits which had failed to notice them in the past? There is some-
11798


thing seriously wrong and grossly unfair when an individual has to lose his job, jeopardize his entire career, suffer death threats and other harrassment, and be sued by the company, all to bring some serious problems to the attention of those who should have been dealing with them all along.



THE SENATE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, while we are reforming the House of Commons let us not forget about the reform of the Senate. Ontario and Quebec have, and will have for many years, a majority of Members in the House of Commons as representation is based on population. Senators, on the other hand, should represent their province or region. With a majority in the House of Commons, the central provinces do not need a second advantage by having a majority in the Senate.
The Triple E movement, which stands for an elected Senate with equal representation from each province bringing about an efficient "other place", is growing right across our nation. Triple E carries with it the judgment of the most critical, as it is fair to every part of Canada. Triple E promotes a Senate which is answerable to the people and which assures every region that our laws will be fair. A Triple E Senate could be a powerful force in holding together the Canada we have and love today.



COAL TECHNOLOGY-FUNDING REDUCTION

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Government to reconsider a move that it made in the recent federal Budget to reduce the amount of moneys for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for coal technology.
Under the previous Government, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources had budgeted approximately $30 million in this regard. However, as a result of the Budget this amount has been slashed by $20 million. This will have devastating effects on those provinces in the country which utilize coal as their primary source of energy. I am thinking primarily of the Province of Nova Scotia, which utilizes coal as its first and foremost resource with regard to electrical generation.
The fact that the Government has now destroyed the coal technology program will have devastating effects on our economy. As we look for additional uses for coal, not only for electrical generation but for coal liquefaction plants, we see, the carbogel project which was to take place in Cape Breton has been cancelled as a result of this cut-back. I hope the Government will reconsider this decision and reinstitute the coal technology program.
* *
*



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the Task Force on Program Review recently made public its assessment of the many agricultural programs and tax benefits in force at this time. Now that we know that there is a bottom to the taxpayer's pocket, even agriculture must take up the challenge to spend wisely. The task force encourages this by exposing all programs for scrutiny and justification.
If continued funding is indeed inappropriate for some specific programs, we should perceive this as an opportunity to liberate these wasted dollars for more necesssary work such as research and market development. Evidently this challenge is too difficult for the NDP. In Saskatchewan their leader has responded with pathetic and hysterical bleatings about specific options from the report. True to form, that Party is trying desperately to manipulate the fears of western farmers rather than co-operate with this magnificent opportunity to create an effective, forward-looking agriculture for the 21st century.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Hondurans and Canadians mourn last Thursday's tragic death of Father Willie Arsenault near Tegucigalpa in Honduras.
Father Arsenault was a humble and dedicated missionary who built homes for handicapped and abandoned Honduran children to whom he devoted his life.
Children, Quebecers, his relatives and friends in the Gaspe Peninsula will all feel the void left by the death of this man of peace.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the murder of Father Arsenault is not an isolated incident. The people of Honduras have lived through years of terrorism and abuse of human rights. They are the victims of the violence and armed aggression inherent in Central America's ongoing militarization. They are the victims of their country's destabilization which has been abetted and encouraged by the policies of the Reagan administration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at 9 a.m., Imasco, the old Imperial Tobacco, offered to buy 100 per cent of the shares of Genstar at $54 a share. Genstar controls Canada Trust, one of Canada's largest financial institutions following its merger with Canada Permanent.
In the Finance Committee's report on financial institutions released last November members of the committee recommended stringent ownership restrictions on large financial institutions controlled by non-financial institutions. At that time the committee singled out Genstar for special restrictions because of its relatively small non-financial holdings. It now appears a single company with massive non-financial holdings could gain control of Canada Trust.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) should make it clear that she will block any attempt by any nonfinancial institution to gain majority control of Genstar. She should quickly indicate to the House her response to the ownership representations of the Finance Committee.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, like any other kind of explosive, nuclear explosives can be used for good or evil. Civil uses of subterranean nuclear explosives might include large-scale excavations, permeability enhancement of gas reservoirs, and fracturing in preparation for in situ leaching of mineral deposits. However, continued, primarily military underground testing by powers such as the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are interpreted as hostile acts and lead to increased instability in an already unstable world.
Therefore might I suggest that further unilateral tests be discontinued and that the nuclear powers, together with other interested countries such as Canada, co-operate under the auspices of the United Nations to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes which can be used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: For over a year now, Mr. Speaker, we have been facing a decimated Liberal contingent which has no policy, no vision into the future and no hope.
Members of the Opposition systematically refuse to endorse any constructive proposition made during the debates in this House, preferring instead to belittle the programs advocated by our Government. Nothing meets with their approval, be it job creation for young people, increases in veterans' allowances, or agricultural assistance programs.
Worse still, Mr. Speaker, they will go to any length to put off the adoption of measures from which the most destitute of our fellow citizens would benefit.
The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson was quite right when he wrote recently, and I quote:
The Liberals' response to the Wilson Budget offers further depressing evidence that intellectual inconsistency, hypocrisy and political opportunism arc thriving on the Opposition benches.



FISHERIES


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen of New Brunswick are impatiently awaiting a decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) on herring quotas in the Gulf region. Several weeks ago, Government representative, fishermen and processors met in Montreal to discuss and suggest changes. It will soon be April, when the fishermen start getting their boats and fishing gear ready. As you can imagine, these fishermen must know now what their fishing quotas will be, so they can plan accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has all the facts before him and there is no reason for him to delay his decision. Furthermore, the crab fishing industry is also impatiently awaiting a decision by the Minister. I wonder why the Minister is so reluctant. Why is he making the fishermen wait so long?



THE ECONOMY


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, in today's Ottawa Citizen, an article about the book "Up the Hill" by a former minister of the federal Government, the present


Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) gives an entirely non-partisan impression of the lack of attention given by the Liberal government to major economic decisions.
According to the author, the Petrofina purchase was never approved by the entire Cabinet.
The National Energy Policy, whose disastrous effects we are still feeling today, was forced on Cabinet by a very small group, of which the present Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was a member.
The decision to build Mirabel was made in a most cavalier fashion, without any consideration for present and future needs.
It was this team of irresponsible megalomaniacs, Mr. Speaker, that plunged this country into the worst economic mess we have seen in this century.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Government uses any occasion, however unjustified, to indicate any possible good statistics. That is part of its news-management scheme. However, the Government has ignored the plight of homeless Canadians about whom the Ottawa Citizen wrote this week. It has refused to deal with the problems of unemployed youth. It has refused to recognize that churches and other centres have overflowing soup kitchen facilities; in other words, there are too many people for the facilities that exist.
The Government, through the Nielsen task force report, talks about modern suburbs in the bush but is blind to the real conditions of native Canadians. It ignores the deplorable housing situation of Indian people and it ignores the fact that there are no water and sewage systems for them. It refuses to acknowledge the fact that there is a higher rate of disease occurrences among native Canadians. The Government is not a good-news Government, it is a bad-news Government.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are concerned about the problems of young people. That is why the present Government is spending S734.6 million during the current fiscal year to provide training and job-creation programs for youth. This year 222,600 young Canadians will participate in these programs.
Between 1980 and 1984, under the former Liberal Government, 142,000 young people lost their jobs. Since September, 1984, 75,000 new jobs have been created for young people, and
youth unemployment has fallen, not enough as yet, but it has fallen.
Katimavik was established to provide young people with employment, training and life experiences. The present Government's youth programs are doing exactly the same thing in a different way but are helping more people with the same amount of money.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ANNA FRASER. WORLD CUP FREESTYLE SKI AERIAL CHAMPION

Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might break with tradition a little and advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery of Miss Anna Fraser, winner of the World Cup Freestyle Ski Aerial Championships, who, among other things-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: She is, of course, among other things, the daughter of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. He is probably aware that last Friday, the Prime Minister promised the House he would check with his ministers and senior officials in order to accelerate the process or do everything he could to announce a new youth program. Could the Secretary of State inform the House whether the Prime Minister consulted him or whether they intend to take action today?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member for Shefford that the Government of Canada is going to define policies on public administration and will announce them at the appropriate time, and obviously, without being influenced by the kind of question he is asking me today.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE MEASURES BEFORE END OF SESSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary. 1 think the Secretary of State should show some respect for this institution and answer the questions that are put to him. On Friday, his leader promised he would read officially, as he said, the letter from Senator Hebert. He promised to consult with his ministers in order to announce a program and thus try and put an end to the situation that exists in the other place, in the Senate. Could the Secretary of State inform the House whether or not they intend to take action before the end of this session?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Shefford say that the Prime Minister announced he would make a decision in terms of what is happening across the corridor. The Prime Minister of Canada has never established any connection between a decision on youth policy and what is happening on the other side. A decision on Katimavik or any other program will never be made in terms of what is happening across the corridor.


INQUIRY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL ACT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State can put his head in the sand as much as he likes, but the fact is that today, there is one senator who is into his fifteenth day of fasting. What I am asking the Secretary of State is this: Do they intend to let him die or are they going to act as they are supposed to act, which is as soon as possible?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, Senator Hebert, to whom the Hon. Member is referring, made a decision that I respect, but it is his decision, it is not a decision by the Government of Canada. I am very sorry, but this Government will not respond to this kind of gesture by changing fundamental policies on which the administration of this country depends. That is true today, and will continue to be a week from now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. All Canadians have been saddened and shocked by the reports of the tragic death of a Canadian missionary priest in Central America in the past week. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what action the Government is taking in response to this terrible incident? Are External Affairs officers presently in Honduras involved in an inquiry? Have we asked
Oral Questions
the Honduran Government for an official report on the circumstances surrounding this tragedy?


Monique Vézina: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret the death of Father Arsenault in Honduras. We have taken the necessary measures this morning and asked our embassy in Guatemala to find out exactly what happened and why the murder took place. Naturally our embassy provides the required support in such painful human situations, and we have assured the family that immediate action will be taken to bring back the remains of Father Arsenault.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN CENTRAL AMERICA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in view of this incident and of the wide variety of turbulence which is taking place in that region, is the Government prepared to re-evaluate or reassess the risk to the security and safety of many Canadians who are now working in that area as missionaries of as volunteers? In fact, is the Government looking at the necessity to increase substantially its diplomatic presence and have more embassies in that region, in view of this increased activity and the risk which Canadians will be facing?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we already have programs in Central America. As we said on several occasions, very specific and special measures are being implemented to meet the standards of that country.
As to our embassies, we have increased our presence in Costa Rica and Guatemala. We can say that the two embassies that represent us are doing outstanding work and, of course, we keep a very close watch on the situation.


INCOME TAX
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Is it her Government's view of fairness that a person who had a taxable income in 1984 of $2,040 and who, as a result of that, paid no tax, should, as a result of the changes introduced by the Minister of Finance, now be required to pay $190.30 tax on that selfsame taxable income in 1985?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we have spoken about fairness in this House


Oral Questions
many times. There is no question that the Budget and the budgetary implications of what we have done with regard to the deficit through taxes and expenditures have been well received by the country, and that Canadians do believe that the Budget is fair.


LEVEL OF TAX PAYMENTS
Ian Deans: Would the Minister care to answer the question? Is it reasonable that persons with a $2,040 taxable income should be required, in 1985, to pay $ 190.30 in tax when in the previous year they were required to pay no tax because we believed that they could not afford to pay tax?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have done more for the lower-income people than other Governments have done, and we intend to continue doing that. However, we are not doing Canadians any favours if we do not get rid of the deficit. The country knows that, and I wish the Hon. Member would admit it.


Ian Deans: Where does the Minister propose that people with taxable income of $2,040 should find an additional nearly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the Hon. Member to ensure he does not simply repeat the question.


Ian Deans: Perhaps if you listened, you would find out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Where does the Minister propose that a person with a taxable income of $2,040 should be able to find $200 more in a year to pay tax, when she knows full well that at that level of income they do not have that kind of money?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! That is exactly the same question.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Egiinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It seems that the Government is going to shut this House down on Wednesday for a 10-day holiday without announcing a youth program-


Some Hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He doesn't even know the Standing Orders.


An Hon. Member:: He doesn't understand the rule of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Question, please.


Roland de Corneille: -ignoring the fact that Canadians of every age are focusing on Senator Hebert, who is still on a hunger strike on behalf of Katimavik and the youth of the country. Why does the Government not have a youth program ready for us now, or is it playing a political cat-and-mouse game with Senator Hebert and the young people of the country?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I responded earlier, and again I repeat our position: the Government of Canada will not hastily create a program, notwithstanding the famous reports which you have released and which you want us to take into consideration. We will not create a program because somebody is on a hunger strike.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE EASTER RECESS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Government has a program which is at all worth-while, why does it not bring it before Parliament before the holiday, instead of ducking and stalling until the House shuts down?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman has been living with his head stuck in the sand. In the short time that the Government has been in office it has focused $700 million on direct youth employment related programs. It has created 50,000 more jobs for young people. There was a net loss of jobs for the entire time during which that hon. gentleman sat as a member of the Government on this side. There has been more action since the change of Government with respect to youth employment than there was in the combined history of the Government when the Member was sitting on this side of the House.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. As he might know, last Thursday officials from his Department forced their way into the family home of Bill and Anna Rijswijch of Delta, British Columbia. Mrs. Rijswijch, recovering from major surgery, was forcibly removed from her bed and his officials then seized the bed. Can the Minister inform us the section of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights this action comes under?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform Members of the House that I


am naturally very upset at the newspaper reports of this incident. We are looking into the matter to see whether the circumstances are as described. If they are and, if appropriate,
I will personally see that the bed is returned with appropriate apologies from Revenue Canada Taxation.


APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister change the regulations which allow his officials to carry on these storm-trooper tactics and make those changes public? We understood this was supposed to have changed with the change of Government.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would caution my friend opposite not to jump to too many conclusions on this matter. As he knows, the Department is in a bit of a dilemma because we are charged by law with making every effort to protect the taxpayers' interests, particularly when it comes to SRTC investigations, of which this was a part. The actual seizure was effected by sheriffs deputies. I am trying to find out for certain what part Revenue Canada officials played and whether they failed to exercise proper judgment. If they did, and if it is appropriate that there be redress and apologies, I repeat that this will be done.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Prime Minister's meeting with President Reagan last week. Can the Minister tell us what agreements were reached with the President of the U.S. concerning the U.S. Farm Bill which will have a devastating impact on Canadian farmers by reducing net farm income by some 20 per cent? What actual agreements were reached between the President and the Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, as is obvious, is not in the House today. He is in Oshawa. I was in Europe attending a NATO meeting and our paths have not crossed since. If the hon. gentleman wants an inventory of agreements that have been reached, if reached, he will have to await the return to the House of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, or when the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is in his seat.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great national concern, especially in western Canada. Is the Minister saying that the Government is satisfied that it did not get a commitment from the President of the
Oral Questions
U.S. that their bonus program for grain would not be used against Canada and its traditional trading partners?


Erik Nielsen: One thing I am satisfied of, Sir, is the vigour with which our agricultural interests are being put forward in the U.S. by the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is a very refreshing increase in activity over what we saw in the two decades prior to our taking office in 1984.


FINANCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of Finance announced in Hamilton last week that he does not intend to extend to the people of Ear Falls area, caught in the closure of the Griffith Iron Ore Mine, any of the tax relief which he promised to these workers in his 1985 Budget Speech as well as his 1984 economic statement. Will the Minister of State for Finance tell the house if the statement in Hamilton represents the Minister of Finance's final decision and, if it does, what justification could he offer for reneging on these promises to provide tax relief on severance pay and other closure benefits paid to laid-off workers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has reached his decision on this. I think it is important to point out that these cases are considered on a case-by-case basis. They are treated equally in that the same criteria are brought to bear, but since there are frequently different facts it can lead to different results on a case by case basis.


PLIGHT OF WORKERS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if then it is the Ministry of Finance's position that the Ear Falls area is not isolated and that there are other jobs in the area, and if that is the position it takes will the Minister of Finance go up to the area and tell the people where the jobs are, because they sure cannot find them?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that it is a mine that is being closed, it is not a town that is being closed. The same criteria were brought to bear on this as have been brought to bear on other cases of this nature. There are a number of programs, federal and provincial, that have been specifically designed to help in such a situation.


Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


TRANSFER PAYMENT TO QUEBEC CREE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the Minister explain to the House and to the Cree people of Quebec why he unilaterally reduced an Indian self-government transfert payment by 50 per cent, a payment that flowed out of an agreement signed between the Cree people and Canada, an agreement that was part of the Cree-Naskapi Act and signed in conjunction with that Act passed by this Parliament?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member. I think one fact would be useful to note: there was an increase in the original payment of over $800,000, which is only half the request. The Treasury Board note also indicates that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be approaching the Treasury Board with respect to further opportunities.


AGREEMENTS WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister well in his representations. I want to ask him when we are going to stop breaking agreements that we sign with the aboriginal peoples of Canada.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I say this with all the compassion I can muster. It would have been most useful if the previous Government had made opportunities available to the northern Cree which would have allowed us to proceed with the agreement. In fact, what we have had to do is pick up where the agreement left off, provide the funds that are available to us now, and come back later. I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government intends to maintain agreements, and indeed make agreements which are maintainable.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of urgency has been attached to the fact that one man is on a hunger strike, but not enough to the fact that 700,000 young people are in serious difficulty. My question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can we get a straight answer? Is it that we are going to have a program by the Easter recess, by the end of March as the Prime Minister says, or manana like the Secretary of State said?


Benoît Bouchard: I can repeat in the other official language repeat what I said in French. I said that when we will be ready to propose to young Canadians any
other policy we will do so, but not necessarily at the time when you want. The Prime Minister never said that we will propose a policy before such and such a date. We will propose something when we are ready.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Speaker, is it not amazing that the Prime Minister was so prompt in retrospect about the dismissal of a Minister, but there is so much delay in dealing with the problems of young people? Can we not trust the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. This is the same question again. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


WORLD OIL PRICES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today the OPEC meetings broke off without reaching an agreement on how to stop the decline in world oil prices. Is the Government still prepared to play the waiting game while even more jobs are lost in our energy industry?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant contact with the producing provinces, we are in constant contact with the producers themselves in discussing this particular issue. When a decision is made as to what action, if any, the provincial and federal Governments will take, that announcement will be made jointly in complete co-operation, like we have seen over the last 18 months, with our provincial counterparts.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A large number of Canadian companies have laid off employees and the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada has said the time for waiting is over. Will the Government admit that the time for waiting is over and take some action now?


John Horton McDermid: Well, the Hon. Member has been standing up asking for action, but he fails to mention what kind of action should be taken by the Government. If he has some ideas we would be more than happy to listen to him, but to stand up there and just say take action is completely irresponsible.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. On September 19 the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke of a joint agreement with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to set aside 30 per cent of the jobs in the major component of the Canada Jobs Strategy Program for welfare recipients. Can the Minister explain then why, according to this memo that I have here, that is marked confidential, from Mr. John Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, why he, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, allowed the employment officials to undercut his target of 30 per cent by one-half in negotiations with the lead Province of Saskatchewan? Why did he allow himself to be undercut like that?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there was no undercutting. There have been discussions by the Minister of Employment and Immigration as recently as last week when she was in Saskatchewan. This program with the provinces to have people who have been on welfare, who have been in that difficulty where they want to get out of welfare, where they needed some training or flexibility in the program-that has been put together with the federal Government and those provinces that have wanted to enter into those types of agreements. That was further enhanced by the Minister of Finance's Budget. I want to say to the Member that that program is going well and we continue not only to proceed with it but to enhance it.


EMPLOYMENT TARGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On September 19 in the House of Commons why did the Minister of National Health and Welfare talk of a target of 30 per cent when in these negotiations, according to Mr. Edwards, in the Province of Saskatchewan the target now is set at between 14 and 18 per cent? Why did he tell the House it was 30 per cent when, indeed, the negotiations are about half of that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if he takes a look a little further in terms of those negotiations the target will be as high as possible. If you take a look at Nova Scotia other targets have been met there because of negotiations that have taken place. If he takes a look, for example, at the Throne Speech of the Saskatchewan Legislature just a few days ago, there was a reference to that issue. What we are saying is yes, we want to get people off welfare, but we will do it on the basis of where it is meaningful work rather than "workfare".
Oral Questions


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In Section 48 of the draft amendment of the Trust Companies Act the Minister proposed measures to prohibit transfers of ownership of financial institutions which the Minister considers to be against the public interest, effective November 29, 1985. Will the Minister state categorically, in view of the proposed takeover of Canada Trust by Imasco this morning, that she will block any attempt by a non-financial institution to gain majority control of Genstar, or is she prepared to see Canadian ownership policy for financial institutions decided by default?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not prepared to see financial institution policy decided by default. This particular proposal came to us only very recently. There are many ramifications to it, and I am certainly taking a very close look at it, or 1 will when the documentation is prepared.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister is not ready to announce an ownership policy now, will she give an undertaking to the House that on our return from the Easter break she will make a statement to the House on government policy for financial institution ownerships before this takeover can be completed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the draft Bill suggests that any potential takeovers after November 29, 1985, must meet with my approval. As soon as those decisions are ready, I will certainly make them public.


HUNGER STRIKE BY SENATOR JACQUES HEBERT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: I would like to raise an issue with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, following the extremely harsh attitude which the Secretary of State demonstrated a while ago concerning the events which are taking place at the other end of the corridor where a


Oral Questions
senator is continuing his hunger strike on behalf of young Canadians.
Considering that there appears to be no link whatsoever between the announcement of new programs and the hunger strike, could the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether the Government has at least a contingency plan to prevent the worst from happening on the Senate side?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is extremely sad that a man like Senator Hebert should take such an extreme measure to try to influence the Government into changing its direction as to essentially political choices in the area of job creation for young Canadians. From the political and humane point of view, it is absolutely unacceptable that a person should use such a method on which I will not comment as harshly as most Canadians. I cannot object too strongly to this attempt at making political gains at the expense of young Canadians.


INQUIRY IF PROGRAM REPLACEMENT PLAN EXISTS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that the Government is entirely "divorcing" the announcement of programs from the hunger strike. Therefore, I ask the following question: Has the Government a plan, irrespective of the programs, to put an end to what is going on at the Senate before it is too late?


Benoît Bouchard: On
many occasions this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the policies of this Government are not decided according to the decision of this or that Canadian to go on strike. Such a method has never been a basis for governing a country, and we are going to start using it today.
Senator Hebert has made his own decision. He has never asked anybody for the permission to go on a hunger strike. He does not have to ask anybody for the permission to stop. And it is certainly not by changing the Government policy that we could cause Senator Hebert to change his mind.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Minister is aware, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association circulated a letter to MPs claiming that it will quadruple R and D jobs if the Minister curtails generic drug manufacturing. Does the Minister agree with that claim by the manufacturers and, if so, will be explain to the House how that can possibly happen simply by doubling R and D expenditures?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that we intend to revise the legislation on the pharmaceutical industry. We have launched a major consultation process across the country, and we intend to announce a policy whose aims will be along the same lines as previous policies announced by the Government, namely to create jobs and promote investment in this country.


COST OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not agree that those false claims will cost Canadian consumers and elderly persons some $211 million a year if he goes ahead with those legislative changes? Will he ask the drug companies to table in the House letters substantiating those claims?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we have repeated many times that when the decision is announced, it will not be at the expense of the consumer, and furthermore, and I repeat, it will have the advantage of creating jobs in Canada and generally promoting investment in the industry.


PUBLIC WORKS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, which we can understand, and in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary who, in this case, is AWOL in South Korea-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is in order, but I am sure the Hon. Member knows that commenting on the presence or absence of others is not.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I said my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he tell the House if it is federal policy to sell federally owned parklands? NCC Chairman, Jean Pigott, recently said that she wants to sell part of an Ottawa riverfront park known as Mile Circle, to the United States of America for an embassy compound. Is the Government in favour of selling our natural parklands?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe this question has


been answered several times before and I simply refer the hon. gentleman to the records of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question was put before, but we never got an answer.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE PROHIBITING SALE OF NATIONAL PARKLAND
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether he intends to act responsibly and give clear and precise instructions to all those who are responsible for our national parks, indicating clearly that none of our national parks are for sale?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, usually the view of the Opposition is that they get no responses to their questions simply because they choose not to accept the responses. On our part, however, we believe that they are responses to the questions and should be accepted from the Government. Again I invite the Hon. Member to refer to the records of the House.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism tabled a progress report on Equality Now which recommends at point 33 that the Government of Canada undertake negotiations to redress "these wrongs" namely, the mistreatment accorded the Japanese in Canada during and after the Second World War.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm my information that the Cabinet has instructed the present Minister of State for Multiculturalism and his predecessor not to negotiate such a redress with the National Association of Japanese Canadians?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know better than to expect an answer to a question which is directly motivated by a desire to obtain knowledge of discussions from within Cabinet. He knows very well that that is simply not the practice and tradition of this House. Cabinet discussions are not disclosed on the floor of the House of Commons.


Ian Deans: Neither is anything else.


Abram Ernest Epp: The evidence certainly confirms the question which I put.
Oral Questions


REDRESS AGREEMENT INQUIRY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Does the Government intend to betray the expectations which the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, aroused in the summer of 1984 about a redress agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is: Not at all.


FINANCE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). Everybody knows that in the last two weeks, interest rates dropped nearly 10 per cent as a result of our good Government. Could the Minister of State (Finance) inform the House what effect this substantial drop will have on small and medium-sized businesses?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, for a business with a debt of $500,000, this means a savings of $5,000 per year. The drop in interest rates should provide a stimulus for this very important sector of our economy.


WESTERN ACCORD-REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY SMALL OIL COMPANIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He knows that the provisions of the Western Accord allow the Government of Canada to take appropriate measures, particularly in these times of fluctuating international oil prices.
In keeping with the Prime Minister's commitment of openness and civility, is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to table in the House copies of representations which have been made to him by numerous small Canadian oil and gas companies, particularly the memorandum which has been submitted to the Government by Petro-Canada, outlining the various options open to the Government?


John Horton McDermid: I am unaware of a memo


Oral Questions
forwarded by Petro-Canada to the Government. Perhaps the Minister has received it I do not know. I have not seen it. As far as the other representations which have been made to the Government are concerned, the energy critic for the Liberal Party had the representations made to him, as they were made to us, and I suggest the Hon. Member get them from his colleague.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Charles Dingwall: Other than just listening, which is very commendable, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many jobs have to be lost and how much economic havoc do western Canadians have to sustain before the Government will provide to Parliament the options it is considering with the producing provinces, with respect to a very difficult issue affecting western Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned as anyone about the falling oil prices and what is happening in Alberta. We are in constant contact with our partners in the Western Accord, the producing provinces. They have not requested a renegotiation of the Western Accord. They do not want another fiasco like the National Energy Program which was a knee-jerk reaction by the former Government to pricing in the oil industry.
We are working very closely with the provinces and when we have something to announce, or if there are any amendments to the Western Accord, they will be made jointly. However, to date there have been no requests for amendments to that wonderful Accord about which westerners are cheering.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Would he tell us whether or not he was asked at the NATO Council Meeting last week in the Federal Republic of Germany to commit Canadian troops in any way to chemical warfare preparedness or participation within the NATO command?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, without setting the precedent of commenting on discussions which go on within the four walls of NATO meetings, I can tell the hon. gentleman: Of course not. The question is right off the wall and is intended to establish something in an area where the Government is simply not involved.
I do not know how many times I have to repeat that the Canadian Government is not involved in any form of chemical warfare.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer rather strange in view of the fact that it was on the agenda of the North Atlantic Assembly and it is presently on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.


CANADIAN POSITION
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give a categorical statement, a clear statement, that under no circumstances-and I am not talking about the production of chemical weapons-will Canadian troops anywhere be involved in the use of chemical weapons or chemical warfare?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the reason of everyone in focusing on that question. How on earth can any reasonable and sane individual predict that our troops will under no circumstances be involved in whatever kind of warfare which might break out? I can give no such assurance. We are certainly not planning to get involved. We are planning on peace in this country and our every effort is directed toward the achievement of a lasting, stable world peace.


PENITENTIARIES
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On Friday a coroner's jury investigating the death of an alleged murderer who was free on mandatory supervision, recommended very strongly, again, that mandatory release be abolished. Will the Solicitor General advise the House how long it will be and how many Canadians are going to die before we pass the legislation abolishing mandatory release which was reported back to this House almost two months ago?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not had a chance to see the report of the coroner's jury myself as yet. However, I have seen press reports. According to the press reports I have seen, it is not calling for the abolition of mandatory supervision but rather for passage of Bill C-67.
As the Hon. Member will know, that Bill is currently in prestudy before the Senate and is at report stage here in the House with the New Democratic Party having filed, I believe, over 30 amendments to the Bill. I believe this Bill is important for public safety and I call upon Members of Parliament to pass the Bill without further delay.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As the Minister will recall, last October his American counterpart came to Ottawa to submit a proposal for a plan to clean up the toxic chemical dump sites along the Niagara River. We have asked the Minister to indicate to us his decision. Now that six months have gone by, the people in the Niagara Peninsula would like to know what is the position of the Minister?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Thomas, met with me here in Ottawa on October 17 at which time, among other things, he gave to me, and through me to the Government, an action plan for the cleaning-up of the Niagara River.
It was to be a four-party action plan involving the U.S. Government, the Canadian Government, the Government of Ontario, and the Government of the State of New York. Our respective officials have been working on it non-stop since then, but I must confess to the Hon. Member and to the House that there is much less progress than 1 had hoped, simply because the Canadian and U.S. Governments do not see eye to eye on the ultimate solution for the disposal sites on the American side of the Niagara River. We think it should be excavation and incineration. The U.S. Government thinks it should be containment.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Will the Minister tell the House when he will make a public statement to let the people in the Niagara Peninsula and those who draw their water from Lake Ontario know what their future is going to be?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just did. I did state categorically on behalf of the Canadian Government that we think the only solution for the disposal sites on the American side along the Niagara River is excavation and incineration or, at the very least, the removal of those toxic chemicals to somewhere else that would be less vulnerable, in the meantime we are doing our best through our different officials to get agreement from the Americans on their own action plan, which will not do the job which needs to be done until there is increased accommodation by the Americans to our position.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT IS PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE IN FINANCING RE-ESTABLISHED KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Would the Government be prepared to participate in the funding of Katimavik if the program were to be maintained through financial support shared by the Government and the private sector, and donations from Canadian individuals, as is the case with Youth Canada-World?


Benoît Bouchard: On
several occasions, Mr. Speaker, I explained the Government's position concerning Katimavik. Whatever the program, the Government of Canada has reviewed its priorities, particularly with respect to job creation. I would fail to understand if the Hon. Member were to raise objections, because day in and day out his Party keeps saying that we must create jobs for young people. That is what we are trying to do, and I would think the Hon. Member will not attempt to convince me that Katimavik is a job-creation program.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Spaker, is the Government prepared to participate in the re-establishment of Katimavik? Is there any way Katimavik might be maintained with the Government's full or partial support, or is the Government bent on eliminating Katimavik because it is not a Conservative program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is simply the same question repeated.


FERRIES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the Nielsen task force report which stated the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service was recognized as being constitutional. However, the report also recommended that the Government of Canada ask the courts to decide whether or not the Government of Canada is obligated to subsidize that service. Will the Minister of Transport tell us today if he will once and for all say, no, we are obligated, and not allow that to go to the courts?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is fully aware that the proposals contained in the Nielsen task force are options for consideration. The Transport document will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and at that time individual Members who want to express a point of view on all of the options outlined therein will have an opportunity to do so.


Supply


GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. I do not want that to go any further. Will the Minister put a stop to it right now and admit once and for all that, yes, the Government of Canada is not only obligated to providing the service but obligated to subsidizing it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the process is in place. I certainly would not want to interfere with the work of the standing committee.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the Chair for my intemperate comment during the Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!