1986-02-03

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Prior to calling orders of the day, may I make the traditional announcement to the House that, in recognition of the seventieth anniversary of the fire which destroyed the Centre Block on this day in 1916, I would draw to the attention of Hon. Members the wooden replica of the mace on the Clerk's table. This mace was used for many years as a replacement for the original one destroyed by fire.
Prior to calling and reading of the order, 1 am in receipt, properly, of a request from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to raise a question of privilege. The Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the proceedings last Friday terminated early. Over the weekend I had the opportunity of reflecting on the "blues" and this being the first opportunity that is available to me, I would like to say a few things that concern the various questions that have been raised in the House on matters which transpired almost a quarter of a century ago, here, in these buildings of Parliament.
As I indicated to Members on Thursday of last week, the substance of the article in that day's Star has been a matter of public record at least since 1976 when in his book, Peter Stursberg, quoted substantially from the interview I gave him in 1973.


Mr. Deans:: This is a statement.


Erik Nielsen: The full transcript and tape of that interview have been public since January 1, 1981.
Members will also be aware that in an article in Saturday Night in January of last year, statements similar to those made over a decade ago appeared. It is true that as a matter of happenstance I was able-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With respect, the Deputy Prime Minister can hear what is beginning. I think he knows that 1 have been attempting in the past to be quite strict about requiring that the question of privilege which is raised be presented in its procedural form early in an argument with regard to questions of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: It is true that as a matter of happenstance I was able as an opposition private Member to know what was said at meetings of the Liberal caucus. I say "happenstance" in that I did not initiate that opportunity. This took place during an intensely partisan period of parliamentary life during which Members on all sides were pursuing their responsibilities with a zeal that history will undoubtedly judge to have been excessively partisan and deeply regrettable. I have neither concealed nor denied the existence of this state of affairs. No one regrets more than I that events in this House of the past few days have likened themselves to the Parliament of the sixties. None of us who were in Parliament at that time, myself included-


Mr. Althouse:: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I say, with great respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, that I think he is making a statement that is of deep and sincere importance to him, but I must ask him to come to the question of privilege, with respect.


Erik Nielsen: I am in the middle of it now, or, coming very rapidly to it.
None of us who were in Parliament at that time, myself included, is proud of the excesses of that period. Indeed, I do not condone any invasion of a private Member's private conversation or caucus discussion, and Members are well aware of my views with respect to the Official Secrets Act and national security.


Ms. Copps:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: I offer these words because of my respect for Parliament. Hindsight and the passage of time have taught me that excesses of a quarter century ago ought not to be praised or repeated a quarter century later.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, while the events of which I speak are long past, I apologize to those who believe that proprieties were violated 25 years ago by my conduct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 3, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: My deeper regret is that in the past few days the attention of this Eiouse has recalled this period and in so doing has prevented the Eiouse from dealing with the more crucial issues which are and ought to be before us-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on. Get off the editorializing. A bunch of cowards.


Erik Nielsen: Job creation, parliamentary reform, international trade-these are the issues for which I would like this Parliament to be remembered. I pledge to you, Sir, and to all Hon. Members that 1 am determined that my contribution to this House and the people of Canada will be to move forward on these important issues and not to recall or indeed return Parliament to the partisan bondage of the sixties.
It is my hope that my reflections today can lead us all in this pursuit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There has been no question of privilege raised.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, why didn't you say that before?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Sheila!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On a point of order, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow me, and perhaps the House Leader for the NDP, to respond to the statement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think everybody will know that I want to treat this as fairly as possible. I think, in fact, what we have heard is not a question of privilege but a statement by the Minister. I therefore propose to hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), I take it for his Party, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for his Party.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, want to analyse the words of the Deputy Prime Minister clearly to ascertain from those words whether that constitutes an apology. I want to draw to his attention, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the House, the fact that we find great difficulty in accepting the description of what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) termed happenstance. It was clear from the tape, which is now in the public record, that the eavesdropping of the proceedings of the Liberal caucus was more than happenstance, whether or not it was initiated by the Deputy Prime Minister. His own words indicate that eavesdropping was repeated and regular. I just wish to recite to Your Honour the words that fell from the mouth of the Deputy Prime Minister as recorded in the tape. He said:
From here on in, this part is not for current publication. You can keep it and stare at it but you cannot disclose it. There was a method by which we knew every Wednesday what was said in the Liberal caucus word for bloody word.
He went on later to say:
I could scarcely believe what I was hearing and I was hearing every word that was spoken. He was speaking in French and I had the benefit of a translation service as well.
Later:
It is verbatim because I heard every word in that caucus, every single word. There are others who heard because I had to have somebody around.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is more than happenstance. That reflects a regular style of conduct, and one which in those days, 20 years ago, and today remains unethical, unparliamentary, and as I stated on Friday, Your Honour, it transgress and offends the rights and privileges of Members of this House.
Of course, since 1974 the Parliament of our country has attached a criminal sanction to that type of conduct, whether the contact is initiated or abetted. I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that, at best, he was participating and abetting in that style of conduct. He himself, in this House on another occasion, but on the same type of subject, on October 17, 1973, and it is found at page 6942 of Hansard, said this:
I do not think it is enough that the House simply ordered the tape to be produced by the offender. The offence is serious enough to require the offender to come before the bar of the House and give an explanation of the whole affair.
This was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking when he was, and still is, the Member for Yukon. He went on to say:
It is an extremely serious affair and one that should be considered very seriously by the Chair. My suggestion is that Your Honour consider the advisability of having the offender appear before the bar of the House to explain the origin of the idea, the manner in which he accomplished his objective and, indeed, all of the details of the rather sordid action.
If the action was sordid when the Member from the Yukon, as he then was, was attributing it to another Member, then it remains sordid today.
Whether it was 20 or 25 years ago, the relevance today is the relevance we tried to bring up on Thursday and Friday, Mr. Speaker, whether that type of conduct, considered to be, I think by most fair minded people in this country, unethical, to be unprofessional, and which today is illegal, can be tolerated or condoned by the Prime Minister by retaining the Deputy Prime Minister as the number two person in his Government.
That is not the way in which the Prime Minister has been treating the matter. In Halifax over the weekend he said that eavesdropping is only human. He likened it to passing an open door and listening to a conversation. That is not what happened. This was deliberate, repeated and regular conduct.
Then we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), of all people-he who has the custody of the administration of the laws of this country-saying over the weekend on CTV, "So as to whether I" the Minister of Justice, John Crosbie, "would listen, if by accident the opportunity arose today, to another Party's caucus or whatever, yes, I would".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!
February 3, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) will know that there is an equal time tradition in regard to these matters. I would ask him to conclude.


John Napier Turner: I will bring it to a close in just a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I am conscious of what you are saying.
For the Minister of Justice, having the custody and having a fiduciary position towards Canadians for the proper administration of our laws, to condone and laugh, even laugh at this type of conduct, is something that goes beyond the scope of my particular imagination.
We will read and reflect very carefully upon what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and I appreciate his bringing it up at an early opportunity. We will govern ourselves accordingly after we have had time to reflect upon what he said.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I might, at the outset, say that had the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) sought the opportunity simply to make a statement rather than to rise on a point of privilege, I, for one-and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues-would have been pleased to have had that opportunity made available.
I can appreciate that understanding is not always easy to come by. I can appreciate that those who might feel that they personally were offended will feel more strongly perhaps from that point of view over the issue of 25 years ago. I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that I accept the Deputy Prime Minister's recognition of the inappropriateness of the actions taken 25 years ago. I accept that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that not only does he deem that to have been inappropriate, but that he has taken steps over the intervening years to attempt to make sure that such a thing could not happen again.
I had hoped that that statement might have been made on Thursday last. It has caused a great deal of diffiulty for a number of people across this country, many of us in the House of Commons, having to come to grips with the defence that was offered at the end of last week. I seriously regret that this matter came to public attention at this point in the way that it did. I do, however, want to say that I share the concern of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) over the statements attributed to, and I believe made by-since I saw them being said-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). I consider that to be a very serious matter, and I would ask that at some point that be considered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in reviewing the events of the last few days. It is quite inappropriate for a Minister of Justice to indicate in any way, shape or form that he might break the law, which certainly could be the inference drawn from the statements made by the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice.
Let me say to the Deputy Prime Minister that the confidence of this House is vitally important. We can disagree on
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
issues and how they can be solved. We can disagree on whether better things can be done with regard to unemployment, with regard to the level of the dollar or with regard to interest rates. Those disagreements are fair. But the one thing we can never allow ourselves to disagree over is the quality and standard of conduct that we expect from Members of Parliament, regardless of where and regardless of when, as it affects their public duties.
For that reason, and for no other, I felt compelled to involve myself in the discussion, distasteful though it was. But I am pleased, I must say-I see the Hon. Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Andre) huffing and sniffing in the background as is his normal practice. 1 want to tell the Deputy Prime Minister, who knows me well, that I personally, and I think on behalf of all of my colleagues, accept that the matter as far as I am concerned has come to an end.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a request to raise a point of order from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order about the method by which this opposition day was designated, and for that matter the way in which the opposition day was designated for tomorrow.
On Friday, approximately 30 minutes before what would have been the normal time of adjournment, a senior advisor of mine received a phone call from a senior advisor of the Government House Leader saying that the Government intended to designate Monday and Tuesday as opposition days.
I am also informed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who happened to be in the House at that time-I believe he will be speaking as well with respect to this point of order-that he observed a letter being handed to the occupant of the Chair by a representative of the Government, that is to say, within a period of about half an hour before what would have been the time of adjournment.
Opposition days, I am told, were created about 17 years ago. For 17 years, ever since opposition days were added to our procedures, these allotted days have been designated orally in the House, and at least several hours notice has been given, not just a few minutes.
If the way in which, and I coming to a conclusion very shortly, Mr. Speaker, the Government proceeded on Friday is acceptable and continues, it means that it will be very difficult for the Opposition to consider in a proper and deliberate manner what it should do and how it should proceed with respect to the allotted day in question.
There is a time limit within which a motion has to be set down with respect to an allotted day on a Monday. The motion

February 3, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
has to be set down on a Friday, and if the Government continues to use the method that was used Friday, I submit that it really distorts the concept of opposition days. It does not make it possible for Opposition Parties to consider in an appropriate and deliberate manner the form and subject matter of the motion in question. In fact, especially if this procedure is followed on a Friday, it might be impossible for Opposition Members to learn of the matter in time to put down any motion at all.
I ask you to consider this submission, Mr. Speaker, namely, the manner in which the Government designated today and tomorrow as opposition days, as contrary to the rules and, therefore, that these days have not been properly designated for the purpose the Government intends.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was here Friday afternoon, as you were most of the afternoon. At 4.37 p.m. exactly, the Hon. Government House Leader came into the House accompanied by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre.
As a student of the British parliamentary system for many years, I know that we often deliberate in this House by precedent. As the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) came into the House at 4.37 p.m. exactly-and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I looked very attentively at your eyes thinking that something was going to take place before five o'clock, the reason I stayed here all afternoon- would you inform this House if the precedent established Friday will be the conduct for the future?
If the rule now says that at any time up to ten to five o'clock or ten to six o'clock on any given day the President of the Privy Council can assign the following day or the following Monday or the next day as an opposition day, as the House Leader of my Party just said, it is evident that we will not be in a position to fulfil our mandate, that is, to be given plenty of time to prepare ourselves when an opposition day is given to my Party or, for that matter, to the third party, the New Democratic Party. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to advise us as to what is proper now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is asking me to give advice as opposed to commenting on the validity of the point of order.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my remarks by indicating a couple of inaccuracies in the observations of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
In the first place, I was not accompanied by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre). I know he was in the House at the time, as was the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. To suggest that I was accompanied by the Associate Minister is to suggest that I was accompanied by the Hon. Member from Saint-Denis. I would be glad to be accompanied by him, but I was not.
I think I should address the point that was raised, Mr. Speaker. I listened very carefully to the comments made by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I suggest that I could not find a shred of evidence that there is a point of order in relation to the designation of today and tomorrow as the first and second allotted days in this supply period.
First, it is a matter of common knowledge that I was prevented by the Opposition on both Thursday and Friday from using the normal House hours to announce the business of the House of the coming week. As a result, I had no opportunity, because the bells were ringing, to make any announcement in the House. It was physically and procedurally impossible for me to do so. Indeed, it would not have been proper for you, Mr. Speaker, to have noticed me under the circumstances, even at the conclusion of the day, in order for me to stand up and announce the business.
Accordingly, when it became obvious that it would not be possible for me to do so, I informed both Opposition Parties' House Leaders by telephone, and Your Honour by letter, that these days would be opposition days. These actions were taken well before the end of the time provided for filing Notices of Motions.
With respect to the exact timing, Your Honour will know that letters and copies indicating the intention were delivered to your office in advance of personal delivery, which took place at or about 4.30 p.m. in the aftternoon. Prior to that members of my staff were in touch by telephone with the Hon. House Leader for the Opposition, as he points out. Opposition Parties were notified of our intention to designate those two days as allotted days.
Second, in spite of the fact that steps were taken by me advising all appropriate persons, and in spite of the fact that opposition Parties walked out of the House, it is clear that, in any event, the Official Opposition filed a motion for debate on this day. Therefore, that should speak to the reality that there was time to put in a motion on the environment which, I acknowledge, is an important topic of national interest.
Third, may I remind Your Honour of the fact that, pursuant to Standing Order 63(1), we have a continuing order for the consideration of the business of supply which enables Opposition Parties to file motions for consideration at any time prior to the time when that item of business is before the House. Indeed, Your Honour will recall that there have been a number of instances over the past years where Opposition Parties, including my Party when we were in opposition, tabled well in advance notices of motion with respect to our intended business with regard to any opposition day being designated by the Government of the day. Thus the practice of filing in advance of designation is well established.
Fourth, I would like to draw to the attention of the House two Standing Orders which give ample support to the actions which I took on Friday afternoon. Standing Order 23(2) provides as follows:
February 3, 1986

Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the Government determines.
If I may refer the House to the Order Paper and Notices for this day, the first item of business under "Government Orders" is the business of supply. It is clear that it is entirely at the discretion of the Government whether or not to call the business of supply. This power is not limited as to time. Nevertheless, our practice has been that the Government allot the days for the consideration of the business of supply at least 24 hours in advance of the actual day in order to give the Opposition the opportunity to lay down a motion within the required notice period. I have complied fully with that practice, which is not mentioned in Standing Order 63, or elsewhere in the Standing Orders.
May I underline that I was prevented from announcing in the House the days for the consideration of the business of supply by the actions of the Opposition, which now apparently complains of my procedure. In addition, I took all timely and reasonable measures to inform the Opposition of the Government's plan for the business of the House of Monday and Tuesday. As well, I fully complied with the provisions of Standing Orders 23(2) and 63 which govern our procedure in such instances.
Finally, if it is a question of allowing Members sufficient opportunity with respect to the item of debate on the floor of the House of Commons at any time, I simply point out that in tabling its motion the Official Opposition placed an embargo on that motion until it could be printed. By the same token, this action by the Official Opposition would put the majority of Members in a position in which they would not know the subject matter for which to prepare themselves in order to have a full and proper debate. In other words, there was an embargo placed on the subject matter. Of course, we are prepared to defend the position of our Government on a supply motion, but this matter does work both ways. I simply say to Your Honour that we have complied with the requirements with respect to designating allotted days. In this instance, the whole weekend was given for preparation for today's debate and, indeed, for tomorrow's debate.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of rectification. I have been in this place for some years. It is normal for the Government to make its announcements after Routine Proceedings have started, and not after Orders of the Day have been called. I remind the Government House Leader that his argument in telling us that he could not announce the business of the House because he did not have time is actually faulty and that it would not stand up to the traditions and customs of this place. He could have made his announcement before Orders of the Day had been called on both occasions. That is the normal manner for dealing with such matters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thought we were going to do business on Friday.
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members might have assumed that l spent this morning checking precedents. I had a feeling this question might come up.
I simply say to the Hon. Member that the letters of the rules of our House have been completely followed. Therefore, 1 must find that there is no point of order.
May I confirm for the record one matter of fact. Hon. Members claim that I was presented with a notice while I was in the Chair at 4:37 p.m. on Friday. I was not, in fact, presented with such a notice at that time. The notice was sent to my office shortly before. What was presented to the clerk at 4:37 p.m. on Friday was his copy of the letter to me which had been sent to my office.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to toxic chemicals in water and other elements of the environment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving that this House condemn the Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to toxic chemicals in water and other elements of the environment, on a suddenly called opposition day, I have to conclude that the Government gave us the clear impression of having lost its sense of direction late on a Friday afternoon. A major budget Bill was dropped at that time and we asked ourselves why. Some nine months after a May budget the Government has not yet passed the necessary Bills.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: We in the Opposition have to conclude that the Government is losing control of its agenda if, in fact, it has an agenda at all.
Hon. Members may wonder: Why toxic chemicals today? The answer is that it is time to put on paper the record of this Government with respect to cuts, inaction, unfulfilled promises, neglect, contradictions and secrecy since it took power in September of 1984.
Hon. Members may also ask: Why toxic chemicals in relation to what goes on in the country? This is, of course, an important issue to Canadians since toxic chemicals ultimately mean our water, our health and our food. Toxic chemicals affect the lives of every Canadian, not only those in the present generation but those in future generations. Therefore, the debate on toxic chemicals is really a debate on health. It is really a debate on the economy. What we propose to talk about today is the interest of future generations in water

February 3, 1986
Supply
quality, which really means the interest of future generations in health, in the quality of the products which we consume and will be consuming, the cost of production where water is essential, and the cost of consumption as well in every household.
Scientists are telling us that toxic contaminants represent the greatest immediate threat to the interest of future generations because of the time which is necessary to remove them from water through natural processes. That time is exceedingly long. We are also told by scientists that some actions of the present generation so degrade the quality of water that future generations will have less flexibility in using water. In some areas waters have become so polluted that certain uses such as for beaches, swimming and municipal water supplies are in danger or are even precluded. Scientists are also telling us that contamination of fish and the destruction of forms of plant and animal life is taking place.
Scientists are reporting persistent toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes and, inevitably, in the St. Lawrence Basin. What this means is that present generations may reap short-lived benefits from exploiting water as a sink for waste chemicals only to pass immense costs on to future generations. The interests of the future users of water must be protected in light of the scientific reports we continuously receive. We must have, therefore, a commitment to action and to specific programs by the Government.
We have two principles to guide us; first, the conservation of the quality of water for the next generation. It should be in the same condition, not worse than we received it from previous generations. Second, we must conserve our options. We must conserve the diversity of the natural resource base. In applying these two principles, there are two methods we can adopt and follow; first, the correction of present abuses which have led to the degradation of our water and, second, the prevention of similar processes from reoccurring in future.
But what is the record of the Government, this so-called Progressive Conservative Government which is neither progressive nor conservative in terms of the environment? There are specific questions to be asked as to what the Government is doing about the Niagara River and what are its long-term plans? How does it plan to protect the water and the health of future generations? If industry needs incentives to accelerate sewer separation procedures, proper monitoring and installation of modern equipment, and if municipalities are increasingly in need of help with sewer treatment and the rehabilitation of creeks, rivers and other water bodies, what does the Government plan to do about it in the second year of its mandate?
I will give a brief chronology of Government action beginning in October, 1984, when the first very important Niagara River Toxics Committee report was produced jointly by Canada and the United States. There has been silence on the recommendations contained in this report. One month later, in November, 1984, the Government shelved the Guelph Toxicology Centre. So far we have lost two valuable years in launching a centre of excellence which is badly needed in order to better understand what is happening in the environment as a result of the presence of toxic chemicals. The government also cut funds from the National Research Council. It cut an important secretariat which, among other tasks, had to deal with toxic contaminants. The Government cut the Canadian Wildlife Service by $3.8 million. What a shameful performance on an issue which is becoming more and more visible and a source of preoccupation to Canadians.
In March, 1985, the Government decided not to seek the annual amount of $2.5 million from Treasury Board to conduct research along the Niagara River. It replaced it with a $1 million fund per year with private institutions on any topic under the sun, thus the momentum on the Niagara River is lost. Two months later, in May 1985, the former Minister of the Environment finally looked into the matter, went to Washington to discuss the situation of our international river and promised a plan for full and speedy action along the Niagara River. In October 1985, the head of the Environment Protection Agency of the United States, Mr. Lee Thomas, came to Ottawa. There was a meeting but there were no statements, and no action forthcoming. The plan which was submitted by Mr. Thomas, which was public domain south of the border, was kept under wraps in Canada.
In December 1985, the Royal Society of Canada and the National Research Council of the United States jointly produced an important and substantial report which received front page coverage by the media, because of its significance. It was produced by funds from The Donner Foundation. Since then there has been silence; no action, no reply, nothing.
In January of this year we hear there were two vacancies filled on the International Joint Commission which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, deals with these matters virtually on a daily basis. These were two vacancies which had been unfilled for some 14 months. But unfortunately the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ignores a wealth of talent which is available and chooses to resurrect from the mausoleum of Tory "has-beens" two gentlemen, Mr. Fulton and Mr. Welch, whose familiarity with Great Lake issues match that of a cobra at the North Pole, to put it mildly.
What a disillusionment, Mr. Speaker, considering the talent which is available from non-government groups, from competent retired civil servants with long experience, and from other quarters. That was a real demonstration of the lack of understanding on the part of the Government as to the meaning and importance of having well equipped and prepared individuals working on the Canadian side.
Last week we received the second report on the St. Clair River. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) described it to the media as the end of a saga and announced to the world that contaminents and toxic chemicals will be checked one day when we have a brand new Environmental Contaminants Act. How naive can one be to think that the daily operations of the industries, past and present, can be improved by legislation yet to be written, let alone passed?
February 3, 1986

First, the Minister distanced himself from his own scientists on the whole danger posed by toxic chemicals. Then a few weeks later in November, in order to regain ground, he described the situation of the St. Clair River as awesome and even chastised one of his backbenchers, the Member from Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Jones), for not taking the matter seriously. Finally, with no reference to our obligation to the U.S. under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, he drops this hot potato in the lap of the Ontario Government and invokes, as the remedy, the yet to be conceived Environmental Contaminants Act.
[DOT] (U50)
The Minister of the Environment reminds me of Bugs Bunny hopping from one issue to another and making promises which he hopes will be forgotten. He is good at describing problems. He is hopeless in implementing solutions. He is good at public relations, and slippery on substance.
I must refer back to the authors of this report on the Great Lakes who say, at page 117, I believe: "Political capabilities for correcting mistakes are inadequate". How accurate. This description, it seems to me, applies to the present Government which, with cuts in research, cuts in the establishment of centres of excellence on toxicity such as the Guelph centre, cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service, with inaction on the Niagara River, with ineptness in appointments to fill vacancies on the International Joint Commission, and in passing the buck on the St. Clair River, is sending out a message, as it has in other cases in which it faced difficult issues, which reads: "If it is complex, if it requires forward-looking thinking, we cannot". When the going gets tough, Mr. Speaker, the Government gives up.
We must conclude that the Government basically has no confidence in itself. The Government seems to have no agenda, and not only on toxic chemicals. When it promises legislation on toxic chemicals it promises an initiative which it found already in the works when it took office. The Enrivonmental Contaminants Act will not clean up the St. Clair River. It will not clean up the Niagara River. The Government is dreaming in colour if it thinks that that can be achieved by invoking an Act yet to be passed.
The existing toxic chemicals in the river bed, Mr. Speaker, come from sewer outfalls, leaching from dump sites, and other existing and on-going sources of pollution which cannot be dealt with through the legislation which the Government intends to introduce because we are talking of the present and of the past. In addition, the St. Clair is an international river. The Government has an obligation under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to clean up the situation. The Government has several instruments at its disposal. One, it could reinstate the two-year accelerated write-offs under the Income Tax Act. This is an important incentive to industry to get modern treatment equipment in place, separate sewers, modernize monitoring systems, and to ensure that the highest standards of waste treatment are applied. Two, it could offer a special program to municipalities such as Sarnia to provide financial assistance for the installation of equipment and
facilities for the best possible treatment of residential, commercial, and industrial waste waters that pass through the municipal sewer system. It could create a super fund with interested provincial Governments to remove toxic waste from dumps and, therefore, remove the source of future problems at leaking dumps.
To restore the confidence of the people who live alongside the St. Clair River, the Minister must come up with a plan of action. He must move swiftly. He must protect the St. Clair River because it has a bearing on the clean-up of the mess along the Niagara River where we expect the Americans to do something for us. To rely on the Environmental Contaminants Act to clean up the present situation, as the Minister said on several occasions last week that he would, is not realistic.
Action to clean up past and present contamination will cost money. The Government will be tempted to use the deficit as an excuse for not acting. Mr. Speaker, if there is money to bail out the banks, how can there be no money to protect the health of this and future generations of Canadians? If there is money for national defence why not defend our health, the quality of our water, the economy of our future, and the well-being of future Canadians?
It is also important to put on record some observations as to where these toxic chemicals come from. They come from buried industrial waste, from daily operations in industry, from the use of chemicals in agriculture, from municipal waste, from chemical production, and from the waste of businesses such as dry cleaners, photographic establishments, and garages. In other words, they come from the daily activities in our cities and on our farms. In Ontario alone, about half a million tons of hazardous industrial wastes are disposed of improperly each year.
Where do these toxic chemicals go? They go into the soil and gradually, over time, into the ground water. They go into our creeks, rivers, and lakes, directly or indirectly. By way of evaporation of water containing toxic substances they go into the air, into the cloud system, and eventually, through rain, they precipitate and come back onto crops and the soil and, eventually, into our food. Over time, Mr. Speaker, these toxic substances become an integral part of the human body.
Therefore, the question that follows is whether we can do something and whether we are still in time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could I ask the Hon. Member to conclude his speech?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will seek your permission to accelerate. The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, could be a positive one if we see the problem not only as an environmental one, but as a threat to our economy and our health. You will ask, why the economy? Contaminated water eventually means cost of filtration and cost of treatment of water. Contaminated food eventually means costs in health care and the economic cost, if not borne by this generation, could be immense for the next.
The question that follows that is-

February 3, 1986
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member to continue his speech for a couple of minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not. Therefore, we will proceed with the period for questions and comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a statement that did take some 20 minutes of our time and we usually add that time to the daily deliberations of the House. Since this is our day, could you take it under consideration that we add the extra 20 or 21 minutes to the day?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the matter under consideration and make a ruling later today. Questions or comments?


Mr. Gurbin:: I appreciate some of the comments by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and we are very grateful to be able to have this debate in the House today so that we can discuss a very important issue of concern to Canadians. This question deserves our attention and we want to consider it very seriously.
I am sure the Hon. Member will appreciate that I have some difficulty with many of his comments. While I would not accuse him of playing politics with the matter, he quite understandably was taking advantage of this debate to attract the kind of attention he might not otherwise get.
My first question relates to the accuracy, consistency and reliability of his comments with respect to his motion on the environment and the toxic chemicals about which we are all concerned. The Member alluded to the comments of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) with respect to the ability of the Environmental Contaminants Act to clean up the problem that exists in Canadian waterways and the Great Lakes in particular. I suggest it is clear that the Minister of the Environment has never said that that is the only tool at his disposal.
The Hon. Member himself indicated that many of the substances with which we are dealing are almost indestructible and for some time have found their way into human fatty tissue. Chemicals such as PCBs and dioxin in our waterways are particularly difficult to destroy. Most important, these chemicals are bio-concentrated which means that they are building up in our life systems in such things as fish and vegetation in the waterways. This is a long-term problem that has evolved over many years.
The Minister of the Environment has said very clearly that the amendments to be proposed to the Environmental Contaminants Act-
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the ten-minute period for questions and comments should be strictly adhered to, and both questions and comments should be brief, so that the Member has time to answer.
This Hon. Member is making a speech!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has already taken three minutes. I am sure that he is just about to conclude.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make sure that the Hon. Member for Davenport clearly understands my question. While he has one point of view, I want to make sure that he understands what the Minister has said to see if he does not agree.
I will attempt to be short in explaining the three critical points on which I would like the Hon. Member's comments. First, the Environmental Contaminants Act is long overdue for amendment. It will address the preventive aspect by placing the onus on the industries to deal with the many chemicals. Second, the changes to the Act will allow for the monitoring of chemicals from their introduction to their destruction. Furthermore, we intend to work very closely with the Province of Ontario-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that we have already taken more than half of the question and comment period. I give the floor to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the Hon. Member (Mr. Gurbin) finds it difficult to understand some of the environmental points that have been made. It is not the first time he has had such difficulty.
His first question concerned the reliability of the information. It is information that is contained in the 1985 Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality. It is information contained in the Niagara River Toxics Committee, published in October,
1984.	It is information contained in the joint report by the Royal Society of Canada and the National Research Council in the United States of America, entitled "The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: An Evolving Instrument for Ecosystem Management", which was published in December,
1985.	These are documents from which I quoted in my intervention. If that is not reliable information I do not know what it is. It also is the record.
The Government now has a foundation on which to build its action as a result of the content of these reports. In the spring of 1985 the Government promised to take swift action along the Niagara River by the fall of 1985. The Government has been silent and has not delivered. The Government has not commented on the U.S. proposal, put forward an alternative or had the guts to say that it is not happy with the proposal from
February 3, 1986

the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington. It is the question of such political activity that we are raising in the House today to illustrate the Government's lack of agenda on such an important matter.
I submit that when the Parliamentary Secretary speaks on this subject he would be better off to tell us the record of the Government and not simply comment on the Environmental Contaminants Act in the future. As I indicated, such a measure will not take care of the discharge and leaks of contaminants into our rivers. We must clean up the present mess and we must deal with industries which discharge their substances into the St. Clair River daily. Such action is necessary in order to show the Americans that we take our obligation under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement seriously with respect to the St. Clair River and we expect them to do the same along the Niagara.
These are the contemporary issues on the table. The question is not whether the information is reliable. What further information does the Parliamentary Secretary need before he is convinced that action must be taken?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? If not, resuming debate.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to extend to Members of the House and the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) in particular the regret of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) at not being able to be here today to participate in the debate. He is presently in Calgary announcing the Four Mountains Park Plan which provides guidelines for the management of four of Canada's greatest national treasures-Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks-over the next 15 years. The plan will ensure that the heritage resources in these parks are protected and preserved for future generations of Canadians.
On behalf of the Minister let me explain the Government's position on the environment and the Hon. Member's motion in particular. Before doing so, I found it rather interesting that the Member for Davenport thought that the debate should not take place today because there were important budgetary Bills that should be passed. I agree with him, but I find the argument which he puts forward to be a weak one, especially on behalf of the Liberal Party. On the one hand, if we look at budgetary legislation, they are the ones who have been blocking it, be it in the House or in committee. That is the first point to be made. To make it very specific let us look at the family allowance legislation which they passed. They started implementing a reduced family allowance benefit in January and got the legislation passed in December of that year. However, he lectured us on the fact that we should be getting these Bills through the House of Commons. I agree that we should get them through the House, and I agree with the British system in terms of the passage of budgetary Bills. In number of days after the Budget comes down they are passed, and the Opposition has that period of time within which to debate them. I agree with the Hon. Member, but I do not
Supply
think he should use the argument both ways when he tries to make his point.


Mr. Penner:: You were a great teacher when you were in the Opposition.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am pleased I now have their attention.
The other point which I should like to make is that the Government indicated that we should have a regular period of time in which the Budget comes down so that ordinary Canadians and the provincial Governments can plan. In fact, that will be done this year. It speaks exactly to the point raised by the Hon. Member. I know he is interested in the environment. 1 mean that sincerely, but 1 suggest that his memory about budgetary items is not only somewhat faulty but has been put into a time capsule. If he is a Liberal, I would suggest that he should open up his mind a bit.
I should like to speak specifically to the motion before us. Toxic chemicals which we now find in all parts of the environment are indications that we have been living with the benefits of a chemical society and often without addressing the risks associated with those benefits. This is not a new problem and it is not only an issue with which this Government has to deal. I think the Hon. Member, as a former Minister of the Enrivon-ment, would indicate that he made some strides but, in his more sanguine moments, I am sure he would also indicate that he did not make as much progress as he thought he might, or as he wished. I think all of us have to have a common front on some of these issues.
The problem has been with us since we started to depend upon chemicals for our lifestyle. Of course, it was accelerated after the last World War. There are warning symptoms of a very real problem facing countries as they learn to deal with both the benefits and the risks of living with chemicals. We live in a global chemical society. We plough chemicals into our fields, we release them into the air, we treat our food with them, we wear them, and we use them in thousands of products. Each day Canadians enjoy a quality of life enhanced but dependent upon the use of chemicals. Possibly life without chemicals has become virtually impossible, and I would suggest even unthinkable. It is important for us to put forward both these points of view in this debate.
The people involved in that industry and in that research have done much to enhance our quality of life. We often discuss chemicals in a negative light when we deal with important environmental issues, but their benefits to Canadians are high and immediate. However, short-term benefits are creating a long-term legacy of continuing problems which we all have to address. We must ensure that we do not make decisions today that will cause problems for tomorrow's generations. The St. Clair River, which Hon. Members have discussed in the House, makes that point clear.

February 3, 1986
Supply
Many of us are interested in various forms of energy such as atomic energy. I have a research lab in my own riding, and tremendous work is being done by the men and women there.
The ability of a society in the western world to move forward in a technological sense, whether it is with that form of energy or chemicals, seems to be limited only by the ability of the human mind. Sometimes we are restricted by finances, but the ability to move ahead is absolutely critical. However, often the ethical and moral questions do not keep pace with that advancement, or they seem to lag. It is not that many of us are uninterested in these issues, but those components are often left out of the manner in which we structure research and development. It is not that we wish to ignore them, but the other issue becomes so important that we forget about them. That is to our detriment, and I say it very sincerely. Our task as a society must be to ensure that the unavoidable impact upon our environment does not render it unproductive. We must not impair its ability to provide for our survival and the survival of future generations. As we all know, we need the environment for the food we grow, the forests we use, the water we drink, the air we breathe and so forth.
As a society we are now releasing enormous amounts of chemicals into the environment, both deliberately and inadvertently. This is not a new problem; this is not a new issue. However, it is one about which we are all concerned. Therefore, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment I should like to indicate that the Government is committed to action. We are working with the United States, with specific states such as New York, toward a permanent solution, for example, to the leaking of dump sites along the Niagara River. We are co-operating with a range of jurisdictions to reduce the loading of dioxins entering the environment from all sources. With our federal and provincial colleagues we are looking at better ways to manage pesticides.
Our point of view must be made strongly and must be made in various fora. However, it is important for us to keep in mind that technology is giving us the capacity to determine in the case of dioxins their presence. As recently as a year ago, we were unable to do that. I know the Minister of the Environment has tried to put into perspective, for example, the level of dioxins by putting it in terms of time, namely, one second as compared with 32 centuries. To put it another way and to give Hon. Members some clarification, a year ago in my Department we were measuring it in parts per billion. A year or two before we were measuring it in parts per million. This year we have the ability to measure it in parts per quadrillion. Consequently, because of the new sophistication in testing, we have been able to discover it.
I am simply saying that these points have to be put forward. Very often when society hears these things it becomes naturally and rightfully concerned. In order to solve the problem and to inform the public, these issues should be put in this context so that solutions can be found.
I know of the concerns expressed by some people. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) knows about the public meeting which took place this weekend in the
City of Windsor in respect of environmental issues. It was a further demonstration of the concerns of people regarding the issue which we are debating today.
As a Government and with the co-operation of industry, we have initiated a review of safety precautions and procedures at industrial sites across the country to avoid, for example, the terrible tragedy which we saw at Bhopal as well as other chemical accidents. I am pleased, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, to notify the House that the Minister will be prepared to release that plan to Canadians when he returns to the House within a short period of time.
Also we have initiated an action plan with provincial Governments to eliminate PCBs from the Canadian environment. We are assisting in the clean-up of chemicals leaking from dumps, from land-filled sites and from storage facilities. The actions of the Government will reduce emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 45 per cent over the next decade. These emissions not only affect the health of Canadians but, as we all know, contribute to acid rain. Nobody has been more active, Mr. Speaker, than the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) who is in the House today. Mr. Speaker, I see certain people, for instance, wearing buttons on their lapels saying stop acid rain. Well, I know one thing, the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka doesn't carry around buttons, what he does is take action. He keeps on buttonholing Members of the Government, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. That is his job and he is doing it well. I think all of us we have to commend him for the work he has done.
Within six months this Government put in place a comprehensive federal-provincial program to reduce sulpher dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by 1994. We are acting to eliminate lead in gasoline, a very real danger to children. These are urgent problems that this Government is acting to solve. The Government is committed to solving permanently those problems that have plagued Canadians for so many years. Toxic chemicals are one of those problems which we are preparing permanent solutions to as, I have just outlined.
We are all aware of how costly environmental problems are, both in terms of public safety and in terms of financial commitment. The very fabric of our industrial economy is being affected by the enormous cost of dealing with our past approach to chemicals. For example, it cost Dow Chemicals close to $1.5 million to clean up the St. Clair River blobs, and we estimate that federal and provincial Governments spent approximately another $1 million more. These moneys, I think all of us would recognize, could have been more productively used in our economy, than for cleaning up after a problem has occurred.
The Government believes it is no longer adequate in Canada to deal with toxic chemicals after problems are detected. I know that is a human approach that will have to remain in place, but it is not enough. Our approach is two-pronged, First to clean up the problems that exist, as I've already demonstrated. Second, to prevent new ones from occurring. To be success-
February 3, 1986

ful we must prevent chemicals from entering the environment in the first place. We must use foresight and common sense and structure all of our activities to prevent chemicals leaking into the environment. Based on a firm foundation of scientific knowledge and research we must anticipate and prevent problems rather than just continue to react.
What Canadians need and deserve, and 1 think what they are asking this Government for, is a comprehensive management approach for toxic chemicals, an approach that manages chemicals through their life cycle in a manner that prevents chemical leakage into the environment. This will mean that at any point in the life of a chemical, from start to finish- whether it is introduction into trade and commerce or manufacturing or transportation-during its use or disposal, all participants who use and care for that chemical must act in a responsible manner to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. We must find ways to manufacture chemicals in this country which are not subject to failure, such as I have already mentioned. We need more efficient manufacturing processes that produce less waste or, better yet, use the waste of one industry as a resource for the other.
We must recognize that things could go astray, and we must act quickly when they do. I think our workers, our communities and our environment deserve to be protected with every ability that we have to offer. When workers and consumers like ourselves use chemicals we must be equipped with the best information to use them properly, dispose of them safely, to act in emergency situations, and to choose alternative products and practices.
Chemicals, as all of us know, must be transported and stored in a manner that eliminates leakage to the environment. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), for example, has been very active in the field of transportation of dangerous products, dangerous goods. It is his initiatives, his type of legislation and approach to put forward a plan that will reduce not only the risk, but will ensure as well that if accidents occur, as they have for example in rail accidents just recently, there has been a very quick response time and a very adequate response time. I think we all want to commend the Minister of Transport for taking that leadership. If accidents do happen clean-up must be fast and effective and victims must be compensated in a just and equitable fashion. Ministers are working at these problems and in fact finding solutions and putting forward proposals.
We must not forget disposal, both of the chemical itself after its useful life, and of waste. Waste cannot continue to be added to the environment in the naive hope that the environment can safely accommodate it and cleanse itself. There must be adequate destruction facilities operating in this country to dispose of hazardous waste.
The sheer number of chemicals we use is intimidating. Over 65,000 are now produced commercially on the global market with over 1,000 new ones being added every year. Only a small fraction have been tested for their environmental and health consequences. We must clearly define the ground rules for allowing a chemical to enter the Canadian market. Since we
Supply
are part of the global chemical market we are promoting the adoption and utilization of common international approaches to evaluating chemicals and setting those needed standards.
We must also promote alternatives to the use of high risk chemicals. Canada alone cannot test all the chemicals we use in a reasonable time frame. I can say that is also the case, for instance, in my own Department, especially in the Health Protection Branch. We have highly motivated people, but I think one has to also be reasonable in terms of the testing approach and the resources that are available. It has to be an international effort. It is one we are committed to put in place, and we are working through the OACD to do just that.
There is a crisis of public confidence in this country when it comes to chemical management. Our ability to solve the problems have not kept pace with our ability to detect the problems. The public is deeply concerned about the fragmented approach to dealing with chemicals, and our laws do not meet these public expectations. Most of our laws are the products of dealing with the problems of the past decades. They are inadequate to deal with the problems of today. Therefore, they must be revamped, they must be streamlined, consolidated, and they must address the real problems of environmental protection. I think that for all of us the challenge is clear.
The Minister of the Environment has already stated his intention of implementing a comprehensive solution to the problem. This package will include an environmental policy statement outlining the rights of each Canadian to a clean and healthy environment. It will streamline and strengthen existing federal environmental legislation, which will be more responsive to current environmental problems and provide for appropriate safeguards for all Canadians. It will address the need for more research into the effects of toxic chemicals. It will include a stronger legislative framework for regulating toxic chemicals to clean up problems that already exist and preventing new ones. It will include information to the public on living with chemicals, and it will define a cradle to grave management package for chemicals in Canada.
The key feature of the plan will be a new Environmental Contaminants Act, and consultations are already underway to ensure that use of all sectors of our society are involved in defining the problems of environmental contamination from chemicals, and are equally involved in proposing and implementing appropriate solutions.
The new Environmental Contaminants Act will provide this Government with stronger powers and shift the onus to industry to prove that their products are not harmful to humans or to the environment. It will require that all chemicals are subject to a review process prior to their entry to the Canadian market to ensure that no danger to health or the environment exists.
As a Government, Mr. Speaker, we are fully committed to addressing a wide range of interests and concerns about chemicals that exist in the country. Other Governments, industry, labour, consumer and environmental interest groups are already working with us on this key initiative. Ultimately our

February 3, 1986
Supply
society will have to come to grips with the fact that so many of our environmental problems are rooted in the lifestyle we have chosen. We have chosen a chemical society, and with it the responsibility to protect our life support system from our dependence on these chemicals. We believe that Canadians are ready to take a major step towards learning to live successfully and respectively with the chemicals that we are now familiar with. It is a step this Government is committed to take and which we will give very determined leadership.
I thank the Member for the opportunity provided today, by the motion put forward, for myself personally and on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, of putting forward my views and the views of the Minister. Additional material on specifics will be added later on in the debate by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Charles L. Caccia: If I may be permitted two brief questions of the Minister. How does he envisage the clean-up to be carried out in the St. Clair River, which is an international water body? Second, since the Minister in his speech did not make any reference to the Guelph Toxicology Centre that was scrapped in November, 1985, by his Government, could he tell the House what his plans are to ensure the Centre be established?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, regarding the St. Clair River first, as the Hon. Member will appreciate, more specific answers will come from the Minister of the Environment. It is clear for all of us that the co-operation shown by provincial and federal Governments has not only been exemplary but has also brought about confidence that these problems are being taken seriously and things are being cleaned up.
There are provincial guidelines, as the Member knows, respecting the St. Clair River. As the Minister for the Environment has often restated in the House, there was a very quick response time from federal members of the Department of the Environment. In my own Department of Health and Welfare as well officials, specifically of the Health Protection Branch, were in close consultation on the question. If there are any more specific answers needed, I think the Minister of the Environment will reply.
With respect to the toxicology centres, the Guelph Toxicology Centre, the one at Laval University and the one at the University of Saskatchewan and Saskatoon, I am sure that all of us would like to see some advance take place on further toxicology research and facilities to enhance research. We recognize very clearly that the kind of deficits facing Canadians, left by the Government of which the former Minister of the Environment was a part, is proof positive again that it is that kind of financing which puts into jeopardy some of the very good programs society and the Government wants. It is for that reason we are so concerned about getting the economy turned around.
I regard the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) not only as an excellent Member in the House but an expert on the environment. He is concerned about toxicology at the University of Guelph. Let me say to the Hon. Member for Davenport that the Member from Guelph is working actively on that. I am a great optimist that these questions will be resolved in due time to the satisfaction of us all.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I am always a little mystified by statements such as, the people have chosen a chemical society. It is really absurd. Surely the people choose to use salt, that is a chemical. They choose to use sucrose to put in their coffee, also a chemical. They choose to use a number of things, including that desk over there made of cellulose, a chemical. In none of those instances were serious environmental problems likely to be created. Are these matters to be determined by experts people trust, or by industrialists who begin the syntheses of these products? What about the Governments that have control over them. They provided no context within which people could choose or not choose whether their environment would be loaded with chemicals invented by the hundredfold. Knowledge of the potential risks were far beyond them.
I would point out in that context, as the Minister sits there smiling, that he is apparently no more aware than the general populace of the seriousness of the problem, by virtue of having referred to dioxin and one or two other chemicals when in fact what we are concerned with in Lake St. Clair are 58 chemicals.
We talk about toxicology studies, individual chemicals and about controlling them, from the cradle to the grave. But we have to take note of a number of facts. First, we are not concerned about individual chemicals, no matter how low the concentration. I appreciate, as do other Members on this side, that the increased fastidiousness of scientific detection methods are bound to show the presence, perhaps ultimately, of molecules among the millions. It is true as well that one has to make decisions about what are the risks. How are we to make decisions about those risks when we cannot define the tests of those risks? For example, the test for the risk of a particular chemical is never just whether the chemical is there or what concentrations are present on a particular day, but something more. The question of bio-accumulation is an issue which includes accumulation in our bodies. Even more important, and not addressed, are the effects of combinations of chemicals which in terms of both cumulative and instant effects are totally unknown. It is doubtful whether there is any answer to the question of whether there are acceptable levels of those chemicals individually or in combination, which raises a question pertinent to the Minister's particular area of jurisdiction of health and welfare, that is, what are and what have already been the effects of chemicals in the waters of the Great Lakes and in the drinking waters of the Great Lakes? Various scientists have expressed suspicion about the effects that have already occurred.
Does the Minister have any plans, as a part of the over-all Governments scheme to engage in epidemiological studies which will determine how we have already been affected by
February 3, 1986

chemicals in the drinking water? Only a few years ago we were told they were at safe levels. But, in fact, we do not have any definition of content objectives for a quarter of these chemicals.
With respect to the epidemiological question, is the Department going to take initiatives in accordance with the over-all strategy of the Government to address the environmental concerns?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), he says he is mystified. I will try to take him out of the realm of mystery and into the area of knowledge.
The Member says, for example, that he cannot accept the fact that we have chosen a chemical society. Let us be very practical. I am sure being the kind of person he with the sartorial splendour in which I see him here from day-to-day, that he does not have synthetic fibres in any of his clothes.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is not the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 am sure the fibres he wears are all natural. What I am saying to him, Mr. Speaker, is very clearly, yes, in a practical sense this is reality for all of us. The Hon. Member cannot ignore that fact. That is the case. That is truth. He knows it and I know it.
What about the car he gets into tonight? It contains a lot of products from a chemical society. He knows that. He expects to use them and he expects to be transported in that way. He cannot simply say that there is an either/or, black or white situation because that is not the case. The Hon. Member lives with this situation every day. He should not try to project that somehow we can reverse society, or say that it would be a better society if we so chose. I would suggest that it is not. It was for that reason I was smiling, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member wants very often to make the point that there is a society into which we can revert which will be totally free of chemicals, totally free of any risk-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I do not remember saying anything like that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -and it was for that reason I was smiling.
Let me give the Member one very practical and quick example of what the Government is doing in terms of actions. Last week we announced guidelines on certain dioxins. Previously there were no guidelines. That is the kind of direct approach we took last week. The former Minister of the Environment tells the Government to do more, but those guidelines were not established earlier. We are setting guidelines. Our Government is taking a comprehensive approach from an environmental and a health point of view and, as I also stated, from a transport point of view. It is a total Government commitment which we will continue.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying a word or two about the environmental problem which is most recent in our minds. That, of course, is the St. Clair River problem on which we received a report just last week. I would like to address the question of guidelines, the subject which was just being debated, before I say the other things 1 have to say.
It is instructive to remember that of the 58 toxic chemicals found in the St. Clair River there are guidelines for only 23. With respect to what are acceptable toxic levels in Fish, we have guidelines for only three of these chemicals. We are still in the dark about a great many things, both with respect to guidelines and with respect to the whole question of guidelines period. Many things which passed for guidelines years ago are now known to be quite unacceptable in terms of guidelines.
It is for this reason that it makes great sense for Members on this side of the House, and for people from other places, to call for the reinstatement of the Guelph Toxicology Centre and the cancellation of those cuts which were made in research by the former Minister of the Environment. If the Government is serious about addressing the myriad environmental problems which we face as a country, then it should want to have at its disposal the very best and latest in research. It can only do that by going back on some of the bad decisions which were made early in the life of this Government, and which I am sure many Members opposite now realize were bad decisions. I ask Members opposite to find the political wherewithal to correct those mistakes.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) had to leave the House. 1 wanted to say to him that to proceed to do some of the things which he outlined on behalf of the Government would certainly be in keeping not just with any narrow concern about the environment but with the concern expressed in the preamble to the Canada Health Act on which he and I worked in a previous Parliament. As a result of an amendment moved by myself it was written into the legislative understanding of Canadian health that we realize it is not just a question of having a medicare system, but a question of dealing with the "social, environmental and occupational causes of disease". At that time I was pleased to have those words written into the Canada Health Act. It is about time that Governments got moving with respect to living up to that preamble in order to see that the type of legislation which needs to be in place is, in fact, put in place.
I would also like to say a word about whether or not we chose to have a chemical society. We could argue at great lengths about the question. The fact of the matter is that a great many decisions which were made about what type of products we would be offered in the market-place were made not by consumers but by people who decided to radically restructure the way things were manufactured in the post-war

February 3, 1986
Supply
era. These people decided, in many cases for reasons of increased profitability and productivity, as it was understood then, to use synthetic substances as opposed to more traditional and renewable substances such as cotton, wood or rubber. These were decisions that were not made in the market-place. I grant the Government, which believes that all things are decided in the market-place, the theory that people could have chosen not to buy those products. However, it was often the case that they either bought something which was made of these synthetic substances or they did not buy anything at all because the former product was no longer manufactured.
As the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) was trying to say, in many cases we are not just talking about choosing blindly, we are talking about informed choice. The fact of the matter is that it is only now that we are coming to be informed about many of the substances which were chosen, not by consumers but by the people making those products. That is not to say that there have not been people warning us all along since that time. I can remember even 10 years ago hearing concerns expressed about some of the things that are taken for granted today and at that time the people who expressed such concerns were regarded as some kind of doom and gloomers. They were considered to be party-poopers and against progress and the 20th century. We now hear things coming out of the mouths of otherwise very conservative people which sound much like the things they were probably derisive of some 10 or 15 years ago.
In this respect I wish to address what I think is the main problem for the Government as it concerns the environment. I do not intend to address in great detail the actual text of the motion, which is to condemn the Government for its handling of the problem of toxic chemicals. I do not think the previous Government did a bang-up job either. I think the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), whose good intentions with respect to the environment I do not question, is often too preoccupied with trying to defend the record of the previous Government, instead of putting it behind him and trying to do the best in the present context.
It seems to me that a Conservative Government has at least two problems when it comes to the environment. One of course is with respect to transboundary environmental problems. We know that the two most contentious issues in this respect are acid rain and pollution of the Great Lakes, particularly as a result of pollution from the American side getting into the Niagara River. It seems to me that the problem from a foreign policy point of view, as far as transboundary pollution is concerned, is that members of the Conservative Party are convinced that they can get what we as Canadians want collectively from America, in terms of action on how it is polluting our environment, by the soft-sell approach, by being nice to the Americans and by adopting the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I do not say that we should be nastry to them; but there is a difference between the buddy-buddy approach and the firm, friendly approach which I think needs to be taken with our American neighbours.
In this respect, for instance, we saw very different responses to the report of the presidential and prime-ministerial envoys on acid rain. Members on the Conservative side felt constrained to say something nice about a report which was obviously a bust. Mr. Lewis obviously obtained the upper hand over Mr. Davis in recommending something which fit quite nicely into the needs of American politics and into the scenario desired by those on the American side who really do not want to have to do anything about acid rain in the foreseeable future. Under the report of the envoys, the Americans have at least five years, or even beyond that, to continue to do very little or nothing. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) once said in committee that the acid rain issue would be the litmus test of whether or not the new approach to Canada-America relations was any good. So far I think the litmus test has proved to be just that type of test, only we have failed the test.
I do not want to spend too much time on the acid rain issue since we have the other problem of the toxic chemical pollution of the Great Lakes to consider. With regard to the Great Lakes, I say to the Government, we have to do everything we can when we find pollution on our side, to deal with it as effectively, as firmly and as immediately as we would want the Americans to deal with those pollutants which are affecting our environment. If we do not do this, then we will not be in a good position when we go to them and ask them for the very kind of action that we ourselves are reluctant to take. I believe the Government has undermined its own position on a number of occasions, particularly regarding Great Lakes pollution, although not so much with acid rain, an issue on which the Government has gone ahead. The Government undermined its position, particularly under the former Minister of the Environment and will increasingly do so under this Minister if we continue to receive nothing but rhetoric. The Minister, however, has a little time yet before he can be judged on whether he only speaks well, or, if he actually acts.
I was interested to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that the Government hoped to be able to deal with these things once it gets the economy going. The fact is that the way the Conservatives propose to get the economy going is through imposing a deregulatory atmosphere on the Canadian economy and by accepting a notion of international competitiveness which I contend takes us in the opposite direction of where we should be going, if we are, indeed, serious about environmental protection and quality.
One major element of any environmental protection program is going to have to be regulatory in nature. We are going to need more inspectors to ensure that the new standards set by any legislation which might be brought forward are enforced. We are going to need more research so we can adopt better and more informed guidelines. We are going to have to do a lot of things which are going to cost money and which are going to be perceived as a pain in the neck by the business community.
February 3, 1986

But the Government is committed to quite the contrary. The Government is committed, to use one of its favourite phrases "to getting the Government off the backs of free enterprise and letting it flourish". Let me say that it is free enterprise, in many respects, which got us into this problem in the First place, although to be fair I would have to say that when it comes to the environment there has been a blind spot on the left and on the right.
It is the very kind of progress or economic environment which created these environmental problems in the first place that the Government, at least in its rhetoric, wants to return to with a vengence. That is a fundamental contradiction in the mindset of the Conservative Government. I say to Hon. Members of the Government that they will not be able to have it both ways, particularly in an international context.
We often hear from the Government that it wants Canada to be more internationally competitive. This relates to the free trade argument and other arguments put forward by them about the nature of the global economy. But part of what is now happening in the global economy is that big investment decisions are being made according to what country has the least environmental regulations. They are made according to where those companies feel they can have the freest hand in dumping their wastes into rivers and lakes or expelling them into the air. For this reason the Government should be committed-and it clearly is not-to working for a new international economic order where countries do not have to adopt this "beggar thy neighbour" policy, trying to get investment money by saying they will turn a blind eye to what these companies may do to their environment. If the Government is not willing to work for that kind of economic order and is not willing to do what is necessary in Canada in order not to capitulate to those kinds of international pressures, then all the rhetoric and legislation in the world will go for nought. As long as we have an economic policy which is committed to accommodating ourselves to the international economic order rather than resisting some of those trends and trying to change the way the global economy is developing, Canada will be in a very difficult position.
So I say to Hon. Members of the Government that they have a conceptual problem because they are committed to a notion of how the global economy works which will make it very difficult to do what they want.


Gary Michael Gurbin: You are 50 years behind. The economy and environment are the same.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) says the economy and the environment are the same. I agree. That is precisely the point I am making. But up until now, within the context of an economy in which investment decisions and other financial decisions are made in terms of short-term profit margins, the environment is something which has not been taken into account. And it will not be taken into account until those people in the private sector, who make those kinds of decisions, are made accountable for the social and environmental costs
Supply
which accrue to the public treasury as the result of their private decisions. I certainly do not see the Government moving in that direction.
The fact is that everywhere in the world people are being allowed to make the kinds of decisions which endanger the sustainability of the planet, certain resources and the environment, and it is the public that is finally asked to pick up the tab. I see no change coming from the Government with respect to that particular fact about our economy. So the Parliamentary Secretary can say that the economy and the environment are the same and I agree, but that is not the way our books are kept.
Many of the things which have been used up over the years have not been figured into how we account for the economy, like clean air, fertile soil and clean water. These are free goods which the private sector, and for that matter the public sector where it has been active, have just used up as if they didn't cost anything. These companies continue to do that, and if they are asked in Canada to figure that into their books they go to the Amazon Valley where they do not have to figure it in because the Government there will let them get away with not figuring it in.
That is the problem I am trying to point out to the Government. Until there is an international economic context in which multinational corporations, for instance, are not allowed to force countries to compete with each other in this mutually degrading way, we will not even have gotten to the major part of the problem and the need for that is completely contrary to the views of the international economy which are always espoused by this Government.
The Government sees the global economy as a wonderful competitive place where Canada gets in there with everyone else and tries to do its best to get investment. But the way the global economy works now is that we have to give up our values to really do so, our labour, environmental and social values. We give up whatever the international investment community thinks we ought to give up in order to qualify for investment, and the more other countries compete for that money on the basis that their governments could care less about such values, the more we in Canada will be put in an increasingly difficult position.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment that this is as true of the environment and environmental regulations as it is of any other basis on which we might compete with other countries. What I would like to see of the Government is not the "living on its knees" kind of policy where it takes the global economy as a given and tries to accommodate itself to it. I would like to see some resistence. I would like to see the Government fight for a better international economic order in which we do not have to do these kinds of degrading things in order to have the kind of country we want.
There are so many more things which could be said about what the Government should do. Had I had the time I would like to have talked about increased Government funding for the upgrading of municipal water treatment facilities. Many of

February 3, 1986
our municipalities are now in a very difficult situation and are not able to afford to do the kinds of things which need to be done. I would like to talk about an environmental Bill of Rights, for instance, but I see my time is up.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on January 1 the Mulroney Government robbed thousands of Canadians of their hard-earned unemployment insurance benefits by counting early retirement pensions as income. This was done despite a legion of protests, pleas, and petitions. Approximately one year ago the Government announced this measure, and because of this advance notice it believes that Canadians should be able to adjust to it and accept it. This is not the case. There was little publicity and little formal consultation.
Every day new individuals and groups are finding out that this measure affects them and cruelly reduces their forced early retirement income. Worse still, the Government is forcing certain employees, such as members of the Canadian Armed Forces who must retire early, to pay unemployment insurance premiums but will not let them collect the benefits.
The Government has appointed the Forget Commission to examine the entire unemployment insurance system. Why does it not show some commonsense by suspending this harsh measure and referring it to the Forget Commission where it can be studied in the context of other possible changes?


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of this House a matter of immense tragedy. A young constituent of mine was killed in an accident in Jamaica last Thursday morning. To the family, friends, and to me, the loss is enormous and personal. To our country and to the
family, however, the grief has been transformed into agony by the thorough incompetence and uncaring attitude of Canada's High Commission in Jamaica.
During the past four days no one from our Commission travelled to the scene of the accident or to the hospital where this young Canadian lay. The father and a friend of the deceased received no assistance from the High Commission on arrival in Montego Bay and were forced to search out their lost kin in the basement of a hospital in Savanna la Mar. Throughout the day yesterday no duty officer could be raised to assist, despite repeated efforts by the family, myself, and External Affairs here in Ottawa.
I wish to thank those staff at External Affairs here in Ottawa who kindly assisted me and the family over the past few days, including the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Taylor, who came sincerely to the task at 2 a.m. this morning.
I am confident that all Members of this House share in the grief of the family, and also share in the wisdom of recalling every member of Canada's High Commission to Jamaica to Ottawa for retraining in the basic elements of human decency. As the father, Warner Funk, Sr., said to me moments ago from Jamaica: "No parent should ever have to undergo such horror again".



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, last week the one millionth van rolled off the assembly line in the Scarborough plant of General Motors. That plant manufactures vans for sale throughout the entire continent of North America and, as a result, provides employment for 2,400 production workers plus 250 administrative staff. Its magnificent record of production and sales shows what can happen when Canadian labour and management work together, but it also shows what can happen when Canada and the United States work together.
I ask the House, how many of those 2,650 people would have employment if that plant could sell vans only to Canadians? How many more Canadians who benefit from General Motors spin-offs would have work but for the Auto Pact? The success of that agreement points the way of the future. It is the way of gaining guaranteed access to a market large enough to provide Canadians with opportunities that our 25 million people cannot provide on our own.
The Government has shown vision and courage by inviting the United States to join Canada in trade discussions which may expand this kind of opportunity in other industries, and this kind of opportunity for all Canadians. Almost 20 years ago one of the key players making that Auto Pact possible was the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. One could wish his Party had the vision today that he had then.
February 3, 1986



AGRICULTURE


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced our party's new long-term dairy policy, to be renewed for five years, including the subsidy program.
Dairy farmers in my riding are very happy with this decision which demonstrates the Government's formal commitment to this vital sector of our economy. The policy will also help to boost the recovery of the agricultural sector among the expropriated farmers of Mirabel. Canadian dairy producers still remember the unilateral cuts in quotas made by our predecessors, which caused many new dairy operations to go out of business.
Today I would like to remind the House that the dairy policy was the result of consultation between farmers and various parties in the industry, and that without this consensus and commitment to regulate production, no dairy policy would have been possible.
Considering their commitment and their sensitivity to the public's well-being farmers deserve our admiration, especially after surviving fifteen years of Liberal Government, which is quite a feat, Mr. Speaker, for an industry as regulated as the Canadian dairy industry.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the time-honoured tradition of Parliament requires that every Member feel free to speak out in caucus without having to fear that his or her words are being intercepted by another political Party. The violation of this tradition by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) casts into question his ability to function in his current dual roles as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. Imagine what our allies must be saying about the possibility of interception that could exist on matters of national and international security.
What must the country think of a man who systematically eavesdropped accidentally every Wednesday for five months? What must the country think of a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who fired one Minister of Defence for going into a bar, yet is prepared to take no action when another flaunts the tenet of public morality?
If the Prime Minister is truly serious about his own position as leader of the country, he has no choice but to demand the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister. Anything less
makes him party to the insidious, Watergate tactics best characterized by the Conservative Member for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows the rules about comments. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been appalled to hear of the carnage over the weekend in Haiti. There are reports of between 50 and 100 people being killed and many more injured in the anti-government demonstrations. Many Canadians would be even more appalled if they thought that their tax dollars were helping the repulsive regime of Jean-Claude Duvalier to maintain its grip on power.
Between Baby Doc and his father, the Duvalier family has tyrannized Haiti for 30 years. In the last 10 years Canadian aid has amounted to some $87 million, $8 million of that in the fiscal year 1984-85. With what result? The plight of the Haitian people is worse than ever. The flow of refugees to our country and others continues.
Baby Doc Duvalier is a cancerous growth on the Caribbean region and clearly has no intention of improving the desperate lot of his people. Until we see some willingness to respect human rights and democracy in Haiti, Canada should cut off its foreign aid for all but the most dire emergencies. My call is echoed by Canada's Haitian community as well. Let us stop aiding tyranny in Haiti now.



EXPO 86 PROGRAMS AND CEREMONIES

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I realize this Chamber does not exactly dwell on good news and positive events but, if you will bear with me, I would like to spend a few moments bringing Members up to date on Expo 86 in my home province this year.
The television advertisements, the pamphlets and posters and brochures cannot begin to capture the excitement of what is about to happen in Vancouver this May through October.
Even the naysayers are surprised at the success of Expo 86 to date. The site itself is sold out. An unprecedented 8 million visits to the Fair have been sold three months before the door is even open.
On Vancouver Island our Expo 86 will begin on May I, when Prince Charles and Diana, the Princess of Wales, will visit Victoria and Nanaimo. Together, Expo 86 and the concurrent Islands 86 celebration will host the largest international event on this Continent between now and the end of this century.

February 3, 1986
This weekend Members of Parliament from across Canada will get a preview look at Expo 86 and experience a Canada we have never experienced before.
From Canada Place on the harbour to the Expo site itself, "from Bonavista to Vancouver Island," as the song says, we are about to discover what is good about this nation, what is exciting about this nation, and what we have to offer the world. Expo 86, - what the world is coming to. The people of British Columbia have much to be proud of.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, by the end of today's Question Period, that is, in about 50 minutes, the Canadian Government will have increased its deficit by $16,346,000. In a single hour, the Government will have spent 0.5 per cent of its total annual revenue from taxpayers across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, will this Question Period be put to good use by Opposition Members? Are they going to consider these financial constraints we are subject to or are they going to waste the time of the House on trivialities?
Mr. Speaker, today's editorial in the Globe and Mail appears under the title "A budget for less debt". That, Mr. Speaker, is what it is all about. Hon. Members are here in the House to legislate and administer, and their main instrument is the Budget. Let us focus all our energies and our sense of purpose on this area, and Canada's economic renewal, which has been well under way since September 1984, will continue to progress for the benefit of us all.
That should be the objective of all the elected Members of this House.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada thinks that it can clean up the past and present activities on the St. Clair River through a yet to be introduced Environmental Contaminants Act, it is dreaming in colour. Existing toxic chemicals in the river-bed, sewer outfalls, leaching from dump sites, existing and ongoing sources of pollution cannot be dealt with through legislation not in the books. The St. Clair is an international river. The Government
of Canada has a responsibility under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to clean up the situation.
The Government has several instruments at its disposal. It could reinstate the two-year accelerated write offs under the Income Tax Act, an important incentive to industry to install modern treatment equipment, separate sewers, modernize monitoring systems, and ensure that the highest standards of waste treatment are applied. It could offer a special program for municipalities such as Sarnia to provide financial assistance for the installation of equipment and facilities for the best possible treatment of residential, commercial, and industrial waste waters which pass through municipal sewer systems. It could even create a super fund with interested provincial Governments, to remove toxic wastes from dumps and therefore remove the source of future problems at leaking dumps.
To restore the confidence of people living alongside the St. Clair River, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has to act and move swiftly with the momentum created by the St. Clair River-


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the deficit is the biggest single problem facing Canadians today. The deficit has become a cancer; it has entered our system and is spreading its disease throughout the country. There is virtually no day that goes by which does not remind us of how oppressive the deficit has become. It affects interest rates, thus hitting every home owner, every consumer, and every business person. It affects the funds available for social concerns and thus ultimately threatens every social program in Canada. It affects government plans and options, as was demonstrated when the drought hit many farmers this spring and summer. We were faced with a desperate situation and were forced to cope with a crisis, with scarce, borrowed resources.
I believe that three things must be done to allow us to rid ourselves of this dealdy, ever-growing weight upon us. The first is that the spending and raising of Canadian tax dollars have to be seen as related, working together. This means that we need a regularized structure in Parliament, tying the Estimates to the Budget and vice versa. Second, the Government of Canada needs to take many of the tough decisions required to reduce the deficit. Finally, the Canadian people must get involved by offering their help and energies to beat this problem. The deficit is too large a problem to be left in the hands of a few. It is a problem for all Canadians to tackle.
February 3, 1986



NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM-REFUSAL OF UNITED STATES CLUBS TO RELEASE PLAYERS

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, all of Canada is proud of our National Soccer Team which is going to Mexico later this year to participate for the first time ever in a World Cup Tournament. Its success so far is a tribute to a concerted effort by so many individuals associated with the Canadian Soccer Association, and it has been made even greater by the fact that they have had to overcome as many obstacles off the field as on it.
The latest problem centres around the refusal of the Major Indoor Soccer League in the United States to release our Canadian stars to play with their national team in warm-up matches. In soccer all over the world it is a matter of pride for a club to have its players selected for a national team, and they willingly allow their players leave to participate in international soccer. But not in North America. Here the dollar rules, and club owners are afraid of losing attendance if their stars are released from time to time. It is a sign of immaturity which must be overcome if soccer is ever to be successful in North America.
I also have to wonder if the same reluctance would be shown if the players were to be released to play for a U.S. national team. It is time for the Sports Minister to offer his assistance in resolving this matter to allow our team, all of it, the time for practice and development which it so richly deserves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that this morning the Canadian dollar reached an alltime low of 69 cents. I remember when this dollar used to be worth a hundred cents. It is now about two-thirds of that value under this Government. I want to ask the Minister of Finance what he is going to do to restore confidence in this country and world confidence in his Government. Obviously that lack of confidence is bearing down on our dollar.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to this question on a number of occasions in recent weeks. Let me just repeat myself.
We have introduced, since September, 1984, a series of policies which are designed to address the fundamental problems of the economy, the fundamental problems of the deficit of the country, which is leading to some of the pressures that
Oral Questions
are on the dollar today. These have been widely recognized as being the right way to go.
The OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, has said very clearly that it has no policy advice to give us. It is pleased with the directions that we are going, it is pleased with the economic performance of the country over this past 18 months, and has said that there is no need for a section in its report on policy advice because the things that we have set out are the things that it would be recommending to us.


INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not according to the Canadian and world markets, which indicate that the credibility of the Minister of Finance fell to its lowest level ever this morning.
I shall repeat my question: Is the Minister of Finance going to tolerate an interest rate hike in an attempt to protect the Canadian dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I might quote here:
-the hon. gentleman is as knowledgeable as anyone in the House on these matters, and he must know how precarious it would be for me to predict either movements of exchange rates or interest rates and thus allow the market to take a position for or against that statement.
That was said by the Minister on July 14, 1975. As reported at page 7525 of Hansard. I believe the Hon. Member knows who it is; it is he.


SPREAD BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES INTEREST RATE LEVELS
John Napier Turner: think we might reserve for tomorrow some statements of the Minister when he was on this side of the House on what he thought the solutions ought to be. Two can play this game. 1 can tell the Minister of Finance our interest rates were within range of those in the United States. This morning our Treasury Bill rates are 400 basis points higher than American rates. In other words, we have a crisis in terms of the spread between the Canadian interest rate structure and the American interest rate structure. What is he going to do about this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member was the Finance Minister-


John Napier Turner: The dollar was $1.02, $1.03.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Okay. At the same time interest rates doubled during his term of office. One of the causes for the weakness in the dollar, as has been reported, is concern about the size of the deficit an control over government spending. The last year that he was the Finance Minister

February 3, 1986
Oral Questions
of this country government spending increased by 29 per cent. This year there will be an increase in government spending of something like 4 per cent. That is what we are doing to stabilize the level of the dollar.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 1984, when the Conservatives came to power, the preferred rate was the same in Canada and the United States. Today, there is a difference of 200 base points.
My question to the Minister of Finance is as follows: The savings bonds issued by the Canadian Government last November pay 8.5 per cent interest to holders. Since February 1, the bonds are redeemable without penalty, so that Canadians can cash them. Now, the interest rate on one-year Treasury bills is almost 11 per cent. My question for the Minister of Finance is quite simple. Does he intend to increase the interest on savings bonds, so that Canadians can get the same rate of interest on their savings that banks and trust companies get on one-year Treasury bills?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member knows, he being a former Minister of Finance in the Quebec Government, that there is a lot of instability in the international market-place. Currencies are bouncing around in unprecedented ways, partly because of things that flowed out of the G-Five meeting last September, and some are related to the weakness in the international price of oil. These are things affecting the level of the Canadian dollar and the level of Canadian interest rates.
Our policy is to try to generate some stability into the market-place so that we can see those interest rates decline and get back to a more normal relationship relative to the United States, as happened this time last year.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN CANADA SAVINGS BOND INTEREST RATE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the Minister of Finance to answer my question. Since he did not, I will repeat my question. Does the Minister of Finance intend to increase the interest on savings bonds, so that Canadians can get the same rate of interest on their savings bonds that the Government is paying every month when it borrows by issuing Treasury bills, considering
the gap between the present rates of 8.5 and 11 per cent? Is he going to increase the rate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that there are differences between Canada Savings Bonds and marketable securities.
Marketable securities have interest rates which will range up and down, depending upon current market conditions. The Government has the same rate on Canada Savings Bonds for a full year because they are a different type of investment instrument. They can be cashed at any time. Canada Savings Bonds have a degree of stability to them that provide the investor with a lot more safety in holding that investment. For that reason the difference in interest rates is warranted.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Today our dollar has dropped again. For the first time in our history, the value of the dollar has dropped below 70 cents.
Does the Minister of Finance have another solution to this problem, aside from a further increase in interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct an impression which the Hon. Member may have left inadvertently. We are not trying to increase the borrowing rate.
What the Bank of Canada has been doing during the course of these past few weeks is to moderate the pressures on interest and exchange rates, both up and down.


Mr. Orlikow:: More bafflegab.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The purpose of this policy is to generate a degree of stability in the market-place. Once that stability is achieved, then we will see, as I indicated to a previous questioner, some narrowing in the interest rate spread. That is the policy of the Government, and we are going to continue that policy.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the stability to which the Minister of Finance refers means increased costs to farmers for production, increased costs for homes, and increased lay-offs for our export industries. Given all these negative effects that are inextricable when you raise interest rates, and which the Minister of Finance himself pointed out when he was on this side of the House, will he give us
February 3, 1986

assurances that this Thursday will not see another increase in interest rates in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member said something he did not mean to say. The export industries in this country, contrary to what the Member said, are benefiting from this, not the way the Hon. Member-


John Edward Broadbent: Increased rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member should get his story straight. There are two influences here. He has tried to cross his tracks in the question that he proposed.
In specific response to the question, I have indicated to the Hon. Member that because of the huge magnitude of the borrowing requirements of the Government of Canada it is not possible for us to put a pin in and say that that will be the level of interest rates. This is because we sell, I think it is, $3 billion every week of Treasury bills. We cannot keep selling that amount and hope to set interest rates at a fixed level. That is why I say we have to allow the market to set the interest rates. We are moderating the increase, both upward and downward, of both interest rates and exchange rates.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that when he and his colleagues were campaigning to form a new Government they promised a change. The kind of change we have is more than a five-cent drop in the value of the dollar since the Conservatives come to power. Is the Minister now telling the House of Commons that the Government of Canada has no other option, in terms of dealing with this decline in the value of the dollar, except for the age-old one which has not worked in the past and which is not working now, which is another interest rate increase? Is that what the Minister is telling us?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said clearly that we do have an entirely different approach to economic policy. That was set out in November of 1984 and repeated in May of 1985 in the Budget. The results of this policy are very clear: 450,000 jobs have been created-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Oh, come on!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The unemployment rate was 11.6 per cent; it is now 10 per cent. We have investment growing at a rate of 11 per cent per annum. We have housing starts which have gone up by 25 per cent over the past year. Consumer confidence is at a record high, as measured by the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board is saying that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More!
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the acknowledgement by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning in the House that his behaviour was wrong and that eavesdropping is not proper or acceptable, does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that he would eavesdrop on the Liberal caucus today if the chance presented itself?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Misquoted again, John?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Minister wants to reply. However, I have to say to the Hon. Member that, as he well knows, his question is seeking something well beyond the limits of Question Period. Therefore, I ask him that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rodriguez:: Here we go again!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to phrase his question in the context of ministerial accountability.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is responsible for the lawful conduct of the Government of Canada. Can the Prime Minister keep in his Cabinet, as Minister of Justice, a person who indicated that that type of conduct is acceptable to him and that he would do it himself if he had the opportunity?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Nunziata:: The PM won't defend you!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman is not quoting me correctly.


John R. Rodriguez: Come off it!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope I will be permitted to finish my answer, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say that if I was too enthusiastic in defending my colleague on Saturday evening and left the wrong impression

February 3, 1986
Oral Questions
that I might countenance eavesdropping, I would like to correct that now. I agree with the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning, which was an excellent statement. I add my regrets to his, in the event that there was any mistaken impression to the contrary created by me. As Minister of Justice it is my job to administer and enforce the laws of this country, which I have done, am doing, and will continue to do. I will put my record against anyone on the other side, or anywhere else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: Get him a muzzle!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre-a short supplementary.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR KITCHENER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on this question of proper conduct and statements by Ministers, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not rather agree with his caucus colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener, who indicated that, rather than walking past an open window, eavesdropping is more like receiving stolen goods.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is out of order.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE OF GASOLINE CHARGED BY SERVICE STATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1983, 37 Conservative Members of Parliament opened a gas station to sell gasoline by the gallon and by the litre on grounds of their freedom to sell. Similarly, does the Prime Minister believe that Petro-Canada dealers should have the freedom to choose the price at which they sell at the pump?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, I think he is referring to a case where a service station was in conflict with the company, Petro-Canada. There was a signed contract with that particular station. There was a breach of that contract and Petro-Canada took the action which the contract allowed it to take.


CLOSURE OF SERVICE STATION AT GRAVENHURST, ONT.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The gas station of George and Cora McAra in Gravenhurst,
Ontario, has been shut down because the couple want to give the consumers a break. Why should the Prime Minister not instruct Petro-Canada, at a time of dramatically falling oil prices, to allow people like the McAra's to give the consumer a break?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister made it very clear in her answer last week that we do not instruct Petro-Canada or any other company to raise or lower gas prices.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the problem.


John Horton McDermid: She has asked them. This Government does not set the prices, the market-place sets the prices-


Mr. de Jong:: What market-place?


John Horton McDermid: -and we will see some action very soon in that regard, 1 am sure.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he withdraw and apologize for his own defence of the eavesdropping activities of the Deputy Prime Minister, activities which the Deputy Prime Minister considered wrong this morning and apologized for in the House?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No one answers that one, eh?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are all gutless.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Need I read the Citations with regard to questions being put to Ministers with regard to ministerial accountability? With great respect to those who wish to put questions-and I do not wish to stop them-Hon. Members know our practices with regard to opinions or matters which lie outside ministerial responsibility, and I have no choice but to enforce them and rule that question out of order.


Jacques Guilbault: I will try to go straight to the heart of the Prime Minister's responsibility.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will have a hard time.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Does the Prime Minister still believe, after what we heard this morning, that it is still appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister to hold a position in his Cabinet?
February 3, 1986


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was possible for the Deputy Prime Minister to give to me, or the House, any further evidence of his integrity and value, but indeed he did this morning with his statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. While we certainly recognize and accept the apology of the Minister of Justice for the statements he made on the weekend, in view of the serious responsibilities of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, does the Prime Minister not recognize that having in effect counselled a breach of the law-that is, Section 178 of the Criminal Code-and suggested that it is entirely proper, the Prime Minister should, in the circumstances, relieve the Attorney General of his responsibilities?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is simply an incorrect statement of fact to say that I counselled a breach of anything. I counselled no breach of any of the laws of this country. I can tell the hon. gentleman that if he or anyone else breaches any of the laws, or counsels a breach of them, I will certainly be active to see that that offence is properly chastised.


John Napier Turner: We'll use you as a character witness.


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no counselling of that nature by me and I am disappointed that the hon. gentleman would even suggest it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Crosbie for character witness.


PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL CODE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have Section 178.2 of the Criminal Code in front of me. In view of the fact that the Criminal Code very clearly states that it is illegal to intercept, or to take advantage of the interception in the situation such as he has suggested, does the Minister of Justice not recognize that the statements he made in effect counselled breach of the law, and that he should step down as the chief law officer of the Crown?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, someone on the other side should have intercepted that silly, tasteless question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That wastn't the sharpest, John!


Mr.   de Corneille@: Bugging is tasteless.
Oral Questions


CEREBRAL PALSY TELETHON-GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, the Tenth Cerebral Palsy Telethon was held across Quebec, during which some 15,000 volunteers collected nearly $4 million for research and nursing care for the victims of this terrible illness. My question to the Minister is as follows: Could the Minister inform the House what kind of research is being done in this field and how the Canadian Government contributes to an event like the Cerebral Palsy Telethon?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first I think all Hon. Members of the House would want to join me in congratulating the volunteers for the Telethon which was carried on successfully in the Province of Quebec over the weekend. I think it is a commendable demonstration of volunteer action in helping to Find solutions and answers to a very terrible disease. I commend all of those volunteers, including the Hon. Member who asked the question.
1 want to say to her that through the NHRDP, the Medical Research Council, as well as some provincial based research organizations, there is research being carried on. At present we have approximately $7 million of expenditures, not only specifically in the area of cerebral palsy but in related diseases, by the various provincial and federal research organizations which are charged with this responsibility.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He may not have noticed during his visit to Nova Scotia last weekend but Atlantic Canadians, including his former constituents of Central Nova, are still waiting for the brand new day which was promised to Atlantic Canada by the Prime Minister.
Given youth unemployment of 30 per cent in Newfoundland, 20 per cent in Nova Scotia and 23 per cent in New Brunswick, will the Prime Minister come forward with a first chance program to give the approximately 55,000 jobless young people in Atlantic Canada a chance for the dignity of a job?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we realize that jobs have to be created, but we are pleased with the trends we see happening, particularly with young people. I may tell the Hon. Member

February 3, 1986
Oral Questions
that since we came to office 43,000 more jobs have been created for young people. Unemployment among young people is down by some 75,000. The unemployment rate is down from where it was during his regime by 2.6 per cent. At the same time we have put into youth programs some $180 million this year-


Mr.   de Corneille@: Yes, and the session is over, too.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -for summer programs for students, an additional $30 million for students to take part in the census-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That's not additional. Come, on. Shame.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Shame.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and, as well, under Job Entry, which particularly is geared to disadvantaged young people, we have allocated some $125 million.


Mr.   de Corneille@: The session is over. Shame on you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister in answering the question has taken the same attitude as the Prime Minister with respect to his promises to Atlantic Canada. He has ignored the region and he has broken-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


REQUEST FOR NEW EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, despite the statistics spewing from the mouth of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, which are relevant to the Atlantic region, would the Minister not recognize that unemployment is up in Newfoundland, up in Prince Edward Island, and has not hardly moved in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Will she not recognize the reality and the desperation in the Atlantic region and the anger of the demonstrators last week in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and come forward with a realistic program to give people in Atlantic Canada the dignity of a job, because the Government has not done it? The Prime Minister has not kept his word.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Hon. Member to accompany me to some of the projects where young people are working, where young people have had an opportunity to go into training programs across Atlantic Canada and across the rest of the country. They have been able to take six to eight months of training and on-site work experience and, at the end of this, have been able to acquire permanent jobs. In Newfoundland, for example, employment among young people is up by some 2,000 and unemployment is down by 1,000.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which become effective January 3, 1986, treat pension income as earned income. This is creating a considerable amount of hardship for people, particularly those who have retired from the Armed Forces, who now have to report their pensions as earned income. They are still looking for work, but if they work they will have to pay premiums and would never be able to collect. Is the Minister prepared to withdraw that draconian measure of counting pension income as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this question has been raised on a number of occasions before. Indeed, it has been raised on several occasions by the Hon. Member himself. I will repeat the answer that I have given earlier in the House. This regulation change was announced in November of 1984. There was a year allowed to make the adjustments necessary for the implementation of this regulation.
With regard to the point which he raises about premiums, I have also announced in the House that this issue has been specially referred to the Forget Commission of Inquiry. I have asked especially for a reply to the question of who pays premiums, under what circumstances, and whether there should be the same prevailing structure. These questions have all been referred to the commission of inquiry and I am looking forward to receiving the report.


FORGET COMMISSION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question related to the Forget Commission. Will the Minister then, as seems to be most logical, wait until she gets the Forget Commission report before she starts making changes to the Act and hurting people?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I may inform the Hon. Member, although I do know that he has recognized this previously, that the regulation change was announced long before the Forget Commission was established.


David Orlikow: And we protested it then.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In November of 1984 we announced when it would come into effect. The Forget Commission was not established until some six or seven months later.
February 3, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister for External Relations.
Considering that the situation is deteriorating rapidly in Haiti, that dozens of people have been killed and hundreds more have been injured, can the Minister assure the House that the department guarantees the security of Canadians living there and looks after the relatives of Canadian families who are permanent residents of Haiti?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: As I said in weekend reports, Mr. Speaker, the comments and reports we have heard do indicate that no Canadians have been injured or even affected in that country.
I too am concerned about the situation in Haiti and we are monitoring developments very closely.
Since we are a Government that knows how to listen, 1 called a working session for 6 p.m. later this day where I will be listening to the spokesmen of Montreal's Haitian community and seeking their advice, because they still have brothers and sisters living in Haiti.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister.
Some newspapermen and some Members from the Montreal region have told me that they are experiencing a lot of difficulties in trying to elicit information on that subject from the Department of External Affairs.
Would the Minister take the appropriate steps to ensure that the Canadian media and all interested individuals have readier access to information than has been the case in recent
days?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, as early as last Friday when we made the announcement, steps were taken to provide assistance to all Canadian families. I have been told that the service is excellent.
In light of the statement made in the House by the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, I would urge him not to believe everything he says, hears or reads.
Oral Questions SHIPBUILDING


REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FERRY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
As Hon. Members are aware, Canadians in Newfoundland are expecting an improvement in ferry services provided by CN Marine. Furthermore, workers at the Versatile Davie shipyards in Lauzon are expecting a contract for construction of a second ferry.
Could the Minister of Transport inform the House of any new developments?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that particular issue is currently before Cabinet and 1 hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement within the next two to three weeks with regard to the acquisition of further ferry vessels for Canada.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and is with regard to the appalling report of the Sex Role Stereotyping Committee of the CRTC which shows no improvement, and indeed some deterioration, in portrayal of women in news, public affairs, and drama. Would the Minister tell us what his concerns are in this area and what action he plans, given the total failure of the CRTC to effect any improvement in portrayal of women in the broadcast media, public and private?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, a paper on sexual stereotyping in the broadcasting media was published by the CRTC on January 31.
However, since we have just received the report at the Department of Communications, I am not now in a position to comment publicly on its contents.
However, I can give the House the assurance that this paper will be used as the basis for discussions on the subject that will be held during public CRTC hearings scheduled in Vancouver, Montreal and in the Ottawa area next April.


APPOINTMENTS TO CRTC AND CBC
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns a very specific recommendation that the Department has had since since 1982 and has, therefore, certainly had time to study. That is the recom-

February 3, 1986
Oral Questions
mendation of the public members of the sex stereotyping task force that half of the appointments to the CRTC board and half of the appointments to the CBC board be of women, and that some of these individuals, men or women-


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


Lynn McDonald: I am asking if the Minister is prepared to
act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the Hon. Member is making a long preamble. Could she just put a supplementary question?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to act on this recommendation on the appointment of women and the recommendation that some of these appointments be of people who are conversant with the problems and ready to act and make improvements?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it was after reading this documentation that I decided to recommend to Cabinet an appointment that has now been made, namely that of Mrs. Lorraine Duguay as Director of the CBC. I am sure that with the Prime Minister's support, we will be able to increase appointments of this kind involving competent people and responding to part of the question raised by the Hon. Member.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I know that he is away on official business, so I will ask my question of the Prime Minister. The president of General Motors Canada, in a letter which was made public on the weekend, wrote in terms that indicate that the jobs of some 2,700 workers at the General Motors Trim Plant in Windsor are in jeopardy unless their union gives up longstanding collective bargaining practices, a demand the company is not making of GM workers in the United States.
Will the Prime Minister or his Minister take immediate steps to have General Motors drop this demand in view of the high levels of productivity and efficiency connected with the GM Trim Plant and its workers which are in the best interests of General Motors of Canada and our Canadian economy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all of the details raised by my hon. friend, but I will certainly take this as representation and notice and respond as quickly as I can. I was unaware of the thrust of one of the comments made by the president and I will be happy to examine it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT PROVISIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister draw to the attention of the President of General Motors Canada that the course of action that he has in mind could well be contrary to the spirit and approach of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact which is based on having Canadian content and Canadian production where it makes, at the very least, economic sense in this country, which is very much the case with the GM Trim Plant in Windsor and the 2,700 jobs in that plant?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into it and review with the president, or even my hon. friend, the implications of that suggestion.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. We all know that the Ottawa International Airport has been undergoing renovations for what seems like an eternity. Can the Minister tell us when the renovations are expected to be finished, if they will be within budget, and if all safety precautions are being vigorously pursued during these renovations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this is a project that was inherited from the former administration. The contract and the time farme for the completion of this project were a responsibility of the former administration.
It is my understanding that the project is running roughly two to three months behind schedule. There have been a number of unforeseen problems, such as the high demand for certain types of labour, including electricians and plumbers who were in short supply and caused a bit of a delay.
Notwithstanding that, I am advised that the west wing will be open to the public within the next month or so, and that should alleviate many of the problems to which the Hon. Member refers.


TERMINATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the ruthless termination of Katimavik, which was a program that served youth and many Canadian communities well, is another example of the Government's disregard for the concerns of youth.
February 3, 1986

My question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth, who is supposed to be an advocate for youth in the Government. Is anybody listening?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who thinks that the end of the Katimavik Program means that the Government has turned its back on Canadian youth could not be further from the truth. In fact, the Government wants young people to have access to more permanent advantages and wants to make these available to more than just 2,000 young people at a cost of $10,000 a year, as has been the case under the Katimavik Program for ten years.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting non-answer to my question. We know that a program has been promised. Why has this program, which is supposed to replace Katimavik, not been announced by now? Really, is not the cut in Katimavik just the beginning of a number of cuts in budgets for youth programs, including a threat to the Ministry itself?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, announcing the winding down of Katimavik now was the sensible thing to do, to preclude further commitments since we do not intend to continue the program. And why wasn't another program announced right now? The answer is very simple. International Youth Year came to a close less than a month ago. We are now collating and compiling the findings of that year's consultations, and the new programs to be announced will respond directly to the needs and aspirations of our young people. They have said as much all last year. New programs are under way, and I think there will be room for more than 2,000 young people who will be able to contribute to the well-being of their communities and register for programs in which they can get practical experience and thus enter the labour market far more easily. All we ask is some patience.


REASONS FOR CANCELLATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. There are over 750,000 unemployed youth in Canada today, regardless of the statistics given by both Ministers across the aisle. They are out of school, out of work and we will need a variety of programs to meet this growing crisis. How can the Minister justify the cancelling of the Katimavik program which addressed the learning needs of more than 20,000 young Canadians and gave them a sense of purpose, direction, and skills as contributing workers of our society? Why did you cancel that program?
Oral Questions


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, at a time when money is scarce-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Andrée  Champagne: -$20 million for 2,000 young people is $10,000 per young person. The Government, with many types of programs right now, is doing a lot more for a greater number of young people with that money. There will be new programs announced very soon.


Sheila Finestone: Nobody in the Government has a right to balance the Budget on the back of our youth who are the future of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that Katimavik won a United Nations aware for excellence and for the environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: The Minister also knows that 35,000 people have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not heard the question with all the applause. Is there a question?


Sheila Finestone: Why does the Minister not recognize that this program is invaluable in the development of social skills and job-related exprience, that it is an effective job strategy? Why can she not get that through her head?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, no one said there was nothing good about Katimavik. However, it was not and is not meant to be a job-creation program. Are we to leave the $20 million there and not create jobs or give young people the possibility of acquiring skills? I know that $20 million for those Members is nothing. No wonder the deficit went up 10 times in 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On behalf of many organizations which are struggling to deal with the increasing number of battered women and abused children, will the Minister reinstate funds and renew the mandate for the National Clearing House on Family Violence which is due this month?

February 3, 1986
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in the House last week. The short version, as those Members opposite want, is that my answer this week is the same as last week.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That answer is not good enough.


MINISTER'S PLANS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has a better plan to assist battered women and children, what is it? Why is there a mystery? The women of Canada want to know and have the right to know.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again, I answered that question last week, as well as the response to the Badgley Report. That answer stands as well.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that figures published by the International Monetary Fund last month wrongly implied that Canada was printing money at a rate almost four times higher than that of other industrialized countries, will the Minister say what effect, if any, this has had on the fall of the dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is has had any effect. The only person who was fooled by those figures was the Hon. Member who asked the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not know about this when I asked him on Thursday and apparently he still has not troubled to issue a correction. However, I understand the Bank of Canada may have taken some initiative. Does the Minister feel that he has any responsibility at all for the fall of the dollar, or is he happy to be asleep at the switch?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Wake up, Michael.


John Napier Turner: He does not even know what a switch is.


Mr. Andre:: Take a switch to the Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: You can have him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the Hon. Member is getting at with the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have answered on many occasions regarding the policy of the Government in dealing with the dollar. If she has any suggestions on how she thinks it should be dealt with, I would be very happy to listen to her comments. However, at this point in time the only suggestions which I am getting from her are cheap shots that do not do any good for anything in relation to the Canadian dollar.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) rose on a question of privilege and some time was taken in respect of that proceeding. In view of the fact that today is an opposition day and the Official Opposition has a motion before the House, may I suggest that the time of the House be extended by the period of time used by that question of privilege?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government Whip has already raised that, and we would agree to it. However, I would ask that when in future other Ministers apologize and back down, as did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the Government House Leader ask the House to allow it to be done as a statement by a Minister, so that it will be clear that the time could be added and the confusion on the part of the Government this morning could be avoided.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we had some discussion about this, and I think it would be an excellent idea.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is a suggestion that the time used for the statement by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and the replies thereto be added on to the day. I am informed that it will be 18 minutes, and I take it that there is no objection to it. It seems reasonable.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the sitting day will continue an extra 18 minutes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Deans: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns House business. I should like to ask the government House Leader if he might be in a position during the course of this week to inform the House of the date upon which the Budget will be introduced.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He will announce it in the House at the earliest possible moment so that there will be an opportunity for advanced planning by the Opposition. God knows they need advanced planning.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: At least tell us what year.


TRIBUTE TO THE HON. MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH (MR. PAPROSKI) AS ACTING SPEAKER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, January 29, as a result of an urgent and pressing situation, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) replaced Your Honour in the chair. I was kind of appalled and saddened this morning to read in The Toronto Sun an article dealing with the Hon. Member's performance. With all due respect to your performance, Mr. Speaker, and without meaning to denigrate it in any way, we on this side of the House would like to say that the Hon. Member for Edmonton North did a fantastic job. He understands this House. He is a comrade of ours. Any time he wants to take the chair, he is welcome.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Hon. Members of the House know that I was away through an unavoidable delay caused by the failure of an airplane to leave Toronto. I have reviewed the tape, and I second the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) with regard to the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Roman), I have the honour to present the revised report of the legislative committee on Bill C-67.
Order Paper Question
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and privilege today to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the Province of Ontario who are chess players. These individuals call upon the Government of Canada to recognize tournament chess as an appropriate sport and to ensure that they have access to the same kind of funding as have other sports.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present two petitions today. One is signed by 104 residents of the Province of Nova Scotia, and the other is signed by 300 citizens of Windsor, Ontario, Local 195 of the UAW. Both these petitions protest the change in the Unemployment Insurance Act which saw pension income being used as earned income for calculating unemployment insurance benefits. They call upon Parliament to reverse that Draconian change.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting another petition from the people of the Moncton area, Dorchester, Riverview and She-diac. They are still concerned about the situation at the CN shops in Moncton and want the assurance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that the jobs at the CN shops in Moncton will be protected.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Question No. 467 will be answered today.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1. How much money is paid to Armed Forces personnel, at the present time, for (a) separation allowances for wives (b) rental allowances?
10380

February 3, 1986
Order Paper Question
2. What is the total value in annual amounts of any perquisites provided in addition to the other two?
grant and gratuity contained in the Queen's Regulations and Orders.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Separation expense is paid to the member and not his or her spouse or any other dependant. Separation expense has three components which cover food, lodgings and incidental expenses. The amounts paid are dependent on the circumstances of the member:
(a)	If the member is provided with rations and quarters at a military establishment other than in Cyprus or the Middle East, he or she will receive $3.55 per day/$106.50 per month to cover incidentals.
(b)	If the member is provided with military rations and quarters while serving in Cyprus or the Middle East, he or she will receive $91.50 per month to cover incidental expenses.
(c)	If military rations and quarters are not available and the member is required to find semi-permanent commercial or non-commercial accommodation, he or she may receive:
(1)	$308.70 per month, without receipts, to cover meals and incidental expenses;
(2)	for commercial lodgings, actual and reasonable expenses, supported by receipts, to a maximum of $885 per month;
(3)	for non-commercial lodgings, such as accommodation in a private home, actual and reasonable expenses, supported by receipts, to a maximum of $198.74 per month.
The total military expenditure for Separation expense during the period October, 1984 to September, 1985 was $3,301,500.
(b) Accommodation Assistance Allowance (Rental Allowance). Accommodation assistance allowance may be payable to members of the Canadian Forces serving at locations where the local cost of accommodation is significantly higher than the national average cost of similar accommodation. The actual amount that an individual member receives will vary with the location and the member's rank, status and family size. Effective November 1, 1985, nine locations qualify as accommodation assistance areas. The following depicts the range of rates applicable to each location:
Location
Gander St. John's
Halifax/Shearwater
Ottawa
Toronto
Vancouver
Whitehorse
Yellowknife
Range (Monthly Rates)
52-157
71-204
55-110
360-719


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise again in respect of the questions which I put on the Order Paper on March 15, 1985, ten and a half months ago. I have risen time and time again to ask the Government when it intends to answer those questions which relate to the involvement of the former Solicitor General in a case involving the Premier of New Brunswick. It is clear that the Government is stonewalling and refusing to answer because the answers to those questions will tend to embarrass not only the Government but the Conservative Government of New Brunswick.
I should like to put the question again to the Parliamentary Secretary. When does the Government intend to answer those questions? If the Government does not intend to answer them, what would that mean in terms of the credibility of the Government when it speaks of enhancement of the role of the back-bencher?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I advise the House that we have made every effort to answer as many questions as possible. If the Hon. Member reviews the record, he will find that our percentage of answers is, if not equal to, very close to that of the previous administration. I know, and I know there are other Members, such as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who could tell the Hon. Member that some questions went four and a half years without being answered by the former administration. It is just that some questions get answered quicker than others.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically with regard to Question No. 296.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: When does he intend to answer this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I think the Hon. Member has asked that question. I am only reluctant to grant him a supplementary question because of our practice not to grant supplementary questions during this period. However, if the Hon. Member has a very short supplementary question, I will recognize him.


John V. Nunziata: Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that what is at issue in respect of my question on the Order Paper-
The total military expenditure for accommodation assistance allowance during the period October, 1984 to September, 1985 was $6,854,484.
2. We are unable to estimate the total value of other perquisites since we would have to cover every allowance,


Mr. Speaker:: Now, the Hon. Member is going beyond the practices of this period of question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a question arising out of statements by the Parliamentary Secretary. I tabled a
February 3, 1986

question, Question No. 64, on November 9, 1984, dealing with the Government's economic statement. Since then we have seen a Budget, and we are about to see another Budget in the not too distant future. We have seen the dollar go through the floor, it is down to 69 cents. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when I can expect to have an answer to a question that I asked on November 9, 1984?


An Hon. Member:: Over a year ago.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that since the Hon. Member's question is pertinent to the issues of the day, and not character assassination, I will take this up and get back to the Hon. Member on her question which relates to the economic statement of the Government, naturally an important issue.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31,1 move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the collapse of the Canadian dollar which, for the first time in its history, has fallen below 70 cents in U.S. funds.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has given me notice of his request.
The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) submitted a similar request last Monday. On that occasion, I indicated that although the pressure on the Canadian dollar is a matter of grave concern, the problem is of a continuing nature rather than that of a sudden emergency. Our precedents do not allow us to give ongoing problems the status of an emergency situation in terms of the provisions of Standing Order 31, except in very special circumstances.
Furthermore, there are six Opposition days left in the current period, one having been designated for tomorrow, so there will be an opportunity to debate this very important matter within a reasonably short time.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to toxic chemicals in water and other elements of the environment.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion today I want to begin by expressing a word of commendation to my friend the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for bringing to the attention of this House a matter that is timely, relevant and urgent. The Hon. Member for Davenport is certainly one of the most respected environmentalists in Canada today. 1 believe that my Party is fortunate to have him as our spokesperson and critic on environmental issues.
Canadians today in all parts of the country are deeply concerned about the quality of our environment. They look to the federal Government for leadership in the resolution of environmental problems and the preservation of a very rich natural heritage that we still possess. Inaction by the federal Government cannot be excused on the basis that there is a jurisdictional overlap between the provinces and the federal Government when it comes to environmental issues.
Canadians expect strong leadership from the federal Government. As the Member for Davenport pointed out in introducing this motion they are not at the present time getting the leadership that they expect and deserve. Inaction cannot be excused either because neglect of our environment may sometimes be profitable in the short run. Canadians know that environmental degradation inevitably harms the economy in the long run. For example, acid rain harms tourism and buildings. If we have poor forest management it leads to a shortage of wood. The effects of pollutants in air and water causes health problems. That, Sir, leads to absenteeism and much higher costs for our health care system.
There are many environmental problems in this country, Mr. Speaker, which really are the result of one sector of society trying to avoid paying the costs of waste disposal or of sustaining a particular resource. They just try to avoid it. These costs will not go away. They are simply passed on to others, another sector of society or, even more seriously, they are passed on to future generations.
The debate today in this House concerns the toxic chemicals issue, and no one should be misled. The task of intervening by the federal Government to control toxic chemicals which will find their way into our environment is an enormous task. Ours has been described as being a chemical age. Probably that is more to be regretted than it is to be cheered. We know that modern industry today uses some 60,000 chemicals in a very wide variety of processes. Many of these products that are used are new, they have been synthesized within this century.

February 3, 1986
Supply
For the most part we have only very limited data concerning their long-term environmental and health impacts. We just don't know enough about them.
There are 1,000 new chemicals that are utilized annually, but there is no comprehensive legislation to monitor and control them. This is not to suggest that the federal Government in the past has been inactive or unconcerned-not at all. The federal Government has six Acts regarding toxic chemical management. There is the Environmental Contaminants Act of 1976, the Clean Air Act, the Canada Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act, Section 33 of the Fisheries Act, and, of course, the Migratory Birds Convention Act. In addition to that there are another 30 related federal Acts; that is, in a variety of statutes there are aspects that direct themselves to environmental matters. For the provinces there is a total of another 97 Acts that deal with specific aspects of toxic chemicals.
That is impressive, but all of this legislation has not proved successful. It has not solved our pollution problems resulting from toxic chemical disposal. I wonder why that is, Sir? The reason it seems-and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) referred to it in his speech-is that monitoring, regulating, and controlling have not kept pace with the development of new chemicals. Regulation development requires a political commitment, the exercise of strong political will and the direction of the necessary financial resources in order that we can keep pace.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare admitted this morning that those resources are not available. Does that mean that we should therefore conclude that there is not a political commitment on the part of this Government to face up to the big challenge of dealing with toxic chemicals entering our environment? There is reason to be suspicious that there is not that commitment.
As my friend from Davenport pointed out, the toxicology centre in Guelph, which had an allocation of $6 million at its disposal and was destined to become a centre of excellence in North America attracting the best of scientists, has ceased to function. We know that an important toxic chemical research program with respect to the Niagara River, which had an allocation of some $2.5 million a year, has been cancelled. We know the National Research Council was doing important research on toxic chemicals. There is no longer money available for it to carry on that work.
The key issue is that chemicals continue to be used in great abundance in our society. New ones are regularly introduced, but are done so without an adequate assessment program to deal with the risks they may pose.
The simple fact, and Hon. Members have to face up to it, is that Canada lacks an effective control and assessment policy for chemical usage and disposal. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means we are gambling that there will be no ill effects either to the environment or to human health when one
of these new chemicals is used and disposed of in some unacceptable way.
It is frequently charged that in Canada most chemicals have not been tested adequately to determine their toxicity, how they effect ecosystems and how they interact with other chemicals. Consequently, citizens of Canada, those who we represent here, are raising numerous questions about the safety of drinking water and the risks involved in the eating of fish.
There is a great deal of disagreement, of course, even amount experts about the impact of toxic chemicals on the environment. Some very clear signals, however, and problems do exist. The big proportion of fish with cancerous tumours that have been taken from the polluted areas of the Great Lakes is a very clear signal that we have a water quality problem.
A three-year study was undertaken by Environment Canada in co-operation with the Government of the Northwest Territories. It revealed high concentrations of certain agricultural and industrial chemicals, including PCBs, in polar bears. The very fact that PCBs and other toxic chemicals have been found in northern Canada-supposed to be our pristine wilderness- indicates that we have to rethink our approach to these toxic chemicals, to manage them better throughout their life cycle and to prevent them from finding their way into the environment affecting human health and wildlife as well.
We do not yet fully understand how these toxical chemicals got into the North. There can be no dispute here about federal responsibility. There is a federal responsibility to develop the best possible means of preventing that from happening. Our well being is intimately connected to the quality of this nation's air, water and soil. For example, PCBs and mercury were widely used for a long period of time and thought to be safe until scientists suddenly discovered that they have harmful effects.
Let me just take the case of mercury. The Indian people who live in northwestern Ontario in the communities of White Dog and Grassy Narrows are today tragic reminders of the sad fact that we did not carry out our responsibilities to guarantee their health and safety.
What we have, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) admitted it this morning, is an ad hoc process by Environment Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare in assessing and controlling the 60,000 chemicals now on the market. That is not adequate to protect the health and the environment of Canadians.
Our neighbour to the south does not have a great reputation for environmental concerns in many areas-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Putting it mildly.


B. Keith Penner: Putting it mildly, yes. Nevertheless, if you take a look at the Americans' Environmental Protection Agency, it has a much more sophisticated and advanced process for monitoring, regulating and controlling toxic chemicals than do we. The Americans have clearly defined stages. They have decision-making criteria to identify and regulate hazardous
February 3, 1986

chemicals. Canada does not have a system like that and it needs one.
On August 9, 1985, the Aboriginal Council of British Columbia wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) supporting the efforts of the Kitsumkalum Indian Band Council in its fight to stop the herbicidal spraying of a chemical known as Garlon Ester 4. This case illustrates so well the need to prevent toxic chemicals from entering lakes, rivers and ground waters. There seems to be an absence of any strong federal leadership. In fact, the federal Government in this case, it is sad to say, was the culprit.
The previous Minister of the Environment, who has now left the Cabinet altogether and never really was regarded as much of a champion of our biosphere nevertheless acknowledged that considerable experience had been gained in coping with chemicals in Canada since the passage of the Environmental Contaminants Act of 1976. She indicated that much more had to be done. She called for, and she should be given credit for this, a comprehensive management plan. She said:
Toxic chemicals must be and will be safely managed in Canada.
That is why my hon. friend and colleague from Davenport has called for this debate. We in this Party want to see the Government bring in such a comprehensive management plan. Will it do so? If so, when?
No one questions that there are some chemical substances that are of value to society; that is not the issue here today. It must be recognized that their widespread and unregulated use poses very great risks to human health and to the environment. Industrial societies such as ours are steadily increasing the potential exposure of citizens to chemicals which can cause cancer, birth defects, blood diseases, miscarriages, nervous disorders and damages to the liver, the kidney and the genes. All of the chemicals in use today will enter into the environment in one way or another. Too little is known about the effects of chemicals on living beings.
Possibly, hundreds of these chemicals pose no serious risks at all, but others are unquestionably dangerous. The federal Government is responsible for overseeing that we have national water safety standards in the country. It should be in a position to ensure for every Canadian, no matter where that citizen lives, the right to clean, safe drinking water. The federal Government should have the force of law behind it to order industries to have recycling centres for industrial discharge.
Think about it for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The concept that discharge of these chemicals is acceptable because they dilute in water surely has to be considered irresponsible. I would like to use an authority in this regard. I quote the words of Dr. Wilkinson of Carleton University who gave testimony before the Pearse Commission. He said:
Toxic chemical waste ought not to be a topic of water management-but it is. We do need control of chemicals from creation to disposal. Storage in the ecosphere through dilution is irresponsible.
Supply
I think all Members in the House will agree that the emphasis has to be on prevention. The Government of Canada must have the power to prevent toxics from entering lakes, rivers and groundwater. If we have to rely on remedial measures, then we know that they are always expensive. They will be much more expensive than a systematic program of pollution prevention. Once a toxic chemical has been dispersed into the environment, it is usually difficult, or it may even be impossible, to clean it up.
I conclude by saying that this is an important debate. Its purpose is to stress, to elaborate and to emphasize the point that Canada needs a better system to assess and control toxic chemicals so that our citizens can be assured that their health, their safety and their concern for good environment is not constantly, daily, at threat.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I think that if we want to be consistent ... I realize this is an Opposition day, but the motion could just as well have read: "That this House condemns the previous Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to chemicals." The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) referred to new toxic chemicals. He knows perfectly well-as he used to be on this side of the House, on the Government side-that it takes years to get a chemical certified for use.
I am aware of the Hon. Member's parliamentary record. I know that he is very interested in parliamentary procedure and reform, since he was a fairly active substitute member of the committee. The Hon. Member must remember those uncertain times of the urea formaldehyde foam insulation question, and in fact Canadians are still ... And we are still trying to deal with the difficult UFFI question. The Hon. Member will recall that at the time, approval of the product was . . . the Government of Canada had not been careful enough, and I think we can never be too careful. Now, is the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior prepared to admit in the House today that what is happening to us now-and environmental matters are very important to my constituents in Argenteuil-Papineau: there are a number of organizations whose concerns include the quality of air, water, forests, in fact the quality of life in general-is not the fault of this Government, because if we realize ... It seems it takes two or three years for a chemical to be certified for use.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture, and in fact I am not sure whether it is the Caucus Committee or the Standing Committee, at any rate the Committee met with the Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialties Association and told us: It may take three years to get a product certified for the market.
So if the present regulations ... and what I want to ask him is: Does the Hon. Member recognize that the present regulations are a consequence of the previous legislation? It is as simple as that. That this Government has a tremendous

February 3, 1986
Supply
responsibility and is facing a tremendous challenge to deal with environmental matters and acid rain? That Canadians are not the only ones to blame for our acid rain, Mr. Speaker?
I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior would answer that, and if he would remember the days of UFFI. He must realize it is not easy for a government, and as my father used to say: It's easier to be on the outside looking into the ring than being in the ring yourself.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I only have to say to the Hon. Member that the matter she raises is really peripheral. We are dealing here with a central problem. I was in this House when pollution matters and concern for the environment first became public policy issues. It happened in the late 1960s. Progressively, the Government became more and more concerned. A ministry was established, a Department was established and legislation was passed. Very frequently, as I indicated in my remarks, that legislation fell short of what citizens in the country expected from it.
The matter is simply this. We are dealing with a progressively serious problem. It is becoming more and more serious. So the issue now, as my hon. friend from Davenport has stressed by bringing this motion forward, is that the Government has been elected with a large majority to take leadership in a wide range of areas. Today in the House we are saying that one of the areas that must not be neglected is the area of toxic chemicals disposal. It is becoming a more and more serious problem, as represented by the questions which have been raised in the House about the St. Clair River. During previous administrations we had equally serious problems. We had to move on them; but there has to be a political will to do something about it and to commit the resources to those problems.
What concerns us is that there does not seem to be any clear statement of public policy from the Government on environmental issues. In fact, we on this side of the House seem to be getting the message that there is a drawback. If toxic chemicals are as serious as my hon. friend and experts in our community have indicated, then how can there be justification for major cut-backs when we ought to be allocating new resources to a comprehensive toxic chemical management program in the country? That is the challenge for this Government. 1 do not think that they are responding to the challenge, at least not to the satisfaction of either myself or the Hon. Member for Davenport.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House, no matter what side we sit on, are very sympathetic with the main thrust of the Hon. Member's comments. Obviously, all of us are most concerned about the environment. We are most concerned about toxic waste, toxic chemicals and, in particular, about toxic chemicals in our drinking water. Those are matters of common ground. I do not think that anyone is holier than thou in that respect.
The Hon. Member also knows from statements made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) in the House
last week that the Government has the intention within a very short period of time to introduce some very comprehensive changes to the Environmental Contaminants Act in order to make clear and to strengthen the whole thrust of the Government's enforcement and prevention policies in which the Hon. Member is interested.
The Hon. Member also knows that one of the main problems we face in dealing with the environment and the toxic chemical problem lies in the chemical dumps along the American side of the Niagara River, in particular those four infamous chemical dumps originally owned by the Hooker Chemical Company: the Love Canal, the Hyde Park dump, the S. Area dump and the 102 nd. Street dump. They are all along the American side of the Niagara River and they are all causing a great potential problem which somehow has to be dealt with. Those dumps have been there for a number of years. They did not just suddenly occur since September 4, 1984.
Since that time, of course, the present Government has been dealing with the American Government, the State of New York Government and with the chemical companies involved, trying to come to some sort of solution to the problem of cleaning up those dumps. The ultimate solution, of course, is to get rid of the chemicals, take them away and dispose of them somewhere else, and I mean actually dispose of them rather than just dump them in another site where they can cause the same sort of problem.
The present Government is doing something about that and it has been for some time. I am sure the Hon. Member has some thoughts of his own and is very disturbed by the fact that the Governments of which he was a part in the past were not able to do anything about those dumps. I hope he is prepared to admit to the House that the present Government is taking substantial action in that direction.
All of us, of course, are most interested in knowing what the Hon. Member would have done had he been the Minister of the Environment to clean up these dumps on the American side of the Niagara River. I hope the Hon. Member will help us with his own suggestions as to what he believes his Government should have done to clean up those dumps.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, first, no one disagrees for a moment that there has to be harmonization with our American friends in dealing with pollution problems that affect bodies of water which border our countries. Past administrations have always had an active policy of trying to seek that harmonization. But if my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Davenport, were the Minister of the Environment, we would not have seen the $2.5 million cut in the toxic chemical research program for the Niagara River. I would like to ask my hon. friend how he justifies that.
Let me say on the third point that we have heard on many occasions a promise of an action plan, but I would like to see that action plan. We have not received the details of it as yet
February 3, 1986

and only have indications that it will be forthcoming. Part of the reason for this debate is to get that action plan brought forward much more quickly because it is urgent it be done soon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). Some of us had the honour and privilege to visit northern Ontario and spend some time in some of its important industrial centres such as Dryden, Kapuskasing and Cochrane. Can the Hon. Member tell us if the people in his community are satisfied that at this time we as a Government are doing what should be done in terms of assessing possible damages of waste disposal and in terms of control and regulation? Are we making sure of the heritage we leave our children in northern Ontario, which is one of the largest and richest areas of the country? I am sure he will tell us that in his riding there are a lot of expectations and that we still have a lot to do.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my remarks the alarm which had been created in the Indian communities of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows as a result of the mercury pollution which had come from the pulp and paper plant at Dryden, Ontario. It was some years later that the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Government of Ontario- a Liberal and a Conservative administration-and in co-operation with the industry, put vast amounts of money into a program in northern Ontario for the pulp and paper industry which did two things; first, it modernized the industry and, second, it introduced the very latest pollution technology. We in northern Ontario at this time are benefiting from that multimillion dollar program which was put in place by two levels of Government, plus the industry. More than $1 billion was spent in a very short space of time. So we have done much in northern Ontario to clean up the act of our industry. But we are not so convinced that other industries in other parts of Canada are doing as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: I have at least one person who is interested in what I might say. I think the debate thus far is starting to take some focus and the question is becoming action and political will. I believe that is the bottom line of the remarks coming from the opposition today. It has been said, and I have mentioned it before, that this is an appropriate debate. There is no question about that. It is one which the Government welcomes. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) would have dearly loved to have participated in the debate but he is out west today to make an announcement. I believe this is an example of action taken by the Government. The Hon. House Leader of the Opposition should perhaps take into account that the action the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was asking for several months ago in a Standing Order 22 is now being implemented in the announcement of
Supply
the four mountain parks plan. It will establish the arrangement between Parks Canada and the four mountain parks, with which most of us in Canada are very familiar and which are such a natural attribute and heritage to all Canadians. It will be an umbrella agreement, in co-operation with the people in the area and with the 3,200 organizations and individuals taking part in the formation of that plan.
The comments to which I would like to respond first are those comments made by the critic for the New Democratic Party this morning. He made two points to do with this Government and with what, in his mind, would be our difficulty in actually implementing the kind of environmental and management controls he feels would be necessary. He thought there would be a conflict between the economic objectives of the Conservative Government and the environmental goals which most of us who have a sense of the environment would like to see achieved.
I believe what we must do in fact is to look at actions when we are considering this whole issue. What actions have been taken? We have been in Government now for 18 months- sometimes it seems a lot shorter and sometimes a lot longer. Let us take, for example, the problem of PCBs. For a long time, possible controls for transportation of PCBs were on the books but were never promulgated. The Government in the spring of last year did that so that there would be rigid controls for the handling and transportation of PCBs. That could have been done a long time before. We have not allowed PCBs as far back as 1978. We had then a pretty full sense of what possible dangers they could lead to, particularly in terms of human health, but it was this Government which brought in this legislation within a period of less than a year from the time of coming to office.
Second, and I think this is a really key point because it also speaks to a point made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), is the modernization of the pulp and paper industry. Before forming the Government we have had discussions over a period of at least five years concerning acid rain. We did not make as much noise as some members of the Opposition have from time to time. We did not shout and scream. Instead, we reached agreement with every province in Canada concerning our objectives, and then we went into action and put our money where our mouth was. That is the critical difference. Not only did we take action and achieve agreement, we have allocated $150 million to do precisely what the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior was suggesting we did not have the political will to do. We put forward that money, to be matched in many cases by the provinces, for the modernization of the smelting industry. I am sure the Hon. Member for Davenport would have liked to have achieved that had he got the co-operation or financial support of his Government when he was the Minister. We did it and it is a major accomplishment.
Along with that, we established automobile emission levels so that in September, 1987, for the 1988 model year, automo-

February 3, 1986
Supply
bile emissions will be reduced by 45 per cent. We can start getting rid of the nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. Our standards will also result in significant reductions in the amount of lead in the environment, ultimately eliminating it as quickly as possible. Those are specific actions taken in the short time we have been in office. Those actions speak much louder than any words we hear from either of the opposition Parties. It is sometimes difficult in the hue and cry to be fully aware of the real action taken and the positive results achieved in that period of time.
What is hard for me to grasp, Mr. Speaker, is the inconsistency between some of the things the Liberal critic said and what he was able to accomplish. I have heard many excellent words spoken by almost everyone who stood up to speak today on the environment. There can be little debate about the fact that, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said today, the problem of toxic chemicals has been with us since at least the 1940s. It has also been an increasing problem. We hear the Opposition talking about our lack of action, yet when we came into office we walked into a vacuum. As the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior indicated-


Charles L. Caccia: The vacuum is in your brain.


Gary Michael Gurbin: -there were pieces of legislation all over the place which did not accomplish anything. We have a Liberal critic who I guess cannot read. 1 am not sure. They want a statement of will. The interpretation that he chooses to put on some of the things he has raised-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are just a bunch of cheap shots. You don't get anything done.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If the Hon. Member wants to talk about cheap shots, he should read the speech by the Hon. Member for Davenport.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was here when he made it. It was a good speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gary Michael Gurbin: He may like those cheap shots in the Hon. Member's speech, but I have to tell you that calling the Minister of the Environment names is not a very constructive thing to do if he wants to raise the level of debate.


Charles L. Caccia: I didn't call him a name, just described him as Bugs Bunny.


Gary Michael Gurbin: At least 1 have refrained from making some of the obvious comments about the Hon. Member's personality. I think this debate is important enough that it should be at least raised to a higher level.
I would like to read the statement by the Minister which the Hon. Member for Davenport probably has not had an opportunity to read. His concept of what the Environmental Contaminants Act might or might not do is one thing. What the Government intends to do with it is, I think, reflected in the speech by the Minister in Peterborough about one week ago. I
am going to quote directly from that speech and then follow it up with some specific comments to try to give a sense of the constructive actions this Government will be taking. The Minister said this:
The new Act will regulate chemicals from "the cradle to the grave". Specifically, it will prevent the formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of any new chemical that has not been proven safe, and it will bring order to the system of managing chemicals already in trade and commerce. In cases where accidents occur-and accidents can certainly happen to even the most environmentally sensitive companies-the new law will cover every facet of clean up, including, possibly, compensation to innocent third parties.
The preamble of the new legislation will set out, for all time, the purpose, intention, philosophy, and commitment of the Government of Canada to protect the environment and, thereby, to protect the health and safety of present and future generations alike. The preamble will constitute, in effect if not technically, this country's first "environmental bill of rights".
The Minister went on to say:
The new law will be the strongest of its kind, not only in North America but in the western hemisphere.
I do not think there can be any clearer statement of this Government's intentions, and this will be followed by a specific action.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior has raised some important points. We have not even had an inventory of the some 65,000 chemicals presently in use in this country and the 1,000 new chemicals which come into the country every year. That has to be done, it is under way, and we will accomplish it. We are one of the few countries in the western industrialized world which does not have that information. This Government has had to live with that fact since coming into office some 18 months ago.
Earlier I spoke of a vacuum. 1 heard some comments about cheap shots and a Member opposite saying that the vacuum was in my head. Let me ask this question. Where was the statement of the Government's environmental policy up until now?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: None.


Gary Michael Gurbin: There was none. There has been none by the Government of Canada until now. That is exactly right. Now this Government has made a statement. 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member for Davenport, if he were still in the House, where is our national water policy? We never had one. It is this Government which will produce a national water policy. Following the federal inquiry on water, in which the Hon. Member for Davenport had some part, we are at a stage where the Cabinet, for the first time, has given responsibility to an individual Minister in this area, and that is the Minister of the Environment. We are looking after our water and all its aspects, including the toxic chemicals therein, including exports, and diversions and all those things. We have that responsibility vested in one Minister, and he will take the responsibility for making sure we have a national water policy which will serve Canadian needs. That is a giant step forward and it helps to Fill the void which has existed for so long.
A lot of issues surrounding toxic chemicals have been raised, certainly in the public's mind if not in this House, by the spill
February 3, 1986

in the St. Clair River. It was an accidental spill but it brought to light some of the problems which have existed for heaven only knows how long. We could not have had a more rapid or specific response to a problem than that by the Minister of the Environment to the difficulties we faced with that spill. Within days we had a full-fledged federal, provincial and industry investigation. The best available facilities were used and federal Government spending has exceeded $1 million, and I assume that the company and the province have spent as much. The situation was followed on a daily basis. There was a competent staff which made a competent clean-up and found out that we were, in fact, dealing not only with a spill, but with a longstanding problem and probably some chronic leakage areas. These things have also been investigated. We received a final report last week, which gives us a framework to look into the future and 24 recommendations which are being acted on by the Government. I do not have time now to delineate all 24 of the recommendations and the specific responses, but this has now been accomplished, Mr. Speaker.
We talk almost blithely about cradle-to-grave management and research. The Government's commitment to research is mentioned frequently. We had many pieces of research on toxics for a long period of time, but it was difficult to know whether we were getting the most effective use of our resources and whether some of the intended expenditures were going to provide the best possible results for the money that would be spent. We had three separate inquiries into toxicology research in Canada; one through the National Research Council, one through Environment Canada, and the final one through the Science Council. All of these have been reported and the Government has taken some specific actions and will take more.
In conjunction with that, I will very quickly mention the toxicology fund. We have supplied seed money of $1 million for a toxicology fund which, under a joint management board, including people from private enterprise, has created a whole series of specific projects. Twenty-one have been submitted to date and, of those, 12 have been accepted. They provide some very interesting and unique approaches into very specific areas of toxicology research. Those things are presently under way. As was mentioned this morning, the Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), who is very interested in the possibility of a toxicology centre in that part of the country, is working locally and with Ministers of the Crown to determine whether that type of facility is in fact necessary and appropriate.
To return to the main point, Mr. Speaker, our approach must provide a system that will deal competently and effectively with the issue of toxic chemicals and their potential for getting into our drinking water and affecting our health. It must deal with more than only the St. Clair River, the Niagara River, or a response to a particular spill.
Mention has been made of the IJC. The reaction of the Member for Davenport to the IJC was unfortunate and discouraging for all Members of the House. Be that as it may, the IJC is a specific part of the long-term approach, particularly
Supply
with regard to national boundary waters. The IJC is probably best known to most Canadians for its very constructive and competent work in the 1970s when the Great Lakes, and Lake Erie in particular, faced eutrophication. The amount of difficulty was such that, for all intents and purposes, the lake was dead. I lived in that area and saw what happened to it. The co-operation that was achieved through the International Joint Commission is a real success story. That is the type of activity that we hope to be able to emulate and repeat time and again when it is necessary on matters of this type.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has filled the two positions which were vacant on the IJC with people who have a level of competence to deal with both political matters and the excellent scientific support staff of the IJC.


Charles L. Caccia: Tell us about their backgrounds.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The unfortunate thing about the IJC, as the Member for Davenport and anyone who knows anything about it will know, is that during the administration of the last Government that body became almost useless. That was very unfortunate because that body was not able to accomplish many of the things it should have been able to accomplish because it did not have the respect or co-operation of both Governments.


Charles L. Caccia: He doesn't know what the IJC stands for.


Gary Michael Gurbin: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Government has the action and the political will. In the future we will produce the results that are necessary to ensure that Canadians have a healthy future and that we manage the toxic chemicals that are an integral part of that future.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary clarify why the Government is allowing corn and soy beans to come into Canada from countries that use the chemical ala-chlor known by the trade name of Lasso? On December 31 the Government cancelled the temporary permit which it had allowed for this herbicide since last February. Farmers in southwestern Ontario who depend on this for use in the production of their crops are wondering why, if this chemical is being cancelled for use in Canada, corn and soy beans from the United States, where its use is allowed, are being allowed into Canada. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that countries which use this chemical will not be allowed to ship corn and soy beans into Canada?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has given us another example of Government action in an area where there had previosuly been inaction. My understanding is that we have, in fact, cancelled the use of alachlor in Canada. My understanding, subject to confirmation, is also that there is no residue left by the product. 1 am not positive of that and I will say that very clearly so that I do not intentionally mislead him. However, my understanding is that there is no residue left by the product. If that is the case, it poses no threat to our health through getting into to ecosystem in any way. Even if that is not the case, I under-

February 3, 1986
Supply
stand his point that this would be legitimate grounds for claiming unfair advantage. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will have to respond to that. I am not familiar with the details.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, today we heard a well thought out and informative speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House is grateful to him for the information which he has given us today.
With regard to the appointees to the IJC, I had the privilege of meeting today with Mr. Bob Welch, a very distinguished person from the Niagara Peninsula in Ontario who has knowledge and a grasp of some of the problems of the environment in the peninsula. Those of us who represent the Niagara Peninsula are grateful to have someone of his stature appointed to the IJC.


Charles L. Caccia: That's too funny.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that. The Member also mentioned that this is a Government of action regarding acid rain. The agreements which the Government has now made with the provinces and the expenditure of SI50 million certainly let the people of Canada know that the Government is going to deal with this issue, and also the Bill of Rights to which the Parliamentary Secretary alluded.
During the 1980 election the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, journeyed to the Niagara Peninsula and came to Niagara Falls. The cleaning up of the Niagara River, Love Canal and Hooker Chemical with all the sludge pouring into the lower Niagara River was a major election issue at that time. The Prime Minister made some amazing statements, such as that this would be at the forefront of his Government's concern about the environment.
What did the former Government do during its four years to clean up the Niagara River?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker the inability of the former Government to accomplish anything is unfortunate. I understand that its intentions were often good, especially on the part of the Member for Davenport, but he was unable to accomplish anything.
I expect him to criticize the Government in our efforts to resolve some of these outstanding problems. However, the first step in being able to resolve these problems is to establish a level of communication and confidence. I recognize that it may not be a perfect first step.
Opposition Members have said that we are wasting time because it is the fault of the Americans that we have been unable to achieve a bilateral agreement on acid rain. However, such an agreement requires two parties, and the relative inability of the former Government to put this issue on the agenda with the Americans at the presidential and prime ministerial level speaks volumes in terms of the relationship.
We have established a working relationship and while we have our separate points of view, and hope to have the Americans understand and accept our view, this may not be accomplished immediately. However, we are on the right track and that is the great difference with what we have seen before.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) can assure us that Government will put controls on the importation of corn from those states which permit the use of alachlor in its production. Such controls are also important with respect to the use of alachlor in the production of soya beans because it obviously puts our farmers at a disadvantage in the production of that crop. I assume he will discuss this with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to ensure that corn produced with that chemical in the United States will not be allowed into Canada.
The Hon. Member talked about the Guelph Toxicology Centre. He said that the Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) is reviewing the feasibility of that project with the Minister and other officials. That project was ready to proceed. It had the staff and was under construction over a year ago, on November 8, when it was cancelled by the Government. If it really wanted it to proceed it would not have cancelled that project. There was a $16 million commitment by the federal and provincial Governments and another $8 million from the private sector. It should have proceeded.
That project was moving ahead when the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was the Minister of the Environment. It was a model project in a field in which we need a toxicology centre of excellence for training and research. We have seen over a year lost on a project that is essential to the environment and toxicology research, and I hope the Government will reinstate it immediately.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, we must take two factors into consideration when discussing a toxicology centre and toxicology research in Canada. First, we must consider how a toxicology centre will be run and on what basis. Second, there is the financial factor.
Let me give the Hon. Member a specific example. Toxicology research in Canada was taking place on a year-by-year basis. A number of the projects which were claimed to be cancelled were, in fact, completed. There was no long-term funding. That is precisely why the three groups from the National Research Council, Environment Canada and the Science Council were mandated, either by themselves or in cooperation with the Government, to determine what type of long-term toxicology research should take place.
We must also consider the operating costs of those establishments in addition to the capital expenditure. This is where fiscal responsibility must be taken into account, and 1 know that whatever determination is made for that facility, if it occurs, it will achieve concrete goals in the long-term best interests of this question.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the theme of action and political will. He gave
February 3, 1986

a number of excellent examples of the demonstration of political will and action on the part of the Government which have been seen already. However, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there are some questions among the public as to the Government's will to proceed with some of these particular items, even though they have been announced.
Are the rumours about the postponement of the automobile emission standards correct? Second, as far as the amendments to the Environmental Contaminants Act are concerned, has the Government made a firm commitment to proceed with those amendments and, if so, when will we see them introduced in the House?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, as far as the automobile emissions are concerned, unfortunately, The Toronto Star editorial which dealt with this subject raised some unnecessary questions. If the research had been better, they would understand that the Government has not backed down. The controls were always meant to be effective for the 1988 models to be introduced in September, 1987.
We realized that some 1987 models would still be in production after September. The only change is to indicate that all 1988 models, as originally intended, will be affected. We will not impose these controls on companies finishing their 1987 model runs.
I believe it is general knowledge that automobile companies usually change their model runs in September. Rather than backing down, we have listened to the realistic proposals of the companies to let them finish their 1987 models production.
The Hon. Member asked about the Environmental Contaminants Act. We have a specific agenda and program for Cabinet submission. I do not want to give the Hon. Member a firm date for introduction to the House, but we do have a proposal and I hope we will be able to follow through with it. I think he will be happy with the time frame.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Public Service-Smoking in the workplace. (b) Request for legislation; the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Insurance-Increase in premiums; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-proposed Guelph Toxicology Centre. (b) Minister's position.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to toxic chemicals in water and other elements of the environment.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the spokesman on the environment for the Official Opposition has moved:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognize the importance attributed by Canadians to toxic chemicals in water and other elements of the environment.
This is an important and timely motion. All one has to do to confirm this is to look at the report which was published only last December by a special committee to review the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements, of the Royal Society of Canada and the National Research Council of the United States of America. That report, speaking about the water quality of the Great Lakes, said that "toxic contaminants represented the greatest immediate threat to the interests of future generations". Unfortunately they represent a serious threat to the present generation as well. The fact is that when it comes to toxic chemicals in our environment, we are facing a serious situation, one that is potentially even more serious if urgent action is not taken right now.
Earlier today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), speaking on behalf of the Government, tried to say that the Government has recognized the problem and its priority. To see if this is correct, let us look at the record just in connection with the problem of toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River. If we look at that situation, we see that in September, 1985, test results were released showing that what is now known as the toxic chemical blob on the bottom of the St. Clair River contained, among other dangerous chemicals, dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals known to mankind. The fact of the matter is that the sample which provided these test results was taken more than a year before, in August, 1984. That sample was taken by divers working for the Great Lakes Institute of the University of Windsor, funded by a program provided by the previous Liberal Government. The Minister has never explained, at least not in any satisfactory way, why his Department sat on that sample for more than a year without completing the test results showing the dangerous toxic chemical situation connected with the toxic blob on the bottom of the St. Clair River. He has never explained why that sample was not tested immediately or why the action about which he talked in respect of setting up the joint task force of the federal and provincial Governments was not taken a year earlier, immediately after the sample was originally taken by

February 3, 1986
Supply
divers working for the Great Lakes Institute of the University of Windsor.
Let us be clear about the situation we are describing. As I have said, dioxin is considered to be one of the most dangerous chemicals known to mankind. Last week it was disclosed that tests taken only recently showed traces of dioxin in the drinking water of Windsor and three other communities downstream from the St. Clair River. The federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said that the amounts found in these tests were minute and below acceptable levels for safety. I will say more about that in a minute, but 1 repeat again that the Minister has never explained the delay in completing the tests on the sample taken in August, 1984 by the divers working for the Great Lakes Institute of the University of Windsor.
Let us be clear. When we are talking about acceptable standards for dioxin, the evidence is that the standard about which we are talking is a temporary standard, one set only in the last week or so. It is an interim standard, which means that it is one capable of being adjusted downward in the light of further research and further evidence. We are not talking about a standard which is the result of final conclusions by experts working in the field of toxic chemicals. In fact, what is disturbing about all this is that the United States Environmental Protection Agency indicated that there was no safe level for dioxins. Yet, the federal Minister of the Environment tries to tell us that there is nothing to worry about. He made a statement based upon what he admitted was only an interim or temporary standard, one capable of adjustment in the future. Perhaps the adjustment will be upward, but also, unfortunately, it could be downward.
It seems that if we are to take seriously what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said today and what the Minister of the Environment has said on other occasions about their desire to deal with the problem of toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River and toxic chemicals in our environment generally, I think there has to be a greater recognition than can be found in the Ministers' words so far that the situation is serious. We on all sides of the House, on behalf of millions of Canadians and their families and future generations, must insist that immediate action be taken by federal and provincial Governments to deal with the problem of toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River and generally in our environment, and what it means for people in downriver communities such as my own City of Windsor. There must be a commitment to action, a definite plan and a definite timetable for taking and implementing the action in question. We have not seen this as yet.
When I speak of the need for commitment by the federal Minister of the Environment and the federal Government, I say that to show that commitment the Minister must stop his practice of casting aside, downgrading publicly in the House, any of his own experts who raise concerns beyond those he is willing to recognize at the time those concerns are expressed. The House will remember how, in response to a question from myself, the Minister rejected and cast aside Darryl Cowell, one of his officials, who told the press that the leakage of toxic
chemical wastes in the St. Clair River could create the biggest hazardous waste problem in North America. We now see from the report of the joint federal-provincial task force which looked into the situation in the St. Clair River that we cannot at all exclude the possibility that toxic chemicals are leaking into the river from dump sites or wells used for the storage of toxic chemicals. That report leaves that question very much open and calls for further detailed studies into the whole matter of possible leakage of toxic chemicals into the St. Clair River. Therefore, when the official of the Minister's Department, Mr. Cowell, pointed out the possibility that it could be the source of a great ecological disaster, the last thing the Minister should have done was to reject and rebuke publicly the official in question.
The Minister should not have done the same thing to Dr. Hallett of his Department when Dr. Hallett released disturbing findings about the levels of PCBs in the food we eat. When I raised that question in the House, the Minister said that Dr. Hallett was speaking at a seminar and, since it was not organized by his Department, it did not represent something which could be given credence and weight by his Department. I do not think it should have made any difference where Dr. Hallett made his remarks, provided they were worthy of attention and support. There seems to be confirmation of Doctor Hallett's concerns in the report of the Royal Society of Canada and the National Research Council of the United States, which I referred to earlier. I personally do not think it was completely a coincidence that Doctor Hallett chose to leave the Department shortly after he was publicly disavowed in this House by the Minister of the Environment. Certainly the Minister has not been creating in his Department a congenial atmosphere for experts who dare to challenge the Minister's own conventional knowledge on the subject. Also, as I have said previously, people like Doctor Hallett, I would think, know a lot more about the problem than does the Minister.
In addition to real commitment by the Minister and his Government, more commitment than has been shown until now, there has to be a meaningful plan of action. That plan must involve steps to be taken right now. So far the Minister's only answer is to say that at some vague, unspecified future date the Minister will be presenting legislation to this House to update the Environmental Contaminants Act. Well, surely that is not the answer, or at least it is only a very small part of the answer.
The report of the special task force of federal and provincial officials on the St. Clair River shows how much more has to be done. That report contains 24 specific and pointed recommendations. What concerns me, and I am sure it concerns the people of my community of Windsor and the people of the entire Great Lakes region, is that at no time in this debate today did the Government state clearly and specifically that it would accept and act on those 24 recommendations as a matter of urgency. Surely this is a minimum requirement to expect from this Government if it is to be taken seriously when
February 3, 1986

it says it has a real commitment to taking action on toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River, in the Great Lakes, and in our environment generally.
This report shows that the industries are discharging into the St. Clair River higher levels of toxic chemicals than existing standards permit. The report also says that there are many toxic chemicals which are being discharged by companies into the St. Clair River for which standards do not yet exist. Surely immediate action should be taken on this. Certainly because of the lack of absolute certainty about what are safe standards for dioxin in drinking water, if they exist at all, the federal Government must act now, together with the provinces, to help municipalities like Windsor to have special filtration systems installed to remove dioxin from its drinking water, no matter how small the traces. The Minister certainly should not have rejected, as he did in the House, the utility of activated charcoal systems as an urgent response to the findings of dioxin in the drinking water of Windsor and three other area communities.
It is interesting that while the Minister says that activated charcoal filtration systems do not have to be made available to communities like Windsor at this time, only last week the Ontario Minister of the Environment was willing to say that he is working on setting up and installing, at the very least, some special experimental filtration systems in the area. I would strongly urge the Minister to consider the community of Windsor as one of the ideal and logical places for such a system.
I say that the burden of protecting Canadians from toxic chemicals in the water they drink should not have to fall primarily on the municipalities and municipal taxpayers. Surely, the real priority must be on stopping the discharge, the dumping of toxic chemicals by industry into the St. Clair River and other waterways. Our ultimate objective has to be zero discharge of contaminants by industry. Our real priority must be to stop these toxic chemicals from being discharged into our lakes and rivers. Governments must ensure that Firms are in a position to have up-to-date equipment to ensure that there are no accidental spills. Governments might take steps to ensure that the amount of toxic chemicals that is above agreed on standards is not allowed to be dumped through sewer systems into our lakes and rivers.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are steps the federal Government can and must take now, steps of the kind outlined by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The Government could reinstate the two-year accelerated write-offs under the Income Tax Act as an incentive to industry to get modern treatment equipment in place, to separate sewers, to put in modern monitoring systems, and to ensure that the highest standards of waste treatment are applied. This must be a step taken to buttress having in place an adequate and up-to-date system of control regulation. This is one of the key recommendations of the special task force of officials, federal and provincial, on the St. Clair River problem. They make clear that we do not have an adequate system of control regulation in place now, and this has to be an urgent priority. We must, as the report says:
Supply
-develop control regulation for the industries and municipalities discharging to the St. Clair River. Through this control regulation, the Ministry of the Environment, with the scientific and technical support of the DOE, will establish effluent concentrations and loading levels for all parameters which, if exceeded, will trigger additional monitoring, remedial measures, abatement and prosecution.
The federal Government could well offer a special program for municipalities like Sarnia and Windsor and provide financial assistance for the installation of equipment facilities for the best possible treatment of residential, commercial and industrial waste waters that pass through municipal sewer systems. Also, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Davenport and as I pointed out in the House last fall, the federal Government could create a super fund with interested provincial Governments to remove toxic waste from dumps, and therefore remove the source of future problems at leaking dumps. As I have said, this is something I called for in the House last fall, months ago, and at that time the Minister said he was interested in working to set up a super fund with the Province of Ontario. So far I have seen no progress by the Minister to carry out and put into reality the expression of interest he put forward in response to my question to the House last fall. This is something which has to be a priority of the Minister if we are to take him seriously and if we are to take the Government seriously.
We have to act now. We should not have to ask Canadians to even consider trade-offs between jobs in industries like those along the St. Clair River and their health and safety and the health and safety of their families and of the communities in which they live. The manufacturing and the installation of appropriate control technology is itself a form of job creating economic activity. The costs of control of toxic chemicals over time are surely less than the costs of the destruction of our environment, of our forests, of our waters, and of the loss of health of millions of Canadians through excess ingestion of toxic chemicals.
The report of the National Research Council and of the Canadian Royal Society points out the economical benefits of damage avoided, but it also deals with the terrible consequences of not dealing with toxic chemicals and the pollution they create right now. I raised this matter in the House on a number of occasions in the past and I am pleased to raise it in the House today to join in the cry for action by my colleagues in the Official Opposition, and hopefully other Members as well. I am speaking out for my constituents and my community, but also I am speaking out for all Canadians. We need more than the pious but unfortunately all too empty words of the Government and its representatives. So far we have seen nothing more. That is not enough for the people of my community and the people of Canada. Let us have action. Without that action, the Government stands justly condemned by present and future generations.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions. First, it should be very clear to the Hon. Member that neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) nor the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have underesti-

February 3, 1986
Supply
mated or tried in any way to suggest that the finding of dioxins in drinking water is unimportant or does not need to have serious attention paid to it. It is critical and is something worthy of further management in whatever way is necessary.
Is the Member aware that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has set forth, as of last week when this was first discovered, a joint federal-provincial task force to establish guidelines that were absent before? Is the Member aware that although we are talking about levels measured in parts per quadrillion, there have never been any levels established? The amounts actually found are 1/150,000. According to the interim level that has been established, which is perhaps not safe totally-maybe there is no safe level-we are now measuring this at 1/150,000 of that interim level.
I can only say that we are measuring quadrillions this year but next year we may be able to measure that very large difference the other way when we start adding zeros between what actually was accomplished when the Member was in Government and what he is saying now.
Second, did his Government not stop funding municipalities in 1980 for the major infrastructure problems they faced because of major costs? There was no intention and no effort, as far as I could see, to re-open those arrangements with the provinces. Is the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) aware of ERDA under which provinces can indicate to what they want to allocate federal funds? Is he aware of the Pearse Report? And what about the question which the Minister of the Environment has asked all provincial Ministers? Thing like that will certainly be discussed in the future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with the situation as it is today.


Mr. Murta:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We have new and troubling information about the extent of toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River. We have new and troubling information about dioxins being found in Windsor's drinking water and other communities in the lower Great Lakes area. As his Minister said last week, we are finding out about this because of new technology which did not exist two years ago.


Mr. Shields:: Come on, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If, as the Minister said, the technology did not exist to show up these levels of dioxins, surely the answer is to deal with this new situation and be willing to put in place a new agreement to help municipalities like Windsor install, on an urgent basis, additional special filtration systems and, if necessary, to upgrade water filtration systems. I am not saying that one should be in a panic, but surely one has to take this information seriously.
The Hon. Member admitted that the standard in question is only an interim standard. It is a standard that is subject to change. Let us hope that further work will show that the standard might well be raised. There is a risk that it might have to be lowered. The lack of concern exhibited by the Hon.
Member any turn out-and I hope it does not-to be misplaced. After all, there is other evidence. The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States said there is no safe level for dioxins.
While I recognize what was announced last week, I say that that is no reason for complancency. 1 say that that is no reason not to say that the situation of which we have become aware in the last few weeks is not grounds for a new program. That is no reason for the federal Government not to help municipalities install the necessary filtration equipment to remove dioxins and other chemicals that may turn up through new testing technology, until such time, at the very least, that further developments of that technology show the current concern of my constituents is not justified.
I do not think you can slough off that concern simply by talking about parts per million and further task forces. That is not good enough.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) had to say in the debate. I could not help but think to myself that if I had been a newspaper reporter and was reporting on today's debate, particularly on the comments made by the Member for Windsor West, my column would probably start out something like: "Where were you, Herb Gray, when 1 needed you ? Signed, former Minister of the Environment, the Member for Davenport".
No one doubts for a moment the sincerity and the genuine concern for the environment displayed in this House over the past four or five years by the former Minister of the Environment. No one doubts that sincerity, Mr. Speaker. No one doubts for the moment the effort he made on behalf of all Canadians to focus the attention of all Canadians and Members of this House on the problems facing the environment and what they will do in the future. I have a genuine feeling of concern for the effort the Member put forward because he put it forward at a time when he was Minister of the Environment. His effort, though, fell on deaf ears.
Would the Member for Windsor West not agree that the climate in Canada when he was in Cabinet was such that his Government could not even talk sensibly to the various provinces and get co-operative action to attack some of these very serious problems facing the environment? Co-operation was non-existent during the latter years of his Government, particularly during the years when the Hon. Member for Davenport was the Minister for the Environment. No agreement was reached and truly very little discussion was taking place.
Would the Member for Windsor West not agree that the climate has now changed to such an extent that a number of agreements have been concluded? Action is taking place. There have been agreements with the provinces. An announcement was made on May 15 concerning further restrictions on the use and release of PCBs. PCBs are not something new that new technology has discovered, all of a sudden in the past year and a half discovered. We knew PCBs existed and were a detriment to health and to the environment if not handled and
February 3, 1986

disposed of in a proper manner. We knew that three and four years ago. Where was the Member for Windsor West when the Member for Davenport was crying for assistance from his Cabinet colleague?
Our Government has, with co-operation of the provinces implemented tough new emission standards for cars and light duty trucks. These standards were announced on March 6.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What tough new emissions?


Jack Wendele Shields: We know also that the Member for Davenport was trying to get these things implemented and had absolutely no co-operation from his Cabinet or his Cabinet colleague, the Member for Windsor West at that time.
Would the Member for Windsor West not agree that he is now speaking out of both sides of his mouth? One time when he-


An Hon. Member:: This is a speech. Where is the question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but we do not have much time left in the question and comment period. I would like to give the floor to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Hon. Member's lengthy question can be handled with a very short reply.


Jack Wendele Shields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, we will hear the point of order of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I still have a number of examples in my question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has taken so far more than three minutes so far in the ten which are allotted to questions and comments. Unfortunately, there is but one minute left. We will hear from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Hon. Member for Davenport has a tremendous record of achievement as Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: For example, he achieved not one but two agreements on acid rain with the provinces in March, 1984 and June, 1984. I am proud to say that he was able to achieve agreements such as this with the support of myself, other members of the Cabinet and the entire Liberal caucus.
The work in respect of emission standards on automobiles, about which Hon. Members opposite boast, had actually begun and was well under way at the time the Government changed. All Hon. Members opposite are doing is coasting on the momentun built up by the Hon. Member for Davenport when he was Minister.
Supply
When it comes to co-operation with the provinces, after experiences such as the provinces had with this Government in terms of the cut-backs on transfer payments and other programs, they are already starting to look back with sadness and nostalgia on what they now see were the golden days of co-operation with the previous Liberal Government. They are waiting for the moment which will come when the Canadian people will throw out this incompetent and untrustworthy Conservative Government so that they can get a better Government, a Liberal Government, in order to obtain real cooperation with respect to the environment and a great many other matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the time allotted for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to participate in this debate, particularly because the motion before us was moved by a former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the constituency in which 1 had the great pleasure to grow up. Those were happier days when Davenport was a Conservative riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Nonetheless, I am happy that the attention of the House today is focused upon the subject before us. There are few concerns of the Canadian people more vital than the concern for the environment. I welcome the Hon. Member's motion. However, when 1 read it, I have to think that the motion itself borders on the hypocritical. It condemns the Government for ignoring the concerns of the people with respect to the development of their environment. It ignores the types of constant achievement to which reference has been made and which should be reiterated. The Government has taken many steps in this regard.
For example, it found some $300 million to help cut sulphur dioxide emissions in half by the year 1994. It has imposed more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles, cars and trucks, which will cut hydrocarbons by 80 per cent and which will bring about significant reductions in the emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and evaporative emissions. All of this will contribute significantly to the well-being of the environment and its impact upon our water supply. These are steps which have been taken. These are actions which have been declared and which are to take effect in the near future. The Government has also imposed stricter requirements for the transportation of PCBs.
I regret the wording of the motion. Not only does it ignore the positive actions which have been taken by the Government, it ignores the reality that we have a problem now. We have a problem now for two reasons. The first reason is the limited action which the previous Government and the previous Minister of the Environment took, something which is not recognized at all in the motion or in the presentations of Hon. Members thus far. Second, it ignores the reality that there is

February 3, 1986
Supply
no quick fix available to anyone regardless of what Party is in office and regardless of who is the Minister. This is a problem of such enormormity and complexity that we are simply never going to have an immediate solution. However, we must take seriously the challenge and work progressively step by step and consistently toward keeping it under control and improving our environment.
If we look to some of the reports which are available to us, we will find one report entitled Time Lost, A Demand for Action on Acid Rain. This is a report put out by the Subcommittee on Acid Rain which was appointed during the years of the previous Government. On page 3 of that report we find a reference to the report of a previous committee of the House submitted in October of 1981 entitled Still Waters, which included 38 recommendations. Were they all enacted? Did they all become operative? Did they all transform the environment?
One reason for the debate today is that those 38 recommendations did not become fully part of the policies of the Government of the day. Thus, we find the committee of 1981 not having the satisfaction of seeing all its recommendations being put into effect. We find that its successor committee- there was need for another committee just a few years later- stated that the situation is so serious that:
-Canadians, including members of this Sub-committee, who have travelled to the United States to argue for more stringent controls on American polluters, Canadian government inaction and/or obstinacy with respect to domestic controls have been, quite frankly, an embarrasment.
That is how a committee of the House, with a majority of members from the Government of the day, reacted to the Government of which the Hon. Member who moved the motion and the Hon. Member who just gave his address were members. In the view of the committee the lack of inaction and the obstinacy of the previous Government was a cause of embarrasment. These were not simply critics from outside the House or members of the Opposition but Members who supported the Government.
I would like to turn to page 12 of the same report under the heading "Emission Control Standards". On that page there is a reference made to two recommendations which were put into the hands of the Government and of the Minister. It states:
Neither of these recommendations has been adopted by the Federal Government.
On page 13 it states:
The present Canadian regulatory position is therefore an enomaly, is environmentally harmful, and causes acute political embarrasment to Canadians in discussions with U.S. legislators and officials on the need for continental controls on acid rain.
That is the record of the previous Government and the several Ministers of the Environment which it appointed. That is the result-the embarrasment of Canadians generally in negotiating environmental policies with our neighbour to the south.
The report continues on page 41:
Clearly, the attack on acid rain, if it is to be successful, must be a joint Canada-United States effort. Unfortunately, the political will needed to tackle the problem is lacking in the United States.
That is a recognition of reality. We cannot solve the problem on our own, regardless of what Party forms the Government or what Member is the Minister. We need the co-operation of a neighbour with whom we must negotiate. There is no power that we have available to us by which we can compel them to act. We must pursue, as our predecessors did, a process of negotiation, anticipating in negotiation that we can persuade by information, by agreement and by bargaining that some action will be taken. However, let us recognize that if we are to have any sense of reality in the House of Commons at all, then there is no Government that can simply act unilaterally. No Government can simply take action which will not require the agreement of the United States if we are to deal adequately with the problem. So I have to ask why the Official Opposition Party affronts this House of Commons and the rationality of the Canadian people by condemning the Government for not making the environment a perfect situation which this resolution implies is within the scope of the Government, when that Party, having been 20 years in office, found itself incapable of achieving that kind of perfection.
I feel that anyone on this side of the House would border on the irrational if he or she were to say to the Opposition: "Well, you should have made it perfect. You should have achieved an environment in which there would not be a single pollutant in existence". We must have some common sense sometimes, and let us show it by recognizing the achievements which have become part of the Canadian scene in the past 15 months. We should respect as well those achievements which I gladly recognize as part of the record of the previous Government. But we must recognize that there are challenges we must take seriously and work hard at if we are going to carry forward that which we have begun since September, 1984.
Let me point out two difficulties which must be kept in mind in dealing with the environment. First, there is a sociological challenge, which receives all too little recognition in a debate such as we are having today. For this I cite the former United States Ambassador to Canada, the Honourable Adolph W. Schmidt. In addressing the Empire Club of Canada as far back as 1970, he pointed out the significance of two sociological developments. The first was unrestricted population growth which, we could add, escalated rapidly, which put a pressure upon the environmental outlets required for human existence. Coupled with that problem is the challenge of the congestion of population centres. Mr. Schmidt projected then that it was foreseeable that in a short time 90 per cent of the population of the United States would be living in Five urban regions. Just conceive, Mr. Speaker, the pressure that would put upon the environment surrounding those regions.
Faced with the kind of population development we are experiencing on both sides of the border, and faced with the congestion of urban population, let us recognize that, yes, here
February 3, 1986

is a challenge we have to face, a challenge which must be given a priority over and over again year by year. Let us not be so foolhardy as to believe or imply that some Government is just going to wave a magic legislative or budgetary wand and put an end to pollution.
Let us also face the reality of the political challenge. I quote from a short article in the New York Times which was authored by Charles Phelps which points out that the eight top polluting industries, sources of high sulphur coal, are in states with major deposits of that coal. These eight states hold 105 votes in the House of Representatives, which takes them half way to a majority in that chamber. In contrast, three quarters of the low sulphur coal in the United States is in three states with only six votes in the House of Representatives. That means that when we endeavour to negotiate a correction to the acid rain situation, which affects us all so significantly in Canada, we are up against a major political challenge. There is no way in which we can resolve that challenge and overcome it in the short term and by some magic that we, or another Party in this Chamber, might possess. Let us recognize the foolishness of thinking that we in Ottawa or those in Washington are going to solve it as if sweet reason were enough. We are dealing with a political reality. We have to keep pressing as did our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in seeing that it was on the agenda of the Quebec Summit and as he did in seeing that there was a top level commission appointed to report to the President and the Prime Minister. It was composed of such distinguished Canadian citizens as the former Premier of Ontario, the Honourable William Davis. My reason for referring to that is simply to indicate that the kind of progress we are enjoying under this Government and the kind of progress we achieved under the previous Government is expressive of reality. There is no revolutionary solution. We must expect that evolution will be the way we will follow. We will have to move step by step towards achieving the kind of environment we could wish for ourselves and for those who come after.
However, let us not ignore the positive results which that process has achieved. For example, in another study report to which I will refer called Water is a Mainstream Issue, an interim report of an inquiry on federal water supply which was appointed by the previous Government, there is a reference to the kind of progress we have enjoyed by working together and seeking co-operation from the provincial Governments as well as Governments of certain States of the Union and the American Government itself. We should not ignore the kind of achievement to which this report refers, and I quote:
Notable progress has been made with point sources, such as effluent flow from major industries like pulp and paper and petroleum refining, and from municipal sewage treatment plants.
The report does not ignore the lack of progress in other areas and in other connections, and we should not ignore it. But let us remember and recognize that certain things are being achieved and certain progress is being made. The report goes on to ask a question which this House should not ignore and which the report does not answer. It is this:
Supply
Can governmental controls catch up with the number and variety of pollutants? Do we need control of chemicals from creation to disposal, as urged by many environmentalists?
If the answer is yes, then certainly that answer is not going to receive quick actualization by any government that will command a majority in this House. It is going to have to be a matter of steady, gradual, but not slow, progress, and to that end this Government is clearly committed.
We should also recognize the wisdom of the International Joint Commission which states in its most recent report:
Significant achievements have been recorded in controlling certain types and sources of pollution, particularly in the areas of point source control of phosphorus and in the control of a number of other conventional pollutants.
That report was dated December 31, 1984. I think very seriously about the condition of the lake on which my city borders, and where I have spent all of my life. I have seen the lake lose the kind of purity which it enjoyed in my boyhood. I recognize the progress which has been achieved by both federal and provincial Governments of both Parties in each instance, and I would like to take a moment to draw to the attention of the House that one great day each year which shows what can happen when there is environmental action taken. That is the annual salmon hunt sponsored by the Toronto Star. A large supply of salmon was put into Lake Ontario to see, first, if the lake could provide a life-giving environment again, and to see as well if a lampreycide was effective. In 1979 each salmon caught in that great tournament showed the marks of lamprey upon it, each one. However, in 1985 only one in 75 caught had those marks. I cite that not to say we are doing wonders, let us rest on our laurels and be proud of our record. I say it to point out how positive accomplishments can be achieved. We must keep working at this cause. A solution is possible, but it is not going to be done tomorrow morning. We have to keep working at it. The only way to do that is by steady, progressive action.
I want to close my remarks by simply saying this. One of the great political leaders of this country was the Hon. Tommy Douglas. I had a great affection and respect for him. He was in this House when I first arrived here. He used to close almost every speech with these words: "I shall not sleep, nor shall my sword stay idle in my hands, till we have built Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land". He spoke those words so frequently that one might have thought they were part of the Regina Manifesto. Actually they were written by the English poet William Blake. He was referring not to the prospect of socialism but to the horror of the impact of the Industrial Revolution upon rural England. I recall those words now as indicating the direction in which this House should go, one of moving forward progressively, taking those actions we can to bring that day which is not tomorrow or next year, but a day nonetheless within our scope, a day when we can have once again a green and pleasant land.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.

February 3, 1986
Supply


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, most Members were somewhat moved by those last sentences-


Mr. Hicks:: We were moved by the whole speech.


George Baker: -from the English poet and mystic, William Blake. The complete quotation is as follows:
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear, oh clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
Listen to the rest of the words:
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question arising from those words.


Jack Wendele Shields: Be nice.


George Baker: I will be nice in putting the question but I do not think the question is very nice. Keeping in mind those words of Mr. Blake, how does the Hon. Member rationalize the incredible cuts made by his Government in toxicology research along with several scientific projects examining the effect chemicals had on wildlife?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my response is very simple, as befits the question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are going to get it. Now, be careful.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: He is going to get it first. We have a budget item which his Government never had. Some S300 million was budgeted for a combined research and action program which was designed to bring greater control of acid rain. As well, we have the emission standards this Government has put forward. We also have to recognize that the reason some Departments have been cut, and they all have worthy programs, is the deficit his Government allowed to accrue over many years. That deficit had a polluting effect on the fiscal and economic environment of this country.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, one of the themes put forward by Liberal Members today is that the Government does not have the resolve to deal with environmental matters. This Government has increased the fines for poaching in national parks from $5,000 to $150,000. Does the Hon. Member agree that that is a great example of this Government's determination to clean up our environment and encourage respect for that environment?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I would respond in the affirmative to the question. That policy is in keeping with not only this Conservative Government but also that of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker himself. He convened the first federal provincial conference on ecology. He initiated the steps which were vital to any action being taken at all. Without that
kind of co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces we cannot move forward. It is because of Mr. Diefenbaker's initiatives that we have been able to have such progress as we have enjoyed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Given the Hon. Member's association with the Toronto area, which is obviously very concerned about the level of toxicity in the Great Lakes and in particular in Lake Ontario, does the Hon. Member support the Government's decision to abolish the berring-gull program? That program studied deformities in herring-gull eggs and the possible effect on human health in the future. Did he support the Government's cut-back of that program?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the Government's reinstatement of the longitudinal studies and the care with which it is addressing the prospect of studies which will be required to make progress in this area.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question was specifically whether he supported the abolition of the herring-gull studies.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I may not have given the Hon. Member the answer she wanted but I think I gave her the answer that was apposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not hear an answer. I may have gone "deef", as it were, but I did not hear an answer. Does he or does he not support the cut-back in that program?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest that if she did not hear the answer, the Hon. Member should adjust her hearing-aid. 1 indicated that there has been a reinstatement of the program and we are moving ahead as a Government on that program.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member support the cut-back in government involvement in the Guelph Toxicology Centre?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the kind of support that the Government needs is that which is required for the positive programs it has initiated. One can regret the cut-back of any research effort and we can regret that with respect to many disciplines of thought and inquiry, including those which are part of our concern today. We regret the budget situation which we inherited, and which made it vital for us to do many things that we do not want to do. Two academic colleagues of mine from former times were in my office this morning, Mr. Speaker. They bring their just concerns about the future of scientific and scholarly research in the country. They recognize, as do all reasonable Canadians, that we are faced with a situation which is not of our devising and that we cannot excape that situation. We have to solve it. 1 invite the Hon. Member to support us in our attempts, through the next Budget, to solve it.
February 3, 1986


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment first. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for his very excellent address. I think he goes to the very root of all programs when he suggests that we have to cut our deficit and get our spending under control. If we do not get our spending under control, there will be no money to fight toxic wastes, no money for social programs, no money for old age pensions, and no money for child welfare. Consequently, the Hon. Member goes right to the very root of these issues.
A lot of the cuts that we have made were to do away with duplication. I met a group of scientists in Alberta who said that they are doing this research in their university and they asked why the Government is doing it elsewhere. When the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) made cuts in the environmental program it was to do away with duplication. There were no cuts of anything that is vital at this time. Research is always important, but it is most important, as well, that we get control of our finances or we will not have any money at all to carry out research or control of toxic wastes. Were most of the cuts that were made in the environmental area not due to extravagance or duplication?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I gladly concur in the reasoning which the Hon. Member has expressed. I add as well that it is an indication of the Government's interest in the subject of research in the environment that the needs of the Guelph research centre as a centre that can serve the well-being of Canada are undergoing reassessment. In this instance, as in so many, the Government is doing all that it can with the finances available to it. When we face the reality that most of the income tax revenue received by the Government is going to pay off interest on the debt, we see that there is very little surplus left for anything else.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, if we can escape from some of the partisan gibes which are going back and forth, I think that this particular issue-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The NDP is totally non-partisan.


Steven W. Langdon: Not when it comes to the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) I fear, but on issues we try to be. We have in front of us an immense challenge which, frankly, is a challenge at which the previous Government failed, and which the present Government, to its credit, is attempting to confront. The Minister has, I think, shown some concern and enthusiasm and, frankly, some very healthy skepticism with respect to the claims of industry with regard to the issue of toxic pollution of our waterways.
The challenge is extremely great and I must ask, at the start of a speech like this, whether it is a challenge that it is possible for this Minister ultimately to meet successfully. Basically what we as a people and a country are doing is using our earth and our surroundings as a garbage can. We are using it for garbage which is perhaps the most dangerous, hazardous and vicious that this planet has ever had to confront. We have to
Supply
change our approach if we are going to succeed in creating a future for the generations that will come after us.
I think the challenge is particularly difficult for three reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, we have a scientific challenge which is very, very complicated. We can learn from this scientific challenge by looking at occupational health as an issue. We have discovered, for instance, that people who used asbestos to produce essential items during wartime found that the asbestos that they worked with, without thinking that it was dangerous, was in fact a time bomb. That time bomb did not hit days later, weeks later, or months later, but years later. Often that time bomb did not hit because of large amounts of asbestos, but because of extremely minute particles of that material which, in a cumulative way, over time, led to people developing the most horrendous possible diseases which debilitated them.
There has not been a single study done on the octadioxin which has just been identified in the drinking water of my community of Windsor, to determine its long-run, cumulative effect on people who imbibe it in a long-run, cumulative way.
Second, there is a lack of knowledge which, fortunately, we are starting to do something about. As an example of that lack of knowledge, Mr. Speaker, out of the 58 chemicals that make up the infamous blob in the St. Clair River, only three have standards which tell us how much can get into fish before those fish are dangerous to people. That lack of knowledge can only be seen as incredibly dangerous to the people who fish in Lake St. Clair in my constituency.
We have a challenge too, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that we as a country are committed to economic development and that our people have come to expect it. Yet, that economic development must recognize the environment as a central concern or else it is not an economic development that is counting the costs of economic growth. Those are intellectual and political challenges that are very, very tough for any Government, whether Conservative, Liberal, or Socialist. Those are very difficult intellectural challenges to face. Above all, however, they are challenges that must be faced with urgency and a passionate commitment to do something about them. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to detect such action on the part of the Government.
Let me take Members of the House through the recent happenings on the St. Clair River. It is a drama which in fact turned out to be far more interesting, explosive and powerful to this country than the divers who first brought up the dioxin-laden globs in 1984 which set this struggle off first thought. In fact, it was one of those divers who came to my office a year after those tests were first conducted in 1984 and said that they discovered something but still have not heard from the various ministries, including Liberal and Conservative ministries, what that dangerous chemical was.
We began to ask questions about that discovery, what it was and how dangerous. It was only as those questions began to be asked in September, 1985-a year after those tests had been conducted-that the Ministries decided to begin retesting. It

February 3, 1986
Supply
was then that they discovered that indeed the great toxic blob had in fact not disappeared but, even worse, was now present in concentrations twice as high as had been true when it was discovered in 1984. Furthermore, it was not the easy form of octadioxin that the Minister talked about but the much more dangerous toxic and hazardous forms of tetradioxin, in heavier concentrations than had been true in 1984.
Yet, a whole year had passed without any action being taken to clean up that disaster. Finally, after a second test was conducted which showed these dangerous concentrations and after pushing and prodding, the federal Minister and Ontario Minister finally took action and a joint study was conducted. That joint study, unlike virtually any other study I have seen, did not come up with a set of conclusions. It came up with a set of questions. I strongly suggest to Members of the House that they read through the recommendations of this recent report on St. Clair River pollution investigations. They will find repeatedly that the recommendations do not give an answer to what needs to be done but recommend what should be investigated further. It states, for example, that we must investigate the Michigan site and the source of the dioxins and furons.
In short, the report in itself if not an answer but an action plan to find an answer. That is why the crucial question that faces the Government right now is what it will do about the 24 recommendations in this report. If it can tell the House of Commons today that it will follow up on every single recommendation as urgently, fully and comprehensively as necessary to find the answer, it will finally have taken the first step toward convincing those who care about the environment that it actually has that sense of urgency and commitment.
I want to talk briefly about the politics of this issue. Frankly, I have found it to be a political learning experience. It has been exciting to use information, sometimes gathered from unorthodox sources, and to pose questions effectively so that the Government will move to take an issue seriously, as I believe it has done with respect to the St. Clair River issue. My colleague says that the Government needed that kick in the butt to get at this concern.
However, there is another part of the politics of this issue that has also been fascinating, that is, to see the Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the areas which are sources of this pollution try to defend their localities. Surely it is possible, as indeed the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) did today, for people to get up in the House and admit past mistakes. Surely it is possible for communities or companies to admit that they have not given the proper attention to pollution control.
Why was it necessary that the politics of this issue had to be raised by those Members who represent constituencies downriver from this pollution spill? It should have been Members of Parliament from the spill areas themselves who pushed this issue. Perhaps it is the nature of politics in our society that it is up to us in our communities downriver from these pollution crises to make the issue come alive and give it the drama which brings the attention that, in turn, builds the focus of
Government on the issue as a crucial question which must be dealt with and corrected.
We have a new report. It is a report which carries with it the urgency of this issue. It is a report which tells us in the communities downriver from the St. Clair that we can expect some reassurance from the Government that it will take our problems seriously. It is a report which must be acted upon. I ask the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Ministers responsible to take this report with the seriousness that it deserves. I ask them to see to it, in respect of the 24 recommendations in the report, that the possibility of underground sources of pollution is probed completely, and to see to it that the problems of fish in Lake St. Clair are studied as they deserve to be studied for the people of my constituency. Also I ask them to see to it that a year from today, instead of three of the 58 chemicals having standards for fish quality, all 58 have full standards for fish quality and for water quality, and that we have a sense of the cumulative impact of these different chemicals mixing together.
I should like to refer to our fight in Windsor. The Clean Water Alliance has been formed and met yesterday with 300 people to raise concerns about this issue. It is not only a fight for our selfish interests in the St. Clair River basin. It is a fight for change across the country to make pollution the urgent issue which it has to be. As our environment critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Brids Hill (Mr. Blaikie), has made clear, it is a fight for a safe drinking water Act, for an environmental bill of rights, for speedy introduction of tough amendments to the Environmental Contaminants Act, and for a tough Canadian response to the refusal of the Environmental Protection Agency so far to act in the Niagara situation.
We must stop using our earth and our environment as a garbage can. We must, on a non-partisan basis throughout the House, make a commitment to our future and the future of our children. We must make this issue have the urgency it deserves as we head toward the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) was unable to hear the Minister's press conference in which he answered the specific questions that he asked. The report made 24 recommendations. The Minister in fact embraced the report and acted very specifically on three points which were made. In addition, he indicated a number of other specific Government actions.
Is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that the Department of the Environment has committed its full scientific and technical expertise to assist the Province of Ontario to implement the new limits on the effluents in order to control the toxic discharge? Second, the Department has already begun to improve water quality surveillance of the St. Clair River in order to get more accurate information on the amount of contaminant present in the river and to assess effectiveness of remedial action. Finally, the Department, under the Canada-United States upper Great Lakes connecting channels study,
February 3, 1986

has begun investigating the ground-water contamination in the St. Clair area. This effort will be stepped up and in the next few years will focus on the Sarnia area.
Did the Hon. Member understand from the Minister's speech, which I quoted this morning, that we intend to implement the environmental bill of rights and the stronger measures in the Environmental Contaminants Act which he suggests? We do take the matter seriously including, despite other comments, the question of dioxins. There is no question that there may be no safe level of anything. We learned this about radioactivity; it may well hold true for many chemicals. There is no question about that, but there is a question about the politicizing of it in the way that has been done by some members of the Opposition.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two comments. Politicizing an issue, as it has turned out in this case, has the effect of making an issue come alive and making an issue ultimately lead to action. I certainly make no apologies for attempting to highlight this issue at each stage throughout the last six months. It has been important that such highlighting has taken place, not for my sake, but for the sake of the constituents whom I represent. They are the people who are downriver from this pollution; frankly they are the people I am here to protect.
In respect of the specifics of the Minister's comments at the press conference, yes, I have the press release. Frankly it is the press release which disturbs me because it simply makes reference to three points out of a total of 24 recommendations. If in accepting the report the Minister also accepts that he will attempt to implement, in conjunction with the Government of Ontario, each of the recommendations in the report, I do not have problems; I have a sense of security. However, there are detailed recommendations in the report, as I am certain the Parliamentary Secretary knows, which are in fact quite expensive. I refer to recommendation No. 8 on page 28 which reads as follows:
To ascertain the extent of possible ground-water contamination in the Sarnia area, studies are required to
(i)	Define the ground-water flow pattern in the freshwater aquifer.
(ii)	Assess water quality in the freshwater aquifer and seepage discharge to
the St. Clair River.
(iii)	Determine the hydraulic head relationships between the freshwater
acquifer, the rock layers above the Detroit River Group, the deep well disposal
zone and the caverns and the Salina formation.
To put a recommendation of that sort into effect is an expensive commitment. I recognize that, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary recognizes it as well. Nevertheless, it is a commitment which scientific experts at the meeting yesterday in Windsor said was absolutely crucial if we were to get to the bottom of the whole problem. Once more I make the point to the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him to the Minister, that we have so far had a sense of respect for the Minister, but that respect has to be earned continually. It is an unfortunate thing about politics. People are always asking: "What did you do for me today?" The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have to make a commitment to
Supply
put financial resources behind the kinds of studies which will give us the answers. This voluminous and quite excellent report agreed that studies had to be set upon to give us answers.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I think if the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walk-erville (Mr. McCurdy) will refer to the "blues" he will find that the hydrological studies were one of the three specific things I mentioned. I cannot tell him the full extent of that. I understand that they are extensive. We are committing ourselves for at least two years, most particularly, because of the material we found in the CN tunnel, and it can only come from the ground-water. Unquestionably, the Minister understands what he is talking about. He has committed our resources to that. I cannot tell him how much that is or what that means in total. In so far as possible the Minister has committed the Government to undertaking whatever recommendations are necessary to achieve a satisfactory end.


Steven W. Langdon: I have just a Final comment, Mr. Speaker. 1 am certainly very, very pleased to hear that. That, in fact, was the question which I asked yesterday at this session in Windsor at which Environment Canada people were present. But I think what the Minister should aim at doing, and what will certainly give a sense of security to people, not just in Windsor but in each of those communities that has experienced dioxins in their water, is for the Minister to get up and make a statement indicating in Financial terms the kind of allocation that is being made, with what urgency that undertaking is being made and, therefore, how quickly we can expect to see comprehensive and effective results brought about in what for us, frankly, has been a pretty traumatic experience of continual new pieces of news that potentially affect our environment and our people potentially very greatly.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) because I think he has hit the nail on the head on many of the issues facing us today, because he is interested in research, and because the issue has been raised in this House on several occasions over the past few months. I would like to comment upon what the Canadian Centre for Toxicology can do in terms of this significant problem. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was here this morning he talked about the problems of identiFication and control measurement, which we know are very difFicult, and which take us into areas of high technology in which we have not been before.
More important, the Minister talked about advice to groups, and the kind of information that is required, the kind of thing the Hon. Member has just been talking about. One of the best things that ever happened to the Canadian Centre for Toxicology was when this Government said no in November of 1984, because that centre then went to work, and instead of producing a centre that was going to be operated primarily by government, it went back to private industry and said, "You have to help even more than you had planned to do". 1 watched those plans grow over the years. When it moves off the ground, this is going to be a good, trim, hard-hitting

February 3, 1986
Supply
research centre which will deliver the kind of information that this country needs. It will be oriented more towards private enterprise than it would have been before this Government said, "Take it back, do something with it".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I please ask the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for a short answer or a short comment?


Steven W. Langdon: A short answer from me is almost impossible. I will say two things; first, I disagree with the Hon. Member, despite his compliments, that the way to progress is to cut back some of our research centres. I would simply make the point that one of the crucial resources which we have had in the Windsor area in attempting to understand this whole problem and to get action on it has been the Great Lakes Research Institute with its excellent record of detailed research throughout the St. Clair River Basin itself. I hope that we in Windsor will not have to face the way of improving our Great Lakes Research Institute which the Member has suggested for Guelph.
I would like to finish with just one strong plea, and that is, that we keep in mind the urgency of this issue in the sense of not letting it become a choice between economics and environmental protection, but instead that we make it quite clear that our commitment-and I say this as an economist-can be to economic growth that is environmentally sound and environmentally committed to the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, there is no more time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for introducing into the public forum an issue which is obviously of concern to every Canadian. That issue is specifically not only the particular problems which have been identified and are being examined in the St. Clair River, but also the general question of water quality and the concerns surrounding the level of toxic chemicals which are being found not only in the St. Clair River but also in other major bodies of water. As a Member of Parliament for Hamilton East I have in my riding an area known as the Windermere basin, which has been identified by the International Joint Commission as one of the most polluted bodies of water in North America. Naturally when we read daily accounts in the media about the difficulty facing the people in the St. Clair River area and those people who are concerned about their drinking water, we too, in the frontier of Lake Ontario have to be concerned in the same way because I think that there is a general feeling among the public that the whole story has yet to be revealed.
In fact, there are a lot of questions, and I have constituents who call my office and say, "Is the water safe to drink? We have seen in the City of Toronto on a number of occasions the beaches being closed and, in fact, even the water itself being examined for levels of toxicity which are absolutely unacceptable. I am sorry to say that even in my own community there is not a regular, systematic review done to measure the level of
dioxin toxicity in the drinking water. It happens to be a piecemeal operation which does not address the very serious concerns which have forced many constituents into the private market to buy their water.
I would respectfully differ with the position of the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) who has suggested that somehow we will solve this problem by turning over our research capacity to the private sector. It is pretty clear that the private sector will have to concern itself first and foremost with the bottom line and with more immediate results. One of the benefits which had been derived from programs like the herring-gull program, which was snuffed out by this Government, and snuffed out not only by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) but aided and abetted by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), and the slasher himself, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
This particular program was prepared to take a long-term look and to develop the kind of data base necessary to attack the problem in Lake Ontario which services the drinking water of more than three million people in its direct vicinity. Instead, in a penny ante approach to long-term environmental solutions, the Minister decided to cut off that program and to say that even though we were seeing deformities being identified in herring gull eggs we were not prepared to carry on with this program because it did not meet the Deputy Prime Minister's bottom line, even though at the time that same Conservative Government promised that the environmental project and the research would not be cut.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that that is simply not the case. We also know, with the cut-backs and the decision by the Government of Canada not to fund to Guelph Toxicology Centre, that the Government is abdicating its responsibility to the private sector suggesting that the private sector will be there to pick up the pieces. The private sector has some immediate shortterm concerns relating to productivity and the bottom line. The private sector is not prepared to look at an over-all question of water quality, for example, in the area of the Great Lakes.
Let us take a look at the question of food production and how toxic chemicals impinge upon the food production on a daily basis. We have seen more and more reports about irradiation and what is being allowed to be done to preserve the shelf life of our food in a way that could be extremely detrimental to the health of every Canadian.
I would suggest that private companies in the business of food production will not hold back on irradiation because the long term effects of that process may not be known for many years. We have a responsibility in government to provide leadership in these most difficult areas. I say they are difficult because they involve co-operation at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
I heard Members on the government side of the House citing, chapter and verse, the shortcomings of the previous Liberal Government with respect to its environmental policy. I
February 3, 1986

would like to point out that one of the first and most effective actions of the new Liberal Government in Ontario has been to introduce a spills Bill which, for the first time, will allow companies, unions, workers and the public to have a handle on just what kind of toxic chemicals are being dealt with in industry across Ontario, information which was not only kept secret by the previous Conservative Government, but over which it chose to distribute its own products, its own toxic wines in our liquor stores.
The Liberal Government in Ontario has made it a number one priority not only to introduce the spills Bill but to act on legislation originally recommended by the then Leader of the Liberal Party, now Chairman of the Science Council, Stuart Smith. The Liberal Party has been on the record on this issue in Ontario for many years and finally has had an opportunity to put forth legislation which will make a change in the Province of Ontario.
At the same time, what has been the federal Government's response? Looking specifically at the question of acid rain, we see that the federal Government in its own intuitive nature has decided to appoint a dollar a year man, who is overpaid at that, in the person of the former Premier of Ontario. While this person was the Premier of the Province of Ontario-and 1 see the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) here, the issue crosses Party lines and concerns all Members-he was responsible for the sulphur dioxide emissions from Ontario Hydro, a Crown corporation. Ontario Hydro is one of the heaviest contributors to the acid rain problem in the Province of Ontario. The Premier chose to turn his back on the problem to protect Ontario Hydro and encouraged the belching of sulphur dioxide into the air by refusing to demand that stacks be properly equipped with scrubbers to prevent further emissions and further continuation of acid rain falling on the Ontario environment. But what does this person get as a reward for his decision to allow Ontario Hydro to pollute not only our air but also to create acid rain in the thousands of pounds? He is appointed the federal Government's envoy to the United States to deal with the American Government on the issue. He is to convince the Americans, in particular the President, who is reluctant to recognize that there is a problem that acid rain is an international problem demanding international solutions and a specific commitment on both sides of the Great Lakes.
I would suggest that his powers of persuasion will be rather muted in light of his own record when Premier of the Province of Ontario. He had an opportunity to do something but did nothing and sat aside without calling Ontario Hydro to task for polluting the air and for the acid rain problems which were directly the result of sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired generating stations which Ontario Hydro continues to use.
A number of questions have been raised by constituents, by mothers breast-feeding their children, by older men and women who feel they might be particularly vulnerable when the water quality is not as it could be. What we have seen from the Government, notwithstanding the rhetoric, the press conferences, the mutual meetings between Canada and the United
Supply
States, which looked very positive at first blush, is a Government, a Minister of the Environment, and the Minister's predecessor, that have stood by and done nothing while the slasher in the person of the Deputy Prime Minister as well as the President of the Treasury Board have torn the guts out of the long-term environmental studies and long-term environmental programs which would have allowed us to come to grips with the problem.
If the current Minister were serious about his mandate, one of the first things he should do is to seek in the next Budget an immediate reinstatement of the herring-gull program. This would give the people on the Great Lakes an indication of just what is happening to the quality of water, something all of us hold very dear.
Without that assurance, Mr. Speaker, and with the Government's continual refusal to take its own responsibility when it comes to research, research that could be done by the Guelph Toxicology Centre, we are sacrificing the long-term interests and the long-term health of our citizens for short-term economic deficit slashing and short-term private sector gain.
We have only to look at the so-called advice that was given by the Deputy Prime Minister in his addendum to the Wilson Economic Statement of November 9, 1984, when he examined the kinds of research to be funded by the Government. He said that he wanted fewer researchers, and more specific, immediate results from that research.
If that were the mandate given to those involved in developing the Salk vaccine, it is possible we would never have had the vaccine simply because the bottom line did not show up in the first year, the second year, the third year or the fourth year.
The analogy could be made, albeit somewhat removed, in the context of the Government's decision to privatize and sell off to a foreign corporation the de Havilland corporation at all costs. Again, you see a sort of private sector mentality. "Let us give up our responsibility in the area of aerospace development". It is the same as the Government saying it is prepared to give up its leadership role in the examination of water quality in the Great Lakes. What about the question of toxicology which would have been a basis for investigation through the Guelph Toxicology Centre?
Unfortunately, I think the Government is falling behind the people in its consideration of what people are prepared to pay for. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are prepared to fund, not only at current levels but more generously, programs which deal with the environment and research which can lead us to making this place liveable for our children.
The Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) called the environment a garbage dump. I think that analogy bears some study. Not only do we have municipalities across Canada that are not in a position to deal with their own solid waste other than to dump it directly into major rivers, but we also have toxic chemicals being disposed of illegally in many cases and in a fashion which can leech into the ground and affect directly

February 3, 1986
Supply
the water quality of many areas, like the riding of Hamilton East and the Windermere basin.
We know that some of the problems that arose from the Windermere basin were directly the result of the immoral activities of companies prepared to dump toxic waste without any bills of lading and without any proper and legal manifests simply because they wanted to get rid of what could be a highly toxic chemical. They were not prepared to spend the money they should have spent to dispose of it.
Unfortunately, if we as a Government say we will leave our environmental problems up to the private sector, then once again we are giving to them a role which should be a role taken by Government. The private sector is not in a position to develop the kind of research programs that will tell us 10 or 15 years down the road what action we must take to prevent the contamination of our water supply system.
With respect to the issue of the St. Clair River-the infamous blob as it has come to be known across the country-we have seen a number of factors which have impinged upon the situation to create a climate of fear and uncertainty for the area residents. We have also seen some concerns with respect to their very health and, indeed, the potential of carcinogenic materials as they directly relate to the constituents.
1 think the people of Canada are prepared to see more funds set aside in the Budget and the adoption of more stringent regulations as they relate, for example, to automobile emissions. I say this because the people of Canada are ahead of our politicians when it comes to the development of a system of clean water and air supply. I say that coming from the most industrialized riding in Canada with such heavy industry as that which takes place at the Steel Company of Canada, Dofasco, and many of the minor, secondary industries which spin off and develop their products as a result of the primary industry. The residents of Hamilton East are prepared to say: "Yes, we want to see more budget money spent on the environment. We want to see more budget money devoted to the study of those herring gull eggs. We want to know what is happening to individuals and whether, in fact, unborn children will suffer potential birth defects as a result of the water we are drinking". People want to know, and they are prepared to pay the price for the knowledge.
The Minister involved said that the Government was faced with budget cuts and it had to deal with the past excesses of Liberal Governments. In fact, the long-term ramification of the decision to terminate or cut back government funding in these important areas is that 10 years hence we will not even be able to identify the problem, never mind seek solutions. In fact, most thinking people-and I believe most Canadians have given this particular matter serious consideration-will recognize that it is in the best economic interest of Hamilton East. It is in the best economic interest of Ontario and of Canada to begin to adopt strategies and approaches which will not only identify the problem through government-led research but which will also develop solutions. That means some tough
legislation, such as the Ontario spills Bill which the Liberal Government of Ontario was prepared to introduce. It means some tough negotiations at the federal level. It means we have to appoint negotiators who are prepared to go in and fight for the rights of Canada, not simply appoint one-dollar-a-year people who are using the office as a camouflage for their own private activities and their own directorships. We know from statements which have been made by the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain that there are some real concerns about the role the Canadian negotiator has played in the whole issue and whether or not he is really committed and fighting for Canada.
We must address some of the most difficult questions, for example, that of water quality. We know that water pollution is now costing us hundreds of millions of dollars a year in economic losses. This is because, in many areas, surface water will not be fit for household consumption, recreation or even industrial use until extensively treated. So there is the cost of treatment to be considered. Also, there is the fact that water quality in many areas appears to be declining. Unfortunately, I think many Canadians are of the belief that the St. Clair River situation is not an isolated case. I believe the Hon. Member for Davenport put the question well in this respect.
We can also look to the Niagara River near the great metropolis of Hamilton in the Niagara fruit belt in this regard. The Niagara River has become the receptacle for industrial chemical toxic substances which have, in fact, led to the discovery of more dioxins. A little more than a year ago in the riding of Hamilton East dioxin trace contaminants were found in the air emitting from one of our local sewage treatment facilities.
It seems to me that this is not simply a question of the St. Clair River and the blob. The blob is an example of what happens when a Government turns its back on research. That is what happens when a Government states, as this Government has stated: "We don't have time for research with respect to the herring gull program. We don't have the time to look at water quality from the public perspective. We will leave it to the private sector". The private sector has a role to play; but in this particular case it is the federal Government, in co-operation with provincial and municipal Governments, which should be taking the lead, in concert with companies which are prepared to share the burden. Frankly, with respect to an issue which concerns every Canadian, the leadership role should come from the federal Government.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, as you know, 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide are being released into the atmosphere, and I may add this did not start yesterday.
I want to ask the Members opposite what they were doing when they were in power about those millions of tons of sulphur dioxide. There were 4 million tons being released in eastern Canada.
February 3, 1986

Today, they are asking the questions, but what did you do about this during the last two decades? What did you do? There are thirteen salmon rivers in Nova Scotia that are now closed because you never did anything about the environment. In Ontario, 1,600 lakes are now dead, that is, they have no plant or animal life, because you did nothing for the last twenty years.
Today, I listened to the former Minister of the Environment making his speech. I would ask him to give the House some account of his past record and take his subject more seriously.
There are one million lakes in the province of Quebec that are going down the drain. Six hundred hunting and fishing camps will no longer be used, because of your neglect. Half of our Canadian forests have been getting acid rain for fifteen years, and you never lifted a finger. And today, you present motions in the House of Commons. And you expect us to take you seriously? With a record like that?
We, on the other hand, have opened negotiations, in fact, we now have ongoing negotiations with the United States in order to do something about the environment here in Canada.
So, I would urge you to be a little more serious and think about your motions. Think about your past record!
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. 1 will not have time for further comments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member had been able to speak a little longer, he might have learned something, since he is obviously rather new to the subject.
Personally, I have been talking about this for years. The Hon. Member might have known, if he had listened to what I said about acid rain, that in many areas there is a provincial responsibility, for instance, at Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Quebec, and this is also true of sulphur dioxide emissions. The provinces determine how many tons of emissions may be released into the atmosphere.
The Hon. Member would have known that in March 1984, for the first time, the federal Liberal Government managed to have an agreement signed by all the provinces in which they promised a 50 per cent reduction in acid rain within ten years of signing the agreement.
And now, the federal Conservative Government claims nothing had been done at the federal level up to now. The Hon. Member may have heard about the recommendations made by the Committee on Acid Rain, consisting of Members of all parties, and whose excellent chairman, the former Member for Sault-Sainte-Marie, made a number of recommendations in this respect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but unfortunately, our time is up.
Adjournment Debate
It being 6:18 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 63(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on January 17 I asked extremely important questions of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) regarding the right of employees to have clean air at their place of work. The President of the Treasury Board replied as follows:
-we have indeed come to an agreement with the unions to ensure that all employees will be able to work in a healthy environment.
He thought that the tribunal which had ruled in favour of an employee, Peter Wilson, who had taken a grievance to it, had gone too far because this tribunal had ruled in favour of the employee and in favour of the right to have clean air at the place of work. However, the President of the Treasury Board said:
-this Government and the Treasury Board want all our employees to work in a healthy environment.
If that were true, I would indeed be happy. Since then I have received a letter from the Public Service Alliance of Canada which has been supporting this employee in his grievance. This is the devastating reply to the comments of these two Ministers, and I quote:
I must take this opportunity to correct the misconceptions that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have left. It is correct that the Public Service Alliance of Canada and other public service unions negotiated "Smoking Guidelines". There is ample documentation and correspondence which passed between the unions and the employer to demonstrate that it was the employer who blocked at every step of the way any attempt to put in place significant controls on smoking in the work place. The guidelines which I have attached are watered down beyond recognition from what the public service unions, and particularly the Public Service Alliance, originally put forth as a smoking guideline. Unfortunately, this was the most we could extract from the employer.
I have the guidelines and it is very clear what the Government had to say and what those on the staff side wanted. The staff wanted a clean working environment and the government did not give a damn, being perfectly content in deciding that smokers have the right to pollute the working environment and non-smokers have the right to put a little sign up saying "bad air, please go away". Of course, we know all too well that

February 3, 1986
Adjournment Debate
these kinds of regulations are totally ineffective. However, PSAC and other unions have vigorously put forward very sane and sensible proposals for decent air at the workplace and protection for all of their employees, and separate provisions for smoking employees in areas which are separately ventilated. This is what all of the experts tell us is absolutely essential if we are going to have a genuine safe place of work.
The report of the tribunal which ruled in favour of Peter Wilson is quite interesting. It is quite shameful when we see the stance the Government is taking, actually bringing in an expert to argue that lung cancer has not really killed all that many passive smokers. How many thousands of deaths does the Government want before it will take this problem seriously? We have plenty of evidence of its seriousness. There are
35.000	deaths in Canada a year from tobacco-related diseases,
5.000	of whom have been passive smokers. Is that not enough deaths for Treasury Board to take some action?
There have been all kinds of ridiculous discussions about what a dangerous substance is and it has been suggested that tobacco smoke has really not been proven to be dangerous. It sounds like the tobacco companies which, over the last 20 years, tried to argue that tobacco smoke does not cause lung cancer, heart disease or emphysema. It is an absolutely shameful exhibition on the part of the Government.
There was a very sad grievance by Mr. Tinpower of Air Canada, an employee who is trying to get clean air at his place of work. In fact, it was ruled that he was not in "imminent" danger. We know that lung cancer, emphysema and all kinds of bronchial ailments are not caused instantly. Therefore an employee cannot claim "imminent" danger. It is not as if there is some unsafe condition where some piece of equipment is going to fail apart and kill someone. However, we do know that tobacco smoke does cause death in very large numbers. To say that because it will not do so in the next 10 minutes somehow makes this danger any more acceptable is being very shortsighted indeed. I think this goes to show that what we need is adequate legislation which does not confine "dangers" to dangers which happen in the next 10 minutes but long-term dangers such as lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease.
The Canadian Medical Association Journal is very clear on this subject, and I quote:
The sidestream smoke that both smokers and nonsmokers are forced to inhale from an "idling" cigarette may contain 40 times more of some potent carcinogens, such as N-nitrosodimethylamine, than the mainstream smoke that smokers willingly draw into their lungs. Indeed, smokers may be at even greater risk than nonsmokers from the carcinogens in sidestream smoke.
An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal contains very clear recommendations as to what the Government should be doing in response to the seriousness of this problem, and I quote:
The current patchwork legislation that aggregates smokers in public places and still allows them to pollute the common airspace must be superseded by a master plan for a smoke-free indoor environment. Legislation must oblige employers, merchants and transport companies to provide smoke-free environments for anyone who is not smoking.
This is only elementary common decency. Unfortunately, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been loath to
take any kind of action whatsoever. He talks about co-operation with the unions, but they have to push to get even the most insipid kind of guidelines passed. The Minister has been asked to take action here on the Hill because we have a very poor working environment. My own employees have complained to me that they are forced, in doing work for me, to work in places which are unsafe for their health. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has not been willing to take any action whatsoever. It is time that we had some action. Employees deserve the right to a smoke-free environment. We know that the dangers are, and these polite decisions on the part of Government-that it is a matter of cosy negotiations, and it does not come through when it is asked-is not enough.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that Hon. Members are aware that the guidelines on minimizing the effects of tobacco smoke in federal workplaces have been approved by the Treasury Board and were issued to all Public Service departments and agencies one year ago, in February of 1985. These guidelines were initially developed by a joint committee of Treasury Board Secretariat and Health and Welfare Canada officials, and were subsequently submitted to the National Joint Council of Public Service Unions, which is the official forum for consultation between the employer and public service unions. It was agreed by officials of Treasury Board, Health and Welfare Canada and the National Joint Council that the application of these guidelines would be based, principally, upon courtesy and consideration between smokers and non-smokers.
Through these guidelines, Departments are directed to develop and publish their own detailed internal departmental policies on smoking in the workplace in consultation with their employees. This policy of consultation, rather than acting as a dictator, is an essential requirement for ensuring the development and successful application of an internal policy that will achieve the intent of minimizing the effects of tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Departmental policies must, however, include the designation of certain areas as non-smoking areas, such as elevators, stairwells, change rooms, computer rooms, clinics, health units, service wickets and counters, and any other locations where the public is served. Departments may also designate all or part of cafeterias, waiting rooms and lounges as non-smoking areas. Unless there is consensus among the participants, smoking is not to be permitted during meetings.
Other areas in the workplace may be designated as nonsmoking or smoking areas through local consultation and agreement. "No Smoking" signs or symbols are to be made available for installation in all designated non-smoking areas. Employer and union participants in the National Joint Council recognize that these guidelines are an important first step in addressing this issue. However, it has been agreed by both parties that within a prescribed period of time, further joint consultation will take place to upgrade the guidelines to give effect to more stringent requirements. In fact, the National
February 3, 1986

Joint Council is beginning consultation on the present policy guidelines with the view to reviewing and upgrading the guidelines into a standard of smoking in the workplace.
These consultations will take place with the benefit of direct input of health experts of Health and Welfare Canada who are represented in the National Joint Council in the Standing Committee of that forum which reviews and makes recommendations concerning occupational safety and health and physical working conditions within the Public Service of Canada. I am sure that the joint input of health professionals, employee and departmental representatives will evolve in the development of an appropriate and practicable standard which, when implemented, will respond to this important issue.


INSURANCE-INCREASE IN PREMIUMS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the property and casualty insurance business in Canada. On January 14, 1986, I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) what the Government planned to do in conjunction with her provincial counterparts to help the crisis which has overtaken the insurance industry. 1 would hope that both levels of Government will go about analysing this situation in a calm and reasoned way.
When I spoke earlier on this topic, I mentioned the outlandishly high claims which are taking over this industry. Those claims, of course, result in soaring premium rates. I made the point that I hoped we did not become the California of the North. We have to work on this with other levels of Government because we have different responsibilities in this regard. The federal responsibility is to ensure that federally-regulated companies are solvent. I understand the Minister has some further steps to take in this regard.
I think the industry's problems can be summarized in three categories: availability; affordability; and solvency. I need not remind people that this industry is one of the most competitive in the country. As I understand it, no one company has as much as 10 per cent of market share. 1 think the largest has 8 per cent. I also think it is true to say that over the last number of years Canadians have been able to obtain insurance at some very reasonable rates, thanks to the aggressive tactics of hundreds and hundreds of general insurance agents. I have a couple of friends in this business in my own riding, Gordon Grant and Don Bell. They have been in the business for a number of years and share my concern that some steps have to be taken.
I would like to highlight some of the trends which have developed in this industry. As of the end of 1984 there were 243 regulated companies under federal jurisdiction in Canada. Another 77 companies are registered under various provincial jurisdictions. It is no secret this industry goes in cycles. It has had good times and not so good times. The industry's profits come from two sources. One is the underwriting profit, which
Adjournment Debate
is the difference between claims and earned premiums. The other is investment income. Between 1983 and 1984, while written and earned premiums increased $300 million, claims increased by $700 million.
The industry paid out $1.10 for every dollar of earned premium. However, in the liability section, which is where most of the problems have been, the industry paid out $1.38 for every dollar of premium earned. That has to have a dramatic and negative effect in several areas. One of those areas is the return on equity, or the return to the investor. That has gone from 9.4 per cent in 1982 to 10.9 per cent in 1983, and then a drastic drop to 1.2 per cent in 1984. We have not seen the 1985 results as yet but I am quite sure they will be just as bad as 1984.
Court claims are of particular concern to a number of people in the industry, as well as the average Canadian. A youngster in Brampton was awarded over $6 million just recently. There was a large award recently to a couple whose grandchild was the victim. In a good number of cases these claims are very valid, but when they are larger, two things happen. We all have to pay higher premiums to start with. In some cases the claims are so astronomical that the companies themselves cannot even begin to measure the risk inherent in a given type of coverage and therefore they back out of the whole market. Then no one can get insurance at any cost. We have seen that happen to a number of groups over the past few weeks, including our national ski team. There are also day care centres, school boards, municipalities and others who are running the risk of having no insurance at all. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) proposed that the federal Government put together a reinsurance package. That may be necessary, Mr. Speaker, because I gather that the world-wide capacity for reinsurance has dropped by a factor of about 75 per cent in just the last year or two.
Affordability is another key problem. People want insurance, but at what cost? The St. John's Ambulance group, which I mentioned in my previous remarks, saw its annual premium for liability go from $16,000 for $2 million of liability insurance coverage to $205,000 for $1 million of coverage.
Another specific example is that of a 20-year old trying to insure a 1979 Malibu for $250 deductible collision insurance and $500,000 liability insurance. He took the pro driving course and is a university student. In his case the insurance was going to cost $2,228. Something is out of control when we have premiums like this.
I would like to summarize, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this industry has had its cycles. The executives and leaders in that industry feel that they will work through it. The solvency aspect, which is the responsibility of the federal Government, is critical in this case. If people pay these premiums and have a claim, we must ensure that they are able to collect. I have confidence that this issue is getting a good amount of attention at all levels of Government. I do not believe we need strong

February 3, 1986
Adjournment Debate
government intervention in this. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction. We do not need the Government to set rates. This is a very competitive area and I think the market-place will render the proper premiums. Therefore, while I encourage each level of Government to take on its responsibilities, let us do it in a calm and reasonable way for the benefit of all Canadians.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) for his very informed comments. It is clear that this issue has touched individuals and groups and communities of Canadians across the country. It is becoming an increasing concern for both them and the Government.
The Member for Don Valley East has ascribed the main problem to the level of court awards. While this is one aspect of the issue, the Minister is aware that there are other aspects and other considerations, some of which the Member touched on. In addition to court awards, I think the situation is also caused by poor operating results in companies, fear on the part of the industry about the uncertainty of future liability awards, and by a significant tightening of the reinsurance market as the Member mentioned. Of course, all the factors are interrelated and the situation is not confined only to Canada but is evident in other countries as well.
The Hon. Member asks what the federal Government will do to limit the costs. He has also indicated his desire not to have the Government become too directly involved. At the same time, I think we should establish very clearly the levels of responsibility. Since reform of the law of tort is not under federal jurisdiction, we must leave this aspect to the province. On the other hand, we do have responsibility with regard to the solvency standards and regulatory requirements.
One thing which should be noted is that the Province of Ontario, which has the responsibility for any direct changes, has indicated that there will be a task force. We have indicated that the federal Minister will co-operate fully with that task force and is prepared to assist in any way possible. The Minister thought she could be particularly helpful in the areas of solvency standards, the area in which the federal Government has some jurisdiction. A considerable amount of work has already been done in this area.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Government will press ahead with legislation with regard to strengthening the solvency standards and regulatory requirements for insurance companies. The objective is to promote financial stability which, in turn, should encourage new capital and better availability of reinsurance which would ease capacity problems and stabilize the premiums paid by customers.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED GUELPH TOXICOLOGY CENTRE. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) about the future of the Toxicology Centre in
Guelph which had been scrapped by the Conservative Government in November of 1984. I inquired whether he would be willing to reverse that decision. As reported on page 8322 of Hansard, he indicated to the House: "I am not even sure it is true that the Government has cancelled the plan for the Toxicology Centre ... That proposal still stands."
On December 14, when approached in Toronto by Christie MacLaren of The Globe and Mail, the same Minister is quoted as saying: "I am first of all subject to Government restraint and I have to work within that. I cannot expect the Department of the Environment to be totally exempted from such Government austerity". He was replying to a question related to the Toxicology Centre in Guelph and seemed to indicate that he was not sure whether such a centre would receive financing.
We in the Opposition would like to see the Government take a clear position. Where does that centre stand at the present time? Is it, as the Minister said on November 4, a proposal that still stands and, if so, when will an announcement be made and what will be the nature of that announcement? Is it a matter that the Minister put aside, as he did one month later, claiming that he has to be subject to the restraints of the Government?
It is very difficult to accept its reasoning on toxic chemicals and the necessity to put a centre aside on the basis of restraint because the first thought that comes to mind is whether the Government puts the health of Canadians in second place. 1 am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be the last one who would want to assert that proposition. However, it is hard to believe that the Government would still vacillate on this matter in light of what has happened in recent months.
Let me draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the study that was published in December. It is a one-year report from the Royal Society of Canada and the United States National Research Council which concluded that the 37 million people living in the Great Lakes region ingest more toxic chemicals through their food and drinking water than anyone else on the continent. The scientists are reported as saying that they are concerned about the unknown long-term effects that minute amounts of many toxic chemicals may have on human health. The scientists are recorded as calling for an urgent clean-up of the many sources of air and water pollution, but also for research into the nature of the chemicals themselves and how they affect human health. However, when this report was announced in December, the recommendations for research came a year after the Government announced Budget cuts ending numerous studies on how pesticides and other toxic chemicals affected wildlife and after plans were scrapped to build the Guelph Toxicology Centre.
It seems that the Government does not know how to make up its mind and that we have a Minister who is giving vague answers just for the sake of keeping alive a hope, without really giving an indication as to what we might expect in the future. I find that kind of behaviour reprehensible because I
February 3, 1986

believe the Canadian public and the scientific community are entitled to have an answer now. This has been dragging for too long. If the decision on December 4, 1984, when the centre was scrapped still stands, say so. However, do not raise false hopes with a statement in the House on November 4, 1985, then make a statement in Toronto which seems to wipe out every hope. The subject matter is too important for this kind of political game. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his straightforward manner, will want to remove the doubts and come clean with the Opposition on that matter on behalf of his Minister.
Evidently, the question behind all this is one which has been in our minds all day long-when will the Government come to its senses and realize that the economy is in danger when environmental research is cut, dropped or given up? Research and better knowledge and information on toxic chemicals in this part of the industrialized world in North America mean in practical terms the protection of our water and the protection of our health because we all depend upon water. In the long term it also means the protection of the viability of our economy because water is obviously an essential element. If the substances in water are not understood, and if we cannot take remedial action because we do not understand clearly what is going on, in the long term we will certainly pay.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has a very clear reply on the Guelph Toxicology Centre.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that in the long run we will all pay for our sins, whatever they are. I have not read the comment which the Hon. Mmember quoted
Adjournment Debate
from a Toronto newspaper, so I am not sure whether that newspaper report is precisely true. I certainly see no confusion in what I understand compared with what the Minsiter said in the House. To make it very clear for the Hon. Member, he knows full well that the funds for the toxicology centre were cancelled in the November 8 statement. He has already been told enough times the rationale for that. Quite clearly it was to take a look in a comprehensive fashion at our research policy.
We have four toxicology research centres in Canada- Laval, Sherbrooke, Saskatoon and Vancouver. We have had three assessments of our research activities in Canada. One was conducted through Environment Canada, one through the National Research Council, and one through the Science Council of Canada. Those reports have in fact been completed. However, for the purposes of clarification-and I do not know whether the Hon. Member will be satisfied-the proposal as such has never gone away. There are people who continue to be very interested and there are people who have been actively working on that proposal and have made representations which the Government is seriously considering and looking at, in light of the modification of the representations and in light of the assessments which have been made on toxicology research right across the country. It is an example of a comprehensive look at a situation which we in government consider to be of utmost importance and which we intend to satisfy with a national water policy. In many areas of Government we have taken an active role and have displayed active leadership. We intend to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 4, 1986