1987-10-23

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are five motions at the report stage of Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
All of these motions deal with the elimination of gender references and all were asked for my members of the legislative committee which considered this Bill.

I am given to understand that these amendments have been proposed at the committee stage. However the drafters of the Bill were not prepared to proceed at that time.

All of the motions are in order and will be debated together. If a division is required, a division on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motion Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. The House will now proceed to debate Motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 1 in the English version by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) by depositing with the Registrar, for each judge who has heard the case, a written opinion, a copy, signed by the judge, of the written opinion with which the judge concurs or a statement certifying the judges concurrence".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 2 in the English version by
(a)	striking out lines 4 to 6 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"from the delivery of judgment may sign a copy of the opinion with which the judge concurs or, where the judge has written an opinion, give the opinion to a judge"
(b)	striking out lines 17 to 20 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ten an opinion may sign and deposit with the Registrar a copy of the opinion with which the judge concurs or a statement certifying concur-"
(c)	striking out lines 24 to 26 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Registrar shall send notices of the deposit of judgment to the solicitors of record for the case or their agents."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 5 in the English version by striking out line 10 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"order, and if the appellant intends to limit the appeal,"
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"counsel, the Attorney General or the counsel may apply to the". Motion No. 5
That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 13 by
(a)	striking out lines 26 and 27 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"counsel, the Attorney General or the counsel may apply to the"
(b)	striking out, in the English version, lines 32 to 35 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"appellant who is in custody and who desires to be present at the hearing of the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada is intitled to be present at it."
(c)	striking out, in the English version, lines 45 to 48 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"unless rules of court provide that entitlement or the Supreme Court of Canada or a judge thereof gives the appellant leave to be present."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, at the legislative committee, I had in fact undertaken to bring forward these amendments I have just moved to make the wording of the Bill gender neutral. There were some discussions in the committee with regard to the application of the interpretation Act in these circumstances but, notwithstanding that fact, 1 did believe that the gender neutral position was covered by the interpretation Act and I nonetheless agreed to facilitate this particular legislation by bringing forward these amendments. These five motions are the result of that. I think you will find unanimous consent to proceed without any dispute with respect to these amendments.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that we support these amendments, but in

October 23, 1987
Supreme Court Act
offering our support and our part of the unanimous consent required I would like the Minister to notice how easy these amendments were to achieve, and to remind him of the commitment which was made in connection with the statute consolidations that gender neutrality would be sought.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I indicated that we recognize that there were cases where gender neutrality, because of the limitations of the English language and the rules of grammar, sometimes has too high a price and that in the revising of a statute, particularly a criminal statute, to remove the gender orientation of a pronoun sometimes makes the language so complicated that it is hard for a citizen to understand. 1 indicated for our part that we were sympathetic to that kind of problem and that we were not insisting that every "his" and "him" be removed.
The ease with which these changes were achieved in these five cases shows that there has been a half-hearted effort to apply the general policy of avoiding "his" and "him" in the language of legislation. It does not sound like a very big issue, whether "him" or "his" appear in a statute or whether that can be avoided in the English language.

And for francophones who may be interested, the problem does not arise because the grammar is different and the gender of the pronoun depends on the following noun rather than the subject.

For Anglophones, it is important. The Minister and some of his colleagues are supporting a conference that 1 attended last night, to which I was very glad to be invited, of the National Association for Women and the Law. The indignation which one feels over the situation of women under the criminal law in general is so immense, and there is so much substance to their grievance that this type of change we are considering today is hardly responsive. It is very small, yet it is important symbolically.
In agreeing with these changes, 1 want to criticize the fact that it was even necessary to mention them and that the Government was not following its policy of doing everything that could reasonably be done with the English language to avoid getting into this situation in the first place. These amendments have our support and we concur in the unanimous consent required to receive them at this time.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party, being a critic of everything these days, expert on nothing. However, I am pleased to see that the Minister has cleaned up his sexist language. He called it "gender neutral", which I think is the proper term.
I note that the Minister had a little assistance, as usual, from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who when speaking in this House on September 14, 1987 said, as reported in Hansard, at page 8920:
I was pleased to hear the undertaking of the Minister that he intends to support an amendment to delete those odious provisions. I made strong representations to the Minister on this point. I indicated that I intend to propose an amendment to delete this provision and I welcome his agreement to support my amendment and agree to the deletion of this very backward and regressive provision of the legislation.
1 am pleased to see that the Minister, although he did not say so in his introductory remarks, is bringing forward our amendments. 1 would hope the Justice Department would not require, under its very able Deputy Minister, that the Minister be forced to rise to bring these amendments to this kind of legislation. As the Liberal critic said, they should know enough by now to bring that in in the first place, but we thank them for the fact that they did and 1 am pleased on behalf of our party to support these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 inclusive agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, 1 believe there have been negotiations and we would like to proceed with third reading of this Bill right now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today on third reading of Bill C-53. At the outset, 1 want to acknowledge the assistance of Hon. Members who have taken an interest in these amendments and in particular to express my appreciation to the members of the legislative committee who considered the Bill in a thoughtful and timely manner.
When I rose to speak on Bill C-53 at second reading, 1 indicated that I would be bringing forward amendments to the Bill to preserve the present practice regarding appeals as of right. That commitment was fulfilled at the legislative
October 23, 1987

committee and was supported by all members of the committee. I also brought to the attention of the committee certain statistics dealing with the current workload of the court in order to demonstrate the need for the provision in Bill C-53 regarding applications for leave to appeal.
Bill C-53 is a step forward in many respects. It will benefit counsel, litigants and the court itself through the changes to the Supreme Court Act dealing with the delivery of judgments and the time periods for bringing appeals and applications for leave to appeal. As well, the amendments which deal with fairness and security are positive changes. The legislation will now provide the Supreme Court of Canada with the authority to assign counsel to an unrepresented accused.
We must give our highest court the tools it needs to carry out its responsibility. We are, as 1 have stated before on several occasions, well served by the men and women who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. Their ability and integrity is well known to all of us. They are faced, on a daily basis, with the challenge of interpreting our Constitution and with fundamental legal issues of national importance that affect all Canadians.
This Bill will be a help to the court in discharging its role and in marshalling its time effectively to address these matters of such great importance.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 also am very pleased to be able to support this Bill and to have it pass through the process of the House of Commons expeditiously and in a great spirit of co-operation. That co-operation included acceptance by the Minister not only of amendments this morning but important amendments in committee. It is certain that Canadians are very proud of the highest court in this land and that is a tribute to the calibre of people that sit on it, the way in which they work, and the support they have had from Governments of Canada, present and past.
When the amendment package was proposed it was important for us to be satisfied that it would improve the court. We were concerned, as I indicated, about some constrictions on access by Canadians to the highest court. We wanted to be certain that they were justified and necessary. It is true that this country's lawyers, through their organizations, indicated they were happy with the Bill the way it was.
The Minister told us as well that there had been consultations in the proper manner with members of the Supreme Court of Canada. He indicated in committee that they were content with the proposed changes. Of course, there is more to it than that. There is the point of view of the citizens of Canada and that is the job of this House. We accepted that the Bar was happy, the Bench was happy, but were the changes satisfactory from the point of view of the citizens of Canada?
We have dealt with the amendments on gender neutrality and I have spoken about those already. I am glad to see them
Supreme Court Act
included in the law. I would also point out that we were not happy with the restriction of the appeal by right which existed under the old law and which would have been taken away under the Bill proposed by the Government. Therefore we are glad that the Government agreed that this right would continue as before in at least a couple of respects. It means that someone who has had an adverse judgment and over which there was some disagreement among judges on the way up will have an appeal of right. This right was restored at our urging as well as the urging of a number of the media and public interest groups across the country, as I think the Minister would acknowledge.
We have before us a Bill which changes the rules somewhat. For example, it reduces to a certain degree the visibility of the Supreme Court of Canada because it will now be handing down written judgments rather than giving them orally in open court. Certain arguments for leave to appeal which were formally argued in open court and in front of the public and the media may now take place on paper without the necessity of an oral hearing. This will save money, yes; it will save time, it is true. However, it takes something away from the visibility of the court. On the other hand, the reason we supported these amendments was because we felt and continue to feel that the time of the court is a precious asset of the Canadian people and we have to be certain that it is used wisely and well.

So we were and we are still prepared to support the Bill as amended, and hopefully Canadians will accept the few restrictions imposed through this measure. But at the same time as we have so spared the precious time of the court-the most important in Canada-to safeguard our rights and freedoms, we readily admit that the Supreme Court of Canada has such a heavy workload and is under so much pressure that indeed an attempt must be made to save time and make better use of it. In conclusion I would say that we are quite pleased to support the Government by way of the amendments we have proposed. We hope the Bill will be sent to the Senate and that we will soon have the kind of legislation as envisaged in these amendments.

Mir. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):	Madam
Speaker, I would like to speak to this matter on third reading. I did not have the advantage of attending meetings of the committee but I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is quite correct when he paid tribute to members of that committee. Indeed, this seems to be a good example of Parliament at work in the sense that some amendments have been accepted and some rejected. That is the way it should work.
1 believe this is the first Bill to come before this House in a long time which deals in a substantive way with the Supreme Court of Canada. The court is very important, and right now very busy. I can see the court's problem and that of the

October 23, 1987
Supreme Court Act
Minister of Justice because he is responsible for the administration of justice in that court. His problem lies in trying to bring in reform of an extremely busy court, reform which will not restrict too much the people's right of appeal.
All the cases that appear before this court are important. They are also very visible. The Thatcher case and the Morgen-taler case are two examples. The Charter of Rights has made things even more difficult for the court. Of course, when the Meech Lake Accord goes through the court will have an even larger workload with which to deal. However, I will not get into that today.
To get back to the Bill, the amendments that the Liberal critic and the Minister spoke about, concerning not restricting the right of appeal if in fact a judge on the way up, as it was put, registered a dissent, restore that right of appeal to the highest court of the country. I think it was wise to allow that procedure to continue.
If the Minister will forgive me for a moment, 1 would just tell him that when I started in law 1 was a community lawyer in Vancouver. A woman came through my door one day. She was on bail, having been charged with the murder of her husband in Burns Lake, British Columbia. It was a very tragic case. She did not have a lawyer and asked me if 1 would take the case. I took the case. It was my first murder case. I went to Burns Lake for the preliminary hearing and to Prince Rupert for the trial where she was acquitted. The Crown appealed. I will never forget getting the notice on the twenty-eighth day. The case went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia where we lost, two to one. Former Chief Justice Ferris dissented. The great happiness of the acquittal in Prince Rupert turned into great sadness at the loss in the Court of Appeal in Vancouver. However, because there was a dissenter, we were entitled as of right to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am happy to tell the Minister of Justice that we won in the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is a concrete example of what 1 am talking about. Had this woman not had the right to appeal she could stand convicted of murder today or, at the very minimum, have gone through another long trial. I believe that justice was done in that case.
I acknowledge that there is a problem. The Supreme Court of Canada judges are extremely overworked. I want to pay tribute to them. We have an excellent Bench in the Supreme Court. They are very hard-working Canadians.
However, all is not sweetness and light. The Government retained the provision that you do not have the right to an oral hearing on the appeal. That may have been a bit of a compromise. The Government may have thought that since the court is so busy it had to cut back somehow. However, as 1 understand it, if you file for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court you do not necessarily get an oral hearing. You can do it by written submissions.
I want to quote the words of Thomas Berger, a distinguished lawyer in British Columbia who was a member of the Supreme Court of British Columbia for 11 years. These words were quoted by my colleague, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), on September 14, 1987, in this House as reported on page 8917 of Hansard. Mr. Berger said:
To reduce the whole matter to paper seems to me to downgrade the role of advocacy; this is not in keeping with the traditions of our bar.
It is not simply that this contributes to the openness of the justice system at the very highest level; my argument is that it enables the court better to understand the exact question that is before it. This contributes to better decision making.
I believe that in spite of the understandable difficulties of a very busy court, it would be better to provide in law that those seeking leave to appeal to the highest court of the land have the opportunity to present their application orally, in person or through counsel, for the reasons set out by former Judge Berger, that it does keep the openness in our justice system at a very high level. It also enables the court to understand the case better. Sometimes you have to hear counsel, to get the words up from the paper in order to appreciate that there is a question of justice.
That is what the courts are about when all is said and done, when all the law is applied, all the paperwork is put through, and all the cases are cited, read, and reread. That is what courts are about in a free society. When a good judge and a good court see a situation which is not just, they will find a way of making it just. That is the best part of our legal system. There are bad parts of our legal system as well, but that is the best part. That is why we should agree only reluctantly to a cut-back in oral presentations to the Supreme Court on applications for leave.
There are other provisions in this Bill to which 1 have no objection, such as depositing copies of judgments with the registrar so that the full court does not have to appear to give judgment, reference to time limits, and so on.
I think we should consider the views of the Supreme Court judges with regard to appeal, their workload, and what the court is doing. I think it is appropriate in the constitutional system to have more contact with the Supreme Court judges, the court, and the Justice Committee, perhaps on an informal basis, so that parliamentarians get an understanding of what the Supreme Court is doing. In the last five years we have consistently, through the Charter of Rights and other laws, given more and more work to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In conclusion, I do disapprove of that part of the Bill. 1 suggest that Members may want to read the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, our justice critic, on September 14, 1987 in this House, as well as the remarks of the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) who is also a lawyer and spoke in this debate as well. He shared some of his experience in the courts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question.
October 23, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 22, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House last considered Bill C-74, there were seven minutes remaining in the period of questions and comments following the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
Hon. Members who wish to continue with questions and comments now have the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the question put to me yesterday by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) as reported at page 10300 of Hansard. The Member seemed upset that I had not mentioned in my speech the Canada-U.S. agreement with regard to the chemical dump along the American side of the Niagara River. It is indeed a very important environmental concern.
However, it is also important to draw to the attention of the House that it was a former Liberal Government that started negotiations with the American Government to try to find a solution to this environmental concern. In October, 1984, after many months of negotiations, the Canada-U.S. Niagara River Toxic Committee published its report. Three years have passed since then. This is a plan on paper only with no funding from either side. There has been very little pressure on the part of Canada to have the Americans clean up the pollution on their side of the Niagara River. I am still concerned that there have not been any real, concrete measures taken at this time. That is what 1 was trying to explain in my speech yesterday.
We also know that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has had some difficulties either with Treasury Board or the estimates of his own department. Over the years
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
his department has been subject to cuts. There has been a cutback of 106 person-years and in three years the Tory Government has removed $64 million in spending power, so his departmental estimates have not kept up with inflation.
We know that the cut-back in person-years has had an effect on pollution studies and control of toxic substances which may find their way into the food chain. For example, one scientist has been assigned to the Niagara study. I do not believe that is sufficient for a very urgent and important problem that must be resolved.
Yesterday, my hon. friend expressed surprise at my not giving him and his Government all the kudos he would like. I had to be somewhat apprehensive about-

-the political will and indeed the decision-making power of this Government to take action so that the Niagara River, like the St. Clair River and all others which flow in this country- yesterday 1 mentioned the Ottawa River-and which are under stress, if I may put it that way, toxic stress ... As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, we must take action immediately, make the necessary appropriations, hire the required staff and scientists and provide them with whatever tools they need to clean up our rivers and settle the problem.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-74 today. I believe this Bill is the most important piece of federal environmental protection legislation to come before the House in the last 10 years.
Today, as we wind down second reading, I propose that we get back to what really matters in this debate, the purpose of Bill C-74 and what it will do for Canada and Canadians.
During this debate the House has heard a number of unfounded observations on the part of the Opposition. Before proceeding to rebut some of those criticisms I want to set the record straight as to the objectives and purposes of this Bill. Canadians are anxiously waiting for the passage of this legislation in order that we may get on with the job of better protecting our environment. As far as protection of our environment is concerned, this Government subscribes to the concept of "anticipate and prevent". As a result of Canada's failure in the past to enhance the principle of prevention, we all know too well that problems have come back to haunt us.
One such threat has become a component of our daily life, toxic chemicals. We live in a global chemical society. We plow chemicals into our fields, release them into the air, treat our food with them, wear them, and use them in thousands of products. Each day Canadians enjoy a quality of life enhanced by but dependent on the use of chemicals. Life without chemicals has become virtually impossible, perhaps unthinkable. The benefits to Canadians from chemicals are significant. They are also immediate. However, our short term benefits are creating a long term legacy of continuing problems. We must

October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
be sure that we do not make decisions today that cause problems for tomorrow's generations.
Bill C-74 also concerns protecting the Canadian environment from damage before the fact. The Canadian environmental protection legislation provides for an investigation to determine the potential impact of a new substance before it enters the Canadian commerce. Without the new Act, Canadians would continue to be at risk from toxic chemicals. Biologically engineered substances would still pose a threat until an indisputable case of environmental or human damage could be demonstrated. This could be years after the release of the substance into our environment. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is designed to prevent another PCB or chlorofluorocarbon problem in this country.
Bill C-74 provides greater information gathering powers for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). It will be possible for the Minister to obtain data on other uses of a substance, precautions for safe handling, recommended methods of disposal, and safety measures to be taken in case of an accident. He will be able to assess whether a substance new to Canada or one already existing in Canadian commerce is toxic or may become toxic. The Minister may collect data and conduct investigations on the nature of that substance as well. He may seek out the effect of its presence on the environment, on human life and health, as well as the extent to which the substance can become dispersed and will persist in the environment.
In addition, the Minister may collect data on the ability of the substance to become incorporated into biological tissue and cause biological change, important for both environmental and health reasons. He may additionally investigate methods of controlling the presence of the substance in the environment and methods for testing the effects of its presence.
These powers to gather information feed into all important aspects of Bill C-74 that allow control of all aspects of the life cycle of toxic substances, from development through manufacture or importation, transport, distribution, storage and use, their release to the environment as emissions at various stages of the life cycle, and their ultimate disposal as waste.
Bill C-74 goes even further in its provision for environmental controls. The responsibilities of the various federal bodies are also underscored in this piece of legislation. It allows for adoption of regulations governing federal works and to protect federal lands and water where not currently provided for. In keeping with the federal team approach to protection of our environment, federal departments and agencies are looking at environmental considerations in their program development. They are scanning legislation to see where there are gaps that the Canadian environmental protection Bill can plug successfully.
The Government of Canada intends to set the example for other Canadian jurisdictions. In keeping with the concept of "anticipate and prevent", the new Act will require the Minister of the Environment to create environmental quality
objectives and guidelines as well as guidelines for the release of substances and codes of practice. The objectives, guidelines and codes will relate to recycling, reusing, treating, storing, disposing of and reducing the release of substances. It is in this area that the Government of Canada is counting on extensive co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and with industry. This is in keeping with the traditional partnership and consultative approach that Environment Canada has used almost since its creation as a department about 15 years ago.
In the area of Canada's international commitment, Bill C-74 contains provisions to control sources of air pollution in Canada where a violation of an international agreement would result. This would also be applicable where air pollution affects another country and reciprocal legislation exists to control the sources of that pollution.
Provisions under the current Ocean Dumping Control Act will be incorporated into the Bill. These provisions will allow issuance of permits to control dumping at sea from ships, barges, aircraft and man-made structures, excluding normal discharges from offshore energy facilities. This will maintain Canada's federal domestic legislation that fulfills our international commitments under the London Dumping Convention. There are also provisions incorporated from the Canada Water Act for the control of nutrients such as phosphates water conditioners or cleaning products. Natural amounts of nutrients such as phosphates that enter the environment are not toxic. However, excessive amounts of nutrients can interfere with the use of fresh water by humans, animals, fish and plants.
One very important component of Bill C-74 is the provision allowing for agreements to be signed with the provincial and territorial governments for administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There has already been preliminary discussions with provinces and territories, individually and among federal and provincial environment Ministers, at meetings of the Canadian Council for Resource and Environment Ministers.
There have been suggestions in the House that the federal Government is going to use these agreements to abandon the field, so to speak, as far as enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act is concerned. An essential feature of any agreement signed with the province or territory will be the enforcement and compliance policy for the Act. Such a document was released in draft form for public consultation on June 26 of this year. Provinces and territories that sign agreements for administration of the new legislation will be required to adhere to that policy. These agreements, in order to ensure nationally consistent enforcement, will also spell out procedures for audit and evaluation of enforcement and compliance activities under the Act.
October 23, 1987

During the debate, it has also been stated that each province has been given a veto over the application of the Act in its jurisdiction if the province feels it has comparable legislation. This is simply not the case. No provision of Bill C-74 gives any veto to provinces or territories. Under Canada's Constitution, the provinces, of course, do have responsibilities to protect the environment. In that regard, the Minister must offer to consult with them on proposed regulations that would govern releases of toxic substances to the environment.
We must also offer to consult with provinces on regulation development in such areas as manufacturing, commercial and processing activities giving rise to these releases, and storage, display, handling, transport and disposal of toxic substances. But 1 think this is simply a confirmation in legislation of the manner in which this Government conducts its business, that is, with extensive consultation. However, a requirement to consult does not imply a provincial veto. The Government of Canada still retains the right to act to protect the environment.
We have heard some disappointment expressed that pesticides and chemicals used in foods are not included in the proposed Bill. There is currently in place both federal legislation and a regulatory system for pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act administered by Agriculture Canada. That Act provides for control over the manufacture, storage, display, labelling, distribution and use of pesticides in this country. The Environmental Protection Act is designed to complement the Pest Control Products Act and not to make it redundant. Therefore, in areas where the substance is not regulated under other Acts, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will apply. For example, if the pesticide was being manufactured or imported for use as a flame retardant, Bill C-74 would apply.
The same would be true if the pesticide appeared on the list of substances requiring pre-export notification to a receiving country. Where this is a matter of toxic affluence from pesticides, a leak or spill, or toxic pesticide wastes which are not dealt with specifically in the Pest Control Products Act, a regulation could be made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As well, of course, appropriate provincial legislation may come into play.
While pesticides remain under the Pest Control Products Act, this does not mean that Environment Canada has no role to play in this field. In addition, Environment Canada, like the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, acts as a technical adviser to Agriculture Canada in the registration process. Environment is also involved in monitoring the fate of pesticides in the environment, of course.
The Minister of the Environment considers his Department's role in the pesticides area so important that he has secured and allocated seven additional person-years and yearly funds of $3.2 million to ensure complete and comprehensive environmental evaluations of pesticide products. His Department's
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
research and monitoring program, which will provide necessary environmental data to undertake regulatory evaluation of pesticides, began in 1986 and is making, I understand, all hope for progress.
Another criticism of the Bill is the omission of a statement which would prohibit the export of substances banned in Canada. This Bill calls for compulsory notification for export of regulated substances. This is consistent with requirements of the United Nations Environment Program and with criteria laid down by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, both endorsed by this country.
We will, of course, require that export of banned or regulated substances be preceded by compulsory notification of the receiving country on the occasion of the first export shipment. It will then be up to the receiving country to determine compliance with its laws.
While the export of these substances will not currently be prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada could take that step because the proposed Act does allow the making of regulations for the total, partial or conditional export of a substance or product containing that substance. But we should not forget that the banning or restriction of a substance in Canada would have to be done under the Act after taking into account affects on our environment or the health of our residents.
The same environmental conditions and health factors might not come into play in countries with completely different climates, vegetation, pest and parasitic problems, and the like. Those countries may have a use, even a need, for the very substance which Canada has chosen to restrict or ban in this country under our Environmental Protection Act. It is for this reason that an outright prohibition of the exported substances banned or restricted in Canada does not appear in Bill C-74.
Several speakers have decried the absence of an Environmental bill of rights for all Canadians. The rights of individuals have been addressed in this Bill. There is extensive opportunity for public participation and enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. For instance, a person subject to loss or damage as a result of an action prohibited by the statute has the right to seek an injunction in the courts to stop or prevent the action. Any 12 persons can petition the Minister to investigate an alleged offence. The Minister has an obligation to report his findings.
When reporting to an inspector or other official the alleged release, leaked, spilled, dumping, and so on, of a substance to the environment, a person has the right to have his or her identity kept confidential. Individuals may petition the Minister to have a substance included on the list of priority substances to be studied and the Minister must respond with his decision.
A person may appeal a decision not to regulate a substance as toxic and that appeal will be considered by a board of review. Individuals will have the opportunity to appear before

October 23, 1987
boards of review established under the Act and a board of review will be empowered to award costs to those appearing before it.
One element requested for inclusion in an environmental bill of rights, namely, standing and access to the courts, is a right already enjoyed by Canadians. Private individuals have the right to prosecute federal summary conviction offences.
Madam Speaker, I recognize my time has expired-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret 1 have to interrupt the Hon. Member.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the 152 member states of the International Labour Organization, the ILO, are in the process of revising a Convention which was approved 30 years ago concerning the protection of indigenous peoples in independent countries. The Government of Canada must send to the ILO by October 31 its response to the proposed revisions. Although the deadline is just a week away, and although the ILO directed its member states to ensure the participation of their indigenous peoples in the revision process, so far Canada has refused to share its draft response with indigenous peoples here.
In view of the importance of this Convention to the indigenous peoples of Canada-it is the only existing international Convention providing for their protection in the area of labour relations, land use and ownership, and social and cultural rights-and the opportunity this process of revision offers Canada to play a leading role internationally, I request the Government to provide a text to the indigenous peoples immediately so that their views can be incorporated into Canada's response.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, for years the shipbuilders of Canada have been crying out for a national shipbuilding strategy. They desperately need policies to encourage a sourcing of vessels at home.
There is high demand for Atlantic fishing trawlers, and there are military requirements of a big and small nature. There is the ongoing replacement and the expansion of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Yards have been restructured, improved to meet that demand, some with federal government assistance and some without. Such rationalization or restructuring does not in itself bring in new business. Much of it is by way of allocation. The Government must recognize the Canada-wide employment needs and technical development opportunities that shipbuilding and its allied industries bring.
Port Weller Dry Docks in St. Catharines, the last Canadian shipbuilding yard on the Great Lakes, is reduced to a skeleton staff. Hundreds of dry dock workers are on layoff. This is at a time when a press report indicates that an Atlantic seaboard yard speaks of full employment and orders not yet begun.
It is a timely opportunity for the Government to demonstrate sensitivity to the region of Niagara and award the midlife refit of the Ontario-based Coast Guard vessel Simcoe to the Port Weller yard now.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, recent newspaper stories indicate that the Government is proceeding as rapidly as possible to place orders for nuclear-attack submarines. The Department of National Defence knows that if these orders are not placed before the next election they never will be placed.
Nuclear-attack submarines mark a dangerous shift in Canadian policy. No one really believes that their primary purpose is to patrol our coastline and protect Canadian sovereignty. In today's world, nuclear-attack submarines make sense only if they are part of the Pentagon's Maritime Strategy.
That Maritime Strategy of the Pentagon calls for the rapid escalation of the use of force in any crisis between the two superpowers. Our participation in that strategy will make war more likely, not less likely.
October 23, 1987

I therefore call on the Government to hold public hearings on its defence White Paper tabled several months ago and to put the purchase of nuclear-attack submarines on hold until those hearings are finished.



SOVIET UNION-IRAN OIL DEAL

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Tass news agency has recently reported that the Soviet Union has agreed to import five million tonnes of crude oil from Iran in exchange for two million tonnes of refined product. Using the facilities of the New York Mercantile Exchange, I calculate that five million tonnes of crude could be exchanged for in excess of four million tonnes of refined product.
Sir, do these observations point to the innate superiority of free market versus socialist ways of doing business, or just to the fact that the Soviets are not at all adverse to using 19th century imperialist techniques to exploit a customer or supplier who is at their mercy?
What is not at question is that the Iranians would be far better off were they to cease their senseless war with Iraq and rejoin the civilized world.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-CALL FOR ENDORSATION BY NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, here is what one Canadian organization has to say about free trade:
Expansion of our trade with any and all countries willing to trade on a fair and equitable basis will benefit both ourselves and them. Careful planning is needed to adjust our production to the trade requirements of a fully employed economy. Tariffs are out-moded patchwork attempts to protect domestic industry; they restrict trade while giving less and less protection to the home industry. Their growth is an inevitable result of an economy that tolerates unemployment. Only through a positive approach can Canada enjoy the benefits of expanded trade without hardship to specific groups and communities.
Who said that? Why, it is Resolution B.2.1 from the NDP blueprint "Resolutions Reference". According to the NDP, this resolution was "still current" as of last October. It has remained on the books unchanged since the NDP's founding convention in 1961.
I urge the NDP to forget about Bob White, Shirley Carr, and the other irresponsible fear mongers. 1 urge the NDP to listen to its own advice and endorse the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.



HOUSING


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, in 1986 100,000 Canadians in this country were at some time without shelter. What is even more disturbing is the steadily increasing number of young people, women and families who have no place to go.
There are three major reasons for this phenomenon: Lack of income, the large number of psychiatric patients who are released from hospitals, and the lack of affordable housing.
The Conservative Government is proud of the fact that Canada's economy is in good shape. However, the gap between rich and poor is steadily increasing, while the Conservatives do nothing for the homeless and those with substandard accommodation. In a country as rich as Canada, with such a severe climate, we cannot tolerate citizens being homeless. That is why I invite all Canadians to sign the petitions that are now being circulated. These petitions ask the Government to take steps immediately to deal with this heart-rending situation.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was first elected as a Member of Parliament representing constituents in Central Nova in my home Province of Nova Scotia. He promised jobs, jobs, jobs, for the people of Central Nova. Well, they did not get the jobs, jobs, jobs, or anything else. Once again we see the Prime Minister telling people what they want to hear and then not delivering the goods.
The Prime Minister of Canada is a coward. This weekend he was supposed to be-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that in Statements by Members it is a tradition, and a firm one, that they are not to be used to attack personally any Hon. Member of this Chamber.


An Hon. Member:: Especially when he is not here.


Mr. Speaker:: It does not matter whether they are here or not.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

October 23, 1987



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
POPULATION OFSEPT-iLES-ATTITUDE OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this week we heard that in Sept-Iles, union and municipal authorities and the Chamber of Commerce met in a way that was unprecedented to organize a massive demonstration against their Member of Parliament, who also happens to be the Prime Minister of Canada, and his failure to take measures to deal with the economic recession in their community.
We also heard that despite his promises, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has once again cancelled his plans to visit the riding of Central Nova which he represented before the 1984 election. Instead, he will meet with 500 major financial backers of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sept-Iles are right to protest against an unemployment rate of 32 per cent. I will be there to join in the demonstration on October 31. But I wonder what kind of country this is, when our Prime Minister ignores the people who sent him to Parliament and whom he represents as a Member of Parliament. He only has time for the financial backers, the big corporations, and not for the average citizen in this country.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WESTERN ECONOMY

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. trade agreement is good news for Saskatchewan and the West. The agreement takes an important step toward ending the insane global grain wars as both countries seek a level playing field in North American grain subsidies and work together in global negotiations.
Red meat producers will gain exemption from U.S. meat import laws. Canadian cattlemen will no longer be blind-sided by American disputes with third countries.
The agreement will end the protectionist threat against our energy exports. Exciting new opportunities will be created for western development in oil, natural gas, hydro, and uranium. Reduced tariffs will cause consumer prices to fall. Our production costs will be lower, and our ability to add value will be improved-a key factor in western diversification.
Our future lies in the prosperity of free trade, not in the poverty of protectionism. Consumers, energy producers, grain farmers, cattlemen and pork producers all stand to gain through this historic initiative.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON ROLE OF UNITED CHURCH

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in a free and democratic society it is extremely disturbing to see the blatant attack by Canada's Trade Minister on the United Church of Canada. The attack came in the form of a threat to the church and its members for taking a stand in opposition to the Mulroney free trade deal. The Minister attempts to muzzle the United Church by inferring that the advertisement placed in newspapers on Wednesday might be misleading and that the Government might investigate it.
Here we have a Government that uses the tax dollars of all Canadians to pay Ambassador Reisman to openly attack the duly elected opposition Parties, particularly the NDP; spends $12 million, at least, of taxpayers' dollars to promote Conservative policies on the Mulroney free trade deal; and then has the gall to attack the United Church and threaten its membership for speaking out for their view of Canada.
At this very moment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is meeting privately behind closed doors with major donors to the Conservative Party's coffers. It might well be appropriate to investigate just how many taxpayers' dollars are being spent on organization and travel by the Prime Minister to this meeting, obtain the resignation forthwith of Ambassador Reisman for using taxpayers' dollars to attack duly elected MPs, and for the Government to apologize forthwith to the United Church for its unprecedented attack on the church's right to a democratic voice in the affairs of our nation.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, the memory of Billy Bishop, one of Canada's greatest heroes, continues to be tarnished by the National Film Board's movie, The Kid who Couldn't Miss.
For many years Billy Bishop's deeds during the First World War have been a source of pride and inspiration for all Canadians, and they have been well documented by reliable sources such as the British War Office, and the official historian of the Canadian Department of National Defence.
The Billy Bishop story speaks for itself: 72 confirmed enemy planes shot down, 25 of which were during a 10-day period. Bishop was awarded the Victoria Cross for an individual attack on a German airfield. His other decorations include the Companion of the Bath, two Distinguished Service Orders, the Military Cross, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He continued to serve Canada in the Second World War, being a model and an inspiration for service personnel.
October 23, 1987

The National Film Board initially labelled this film a "documentary", yet it is based on unreliable, and at best, circumstantial evidence. Over $400,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on a project that does not even include references to accredited archives.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that this wrong be redressed and that the memory of Billy Bishop receive the honour and respect that it deserves.

the Atlantic Baptist College and Universite de Moncton, which is the only French-speaking university outside the Province of Quebec.
I am particularly pleased that the federal Government and the provinces are joining with other interested sectors at the National Forum to consider the future of our universities and colleges as we approach the 21st century, and to consider issues of vital importance to higher education in Canada. There will be many challenges ahead for our universities, but they are well equipped to respond to them and grasp the resulting opportunities.



PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the title of an article by Michel Vastel published in the newspaper Le Devoir says: "French power in the Conservative Party a shadow of former self'. 1 agree with Mr. Vastel, who lists a series of projects Quebecers are still waiting for. Hon. Members will recall the Picard Report, Pichette Reports no. 1 and no. 2 from Montreal East, the paper mill in Matane, the Sept-Iles question, the banking centre, the space agency, the Old Port of Montreal, and the shipyards. All these projects are on the backburner, which clearly shows that the Conservative Ministers and Members from Quebec have no clout in this Conservative Government. This becomes very clear when we consider that the Conservative caucus is opposed to a tax on food, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are maintaining their option to tax the bread, milk and butter of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Vastel says is so true: French power in the Conservative Party is dead.



EDUCATION


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to the fact that National Universities Week is being celebrated beginning today until November 1. The dates are particularly auspicious in that the National Forum on Post-Secondary Education is starting in Saskatoon on Sunday.
There could be no better time than the kick-off of Universities Week to take a moment to examine the Canadian university scene. The 70 degree-granting universities in Canada range in size from enrollments of a few hundred to tens of thousands of students. I am particularly proud of the fact that two such institutions are located in my constituency,
* *
*



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not aware of the stringent requirements that have to be met in order to qualify for a disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. In fact, the applicant has to be practically comatose to become eligible. Once total disability has been proven, the next obstacle to be overcome is the earnings contribution formula.
The claimant is required to have had five years of earnings and contributions to the plan during the 10-year period immediately prior to the date that the application is made. Those requirements are unfair, and many individuals have been denied benefits simply because they were unaware that those provisions existed.
I call upon the Government to consider providing this information to every individual who applies for or is in receipt of sickness benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The same information could also be provided to every member of the medical profession to make them aware of it.
Finally, the Government should extend the eligibility rules in order that Canada's disabled can receive the benefits that they believed they were paying for.
* *
*



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the thirty-first anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. This is a special occasion for Canadians of Hungarian origin, and for all Canadians who support the cause of freedom.
The valiant revolution began on October 23, 1956, and for a brief moment in history the Hungarian people won their

October 23, 1987
Oral Questions
freedom and independence. Factory workers and students joined together to demand the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their country. The demonstrations were, at first, peaceful. But when the political police, the AVH, began to fire on demonstrators, there was no turning the tide of a national uprising. By October 28, the battle for independence was won, and peace and order were re-established.
Armed Soviet intervention crushed that independence but a few days later. Many men and women lost their lives in this battle to establish freedom and independence for Hungary. It is appropriate that Canada, as a bastion of democracy, pay tribute today to those brave individuals who gave their lives for this noble cause.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On March 13 of this year the Minister for International Trade told CTV that the objective of any trade agreement, "would be the elimination of countervail by both countries".
In a quote in the Wall Street Journal on April 3 of this year, the Prime Minister was reported to have said to a group of reporters, "U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada. Period".
Yesterday Canada's chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, is quoted in the daily press as stating, "It is just plain dumb." "-that this agreement should provide us with an exemption from American trade remedy laws is just the silliest proposition I have ever heard".
In effect, the chief trade negotiator for our country is calling the views of the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Minister for International Trade "silly" and "dumb". He has stated that he never negotiated an exemption from countervail or trade remedy law.
The main purpose of the Government, apparently, and those who support this agreement, was to obtain an exemption from U.S. protectionism, namely, from U.S. trade remedy laws. Why did the Prime Minister of Canada say that this would be the result of the agreement? Why does the Prime Minister of Canada continue to say we are exempt from U.S. protectionism while his chief trade negotiator says it is simply not so?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could draw the attention of the Hon. Member to Item D, Application of this Arrangement on Page 21, where it says:
This arrangement shall be in effect for five years pending the development of a substitute system of laws in both countries for anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
That is the objective of the free trade agreement. We have set in place a process to achieve the substitute system and that will be in place as the discussions continue between the countries.


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZED GRAIN EXPORTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that citation contradicts not only the Prime Minister but also the chief trade negotiator for different reasons. The agreement signed by the two Governments will apply, through this binational review panel, American trade law and American trade practice to Canadian exports into the American market. Nothing has changed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Brilliant, John.


John Napier Turner: That happens to be the fact and that was not the reason given for this agreement by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Negotiations over the next five or seven years on subsidies and the other definitions under American trade law may or may not succeed. At the moment we have no exemption from American trade law, and that is admitted by the chief trade negotiator.
I have another quote for the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Prime Minister. On March 16 of this year, the Prime Minister in the debate in the House of Commons on trade had this to say as quoted in Hansard:
Let me turn to the area of agriculture. Our goal is straightforward. It is to help Canadian farmers by . . . ending the deeply destructive subsidization of exports . . . our desires must be respected and our wishes accommodated. Otherwise, there will be no deal.
That was the undertaking of the Prime Minister given to the House of Commons.
On October 15 the United States announced a subsidized export grain deal with the Soviet Union. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs proved so incompetent that he did not even know about it. The Prime Minister said there would be no deal if the United States continued to subsidize farm exports into foreign markets. The United States continues to subsidize grain exports to foreign markets. If this is so, why the deal with the United States?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there were two quite distinct questions in that long presentation by the Leader of the Opposition. I will answer one. If I have the time, I will answer the second.
The first one relates to the application of the trade remedy laws of each country. What I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say is that he would prefer that we, by implication, just remove our trade remedy laws and let the United States have total access to this country without countervail and
October 23, 1987

without any anti-dumping laws during this five year period during which we will be developing new rules. I think that would be the stupidest thing for this country to consider doing.
If we had done that, I can absolutely assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would be up on his feet asking: "Why did you do this? Why have you opened up the Canadian market for pillorying by the United States without any protection for Canadian business?"
That is why the existing laws will be kept in place until the new rules are in place.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the principal reason this Government said it sought the deal with the United States was to gain exemption from American protectionism. The chief trade negotiator now admits categorically that there is no such exemption because American countervail, American trade remedy laws existing in future will continue to apply. The Government has not achieved secure access to the American market.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he know that yesterday, at the very moment when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was telling me in the House that the United States no longer subsidize wheat export sales, American officials in Washington were announcing a new subsidized sale of wheat, to Yemen this time?
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yemen?


John Napier Turner: Yemen. The Minister of Justice may not know where that is but there was a straight commitment from the United States.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Just how far can the incompetence of his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs extend? Just how far can the incompetence of this Government go?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made that clarification because there has not been confirmation of the United States selling grain to our traditional markets.
The Right Hon. Leader talks about Yemen. In 1981-82 we did not sell anything to Yemen. In 1982-83 we did not sell anything. In 1983-84 we sold 24,000 tonnes. In 1984-85-


Mr. Lapierre:: You probably never will.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the hon. backbencher in the Liberal Party wants to answer this question, I will let him do that. I think in the interests of providing the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with some information and, indeed, all Members of the House, this information should be put on the record.
In 1984-85, Canada sold 118,000 tonnes, in 1985-86 we sold
10,000	tonnes and in 1986-87 we sold 21,000 tonnes. I cite those figures because it is hard to imagine that Yemen could be considered one of our traditional major customers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are thinking of Yeoman, Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the Opposition should not try to exaggerate the situation. I know he wants to because he is trying to get his fingers into the agricultural pot, but he is having a lot of difficulty.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM-SALE OF WHEAT TO YEMEN
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that no new action has been taken under the U.S. Export Enhancement Program. At that precise hour the United States announced a sale of 20,000 tonnes of wheat and wheat flour to Yemen. There was no consultation. The Americans did not come to Canada to consult on the matter. They were prepared to give away one bushel from U.S. stockpiles for every three being sold. Isn't this simply another glaring example of a breach of the agreement signed on free trade? This will continue to drive down prices of grain on the world markets and hurt our Canadian farmers?
When will the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance stand up for Canadians and for Canadian farmers and stop this takeover by the United States which is clearly a breach of the spirit of the agreement signed by the Minister of Finance two weeks ago?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition in its desperation is trying in every way to discredit the merits of the free trade arrangement. By so doing, it is really overstating the case.
Yemen has not been considered as a traditional market for Canada. As a matter of fact, the United States has outsold Canada since 1981-82-the latest figures I have-on a consistent basis. I suppose it is fair to say that the United States would consider Yemen as a traditional customer of its own.
What is important, which the Hon. Member should recognize, is that Canada's share of international world trade has increased from 20 per cent to 24 per cent, thanks to the

October 23, 1987
Oral Questions
efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board, thanks to the efforts of the Government, thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs who have been taking this issue to the world forum, the multilateral discussions, to bring about some sanity and stability to the world grain market. It is more than just a problem between the United States and Canada, it is a worldwide problem of all grain producers and the Hon. Member should recognize that.


MINISTER S POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister should recognize that the United States Enhancement Program is driving down world prices in grain to the lowest level since the 1930s in real terms.
The night the agreement was signed, Clayton Yeutter told officials of the United States Treasury Department that Canadians did not know what they signed and that in 20 years they will be sucked into the United States economy. With attitudes like that on the part of the United States Secretary of Trade who is the most senior person in this regard, does the Minister of Finance, who also signed that agreement and has already heard what the Secretary of Trade said about him, really believe that the United States will not flout this deal if and after it has been ratified? When will the Minister stand up for the position of Canadians and Canadian farmers under this deal?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Yeutter has denied having said that, but let me just comment on this. I have heard this Hon. Member and the Leader of the New Democratic Party making all these outrageous statements indicating that Canada will become totally a part of the United States, that we will become the 51st State and that we will be totally sucked into the U.S. economy.
Surely we can have confidence in this country. We have watched tariffs drop over the last 30 or 40 years and we have seen ourselves become more drawn into the international economy. As we have been drawn into the more integrated nature of the international economy, we have been successful, we have created a better standard of living in Canada, we have created more jobs and more varied jobs, and we have a stronger economy, stronger social programs and a stronger culture.
Why is it that this Hon. Member and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have so little confidence in Canadians, in the gumption of Canadians, in the desire of Canadians to demonstrate that they are Canadians and proud of it? How can they walk away from this sense of confidence in the future of this country?


PROMISE OF FULL AND OPEN DEBATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister but first I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that it was not the Opposition but the Minister himself who said a few years ago that a free trade agreement with the United States would be simplistic and naive. It is interesting how he has changed his mind.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister concerns the Prime Minister's promise to have a full and open debate on these free trade proposals. On Wednesday he met with an elitist business group in a closed session in Toronto and today he is meeting with a wealthy group of Tory contributors in Halifax in another closed session. Incredibly enough, he has cancelled the scheduled public meeting with the people of Central Nova. Is this what the Conservatives mean by full and open discussion, closed meetings with financial contributors to the Conservative Party?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again, and we have seen it day after day, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is making false statements in the House and again he has made another false statement.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the false statement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is not an open meeting today in Halifax, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: No, it is a closed meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just committed an egregious error. It is an open meeting and I want to inform-


John Napier Turner: How much does it cost?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the Opposition spoke to
3,000	people and I guess it cost $300 to hear him. I do not know if they got their money's worth, but, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETINGS WITH CERTAIN GROUPS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says it is an open meeting and I am pleased to accept that correction, but he has not denied the other element of criticism that came from the people of Central Nova and from two Members of Parliament on the Conservative side of the House, which is that this is an elitist gathering. In the words of the Hon. Member for Halifax West,
October 23, 1987

access to Government should not be controlled on the basis of income.
The Deputy Prime Minister has not denied that the Prime Minister cancelled the meeting which had been promised for three years and was scheduled for yesterday in Central Nova. I repeat, given the importance of this issue which affects all Canadians, is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to go around speaking to elitist groups that can afford to give $1,000 each to the Conservative Party? Is that what it is about?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party would agree that that is a rather unfair charge.


John Edward Broadbent: They are your Members who made the charge.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Prime Minister has met with farmers, with union leaders, with women's groups, with people from all walks of society and he will be continuing that process. Due to pressures in Ottawa, particularly with respect to the stock market, Meech Lake, the Commonwealth, and a number of things of that nature, it was necessary to postpone the visit to Central Nova.
I can assure the Hon. Member, since he is interested in this, that the Prime Minister will be visiting Central Nova within the next two to three weeks. In so far as a full parliamentary debate is concerned, there have been discussions among the House leaders to get this document referred to committee so that the committee can study it fully. I understand there have also been discussions with respect to the possibility of a debate in the House. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and that commitment will be fulfilled.


REQUEST FOR TELEVISED PARTY LEADERS' DEBATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this issue to the people of Canada, whether they are in Nova Scotia or on the prairies or anywhere else, and given the fact that the central reality of modern society is that the best way for a population to have access to a serious debate is by watching one on television, will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, undertake now to make a commitment to the House that he will arrange with the television networks of Canada a public debate on this important issue to take place between the Prime Minister of Canada, the Leader of the Opposition, and myself as Leader of the New Democratic Party?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a new proposal. The Leader of the New Democratic Party has shifted ground. First he was complaining about the lack of a public debate and a debate within the House of Commons. I think we have satisfied that. He now wants to extend it further.
Oral Questions
My sense is that the committee will have an opportunity to travel so that Canadians right across the country will have an opportunity to be fully informed-


John Edward Broadbent: What about a public debate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is a public debate that goes on here every day and opposition Parties have six opposition days between now and December 10. There is one on Monday. If they want to have a fully televised debate, we can have it in the House of Commons. What has the Hon. Member got against the House of Commons?


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the lavish $l,000-a-plate dinner in Halifax. I want to tell the Deputy Prime Minister what his colleague from Halifax West has said. He said: "The entire concept of screening people who attend the event strictly on the basis of the amount of money the have is an insulting elitist concept."
Why has the Prime Minister refused to meet with the people of Central Nova who are drastically affected by high unemployment? Why has he betrayed them? Why has he insulted them by not going to Central Nova to meet with them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question. The Prime Minister indicated that due to other pressures he was forced to postpone that visit. He will be visiting Central Nova in the very near future.
In so far as the elitist charge is concerned, perhaps the Hon. Member would explain why the Liberal Party charged $300 a plate to hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I heard a lot of complaints about people not getting their money's worth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Minister that the people of Central Nova do not find this insulting behaviour-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: -demonstrated by the Prime Minister to be acceptable at all.

October 23, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET DELEGATION FROM CENTRAL NOVA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister undertake to the House right now that the Prime Minister will meet today with those people who are travelling from New Glasgow in Central Nova to Halifax and discuss important regional issues affecting their community? Or is he going to continue to break his promises to the people of Central Nova?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without concurring in the rather unfair and extraordinary comments I can only say this. If the Right Hon. Prime Minister does not meet with those folks today 1 can assure the Hon. Member that he will meet with them at a later date. He indicated that he will be visiting Central Nova in the next two, three or four weeks.
The Hon. Member should recognize that this has been an extraordinary week. There have been the pressures of the stock market, the Meech Lake speech, and the Commonwealth Conference. The Prime Minister has every intention of visiting Central Nova and he will.


PRIME MINISTER'S PRIORITIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister has a problem with scheduling and has to make a choice about whom he is going to meet with, why does he not meet with the people of Central Nova instead of rich contributors to the Tory Party? Hasn't the Prime Minister got his priorities all wrong?


Mr. McDermid:: Tell it to the CLC, they are your biggest contributor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of a question I have answered.


CONDITIONS IN CENTRAL NOVA
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, in Trenton, Nova Scotia, in the riding of Central Nova, the unemployment rate is 40 per cent. Over the last year Trenton Car Works closed down putting 2,000 people out of work. Given that fact and the fact that the people of Central Nova desperately need government assistance, why is the Prime Minister not dealing with that problem instead of meeting with Party supporters in Halifax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not think it is necessary for the Hon. Member to attempt to represent the people of Central Nova. They have an excellent representative-


Some Hon. Members:: Who?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -the Hon. Member for Central Nova, the Minister of National Revenue. If the Hon. Member were to look at the facts he would see that a proposal has been put together to revitalize Hawker Siddeley and get it back into operation by providing orders and jobs. An economic development program has been established, as well as a program under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Notwithstanding the fact that there are some difficulties, clearly action has been taken and the Hon. Minister of National Revenue is representing that area very well.


ANNOUNCED SALE OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZED WHEAT TO SOVIET UNION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, by way of brief preamble I want to say that the Liberal Party has just put down a motion calling for a debate on the free trade deal. Monday is an Opposition Day and that is when the motion will be debated. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will be opening the debate and we will see whether the Leaders of the other Parties, particularly the Prime Minister, pick up the challenge and take part in that debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Getting back to the matter of the subsidized sale of wheat by the U.S. contrary to the letter and spirit of the free trade agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier in Question Period: "There has not been confirmation of sales to our traditional markets." Was it not announced on October 15 that the U.S. would be carrying out a subsidized sale of wheat to the Soviet Union? When did Russia cease to be a traditional market for Canadian wheat?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think what I said, to the best of my knowledge and information, was that the U.S. has neither confirmed nor denied such action was taking place. I think the Hon. Member is being somewhat presumptuous.


RELEASE ISSUED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand an official release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, with the dateline of Washington, October 15. It says:
George J. Pope, acting general sales manager for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service, today announced that the Commodity Credit Corporation has accepted a bid for an export bonus to cover a sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviet Union.
What I said has been confirmed by the U.S. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not know about this? Why is he trying to cover up the fact that contrary to the letter and spirit of the
October 23, 1987

free trade agreement the U.S. is selling subsidized wheat to the Soviet Union? Why does he not know about it? Why does he not admit it? Or is there a secret side deal to let the U.S. move into our markets while Canada, under a weak Government, backs out?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are no secret side deals or hidden agendas. If the Hon. Member is referring to the special 65,000 tonne sale to Russia which was a quality controlled shipment in order to do further testing, I will acknowledge that sale may have been made. However, 65,000 tonnes are just a drop in the bucket of grain sales. If that is what the Hon. Member is referring to, then he is really stretching again.
He talks about credibility and trust. I was around here when the Hon. Member was in opposition and campaigned in the 1980 election. He made the profound statement then that if the Liberals ever formed the Government and interest rates went up, he would resign.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Resign, Herb.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yet he is still around. He served that Government and he is still around. I guess that is why we call him "Amazing Gray".


Some Hon. Members:: Resign, Herb!


John Horton McDermid: They went up to 23 per cent, Herb.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, if we can stop fighting past elections, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Throughout negotiations with the U.S. both Governments kept on saying that U.S. Congressmen would have to vote yes or no on the trade treaty. That would stop Congress from making changes to help U.S. special interest groups.
Will the Minister confirm what press reports now say, that the Senate Rules Committee has ruled that amendments will be possible to cut back Canadian access to maritime shipping? In short, the U.S. is once more changing the rules after the game.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us be quite clear on this. The fast-track proposal provides that on January 2, I think it is, legislation will be put forward by the President which will be voted either up or down without amendment. That is what we have been saying all along and that still stands.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that may be what the Government says but it is not what the Senate Rules Committee or what representatives of both the House and the Senate are saying today. The Minister should be aware of that fact and doing something about it.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN MARITIME INTERESTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: So I should like to ask this question: What must be done? What is he going to do to object to this major change which might damage Canada's maritime interests?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question. We have a difference of opinion. The Hon. Member's second question shows that his interpretation is different from my interpretation.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder to whom I should direct my question. I am told that the Government has gone on strike or on tour. Ironically enough, Mr. Speaker, the former Member for Central Nova must go into hiding, the former Member for Manicouagan would rather not go anywhere near Sept-Iles, and he is now considering running in Charlevoix. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why the Prime Minister is so anxious to cover his tracks. As a matter of fact, acting Member for Manicouagan Keith Morgan told the Canadian Press that Sept-Iles residents had not done their duty by failing to submit real concrete projects on which they might get to work. The residents of Sept-Iles have been asked to stop waiting for hand-outs and expecting ready-made solutions to everything.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sept-Iles have prepared a file this thick, they met with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions, officials of the Prime Minister's Office, several Ministers, including the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. How is it that-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I ask the Minister of Finance or whomever is responsible on the other side, if they know, whether someone like Mr. Keith Morgan was representing the Prime Minister when he spoke to the press. Otherwise, will he be sent packing immediately because he insulted the people of Sept-Iles?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology responded quite clearly to that question yesterday or Wednesday in the House. He said that he is meeting with representatives of Sept-Iles, that there

October 23, 1987
Oral Questions
are plans under consideration for an economic proposal for the North Shore, and that the announcements flowing from those discussions will be made at a very early date.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT GIVE IMMEDIATE AND FINAL ANSWER TO PEOPLE OF SEPT-ILES
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, How can the Minister of Finance possibly claim this will be done at a very early date? The people of Sept-Iles met with the Prime Minister on March 24, 1986, December 3, 1986, March 26, 1987, May 4, 1987 and September 21, 1987, after various Government Ministers had promised them a quick response. 1 think they now have every right to be impatient.
This is what I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Since we cannot believe the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion when he promises quick answers-remember Sept-Iles, Matane, the Picard report, the space agency!-Could the Minister of Finance do his duty and give the people of Sept-Iles a final and immediate answer so they will not have to organize a demonstration to make you see reason?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hate to knock the Hon. Member off track, but it has been announced that there has been an offer made on Matane.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You blew it and you know it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member said that no action was taken on it. The proposal has already been made.
The Hon. Member is talking about jobs in Quebec. Maybe he should speak to the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and ask him why he is supporting quick action on Bill C-22 to get pharmaceutical jobs in Montreal. Why is the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie writing letters and copying them to the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition is weaseling out of his responsibility to run his Party and get the Senators-


Mr. Ouellet:: You're all wet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -from Quebec to get the job done.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-U.S. EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the
free trade agreement. On October 5, the day the agreement was tabled in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture was commenting on the U.S. subsidies and grain wars. He said:
There is a commitment to consult with us prior to extending the Export
Enhancement Program into our traditional markets.
As of November 1 the budget of the U.S. subsidy programs will be more than tripled. Since July 30 the U.S. has moved with more initiative into several traditional Canadian markets such as China, the Soviet Union, and Brazil.
Was there any consultation with Canada before the budget was tripled and these new American initiatives were taken? If there was consultation, why is the Government so ineffective at putting forward the case of Canadian farmers and Canadian people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that question is just a repetition of previous questions. The Government has been extremely effective in building up the market share of Canadian wheat producers-


John Edward Broadbent: By reducing the price of wheat.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -at a time when other countries are not doing that job. We have been able to increase our participation from something like 20 per cent to 24 per cent. Those numbers are in Hansard and I think the Member understands them.
We have been effective. There have been consultations with the United States on this and they will continue as a result of this agreement.
There are things in this agreement to protect Canadian agriculture and gain access to United States agricultural markets. The red meat sector in western Canada would see this as an enormous benefit to its industry.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have all the figures here. I know that we have kept our market share, but at what price? We now have a lower price than we have had in real terms since the 1930s in order to protect that market share.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, was the Minister of Agriculture telling the House of Commons the truth when he said on October 5 that there is a commitment by the United States "to consult with us prior to extending the Export Enhancement Program into our traditional markets"? I want to know whether the Americans made that commitment.
I want to know whether that agreement really means that the Americans cannot introduce any new Export Enhancement Programs or that they can use the existing program, triple or quadruple the budget, and take away Canadian markets?
October 23, 1987

What does that commitment mean, if anything at all, for the farmers of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member say that we have increased our market share. I am glad that he acknowledges that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We all know that, but at what price?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He then says "at what price". We do not control the price. The price is controlled by the international market and we have-


John Edward Broadbent: American subsidies.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Subsidies, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -made many appeals in international fora as well as on a bilateral basis with the United States.
At the same time we have increased substantially the amount of support for the grain and oil seed sector in order to protect our farmers from the acts of other countries.
With regard to the specific question, the Hon. Member must realize that that is an international program. It does not relate directly to Canada. We cannot control that program directly as a result of a free trade agreement.
We have, however, received the commitment of the United States to take into account the export interests of the other party in the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods exported to third countries. We are consulting with the Americans on that and will continue to consult. We will hold them to that agreement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is with regard to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. Innocent victims of violent crime should have assistance to help them restore some semblance of normalcy to their lives. The Minister knows that assistance can come in the form of support groups and professional counselling.
Given the importance of that assistance to the innocent victims of violent crime, can the Minister tell the House what his plans are for funding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for that question. He has long had an interest in
Oral Questions
victims' rights, not only in Saskatchewan but as a Member of Parliament.
I have been in communication with my provincial counterparts with regard to the federal contribution to crime compensation programs across the country. I hope to be in a position soon to announce the level of funding which I am sure will be well received by Members of Parliament and the provinces.
The way in which we treat victims of crimes is an area which has been neglected for too long. I intend to correct that situation.


FREE TRADE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister admitted he had sacrificed jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. As I said yesterday, the Minister and the Government are to be commended for protecting workers in the beer industry.
However, I met with workers in the rubber and plastics industry, and they would like to know why the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of the Conservative Government did not make the same effort and let the Free Trade Agreement protect these 86,000 workers in Canada, 22,000 of whom work in Quebec. We know from a report that was published in Montreal that, initially, 10,000 jobs will be lost, and that workers in the rubber and plastics industry would be among the victims. I ask the Minister of Finance why, when the agreement was being negotiated, he preferred not to protect those workers although he did protect workers in the beer industry.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is drawing unfair conclusions as to the effects of the agreement. Second, he distorted what I said in response to a question yesterday in relation to the textile and footwear industries. I did not say that. In fact, from from it. I said the opposite. I said there are representatives of the footwear industry, as an example, who are looking at this as a major opportunity under the free trade agreement with the United States, providing them with a tremendous opportunity to sell into a market of 260 million people instead of just 25 million people. Surely that is an opportunity for an industry that will create jobs.

October 23, 1987
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY WORKERS
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. He forgot, or purposely omitted, to say that the U.S. will also have an additional market of 25 million. It is much easier for them to cover the Canadian market than for Canadian companies to cover the U.S. market.
To get to my question, it concerns workers in the electrical products industry. We know that according to a reliable study by the Economic Council of Canada, 5,500 workers in this industry will lose their jobs. Will these jobs be lost in Montreal, at Canadian General Electric and Northern Electric? Why didn't the Minister of Finance manage to get it in writing, as he did for the beer industry, and why wasn't he able to do this for workers in the textile, footwear, rubber and electrical products industry? We know 5,500 workers will lose their jobs as a result of this Agreement. Why didn't the Minister negotiate to deal with the situation? And the same applies to Bill C-22. If you want jobs and research, put it in the legislation!


Geoff Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do want to see jobs for research. I cannot understand why the Hon. Member does not have the sufficient degree of influence over his Party and his Leader to get action on this Bill which will create jobs today, create jobs next month and create jobs next year.
He is talking about holding out some expectation that possibly five years, ten years or twenty years down the road some people may lose their jobs. Why is he not concerned about today, and getting action, getting his Leader to move, and getting the Senators off their fannies to act in the interest of the people in his riding of Montreal-Sainte Marie who feel let down by the impotence of that Member.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a question by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre and a question by the Member for Western Arctic, and that will close Question Period.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Union leaders, the Chamber of Commerce and municipal authorities in Sept-Iles have organized a week-long demonstration to protest against unemployment and the failure of their Member of Parliament, the Prime Minister, to deal with their economic problems.
Could the Minister of Finance explain why the Prime Minister will be away from Sept-Iles for a week, and why he was not at a meeting last night to meet his former constituents in Central Nova, where the unemployment rate is 40 per cent? Does the Government have any special measures to announce to ensure that constituents in Sept-Iles and Central Nova will have jobs?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, obviously previous New Democratic Party questioners in this regard have been impotent and ineffective. They have had the Member for Ottawa Centre simply repeating other untrue and unfair allegations with respect to the availability of the Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out that this Prime Minister is more accessible than any Prime Minister in the history of our country. Our Prime Minister understands the average working person a heck of a lot better than the people in the NDP.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET REGIONAL GROUPS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice is correct in saying that his Prime Minister understands the average working person in Sept-Iles or Central Nova, why will the Prime Minister not meet with working people in those communities where the unemployment rate is 32 per cent and 40 per cent respectively? Why will he not meet with them and fulfill his promise to get jobs, jobs, jobs in those parts of the country that he represents?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the fact that the Prime Minister is probably more sensitive with respect to the regional disparities in our country which we have inherited as a Government and which we are addressing head-on. The Hon. Member is incorrect. The Prime Minister will meet with these representative groups.
In fact, as a priority of this Government, he has directed his Ministers to work on questions of regional development. Our record with respect to increased employment in this country is almost a million new jobs since we came to office. We will continue working now and as a Government after the next election.
October 23, 1987


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[Stage Direction]
Tabling of Documents

Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Canadian Federation for the Humanities point out that there is no apparent representation by social scientists on the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. They request that at least one person with a background in the humanities be appointed. Is the Government considering this request?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the Board is made up of eminent scientists, industrialists, representatives from universities in the various disciplines of science, and has been tremendously helpful to the Government in focusing on the challenges and opportunities before us as we move into the twenty-first century.
Indeed, Bill Taylor, a very eminent social scientist who is also the President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, is an active member of the board. As for future appointments, these representations will be taken into account.
* *
*


POINT OF ORDER
Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, a minute ago during Question Period the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) stated that certain comments I made during the Question Period were untrue. I am sure the Minister of Justice did not mean to deliberately mislead the House when he suggested that it was untrue to say that the unemployment rate was 32 per cent in Sept-iles and 40 per cent in Central Nova and that it was untrue to say the Prime Minister is failing to go to Central Nova and would not be at the demonstration in Sept-iles in eight days. Could the Minister of Justice be asked to correct the record, as I am sure he did not mean to accuse another Member of misleading the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, quite apart from the fact that this is a clear abuse of the use of a point of order, I simply want to reiterate my statement, now that the Hon. Member has come up with these serious allegations. His allegation with respect to the availability of the Prime Minister is false, incorrect, and unworthy of the Hon. Member. I stand by my words.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I believe that the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister are entering into debate. This is not really a point of order and I believe it would be better to choose another time to have this debate.
Question Period is now over. We will now proceed with House business.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a question of privilege. I would ask you to consider, Madam Speaker, whether the comments made by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) were in fact parliamentary when he accused me during Question Period of making statements that were untrue and apparently accused me of misleading the House. 1 would ask you to take that under advisement as a matter of privilege because I do not think that is acceptable in the House of Commons under our parliamentary rules. As I indicated before, the reasons I will not repeat, but I do not think that kind of behaviour should be acceptable in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would not want a debate to be started on that. The Hon. Member, I am sure, will take my word that the "blues" will be checked and if the Chair does find there is a problem and that the matter should be raised again with the Minister, we will do so at that time. Does that have the agreement of the Hon. Member?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Madam Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 15 petitions, Nos. 332-3088 to 332-3093 inclusive, 332-3097 to 332-3100 inclusive, 332-3107 and 332-3136 to 332-3139 inclusive.
1 want to point out to the House that these petitions were certified in May, June and July of this year. They were only tabled with the House on September 9. I believe there has been sufficient delay in responding to these petitions that there could be criticism from the people who signed these petitions. I want to make it very clear that these petitions, despite the fact they were certified by the Clerk of petitions in May, June and July, were only tabled on September 9 and the Government has responded within the required 45 day period from the point of tabling.

October 23, 1987
Statements by Ministers UNITED NATIONS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to make a statement on the occasion of United Nations Day.
Tomorrow will once again mark United Nations Day. On that day, 42 years ago, amid the chaos and violence of war, the United Nations was founded. It is reassuring to contemplate both the conditions under which this world body was born and the purpose for which it was created.
If today we are sometimes disturbed and discouraged over the seeming intractable and persistent problems facing the world community, let us take heart and renewed courage and determination to persist in making the world a better place to live. Let us recall that a commitment to a strong United Nations, and to its programs, offers one of the enduring hopes for the betterment of the human condition.

Madam Speaker, Canada is pursuing its efforts to strengthen the structure of the United Nations. To that end, it is working from the inside, with energy and perseverance, to ensure that reforms improve the effectiveness and efficiency of UN operations and administration. By acting on its principles, for instance by forgiving the debts of Third World nations faced with serious financial problems and by continuing to make a major financial contribution to the UN, Canada reflects the convictions of Canadians. In fact, Canadians believe that the best way to promote peace and justice in through fair economic development, that the struggle for justice and human rights is a cause that deserves material support and that all nations should share both the benefits of development and the burden of poverty.

Canadians, of all people, recognize that we are very much dependent on the health of the international community. United Nations Day should serve, therefore, to remind us afresh of our commitment to responsible and responsive internationalism and to the ideals of the United Nations Charter.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, Canadians know and support the United Nations. Many Canadians, both English-speaking and French-speaking, have served with organizations that are part of United Nations, inspired by the ideals and goals set down in the Charter forty-two years ago. Many Canadians have served in UN peacekeeping forces throughout the world, and Canadian lives have been lost for the sake of world peace. Today-

All nations of the world look to the United Nations for leadership, maintaining peace and ensuring development while
protecting the environment. Peace, development and the environment are the magnets which today attract nations to the United Nations with the same intensity as did the ideal of peace in 1945. However, the United Nations can only be as strong as the political will of each member nation.
It would be a mistake to believe that the United Nations can impose its will on the world. It cannot. The speed with which the United Nations can proceed depends on the speed of its member nations. Therefore, it is important for Canada to ensure that our enthusiasm for the United Nations is shared by nations whose reluctance these days slows down the implementation of the United Nations' over-all mandate.
In 1952, a distinguished Canadian, Lester B. Pearson, became President of the General Assembly. Canadians take great pride in the contribution he made and the legacy he left. It is interesting to note that in his book Peace in the Family of Man, Lester B. Pearson concluded with these words:
People-must be made to see that internationalism is quite as important to them, as practically and immediately important, as national loyalty and interest; important not merely in an academic and remote or idealistic sense, but important as something which immediately and concretely affects their well-being, their very lives.
We must apply the science and art of politics to the affairs of the international community with the intensity of personal involvement that we give to domestic affairs.
Mr. Pearson's words were as true then as they are today as we once again celebrate United Nations Day.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak for my Party in recognizing the achievements and goals of the United Nations which was founded in 1945 to end the scourge of war. Since that time its achievements have been many. Canadians want to defend and strengthen the United Nations and we take a critical view of those who undermine its legitimacy or its relevance.
In 1985, when polled on the question, "How important do you think it is that we try to make the United Nations a success?", 83 per cent of Canadians said it is important or very important.
Disappointment with the United Nations should be addressed to the lack of commitment and co-operation among member states rather than faulting the international institution itself. The Soviet Union should be commended for recently paying all its outstanding debts to the United Nations, especially those for the peacekeeping missions it had long refused to support. No nation should withhold funds because decisions taken collectively go against its particular viewpoint. We hope the example of the Soviet initiative will not be lost on the United States.
Global interdependency has increased since the founding of the United Nations, as have the complexity of the problems facing human kind, including the threat of nuclear weapons, poverty, underdevelopment, human rights abuse, malnutrition and environmental degradation. No nation can solve these
October 23, 1987

problems alone. Now is not the time to abandon the United Nations' system. Collective co-operation is needed to ease the Third World debt crisis, to end the Iran-Iraq war, to end apartheid in South Africa and to defend the delicate balance of the Guatemala peace accord.
Canadians can be proud of our contribution to the United Nations. We have participated in more observer groups and peace-keeping missions than any other member state. Numerous Canadians have distinguished themselves in service to the United Nations and its agencies.
Recently, our mission led the drive to strengthen the role and involvement of women within the United Nations, and a Canadian woman, Madam Therese Paquet-Sevigny, has become the first woman to be named Under-Secretary General.
Canada is respected as a middle power and is in a favourable position to steer a sane course between the posturing rivalry of the superpowers. Above all, we can support the process of replacing dependency with interdependency, particularly where the poorer countries strive to defend their interests on an equal footing with rich, developed countries.
I would like to take this occasion to commend the work of the United Nations Association in Canada for its perseverance, hard work and educational activities to inform Canadians about the United Nations. Canadians should know that the United Nations is our institution, for behind the United Nations, as the Secretary General has said, "stands the single, collective constituency of the human race, a vast silent majority which wants peace with justice and dignity, with freedom from fear and want and the hope of a better tomorrow".



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Thirty-sixth Report of the Striking Committee.
Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN THIRTY-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

["I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 2.10 p.m."]
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Minister of State
Order Paper Questions
(Treasury Board), that the Thirty-sixth report of the Striking Committee tabled in the House earlier today be concurred in.
The motion agreed to.



Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by residents of Brantford, Ontario, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Cold Lake, Alberta, and Sudbury, Ontario.
These 117 signatures are in addition to the 30,346 others which have already been tabled. The petitioners are aware of the fact that since 1974 federal regulations on car safety allow installation of self-inflating bags for drivers of passenger cars. They know as well that during the April 1987 debate on highway safety it was established that a self-inflating bag on the driver's side would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
For these reasons the petitioners urge the Government to commit itself to make mandatory: first, the installation of three point adjustable lap and shoulder belts for rear seat passengers; and two, the installation of front seat air bags.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada from the cities of Toronto, Edmonton, Westmount and Montreal. They are concerned with the Government's practice of promoting low-level flight training of pilots from NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador because it disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there and, furthermore, it constitutes a warfighting aggressive action that tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, question No. 193 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	At the diplomatic conference for the protection of the ozone layer held in Montreal on September 14-16, 1987, were corporations invited to provide food and entertainment to delegates and, if so, which corporations?
2.	Were inviatations made formally and, if not, by what method were they made and by (a) whom (b) which Departments?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Yes, Du Pont Canada Inc., Allied Chemical Inc., Alcan Aluminum Ltd., City of Montreal.
2. Yes. (a) Assistant Deputy Minister, Conservation and Protection, (b) Department of the Environment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 2.10 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
David Bruce Daubney: Madam Speaker, when 1 terminated my remarks just prior to the beginning of Statements by Members at eleven o'clock, I was dealing with the point of one of the requested inclusions in an environmental Bill of rights, namely, standing and access to the courts.
I was pointing out to Hon. Members that this is a right already enjoyed by Canadians. Private individuals have the right to prosecute federal summary conviction offences. They also have the same right for indictable offences, only, of course, with the permission of the court. In both instances it is possible for provincial Attorneys General to step in and assume the prosecution.
This power to intervene is specifically dealt with in the Criminal Code and pertains to all federal offences, not just those found in the Bill before us this morning. The power of the Attorneys General to intervene is fundamental to the administration of justice in Canada. This authority should not be dealt with, I would suggest, in an ad hoc manner by attempts to change it through the Canadian environmental protection Bill.
Involvement by the public in federal decision making is already possible in the development of regulations. This has been true, I guess, since the beginning of our Confederation in the normal call for comments when proposed regulations are published in The Canada Gazette in Part I.
The role of the public has been further guaranteed by the Government in its March, 1986, citizen's code of regulatory fairness. This is a very important development, which I do not think has received the attention that it deserves from the Canadian public. I understand that it has been the practice of Environment Canada in its policy to have public consultation on regulatory matters, even prior to the existence of this code to which I just referred. Therefore, citizens can already exercise powers under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Their role in enforcement will be larger now than ever before under any other federal statute.
Over the past days of this debate, several of my colleagues have stated and reiterated the vital role that this Bill will play in the task of protecting our environment. We have underscored the methods proposed to attack the problem head on. We all concur that the responsibilities rest with each one of us to ensure a healthy environment for our children and for our children's children. However, the responsibility at present rests with this House to get on with the passage of this Bill. I propose that we do just that.
I look forward to a more detailed debate of the Bill once it gets to committee. Therefore, it is not my intention to prolong this stage of the Bill.


Ms. McDonald:: I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question on the environmental bill of rights. The Hon. Member made reference to the concept, and seems to be under the mistaken impression that there is in effect an environmental bill of rights in this Bill before us today. That is not the case, and it has been a major criticism on the part of environmental groups and experts in the country.
Earlier in his speech, the Hon. Member referred to consultation and he pointed out that there would be consultation with the provinces. Certainly, I would heartily agree that there ought to be consultation with the provinces, although not a lessening of standards for the environment on the part of the provinces. The provinces ought to have the right to increase standards but not to decrease them.
October 23, 1987

The Hon. Member did not mention, apropos consultation, consultation with environmentalist groups. Those groups were very much excluded from the process. The Bill was expanded rather after the fact that a consultation had taken place on only a part of the Bill. They feel that they have been excluded from this process. They have asked the Government to pass this Bill, get on with things, but to go back to square one, as it were, to meet with them and come up with a real environmental bill of rights that will do the types of things that they have been asking to be done over the last number of years.


David Bruce Daubney: I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I do not think 1 indicated in my remarks that there was an environmental bill of rights contained in this statute. I pointed out that there perhaps is what is tantamount to that in there, in that there is ample opportunity for citizen participation in the investigation process, and in the research process. I suggest that the Hon. Member examine the sections, from Section 100 on, which deal with the investigation, some of which I referred to in my remarks, such as the opportunity for any 12 persons to petition the Minister to investigate an alleged offence.
In terms of the comments of the Hon. Member on consultation, up until now it has been my understanding that there has been significant consultation by the Department and the Minister during the last several months with environmental groups, certainly with the provinces, and with companies that will be involved. I would suggest that it is the type of consultation that must occur in any democratic confederation such as ours. I think that it has occurred in this case. Perhaps there is room for more consultation and discussions. I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to talk and continue to talk to people. Certainly, there will be a monitoring of the legislation once it is in force to ensure that it is meeting the requirements of all Canadians.
As I suggested in my remarks, it is an important step forward. It is the type of legislation that will give us the instrument to deal with our commitments internationally, and our genuine commitment that was underlined this week at the United Nations General Assembly by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to give effect to the Brundtland report, that important study and commission which recognizes, as does this Act, the important connection between the environment and the economy.
It is those types of provisions contained in the Bill before the House which will give the Government, in conjunction with other Governments of the country and citizens, the right to take part in developing the type of interaction that has to occur if we are to deal with the serious environmental problems that will face us in the future.
In closing, one such example is the ozone treaty. It is an extremely important historical development in terms of environmental protection. The meetings took place in Montreal under the leadership of the Government and the Minister of the Environment. We need this Bill to be enacted in order to give effect to our commitments under that treaty.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the principles involved in Bill C-74, and on where it falls short, in my opinion.
We must realize at the beginning that when we are talking about the environment and we look at specific examples that are site-specific we are talking about a global problem. Whether we are talking about Ladysmith Harbour, Cowichan Estuary, something to do with the Love Canal, or low-level flights in Labrador, we are talking about a global problem.
I have a great deal of concern that our parliamentary system is not addressing that global problem in the global context. When I say "our parliamentary system" I do not only mean the Canadian parliamentary system, I mean parliamentary systems all over the world. Parliamentary democracy is the best hope that people of our world have that there will be an intelligent approach to environmental problems. Certainly dictatorships have done an even worse job of addressing the environment than parliamentary democracies.
This is something that we collectively as a House of Commons have to address; the fact that environmental problems in our world are outstripping our ability to control them and deal with them in a constructive manner. We live in a world where there are 5 billion people. That population is growing, yet the resources on which those 5 billion people depend are finite.
The Brundtland report which was released this past spring points to the very real problems that we have, and that we in the developed world sometimes ignore. Because we are able to exploit resources that are a thousand miles away from us and the degradation is sometimes hidden from our eyes, we neglect to see what really is happening in the world.
The Brundtland report makes the basic observation that we cannot continue to have the type of anti-environmental policies in the developed world that lead to underdevelopment and poverty in the Third World, and hope that this will be sustainable in the medium-level or long-term future. The future of our world depends upon finding models of development that can be applied throughout our world, not only in the industrialized West, but in the Third World, that will enable all people to live together with some dignity and prosperity.
The types of pressures that the developed world places on the environment are different from the types of pressures placed on the environment in the Third World. For example, I can remember when the external affairs committee visited Tanzania, and drove through the countryside and saw stacks of charcoal by the side of the road. This charcoal was made by chopping down the local forests. It was sent into the City of Dar es Salaam to provide much needed fuel for heating and cooking. It was a source of energy. Yet that source of energy was directly responsible for destroying forests. The destruction of forests in our world is a shame and a crisis that will affect all of us in a very short time unless we find some way of addressing it.

October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
The Brundtland report pointed out that already we are beginning to experience some of the problems that we have inflicted upon our world. They are coming back to haunt us. There was the African famine of three or four years ago. Now there are reports that we again have drought in Ethiopia and millions of people's lives are at risk. This is not simply a cyclical matter of drought in the sub-Sahara area. There have been cyclical droughts, certainly. It is also a result of the fact that we have abused the environment. For example, 45 per cent of Ethiopia used to be covered by forests. Today about 4 per cent is covered by forests. This kind of human abuse of the environment is causing many of our problems.
We have seen the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the Bhopol chemical disaster in India. In Canada a couple of years ago a Senate study talked about the growing problem of the destruction of our land, the salinization of Canadian land. We are concerned about the disappearance of whole species of animal and plant life.
Recently a number of us from our Party, and I think from other Parties, wrote to the chairman of the World Bank, Barber Conable, and urged that the World Bank's development policies should take much greater cognizance of the need for environmental protection to be built into every project undertaken by the World Bank. Sometimes World Bank projects have been very short sighted where dams have been built and areas flooded with no consequence to the total environment in which the dam has been placed. Instead of having positive development, we end up with another environmental disaster.
The Brundtland report suggested having a United Nations declaration on the environment, similar to the United Nations declaration of human rights that has become a standard through which people from all over the world can appeal. We should have that kind of universal standard for the environment.
This is not simply a Canadian problem or a problem in Tanzania, India or wherever, it is a global problem. We all share it and we should be working to develop a United Nations approach to this. This is particularly appropriate now with United Nations Day falling tomorrow.
In the same respect, it has been urged that Canada itself should adopt an environmental bill of rights which would guarantee to the Canadian people certain environmental standards. The Government gave some lip service to this concept, but Bill C-74 does not begin to address the need for an environmental bill of rights. It adds a preamble which has some very laudable wording and goals in it, but it does not have any effect in law.
Let me point to some of the things it says:
WHEREAS the presence of toxic substances in the environment is a matter of national concern;
WHEREAS toxic substances once introduced into the environment cannot always be contained within geographic boundaries;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada in demonstrating national leadership should establish national environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice;
WHEREAS it is necessary to control the dispersal of nutrients in Canadian waters;
WHEREAS some of the laws under which federal lands, works and undertakings are administered or regulated do not make provision for environmental protection in respect to federal lands and undertakings;
AND WHEREAS Canada must be able to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the environment;
The preamble concludes that therefore the Government passes the following law and so on. What we would like to see is a basic declaration of rights of Canadians as far as the environment is concerned. Perhaps we can get a better idea of some of the problems with Bill C-74. We support it as a small step forward, but it is not the kind of Environment Protection Act that Canadians really need. I would like to give an example.
A couple of weekends ago I had the opportunity to take a trip through the Cowichan Estuary and up the river. We were concerned about the low water levels on the Cowichan River because the levels affect the salmon. The mill was closed. It was a Saturday morning and all was very quiet and peaceful. The colours were changing in the mountains and it was a very beautiful scene. We saw fish and seals eating the fish. There were ducks and hunters were out trying to shoot the ducks. As we went up the river we saw some Indian people spearing fish and then we saw a great blue heron which flew out from the trees on the edge of the river and glided across the river. The blue heron is a magnificent and beautiful bird, Madam Speaker.
Just a few miles north of the Cowichan River at Crofton a colony of blue herons with 57 nests were counted last year but not one egg hatched from those nests. Canadian wildlife officials have been sampling eggs from the blue heron colonies in four specific locations in British Columbia over the past number of years and have found dioxin levels in three of the samples. The highest level has been at the Crofton area. Not one of those eggs in the 57 nests hatched this past year.
This is a kind of mini-environmental disaster for that particular colony of great blue herons. It has frightening implications for all of us because blue herons happen to be at the top end of the food chain. They tend to live on fish and sea creatures which themselves will ingest minute quantities of dioxins. Blue herons at the top of the food chain are more subject to the problems of dioxins than animals lower in the food chain.
There has been a lot of circumstantial evidence about why none of the 57 nests produced a single hatched egg, and it looks as though the problem is related to dioxins. We are not completely sure what the source is, whether it is from the Crofton pulp mill which employs a good number of people in my constituency and is extremely important to the economy of
October 23, 1987

that area, or whether it could from the kind of wood preservative used by the local sawmills. Does it come through ingestion of fish or shellfish? Some of the preliminary testing has not shown very high levels of dioxins in local fish, but we have asked that the fisheries people do more testing to determine the problem. There is some question about the use of shellfish in that area. The contamination of the whole British Columbia coast poses a threat to human beings. There has been a much higher percentage of dioxins found in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. The great blue herons are used as a kind of thermometer for registering dioxins and it has been shown that they are under much greater stress in British Columbia. Some of the colonies appear to have moved away from the coast where we have a large number of our pulp mills. The total population of great blue herons is probably diminishing on our coast. That says something about the degradation of the environment which has very important implications for human beings.
The question we need to ask is how would Bill C-74 make a difference to that situation. If the route of the dioxins to the blue herons was from a sawmill or a pulp mill using PCBs or wood preservatives to the fish or shellfish and then to the blue herons, then Bill C-74 would make no difference at all, because Clause 38(2)(b) of the Bill provides that the Minister can act only if he has consulted with other Ministers of the Crown in right of Canada to determine whether any action can be taken under any other Act of Parliament to prevent the significant danger referred to in subclause 1.
The Fisheries Act gives the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) the power to control deleterious substances which affect fish habitat or fish, so the authority is already there. Bill C-74 will not provide any further protection to solve that particular problem if in fact the pattern of dioxins had been from an industrial plant to fish and then to the blue herons.
If some other route was followed, the Minister of the Environment could place the discharges that were responsible for the dioxin level on a list of substances to be regulated, but this is a lengthy and cumbersome process. There is no simple answer.
Pesticide regulation rests with Agriculture Canada and it has input from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and from Environment Canada. Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada have jurisdiction over water quality as it affects fish, and there are sometimes little jurisdictional jealousies among people who work in those different departments. This Bill does not clear up that jurisdictional jealousy.
As I said, we have not established conclusively that heron eggs suffer from dioxin levels. If they do, the source could either be pulp mill effluent or wood preservatives used on lumber. The blame is tossed back and forth from one industry to another.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Environment Canada is looking at PCBs used in wood preservatives as a priority chemical to be controlled in spite of the fact that Agriculture Canada has registered that chemical, and it has since backed off. Under Bill C-74, if PCBs become a priority substance they will be tested and regulations will be drawn up which will be subject to review by a board which will include industry. Once passed, it would restrict the chemical.
One official from Environment Canada told my office that this is a process measured in years. This brings me back to the initial comment I made, is that our parliamentary system seems to be so slow in dealing with the mounting environmental crisis that the crisis is outstripping our ability to deal with it. Certainly the process envisaged in Bill C-74 moves very slowly.
The Environmental Contaminants Act, which Bill C-74 would replace, deals with new chemicals excluding pesticides and existing chemicals but does not apply to chemicals covered by other Acts. The pressure to put PCBs on the priority list to be examined by Environment Canada is being resisted. The province is saying that ten parts per million is considered by the industry to be a very onerous restriction. The chemical that is being developed to replace PCBs will have a lower acceptable level of five parts per million because it is more acutely toxic to fish, but there is less information to suggest that it is a chronic health hazard. We are replacing one group of chemicals with another which we hope will be less hazardous to our health, even though we know that it is more toxic to fish.
There is a whole host of areas where the Government now has the power to act. It has the power to act under the Fisheries Act, for example, but it has not acted. For example, the Fraser River as it flows into the ocean becomes practically a sewer for different kinds of chemical wastes, but the Department of Fisheries has not acted to clean up the mess. Bill C-74 will not help that situation. Ladysmith Harbour has a long-standing problem and Bill C-74 will not solve that because the Government already has legislation in place and Bill C-74 will not infringe on that legislation.
Therefore, while we support this legislation as a small step, it does not begin to address the fundamental problems of the environment in Canada or the world as they exist in 1987.


David Bruce Daubney: Madam Speaker, I want to make some comments on the earlier part of the Hon. Member's speech. First I recognize his genuine and significant commitment to environmental issues over the years.
The Hon. Member referred extensively to the Brundtland report on which 1 touched in response to a question put by one of his colleagues about half an hour ago. I think it is important for the people watching to have some perspective on just how important a report this is and how this Government has recognized that and acted in a very significant way to respond to it.
First, before it handed down its report, when the commission visited Canada in the spring of 1986, the Minister of the

October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Environment made a presentation to it. Subsequent to that, a task force on the environment and the economy was established by the Minister consisting of Government, industry and environmental groups. This task force reported almost exactly a month ago, and the Government is now actively pursuing the recommendations it made.
As I mentioned, earlier this week, I believe on October 19, the Minister of the Environment made a very significant presentation to the United Nations General Assembly. It is important and worth pointing out that he was the first Canadian Environment Minister to address the General Assembly.
The Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland, who of course chaired the committee, was very impressed by Canada's quick action in establishing the task force and responding in practical terms to some of the recommendations. I understand she was also very pleased with the Minister's commitment expressed with such strength and vigour in his UN speech.
I also remind Hon. Members that this House, in an opposition day on May 15, unanimously accepted the recommendations of the Brundtland report. I would simply point out to the Hon. Member and his colleagues on his side of the House the importance of getting on with this Bill so that we can start to implement the commitments that we are making and will continue to make to ensure that the recommendations of this very important commission are put into force.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, certainly I would want to commend the Minister for his personal commitment to the environment and I think it is highly commendable that he did go to the United Nations to raise this. I think it has to be raised in a great number of forums. I appreciate, and I think Canadians appreciate that he went to the United Nations to raise it because I think it is important.
I am also concerned about the lag time. The Minister spoke about the slowness with which we are dealing with this Bill. We have no intention of holding it up, but I am concerned that the Bill itself move slowly in order to address the problems of our environment. It is a very small step to deal with a very serious problem. We, like the Hon. Member, want to see it move forward, but it is important that Canadians understand from this debate that it does not begin to give the kind of total protection of the environment that its title somewhat grandiosely suggests. It is a good step but a small step, and there are many further steps that need to be taken.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for his endorsement of the efforts of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to represent environmental issues for Canada. The original suggestion that the stature of the Minister is international in scope is of course based upon his efforts to address
not only Canada's environmental problems but global environmental problems. To the degree to which his Government allowed him, I think the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), also enjoyed international stature in the environmental sense. However, what has occurred since then with our Government has been a quantum leap forward. I disagree with my friend from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. This is not a small step forward. It is a very major step forward. Until now there has been no way in which the Government through legislation could truly track the life-span of new and existing chemicals and their interaction with the environment, whether it be plant life, the air, animals, birds, or human beings.
I have had an ongoing interest in environmental issues going back to 1974. For example, I can recall in the mid-1970s when the Government of Canada, and the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, Marc Lalonde, were persuaded to fund a study into the effects of lead fall-out on the residents of Trail and greater Trail. That was instigated by studies which determined that some horses, particularly foals, were affected in their bone structure and general health by lead poisoning. There are those of us familiar with the effect that that has on bone and soft tissue. However, half-way through the study the Government decided not to fund it any longer. It was through my efforts, supported by Local 480 of the Steelworkers Union and Dr. Smith, the public health officer, that Marc Lalonde, who is difficult to persuade at any time, was persuaded to complete this important study.
I recall seeing patients in my office, workers at the smelter, who suffered erosion of their teeth because of acid in the air in the zinc plant. I saw people with a hole through the nasal septum big enough to put a gold ring through as a result of tissue erosion. I can say now that were it not for the forceful actions of Local 480, those working conditions would not have been improved. They have a continuous and ongoing concern about those working conditions.
I have a constituent who is a victim of paint spray in a body shop he owns. We cannot even find out what the chemistry is that is causing the problem because the company producing the paint does not want to tell us. Yet he has respiratory involvement, circulatory involvement, dermatitis, psychological impact, and all kinds of other sensitivities which he never had before. He has lost the ability to work in his profession in his body shop, and he is a very skilled tradesman.
It was I think a year ago that we saw on television prairie farmers suffering nausea, vomiting, dermatitis, and vertigo as a result of the inhalation of fumes from herbicides or pesticides sprayed on their farmland. There is concern that this Bill does not address that problem. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), in his speech which began yesterday and finished today dealt with that very appropriately. Those concerns should not be concerns of major importance to the public.
October 23, 1987

In speaking to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), I reflected upon the problems created for fruit farmers in spraying their trees. The ignorance displayed in not using a face mask when spraying fruit trees, for example, resulted in death in one case. The same concerns can be raised over the life span and effect of other chemicals. Certainly a significant group of my constituents have been very concerned about the application of herbicides and pesticides by the B.C. Forest Service, CP Rail, Burlington Rail, and the Department of Highways. Many of them appear to have a better knowledge of the chemistry involved than the provincial Departments we are dealing with.
It is important to all of us that we get a handle on this. It is in that context that this Bill addresses such a multitude of subjects. It is a Bill of such scope and dimension that I do not think any of us truly appreciate it at this stage. To address the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands, who says that changes should be made to the Bill, there needs to be more improvement, I say that may be that is so, but we will have that opportunity in committee. I hope this Bill will be before that committee very shortly.
The magnitude of environmental issues today boggles the mind. If it were not for the fact that life in Canada north of the 49th parallel was very hard in the days of the pioneers, I think some of us would wish we could go back to that time and start all over again with the knowledge we have now of the environmental impact of the things we do. However, that is not to be, so we must endeavour with great energy to reverse that process.
Reference was made to the blue heron. Not too long ago this Government funded in part an experimental boiler for a pulp mill in my constituency. We put $380,000 into a project that will cost approximately $1.5 to $2 million. When that boiler is in place the pulp mill will experience a reduction of about 90 per cent in both water-borne and airborne pollutants. That is Canadian technology at work in concert with other pulp and paper companies across Canada, and the Province of British Columbia. If that technology works, and we have every reason to believe it will, it will generate jobs in a market which is just waiting for that Canadian technology.
There are at least 40 different locations right now in Canada where that technology can be applied. There are about 80 or more in the United States. There are about 400 known applications worldwide right now. That technology originated in Canada. In fact, the first model which originated in my constituency will, in my view, make a very significant contribution to the reduction of air and water-borne pollutants coming from pulp mills.
I would like to correct the Hon. Member in one context. He made reference to pulp mills using wood preservatives. It would be the first time, to my knowledge, that they have
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
resorted to that. I cannot understand why wood preservatives would ever be used in a pulp mill. They never made that reference with regard to dioxins and other products which are contained in some wood preservatives.
Major contribution to the environment has been made by the Minister of the Environment. He and the Member for Davenport, when he was the Minister, gained international stature. Canada has been recognized at the table of the United Nations and is in the forefront on concerns for the environment. I thank God for that.
There are no simple answers. This is a very complex subject ranging from dioxin to the ozone layer to the food chain and to a host of new chemistry about which we do not, as yet, know a thing. All of those will require the very close scrutiny of the Government of Canada through this Act, the Fisheries Act, pesticide control by the Department of Agriculture, and the Ocean Dumping Control Act.
My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands expressed concern that this issue was not addressed in this Bill, but it was addressed in another Bill. Frankly, I see no reason why, if ocean dumping is well addressed in the Ocean Dumping Control Act, it should be moved into the Environmental Protection Act. That would only expand the debate and delay the Bill further. The same would apply to the Fisheries Act. We need not take portions out of that Act and put it in this Bill.
This is a very comprehensive Bill which will, in my view, move Canada forward in its concern for the environment. It is not the final answer. We do not yet know what is out there. The Minister would be the first to admit that this is not the final answer, but it is a quantum leap forward and a contribution and example to the world.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate although this is not a subject on which I profess any wide knowledge, certainly not worldwide knowledge such as some others have, including my colleague, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). However, I am concerned with this subject and the way in which it has affected the residents of Spadina and another part of Toronto for some years.
In 1972 I became aware that a lead smelter a few blocks from my house was polluting the neighbourhood. The lead smelter had grown up from a scrap-yard which had concentrated on smelting lead. I was very interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) who described dealing with a very similar problem at Trail in conjunction with Steel Workers' Local 480. I commend the Hon. Member for his part in the work that was done there. I commend the steel workers for their part in it as well.
I will describe a little of the difficulty that we had in approaching this problem. I was then the alderman for the ward concerned. The company concerned was Toronto Refiners and Smelters at the corner of Bathurst and Front

October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Streets. Within a year or so another company, Canada Metals, owned by the same outfit which owned the Trail smelter, Canada Pacific Investments, was causing the same problem two or three miles east at the foot of Pape Avenue.
We lacked almost entirely the legal tools needed to deal with that problem. We could not get action directly from the provincial Government, which at that time had jurisdiction over air quality. We had to use the local board of health. The local board of health, of course, has some very peremptory powers, but mostly on a different scale. It gives the medical officer of health power to order the repair or replacement of a faulty sanitary toilet if it is causing trouble to the neighbours. That does not go very far toward correcting a problem with a smelter.
When we directed the company, through the board of health, to stop spewing lead dust on to the neighbouring streets and houses in which people had been living before the plant was established, we were met with massive legal action. We were met with costs in the range of $100,000. Fortunately, the provincial Government allowed city council to reimburse three members of the board of health who were specifically acted against in a civil suit by a combination of the lead companies.
We learned that there is an international lead-zinc research organization which sends specialists throughout the world to testify, where necessary, that a little bit of lead does not really hurt you and to try to overshadow any local experts who may be able to show that there has been or is likely to be a harmful effect from the ingestion of lead, especially in children of preschool age.
We were finally able to make enough public fuss that the provincial Ministry of the Environment was pressured to take action in the matter. After several years it issued control orders requiring the companies to clean up to some extent. The problem has not been very well monitored and the pollution has continued, not at the same rate, but at a rate serious enough to require the replacement of the soil for the second time. Soil was replaced on the orders of the provincial Government because it was unfit to be on the property of families, especially those with small children. That was done at public expense rather than the expense of the company. The evidence now shows that the soil in some of those areas has been polluted a second time. Even though there was provincial legislation, the control has been very weak.
There was also a labour problem. Upon inquiry we found that in at least one plant workers who were tested by the company doctor for lead content in their blood were told not to worry, that they were okay. Not every family doctor has the knowledge or equipment to test for small quantities of lead in the blood. Therefore, we had some of them tested elsewhere, and the level of lead content found in their blood was medically shocking. They were shocked. They were quite unhappy at the thought that the company-paid doctor misled them. The fact is that the philosophy of the company doctor is that the patient is the company since it pays his bills. Therefore, he will
give the workers such information as the company wishes him to give them.
The workers in the plant found that not only was the neighbourhood being polluted, their health and lives were being endangered by lead. At that time we could find no help from the federal Government. However, I want to say, to the credit of the Speaker of the House, that in 1979 he was the Minister of the Environment and, in correspondence with me, indicated that he hoped to introduce a law that would enable the federal Government to take some action in cases like that. He was unable to finish that project.


An Hon. Member:: Thanks to you guys.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hear an Hon. Member say thanks to us. I was not here then but I understand that the Hon. Member's Party produced a foolish budget and did not even make sure they had enough people in the House to support it. They are still kicking themselves for that, but do not like to admit who really was at fault.
However, I wish to commend the Speaker, the then Minister, for at least attempting to take action on this.
This law is at least a beginning, part of which is to identify toxic substances. However, there are some problems with that aspect, as with others.
Labour groups and other environmentally concerned groups who appeared before the committee pointed out that the definition of a toxic substance, while very wide in one sense, is very weak in another sense.
It states:
For the purposes of this Part, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions
(a)	having or that may have a significant immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment that is likely to interfere with important biological processes;
(b)	constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or
(c)	constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
That is a very broad definition. The problem is that it is also very vague. The Government may or may not declare a substance to be toxic. There is not much provision in the act to reassure the public that the Government will act on that matter. I will deal with that question in more detail later.
A further problem is that the arrangement between the federal Government and provincial Governments seems quite unsatisfactory because it allows for indefinite waffling between Ottawa and one or more provincial capitals. It allows for an indefinite period of consultation, before which the Government may not act.
One can envisage Ottawa blaming a province and a province blaming Ottawa, each one saying the other is not moving. This
October 23, 1987

is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the public who would like to see some action. The Bill does not prevent the Government from acting, by law, but allows for passing the buck between the federal Government and the provinces, as in university funding, for example. The federal Government and the Ontario Government blame each other for the fact that universities are short of funds. The same danger can exist with this legislation. The Government will not want to put the funds into the work, and therefore leave it to the provincial Government, which will say that this is a federal responsibility.
Furthermore, according to Clause 38(2), there must even be a consultation before an emergency order can be issued. We had this experience in trying to get an emergency order to clean up or temporarily close in order to clean up these lead smelters in Toronto. The local board of health did not have sufficient legal clout to do that. In effect, the legislation was not strong enough. I do not know whether the provincial legislation was strong enough or whether there was simply a lack of will on the part of the provincial Government since it took so long to take action.
There is some risk in this case that the federal Government will simply delay while consulting with a provincial Government even on an emergency order.
Let me turn to the general problem of the need for minimum legislation. The Canadian Labour Congress stated:
The general principle ought to be: Unless the provinces have stronger legislation, the federal Government should move in to establish minimum-but strong and effective-national standards of environmental cleanliness.
There should be consultation with the interested parties, certainly; but this should not prevent speedy and effective federal Government action on the environment at the national level.
In other words, there should not be so much buck-passing with respect to emergency orders and particularly legislation. There should be a clearly established federal responsibility for a minimum standard. There is nothing stopping a province from implementing a higher standard, but it should not be allowed to tolerate a lower standard.
Many people have often spoken about the need for a bill of environmental rights. While it is true that there is the right of 12 people to petition the Minister for information for an investigation, it does not give them the right to initiate any kind of civil action. That is a very serious defect in this Bill. Unless they are prepared to show that individually they are being harmed or likely to be harmed, they cannot use Clause 128 and Clause 129 to initiate civil action. While they can use Clauses 100 and 101 to get information, it can be a very slow process, and it is unclear whether they will be able to initiate actions after they have the information.
Of course, there is no provision for funding such an action. As I said, companies like Canadian Pacific Investment, which are in the business of polluting, can spend millions of dollars on their international lead and zinc research outfit in order to combat anyone, such as workers in the plant, neighbours down the street, or even people in the community who may be trying
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
to get the information and lay a charge under civil action but do not have an expensive researcher on retainer. In such cases, it will be a contest of the elephant against the mouse.
It is the same in the matter of determining what is toxic and what is non-toxic. Yes, 12 persons may be able to petition to have the Minister investigate a certain substance to see whether or not it is toxic, but they will not have the right to initiate civil action in the matter. Therefore, while the Government is acquiring information, and that is good, and of course it is necessary to have the information, the likelihood of corrective action is in great doubt. In spite of public requests at the hearings in this matter, the opportunities for the public to secure corrective action are very limited.
Finally, I wish to refer to one large omission under this Act. There are others, but the one with which I am very concerned is its neglect to deal with environmental dangers of nuclear energy and radio-active substances. It is also a matter dealt with not in my ward but within Metro Toronto, when previous Governments, federal and provincial, left radio-active soil in a dump in Scarborough without even informing subsequent developers and homeowners of what might be in that soil. They found out later on, after the homes had been bought and the owners had begun to live in them, that they were living on a radio-active dump. It has taken years of expensive and tortuous litigation for those homeowners to get some satisfaction from one or the other levels of government.
Apparently this law does nothing at all to correct that defect. We may be told that that is all taken care of by the Atomic Energy Control Board. If so, that is a sick joke, because, as we found out when the new appointments were being made about a year ago, almost all of the members of that board were engaged in making profits, or else they come immediately from companies which are engaged in making profits out of the atomic energy business. That is putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. Those men are not going to restrict their profits by having concern for the health and safety of the people in the neighbourhood or the countryside around them.
Therefore, we have neither under the atomic energy legislation, nor in this EPA, any serious means by which the public can ensure protection for itself against mistakes, excesses or negligence on the part of those who conduct our nuclear energy plants and industries, and the transportation of toxic substances which sometimes travel on a railway line through Metro Toronto, and so on. None of that is under sufficient control. It is unfortunate that that aspect has been omitted from this Act.
As I said, my colleagues and I are supporting this Act. I am specifically thankful that some steps have been taken, because I know the problem we had a decade ago in Toronto, and still have. I regret the Act is so cautious and particularly so afraid

October 23, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
of allowing the public full modern necessary access to the remedies concerned.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who, as usual, has thoroughly examined the matter before us. I did not hear him comment, however, on one aspect of the Bill which might interest him and on which I would seek his views. The Hon. Member is probably not aware of the fact that in Bill C-74 there is a clause which does not empower the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to stop the export of substances that are prohibited for use in Canada, but which Canada may want to export, for instance, to developing countries for economic, commercial and other reasons.
This, of course, raises a moral question which I am sure the Hon. Member for Spadina is particularly keen and qualified to examine, namely, whether Canada should be engaged in the export of substances, in this case it would be toxic substances, that we do not permit for use in our own jurisdiction, but for which we would not have any compunction at all to seek to have exported.
1 must admit that I could not understand the reasoning of the Government in not including a clause to the effect that the Minister would have the power to stop exports of substances of this kind once they are forbidden for use here. Evidently, the political will was not sufficient in Cabinet and, therefore, we have to address the question here at second reading and subsequently in committee.
It is with this thought in mind that I would invite the Hon. Member for Spadina to give us the benefit of his reflection on this clause as he assesses it from a moral point of view.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his comment. 1 am aware of the defect he mentions, and there are many defects in the Bill I did not have time to touch upon, and I agree that it is a serious defect. I cannot match the Hon. Member's expertise on the subject, but I heartily agree with the principle to which he has appealed, that if a substance is too poisonous to use for Canadians, it is too poisonous to use in anyone else's country.
It is a disgrace that we should knowingly permit the export to other countries, as the Hon. Member says, probably to third world or what 1 would call "former colonial countries"-more colonial than Canada-those people who are in a sense economically weaker, of substances which perhaps some Canadian company wishes to sell to its profit or wishes to use in a subsidiary in that other country, notwithstanding the fact that it is likely to do harm to those people such as might be prohibited by law to be done to Canadians.
This is, of course, part and parcel of the growing practice of multinational corporations which are seeking to shut down industries in Canada so they can open them up in former colonial countries that lack even such protections as we have here for the environment, for the conditions of labour and, of course, for the wages of labour.
When I was in El Salvador, I was invited by the Vice Minister of Planning to encourage Canadians to invest in what he called "our low wages, our low-wage industries", and I am quite sure that any Canadian who wished to export a manufacturing enterprise to El Salvador and wished to use toxic substances, would find no hindrance from the Duarte Government. They would be welcome. The workers then would have to choose between starvation or starvation wages along with toxic substances. So it is immoral, as the Hon. Member has suggested, and I hope it will be looked at seriously in committee.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for his answer, which was as thoughtful as usual. On the domestic front, and I refer particularly to Manitoba, two of its major rivers, the Assiniboine River and the Red River, are seriously contaminated with toxic chemical substances. The Government of that province is reluctant to take the necessary action. It being a New Democratic Government, that may not be good news to the Hon. Member for Spadina. Nevertheless, I would have to put to him the following question: Since the Government of that province is not doing what the Hon. Member, I am sure, would like that Government, and also the Government of Canada, to do, namely, to clean up and to prevent the pollution of toxic chemicals of major waterways in that province, does the Hon. Member see in this particular Bill the means to intervene in the Province of Manitoba to get the New Democratic Government there to do the things which are needed in order to clean up the pollution of toxic chemicals in those two major rivers?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was speaking about a city that I know because I was born there and I grew up there. I was very familiar with those two rivers, the Red and the Assiniboine. When I swam in them when 1 am was a kid they were dirty enough, but I would not swim in them now. I believe this Bill, and this was the main point I was making at the beginning of my remarks, does not provide for clear responsibility by the federal Government. I am not familiar with the current discussions in Manitoba about the action for remedying the quality of the water caused by pollution in those two rivers.
The situation at present is that there is no federal responsibility, as 1 said when I was describing what happened in Toronto a decade ago. After this Bill has been passed there may or may not be effective federal responsibility. I am not clear on that. My colleagues are not clear on that either. We are not clear as to whether or not it will simply provide for buck passing. I think that in both cases, whether it is between a provincial Government such as a Liberal one, a New Democratic one or a Tory one, and the federal Government, there will be attempts to pass the administrative costs of the remedial action to the other level of Government. That is why I wish that this Bill would more clearly assert the obligation of
October 23, 1987

the federal Government to act if the provincial Government does not.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If there are no more questions or comments, we will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes on this particular matter given its importance, not only to the people of Canada but on a global scale.
First, I think it is unfortunate that the Government really missed an opportunity here by coming forward with the kind of Bill that it has come forward with. There was absolutely no public discussion prior to the Government, or the Minister in this case, drafting this particular piece of legislation. I think that is also very unfortunate.
The Government, like most others, for some reason when it comes to environmental concerns seems to feel that it and only it has the knowledge and the authority to deal with environmental problems. In fact, usually the response to environmental concerns is that the person raising those concerns is just trying to frighten the general public, or that the concern that has been identified is really not as critical as people say it is.
I want to give two or three examples of this which might be helpful. A number of years ago I had the opportunity to chair a task force that went down to the Niagara Peninsula to take a look at what was happening to the Niagara River as a result of chemical dump sites. These were located primarily on the New York side of the Niagara River and were, first, located in the worst place that they could possibly be located and, second, they were too close to that river. As a result of these locations, and particularly because the excavations rested on dolomite rock which, as you probably know, Madam Speaker, is a highly porous rock, these toxic wastes had begun to seep through the rock into the underground water system and were leaching into the Niagara River.
I want to tell the House that the people in those communities had become quite fearful for their own safety over the years and had gone to some great lengths to try to convince Governments, both at the provincial and the federal level, that this was a matter that deserved some attention. By the way, these were people whom I would class as probably being in very upper middle class income groups who were expressing those concerns. They were people who had never protested anything in their lives and who felt that if they spoke in a reasonable way to Governments, they would respond to their approach. They found something quite different.
They found that Governments did not respond for a whole variety of reasons which I do not want to take the time to go into now. But the Governments in fact did not respond to these concerns. Some of those groups were forced to take some actions which, for them, were quite revolutionary to raise public awareness and to bring some media attention to the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
views that they were expressing. They had real reason for concern.
Across the river from many of these communities was the Hyde Park dump site, which was also a part of the same corporation, the Hooker Chemical Corporation, which had been largely responsible for the Love Canal travesty. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, when I went over to take a look at that Love Canal site I had imagined a small community, a small village or something like that. This was a whole subdivision of houses that had been built and constructed on this chemical dump site and which had been discovered largely through the work of Dr. Beverly Paigen, who had acquaintances who actually lived in the community on the Love Canal site. She had heard about the high incidence of cancer in that community, as well as the highly abnormal defects in births in that community, and she did some work on that. In fact, she was the person who brought it to the attention of the public.
That whole Love Canal community is now ringed off by wire fencing. People cannot get access to it, naturally, because the basements are now flooded with chemical wastes. I want to tell the House that after I took a look at that community and saw what could happen to other communities around the Niagara River site, and other members of that committee were with me and saw it, I left there in complete shock. It raised my interest in environmental concerns a great deal.
I want to talk about one simple thing that means a great deal to my own community in the east end of Toronto. Not so very long ago kids could go down into Lake Ontario during the summer months to swim. One cannot do that any more. One cannot do that any more because of the pollution in Lake Ontario along the bottom of my own constituency in Beaches and along Broadview-Greenwood. One cannot swim on most of the recreational beaches in Metropolitan Toronto in the summer months any more because of the pollution in that lake.
There would be a very simple solution to that problem, if Governments had the political will to do something about it. Most of the pollution that I am referring to comes largely as a result of overflows in the storm sewage system. For years it has been recognized that the whole sewage system should be separated in order that the regular waste sewage does not overflow during heavy thunderstorms, for example, in the summer months.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities made a recommendation to the federal Government within the last year that called for an expenditure-and it is not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but also in other large metropolitan communities-of some $12 billion over a five-year period that could be shared by municipal, provincial, and federal Governments. It is my understanding that the provinces and municipalities have agreed to enter into such a cost-sharing agreement. However, the federal Government refuses to do so, on the basis that if municipalities see a need to upgrade those

October 23, 1987
Organized Crime
sewer systems, then they should raise taxes at the municipal level, or do something else to raise the taxes in order that they could do the work themselves.
The federal Government ignores the environmental concerns. It also chooses to ignore the fact that part of this proposal clearly showed that, if the federal Government entered into such an agreement, some 60,000 jobs a year could be created over a five-year period as a result of that effort to clean up the environment. Governments are extremely shortsighted when looking at environmental concerns, and when looking at proposals that will not only clean up the environment but will create jobs in the process.
On the task force that I was on, I had the opportunity to take a look at a chemical producing plant in Sarnia, Ontario, where there was extremely bad pollution, especially air pollution coming out of that plant, a number of years ago. The employer was persuaded by environmental groups and the Ontario Government of the day to clean up that plant. When 1 was there, there was a whole display inside the plant about pollution control equipment. The company now boasts that, as a result of cleaning up the environment on that work site, it created new additional jobs and new technologies for that particular corporation. Cleaning up the environment can also be a job creation project. It is not only a question of expending money, jobs can also be created in the process of doing a socially useful thing.
In conclusion, I wish to state that the environment does not belong to us to abuse, destroy, and to use as some kind of large sewage waste disposal system. Our environment is only borrowed by us for future generations. As elected representatives and people who can do something about environmental concerns, we have a responsibility to act on them in that type of principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Accordingly the Bill is referred to a legislative committee.
Motion adopted, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties that, due to the time, we should move directly to Private Members' Business. This will allow us to finish the business of the House at 2.55 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it two o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ORGANIZED CRIME ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, August 13, 1987, consideration of the motion of Miss Nicholson:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada, particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking;
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society;
3.	action taken by the governments of other countries to investigate and curtail organized crime activity;
4.	legislation to enable the government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime;
5.	effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy; and
6.	possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime.
And on the amendment of Mr. Kaplan:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"and that the Royal Commission report within six months of its appointment."
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House last considered this motion, the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) had the floor. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, the last time I referred briefly to the situation of organized crime in our country.

In the seven minutes available today I wish to deal with the question of the current crime trend, the extent of hard drug trafficking in this country, and something about the Kefauver Commission in the United States which dealt with the matter proposed in the motion, namely, that there be a royal commission to look at organized crime in this country.
October 23, 1987

The crime rate nationally is up. For violent crime it is up approximately 31 per cent across Canada. In Manitoba, violent crime appears to be up about 84 per cent in that province since 1980. From the latest statistics, it is up approximately 45 per cent in Saskatchewan, 33 per cent in Ontario, and property crimes are up in seven of the ten provinces. In Vancouver, the crime rate is up to approximately 35 per cent. Why is this? Is this because of organized crime, or is this because of spontaneous crime perhaps due to unemployment or some other cause? What part of the present crime has been created by organized crime, which I define as being crime organized by two or more people, and not something spontaneous?
That brings us to the illegal drug problem in our country which has been worsening now for several years. The RCMP estimate that the amount of illegal drugs sold in this country is now in the $10 billion a year range, which is more than the sales of General Motors each year. I know that some people dispute that figure. Worldwide illegal drug sales have been estimated to be in the trillion dollar range. One of the questions that comes out of that is, who will control our domestic industries 20 years from now, if illegal drug people continue to pocket that type of money, tax free, year after year, and to invest it as they like in whatever they like?
1 am told by the RCMP that a substantial portion of a large new development in one of our major cities is now being financed by recycled drug proceeds. Not very long ago an individual in the Province of British Columbia was found to have $3.2 million in probable drug money in a suitcase. A heroin drug ring in the City of Montreal has removed an estimated tens of millions of dollars from this country during a two-year period. Hon. Members will recall that 30 tons or tonnes-I do not know if it was metric or not-of hashish were seized not long ago off our East Coast. In short, unless we try some new approaches, the problems of hard drugs are likely to worsen as time goes by.
One excellent manner to start, and I am speaking as a former Crown Attorney, is Bill C-61 which has been introduced in the House and received second reading. It provides an effective anti-drug push, and it is something that Canadians would like us to pass.
As the law presently stands, if an individual has $1 million in his bank account obtained from illegal drug profits, unless that money can be shown to have been part of his method of doing the crime or directly linked to the crime no one can touch that money. The proposed law would give us the chance to seize such property, real estate, bank accounts, and the like, which is the only way ultimately to get at drug traffickers. In other words, the philosophy should be like the English common law. If I buy a million dollar insurance policy on my wife, then I murder my wife, I should not be entitled to have the million dollar proceeds.
The search provisions in the Bill are important; the ability to seize money and property. Under the Bill, if passed, what is
Organized Crime
called the in rem clause is important because if an accused person dies or leaves the country, under the Bill if passed, his assets may be seized. What motivates drug traffickers is known to be one thing, money. A young person said not long ago, "I can make a million dollars selling drugs and the state will never touch it", an RCMP drug enforcement person reported. Forfeiting drug profits must be the major focus of beefing up our legislation. An effective in rem clause similar to the one in the U.S. legislation would help us do that. It would also be consistent with our Charter of Rights, just as the American provision has been found to be consistent with its Bill of Rights.
It seems to me to make sense to confine the new forfeiture provision to drug matters only because all of us take a serious view of drug trafficking. If we expanded into too many other things the banks and others would get excited about it. It might be wise to restrict the provision just to drug trafficking.
A matter which might be looked at by a royal commission is the question of heroin arriving by mail. Canada is one of the few countries that does not allow people, up to a year or so ago, to open the mail no matter how overwhelming the indication is that a particular letter or package contains heroin. We should obtain a provision whereby, with a judge's order and overwhelming evidence that an envelope contains heroin, the Government should be allowed to open such mail it seems to me.
I recall speaking to a customs officer a few years ago who suggested that thousands of letters come into Canada every year containing heroin. If the motion is passed I hope the commission would look into that because it is a very serious problem, particularly for our young people. Again, if I may try to drive the point home, a study in the United States found that 237 heroin addicts in the City of Baltimore over a 10 or 11 year period committed half a million crimes in that city.
I have defended these addicts. They simply have to rob seven days a week in many cases if they are heroin addicts in order to have the money to pay $50 or $100 for two caps of heroin a day.
May I draw the House's attention to the Kefauver U.S. Senate committee report of 1951. That commission dealt with the extent to which:
Gangsters and racketeers continue to pursue their vicious careers and invest
the spoils of their illegitimate activity in legitimate enterprises.
I know that was 30 years ago in another country, but the principle, it seems to me, is, unfortunately, still valid today in Canada. The Kefauver committee found that the professional criminals in the United States were putting that money into the liquor industry, banking and finance. Two of the commission's recommendations were, one, that personnel of federal law enforcement agencies should be materially increased, their salaries increased. I think our own law enforcement people would like to see that done too. Two, a racket squad should be

October 23, 1987
Organized Crime
organized in the U.S. Justice Department. Perhaps if this commission were appointed it might wish to recommend that too.
In short, I think there is much to recommend the suggestion by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I have a few remarks on behalf of the New Democratic Party and myself. Basically, we support this initiative by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Mr. Nicholson).
I was listening to the remarks by my friend from Edmonton. He and I were both Crown attorneys in Vancouver, but I think he is older than 1 am. I believe he was a Crown attorney a year before I was under Stewart McMorran who was a well known Crown prosecutor in the City of Vancouver. How Mr. McMorran managed to hire in the space of two years the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), whose views on most economic things are at the opposite end of the spectrum, and me, I don't know.


Mr. Dick:: His first choice was intelligent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Associate Minister of National Defence heckled and said that the second choice was intelligent, and I thank him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Organized crime is prevalent in our country although it is hard to tell how deep and in what particular regions it is more so than in others.
In the areas of importation, manufacturing and distribution of narcotics, and illicit drugs in the drug trade, the Hon. Member for Edmonton talked about the tragedy of the need for heroin. It is a terrible problem. The Member has prosecuted and maybe defended, as I have, people who have been charged with heroin possession and with trafficking. They are basically sick people but they are also robbers, but one has to think of the victims, something we have never fully dealt with in Canada. We have never really dealt with the problem of legalization and whether we could use the British model. However, it has all sorts of problems. There is no easy answer. The Member was right in identifying it as being part of the problem. What about the people who manipulate the addicts and earn tremendous profit? That problem has to be attacked continually.
Then we have hijacking and prostitution. In the area of pornography we think the Government's new Bill on pornography will force more of this type of thing underground, not so much the really bad stuff, because that is there anyway, but erotica which could be classed illegal. There are some dangers to that. It could go underground and organized crime would become involved. Escort services, gambling and even in the video poker game machines organized crime has been known to get involved. Then we have the smuggling of aliens and immigrants, the terrorizing and extortion of immigrants, and
the extortion of small business. What about car thefts, armed robberies, fencing of goods, arson and stolen securities? The whole area of white-collar crime is there.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) speaking in the House on May 4, 1987, made reference to a prison. He said that if a prison had only white-collar criminals in it, how different it would be because people in prison tend to be lower-income and poor people. The Member from Burnaby talked quite eloquently in reference to this Bill the one time it was debated. He said that we need to look into the whole matter of white-collar crime, environmental crime, and pollution in terms of criminal offences. We need to look into the whole area of worker safety and the kind of safety provided for workers. What about people who do not pay minimum wages and try to get away with it? We have not thought of those things as crime although they are. We would like to see that aspect broadened.
I am from Vancouver and I do not know whether Members are aware but there is another area that should be looked into, namely that of gangs. We have heard and saw a lot on television about motorcycle gangs and the wars between the gangs in the Province of Quebec. We saw pictures of bodies that were pulled out of the St. Lawrence River. I had a young boy in my riding, 16 years of age, who had been in and out of school. His mother came home a month or so ago and found him bound, gagged and shot to death in her apartment. The police believe the slaying had to do with one of the gangs in Vancouver. This is pretty tragic stuff and it goes far beyond the normal activities of juvenile gangs, the kind of activities we have seen in the past.
Vancouver is about where San Francisco was 10 years ago, with inter-gang rivalries possibly leading to violence. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit in British Columbia, a branch of the police force, identify a number of gangs and say that there are about 200 people involved in the city's major gangs, which include the Lotus-Jung Ching Gang, the Red Eagles, the Viet Ching and the Big Circle. The Attorney General of British Columbia has just appointed a 14-member unit, which costs about $800,000 a year, to look into these gangs and try to bring these people to justice.
Two and a half years ago, Jim and Lily Ming, restaurant owners, were kidnapped and brutally slain in a ransom bid case in Vancouver. I do not believe that that case has been solved.
In my area of the country, there is a growing problem with gangs, and not just juvenile gangs. There has always been a problem, as the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) said, with narcotics. He and I used to work in a building which was located on a street called The Corner at Main and Pender. Especially at Main and Hastings, the whole narcotics and heroin trade was centred around that area about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, that trade has expanded so that we cannot identify just one corner. Organized crime is
October 23, 1987

manipulating the drug trade, the protection rackets and the thefts. Those things have to be looked into.
I will not say much more about that. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Trinity on her motion. 1 would like to see its terms of reference expanded so that it would look into gangs and also consider the nature of white-collar crime. I was going to say that white-collar crime is growing, but 1 do not think it is growing, it is just not prosecuted enough. We tend to prosecute the poor people rather than the rich. There is sometimes one law for the rich and a different law for the poor. The breaking of pollution and environmental laws and some of the securities frauds affect all of us. We are all victims of those crimes, and that area should be looked into as well.
Again, I congratulate the Hon. Member on her motion. Let us not be satisfied with the Bills the Government has brought in which, as government Members have pretended, will solve some of the problems, because they will not.


David Bruce Daubney: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), a highly respected member of this place. She has presented an important motion to us today. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I want to congratulate her particularly for drawing to the attention of the House and of the people of Canada this very important matter.
Our Government is certainly well aware of the problem of organized crime and my colleagues on this side of the House will be discussing this afternoon some of the many initiatives this Government has taken in combatting organized crime. There has been improved legislation, enhanced resources, improved systems of collecting, analysing and disseminating intelligence on organized crime and as well as new arrangements with foreign Governments.
I want to focus my remarks on one part of the Hon. Member's motion, part 6, which calls upon the House to consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on a number of matters, including possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime. 1 think the Hon. Member has quite rightly focused on an important part of the question.
1 would point out to my colleagues that this is a matter which is currently being examined by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher). It is being examined by his Department in collaboration with provincial Attorneys General and Solicitors General and other federal Ministers concerned with law enforcement issues.
I think we all agree that witness protection is part and parcel of a serious commitment on the part of the Government and law enforcement agencies to pursue forcefully organized criminal activities. I am sure some Hon. Members are aware
Organized Crime
that in the United States, the federal Government instituted a witness protection program aimed at organized crime. This program is administered by the United States marshals' service.
The need for a wide-ranging formal program in the United States is, I would suggest, based on the magnitude of the organized crime problem there. Fortunately, we in Canada are not faced with a problem of a similar magnitude. That is not to suggest, however, that it is not a significant problem worth addressing.
Hon. Members are of course aware that the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility and as a consequence, the majority of witnesses requiring protection or relocation, perhaps even new identities, are the responsibility and, will continue to be so of provincial authorities. The federal Government, through the RCMP and other federal Departments, does, however, provide assistance to provincial officials in the form of documentation required for the witnesses to establish new identities. The RCMP also assists other police forces in other aspects of witness protection.
These flexible arrangements which provide for witness protection have been generally satisfactory, I would suggest, in meeting the needs of Canadians over the last number of years. Hon. Members will appreciate that the Government and departmental officials are constantly monitoring the effectiveness of the various programs, however, and of the arrangements related to law enforcement in general and organized crime in particular.
Witness protection has been identified as an area requiring examination. As 1 mentioned earlier, this examination is in progress by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and provincial representatives.
In considering this matter, the Government is proceeding carefully, and so it should. The arrangements pertaining to witness protection must ultimately serve to increase the number of successful prosecutions of those criminal cases where there are threats of intimidation or violence against witnesses and their families which are occasioned by the implicated criminal group.
The arrangements must also serve to increase the willingness of witnesses to reveal and testify about criminal offences of which they have some knowledge. In this context, it is important to determine the principles of the arrangements, the eligibility criteria for witnesses and the range of services that should be afforded witnesses who testify against organized crime groups.
Earlier I referred to the witness protection program in the United States. It is generally acknowledged by American officials and academics that their program experienced considerable difficulty and growing pains. Let me just mention some of the problems.

October 23, 1987
Organized Crime
First, there is under-funding and under-resourcing. Then there is difficulty in relocating and changing the identity of professionals. If you are a doctor or businessman it is pretty hard to change your profession. Adverse publicity for the program has been experienced. Then there is the problem of the commission of criminal offences by witnesses after relocation and change of identity, a very serious problem, I understand. They also have to ensure that the new identity is not used as a shield to evade creditors. There are problems resulting from separation and divorce of program participants, and access to children. There is failure to develop the required expertise, that is counselling and administrative services, rapidly enough to prepare the witness properly to adjust to the new life and new job. There are difficulties in providing identification documentation. Generally speaking, there is a careless, insensitive and unsympathetic attitude to the witness' trauma and problems in re-establishing themselves.
Given the U.S. experience we can appreciate that the administration of witness protection is difficult, often distasteful, and always unrewarding as the vast majority of witnesses in such programs are themselves criminals. The RCMP experience has included many of those difficulties. It is important that Governments and enforcement authorities bear these experiences in mind when considering any new arrangements to protect organized crime witnesses.
In closing, the important point is that the issue of witness protection is under careful consideration by both federal and provincial authorities. The motion, in referring to the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into this matter, seems to be somewhat superfluous. I believe such an inquiry would not add substantially to our existing knowledge, something which is being added to in our current consultations and inquiries. It would in fact run the risk of unnecessarily consuming scarce resources and perhaps even delaying achievement of the objective which I am sure Members on all sides want to achieve. I simply urge caution on the part of the Hon. Member for Trinity and other Members in considering whether or not they should support this motion, at least parts of the motion.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, if I may, I will preface my remarks by adding my commendation to that of my friend of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her concern over a matter which really concerns all of us, the impact of organized crime on Canadian society. It is rather trite to say that this phenomenon is a plague on practically all democratic Governments. We all read the papers and know that fortunes have reportedly been amassed by those unscrupulous and evil persons at the expense of the weak or desperate in our society.
I have been most impressed by the quality of the speeches made so far in this debate. They show the concern Members have about the continuance of organized crime in this country we call Canada. I sense a genuine will to put some truth into
the old adage that crime does not pay. Unfortunately, all too often it has been seen that crime does sometimes pay.
Honest businessmen, friends of yours and mine, are lured by greed and the prospect of immense profits to join hands with disreputable representatives of the underworld. In addition to the obvious motive of greed, experience has shown that a sense of adventure and intrigue has seduced some of these dupes who are not even aware that they themselves are becoming snagged in the murderous tentacles of formidable criminal organizations until it is too late.
In Canada, with our constant exposure to graphic depictions of the presence of organized criminal activities in the American news media, as well as the well-publicized domestic examples, we have come to view the presence of such rogues much as bathers who recognize that predator sharks often lurk out of sight beneath the surface of the ocean only metres from the shore; cold, unfeeling and ready to take advantage when the opportunity presents itself. Just as counter-measures have been found to protect those who flock to the beaches every summer, I am confident that effective counter-measures will be developed to address this scourge of criminal organizations intent on operating against the interests of Canadian society.
Many Canadians will remember that Members of this House have on several occasions sought to improve the Criminal Code so as to improve the effectiveness of those practical tools, such as electronic surveillance, which are employed by the police. There has been continuing cooperation and consultation between the provincial authorities and federal officials in this area.
As several Members who participated in this debate pointed out, the Government is very much aware of the problem of organized crime in Canada and internationally. They discussed examples of Canada's participation with other states in agreements intended to stymie international criminal conspiracies. Mention was made of the sufficiency of present legislation in regard to the punishment of criminal conspiracy to murder. I respectfully agree with the views advanced by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis). By providing that the maximum penalty that may be imposed for such offences is life imprisonment, the Parliament of Canada has signaled how serious it considers such acts, and created an appropriate sanction for such an offence.
Mention was made of the thorough federal-provincial analysis of the role of organized crime completed in June of 1983, as well as proposals that legislation be created to take effective action to trace, seize and confiscate the fruits of crime. That is one more step in the enforcement of the law in order to ensure that crime does not pay.
It is clear that the Government has recognized the threat to Canadian society in general, and the criminal justice system in particular, posed by the perception that fortunes are being made through the exploitation of the drug trade, loan sharking, extortion and other nefarious activities by persons and
October 23, 1987

groups who have remained, thus far, insulated from the heat of police investigation or other criminal prosecution.
I share the view of a previous speaker who ventured the opinion that there really is no need to ask a royal commission to examine this matter, both because of the substantial costs involved, as well as the fact that scant information not already in possession of law enforcement officials would likely be developed.
I have no doubt that such an inquiry would prove fascinating for the general law-abiding citizen and extremely lucrative to the media-which would be expected to keep us informed on the daily developments-and perhaps the legal profession. However, just as the disclosure of any piece of information may endanger the life of a spy in intelligence matters, the public disclosure of many pieces of information relating to criminal organizations might put the lives of informers at significant risk.
In closing, I would like to echo the belief previously expressed in this debate that the precious resources existing in this country to combat crime would be better utilized in the investigation and prosecution of criminal conspiracies rather than in the protracted hearings of a royal commission which would, as has been said so frequently before, not likely provide knowledge which federal and provincial criminal intelligence resources had not already provided to authorities.
1 do not minimize the issue, Madam Speaker. As I indicated at the outset, I commend the Hon. Member for Trinity for bringing this matter forward, but I sincerely believe that it is in the interest of all Canadians that proposed legislation to address the proceeds of crime and deal effectively with drug traffickers not be retarded or delayed in any way.
The Government initiatives, mentioned on earlier occasions, will, I am sure, be welcomed by all Members in this House who believe that concerted efforts are required now to reduce the mayhem caused by organized crime in this great country of ours. Now is the time to start an action program.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I intend to speak for a few moments about organized crime and that part of Motion M-44 which proposes that this House appoint a royal commission that would conduct an investigation and make recommendations on legislation to enable the Government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime.
First of all, I think the Hon. Member is to be commended for the interest she has shown in this matter. All Members present undoubtedly understand how important it is to society that our laws allow for confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
Organized crime may take the form of a more or less permanent understanding between individuals, for their mutual benefit, as in the case of crime syndicates which have
Organized Crime
specific criteria for their membership and an established organizational structure. This definition can also apply to individuals who join forces for a single transaction or even to individuals acting independently.
There have always been people who, either alone or with others, have chosen the path of crime to reach their goals. In most cases, our penal laws have, in the past, provided adequate redress through the use of traditional sanctions such as fines and imprisonment.
However, during the second half of the twentieth century there has been a marked increase in profit-related crime, of which drug trafficking is an excellent example. There is no comparison between this new kind of crime and the kind with which our predecessors had to contend when they drafted our penal laws. There are even individuals, some with no previous record, who are willing to risk arrest and conviction, even when the law provides a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Madam Speaker, these people are prepared to risk a jail term because of the enormous profits generated by drug trafficking. The illegal profits involved in certain crimes are so great that there are certain national and international crime organizations that devote all their energies to the perpetration of these crimes. These organizations take advantage of today's modern communications, means of transportation and banking procedures, and the limited jurisdiction of national legal systems to amass illicit wealth.
The Criminal Code contains several provisions allowing for the confiscation of various items, the possession of which is illegal. These include restricted firearms, obscene publications, hate propaganda and counterfeit money.
The provisions, however, apply only to the tools used to perpetrate an offence and to possession of smuggled items. They do not provide for confiscating the illicit proceeds of-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Unfortunately, I must interrupt the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc), since I have just now realized that the Hon. Member has already spoken to the motion before the House today, as well as to the amendment which is also before the House.
I am sorry but it is my duty to interrupt him at this time, although I regret having to do so, and recognize another Member who may wish to have the floor.
The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane).


Dennis H. Cochrane: Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting that in debate on this issue we are all saying that it is a very laudable motion and that we are very excited that the Member has brought it forward, yet each one of us in turn is giving reasons why we should not do this. We know that there is a problem in Canada. We know that there are socially unacceptable elements operating in our communities. We know that organized crime has a foothold in our society. We are groping to find the best way to fight that.

October 23, 1987
Organized Crime
The biggest problem is that a royal commission would cost a great deal of money. I, for one, believe that that money should be spent trying to solve the problem by working with the people in our communities so that they are not vulnerable to those involved in organized crime.
The Government of Canada is making a great effort to fight organized crime through various Departments.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will soon be tabling legislation in the House to implement mutual legal assistance treaties with other countries, which will include provisions designed to promote joint investigations aimed at curtailing organized criminal activity. This initiative was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the Throne Speech. The pending legislation will enable the Government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of crime, thereby taking the profit out of some of the activities involved therein.
Currently the RCMP participates with provincial and municipal police forces in investigations of organized crime. There have been many situations in New Brunswick recently in which investigations involving the RCMP and provincial and municipal police have resulted in the apprehension of a great number of people involved in drug trafficking. We are seeing more and more instances of co-operation between Governments as they jointly try to cope with the spread of organized crime, particularly in the area of drug trafficking.
The RCMP co-ordinated the publication of an annual report, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, which reports on organized criminal activities in all jurisdictions throughout Canada. They are providing the information to municipal and provincial police forces so that they, in turn, can get the benefit of the work being done by the RCMP in collecting statistics in this area.
It is recognized by the Government that drugs have become the focus of many organized crime activities in this country. As a result, the RCMP drug enforcement program employed a force of 999 persons located in 122 federal units from coast to coast during 1985 and 1986. Detachments which have no dedicated drug units also have a responsibility to enforce laws pertaining to illicit drugs and the trafficking thereof.
Furthermore, the Speech from the Throne referred to the government initiative in the area of developing and implementing a national drug strategy. The secretariat of the Solicitor General has worked with officials of the RCMP, the Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare to develop mechanisms to improve federal and international efforts to combat drug trafficking and use.
Obviously much can be done with the money that would be spent on a royal commission. As a municipal politician, I can think of the advantages to the citizens of my particular city when our police officers were able to come to Ottawa for the
training programs that were being put forward by the Solicitor General and the RCMP to train them in surveillance, the apprehension of those trafficking in drugs, and to train them in the proper methods by which they will charge someone with the offence. These programs were extremely beneficial to those communities and would be an excellent use of additional funds from the Government of Canada.
We can also think of those who are perhaps most vulnerable to the activities of organized crime. They include the less fortunate and young people, such as those who rely on teenage prostitution for support. There are young people in our society who do not steal for pleasure but because they need food.
I was an educator in New Brunswick in 1970. One of my 13-year old students was stealing lunches from other students and stealing from neighbourhood houses. He was not taking anything that he would use for pleasure, or stealing money that he would use for selfish purposes; he was looking for food. Since there obviously was not enough support at home to meet the needs of that child, he made himself vulnerable to others who might encourage him to get into criminal activities.
We must make an effort to put the money where it will work in our communities, through our social agencies and local police forces in order to fight poverty, social injustice, and remove some of the causes that make young people particularly, but also anyone else in our society, vulnerable to the activities of organized crime.
While a royal commission may be a nice idea and an attractive mechanism by which the Government can say it is doing something, I think we all realize it would not accomplish much. If the money for such a royal commission is available, it should be provided to the provinces and municipalities to give greater professional training to those involved in fighting crime and give greater opportunities to those who may be less fortunate and therefore more vulnerable to the activities of organized crime and the lure that it presents.
I believe that Canadians want results, rather than the showcase of another royal commission. In order to achieve those results we must go to the root of the problems which exist in every community of this country. We have an obligation as Members of Parliament to direct federal money in the area where it will give the most advantages and best long-term results in fighting organized crime.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, before speaking to the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), I should like to commend her for drawing the attention of the House to the question of organized crime.

While there may be some merit in the Hon. Member's suggestion for a royal commission, there are other matters which should be considered. For example, it is time for the introduction of effective legislative apparatus to confiscate the
October 23, 1987

proceeds of crime. This Government fully supports such an endeavour because the time for action has arrived. Any further delay will distance Canada from the efforts of virtually all other western democracies to limit the growth of these criminal umpires. Because of the absence of such legislation in Canada, we would appear to the criminal element to be a haven for such activity when compared with our international partners.

Madam Speaker, 1 would be remiss if I failed to mention the efforts made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other provincial and municipal police forces.
Indeed, each year at the Canadian Police College the RCMP provide training for policemen from the four corners of the world and send experts to various countries, including Commonwealth nations, where they teach the skills required to fight against the different types of crime now under consideration in the House. Canadian law enforcement officials, particularly RCMP officers, work in close co-operation with their counterparts in other western democratic countries to fight against every kind of crime, especially organized crime which knows no borders.
We can readily appreciate the legitimate concerns of the Hon. Member over organized crime. However, Canada is still at one with the provinces when it comes to renewed law enforcement efforts, and a royal commission would contribute precious little to existing or soon to be implemented fight mechanisms.
Organized Crime
Madam Speaker, I realize that the motion sponsored by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) attests to deep concern about the extent of organized crime in Canada and the weakness of law enforcement measures, but I want to assure her that the members of Canada's police community and other devoted criminal justice experts are dealing with the problem with utmost competence. Our Government has confidence in them, and they deserve the support of all Hon. Members and of the Canadian public at large.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, in view of the time, I would ask whether I should proceed with my remarks or perhaps call it 2.55 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is quite willing to accept either alternative. Shall I call it 2.55?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 2.50 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, October 26, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers