1987-09-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-2986 to 3322988 inclusive, 332-3027 and 332-3032 to 332-3070 inclusive.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-ninth report of the Striking Committee.



BILL C-68-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

["The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has brought to the attention of the Chair an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order 29. As he has stated, and as is stated in the letter which he most properly delivered to the Chair earlier this morning, the motion is to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in public confidence in the Government's ability to assure national security and maintain a satisfactory security and intelligence service, which, as he has pointed out, comes at a particularly sensitive time, that is, immediately before the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.\nThe Hon. Member for York Centre referred, probably quite improperly, to debates in which the Chair had taken part with regard to the security service. I, of course, have to put out of my mind completely, in terms of this ruling, those debates and any position that I took in them.\nI can say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that I view the application seriously. However, at least for today, it is the disposition of the Chair to say that perhaps it is not quite appropriate to get into it in an emergency debate. As always on important matters, I will hear the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members again if it is appropriate to do so.\nI thank the Hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and to the attention of the House. The matter is serious. The Chair views it as such, but, as I say, the application for an emergency debate is declined at this time."]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my duty once more today
to present a petition which meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form and content.
Your petitioners humbly sheweth that:
Whereas, since September 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 24 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youth and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 178 will be answered today.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS TO TORONTO AREA


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Finance make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmenta! organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: In so far as
the Department of Finance is concerned: nil.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Hon. Minister has been answered.

September 17, 1987


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29 I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in public confidence in the Government's ability to assure national security and to maintain a satisfactory security and intelligence service. This comes at a particularly sensitive time, that is, immediately before the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
If I could refer to an earlier phase of your own career, Mr. Speaker, in which you participated, along with me and others in this House, in the creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, I can be certain that you will have the same sensitivity that 1 do to the importance of that agency being properly launched and properly supported by the Government and to the very critical nature of the work that it does.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has brought to the attention of the Chair an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order 29. As he has stated, and as is stated in the letter which he most properly delivered to the Chair earlier this morning, the motion is to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in public confidence in the Government's ability to assure national security and maintain a satisfactory security and intelligence service, which, as he has pointed out, comes at a particularly sensitive time, that is, immediately before the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
The Hon. Member for York Centre referred, probably quite improperly, to debates in which the Chair had taken part with regard to the security service. I, of course, have to put out of my mind completely, in terms of this ruling, those debates and any position that I took in them.
I can say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that I view the application seriously. However, at least for today, it is the disposition of the Chair to say that perhaps it is not quite appropriate to get into it in an emergency debate. As always on important matters, I will hear the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members again if it is appropriate to do so.
I thank the Hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and to the attention of the House. The matter is serious. The Chair views it as such, but, as I say, the application for an emergency debate is declined at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 16, 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.
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity as the newly appointed critic in the area of the environment for the New Democratic caucus, I would like to begin by setting out some general views as to how I am going to approach environmental questions.
I say very frankly that I am a committed environmentalist. I feel compassionately about the question of the environment. Not only do I like to hike, canoe, and cross country ski, I am a former member of the board of Energy Probe and was, therefore, active on environmental issues before becoming a parliamentarian. I also have a strong religious commitment to the environment. I have beliefs which require human beings to look at the world as one which we do not own, one in which we live, work, and have certain rights, but where we have obligations to future generations. We are stewards of the earth and not the owners able to do with it what we wish.
I do not think this or other governments have paid adequate attention to our obligations to future generations. I do not think we should approach the question of resources as purely commercial commodities for sale. I am scandalized when Conservative Members get up and brag about deregulation in gas sales to the United States on the grounds that this will mean more sales, saying that we have a surplus. I do not believe that we can have a surplus of a non-renewable resource.
I think we should be changing our vocabulary. We should not be talking about producing resources which are nonrenewable. We extract them, we may sell them, we may use them, but we also have responsibilities and will have to answer for them one day.
Philosophically I am very much a conservative on the environment. I believe that resources must be conserved. It is not that I think economic considerations should be dismissed, but we must look at the long-term economic considerations. It is not only business and sales for today which must be
September 17, 1987

considered but the livelihood of future generations of farmers, fishermen, fisherwomen, all the people who live on the land and work in the tourist industry. All kinds of people will be affected by the economy of the future. Therefore, looking after our environment makes very good economic sense. We must put it in the context not only of economic decisions for today but of the long-term ones to which we must attend.
Our earth was created with adequate energy from the sun to make it last for four billion years. Our policies on management of the environment ought to ensure that we can continue to live on the earth as long as we have this major source of energy. I think that our time scale has been altogether too short.

Bill C-74 now under consideration is entitled an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, but this title is nothing but a false promise. This Bill does not protect the environment, not in a comprehensive sense. Rather, the Bill provides for a reorganization of Government measures and for the enforcement of new measures as regards toxic substances, or rather some toxic substances, as the Bill excludes all nuclear substances and pesticides. Of course, it is a step forward, but this is not the Bill required to protect the environment and human life. This is not the Bill required by environmental groups.
There is no Charter of environmental rights, which the experts and defenders of the environment have been requesting for a long time, especially the volonteer groups. The role projected for citizens and volunteer groups remains very limited in this Bill. There would be no legal recourse in the case of inaction by Government agencies. Human resources, especially the knowledge and good will of citizens involved in the ecological movement, will not be used adequately. Their advice would have been useful in preparing this Bill. Unfortunately, the recommendations of environmental groups were rejected. Only a very few of their proposals for amendments were accepted, and only on minor points.
Bill C-74 represents a very small step forward in protecting our environment. It is nearly incredible, but this Bill does not cover pesticides, insecticides and radioactive substances. A person who has suffered losses or damages or who might suffer such losses or damages because of action prohibited by this Act can obtain a court injunction to prevent this action. However, the new legislation should give all Canadians the right to take legal action when the law is being broken and the environment threatened.
The Bill provides for the evaluation of any new chemical before it is put on the market. In the case of existing chemicals, there will be a possibility of review. A list of priority substances will be established.
These are the most useful practical measures contained in this Bill, and they are not very impressive.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Let us look for a few minutes at the process of development of Bill C-74. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) introduced a draft environmental protection Bill last December, without public consultation before bringing it in. Public consultation had been limited to the very much needed amendments to the 1975 Environmental Contaminants Act, but they were not broadly based consultations. The proposed Bill was circulated without much new material and was largely an amalgamation of previous laws.
When finally a public meeting was held on the subject in Ottawa in March of this year, there was vigorous discussion with a large number of groups from across the country and strong recommendations for amendments were made. Chief among these recommendations for change was an environmental bill of rights. There is no environmental bill of rights in the Bill before us today. Instead, there is a very weak version of that, which is a preamble, some of which I will read:
It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canada.
Who would dispute that? It goes on:
Whereas the presence of toxic substances in the environment is a matter of national concern;
Whereas the toxic substances, once introduced into the environment, cannot always be contained within geographic boundaries;-
That makes eminent good sense, of course. It goes on:
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 of federal lands, works and undertakings;
And whereas Canada must be able to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the environment;
Then we go into the Bill itself.
While these are all very laudable objectives and useful as guidelines, they have no force in law. The law still states that one must be able to prove individual damages in order to have a case. We still have a situation where environmental pollution destruction is treated as a matter of interfering with commercial rights. If one is going to lose money as a result of toxic substance pollution one has a case.
In the long term the concerns should involve jobs and the health of future generations. This Bill does not go far enough. It is still based on the old notion that resources are there in order to make money rather than the notion that we must sustain our environment for four billion years, hopefully, but certainly for a longer period of time than what is envisaged here.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Environmental groups that were consulted stressed very strongly that they wanted an opportunity for the public to be involved in the enforcement of environmental law. The current provisions for private prosecution are too cumbersome and inadequate, and focus entirely on commercial considerations. They wanted to see rights to participation in environmental decision-making. The Bill gives the Minister enormous rights and responsibilities, as well as discretionary powers. According to the process that is set up, the Minister can evade certain parts of this protection process and environmental groups do not have the right to take the Minister to court to require that he enforce and administer the law as set out.
The preamble talks about the obligation of the Minister to set these guidelines, but they are permissive and have no force in law. We know that enforcement of environmental law has been very slack under previous Liberal Governments as well as the present Government, so we do not have confidence that the Government will vigorously enforce these laws.
The groups that came before the Minister for consultation on March 23, 1987 released a statement which I think is worth considering. They said that the proposed federal Environmental Protection Act is simply not acceptable as it is currently drafted. They go on to state:
Canadians want a real Environmental Protection Act. The content of the proposed Act does not merit the title Environmental Protection Act. The federal Government must assert its responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake.
A real Environmental Protection Act should include an Environmental Bill of Rights to establish Canadians right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to go to court to protect it. This environmental right should include government funding for public interest participants in environmental decision making.
Environmental groups call for improvements to the Environmental Contaminants Act to be passed immediately in order to achieve these objectives.
This statement is endorsed by a large number of organizations, such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, native studies groups, the Nova Scotia Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pollution Probe, Energy Probe, and the Yukon Conservation Society, to name a few. The major groups are united in their criticism of the Bill we have before us today. Very few of the recommendations of these groups have been incorporated in the new Bill, so their concerns remain the same today.
The Bill amalgamates previous environmental measures to a certain extent, but only the ones that previously were under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of the Environment. There are 24 departments which have environmental responsibilities and 57 laws dealing with environmental questions. There will be 55 laws as a result of this Bill, so we cannot consider this a very thorough amalgamation. Other Departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and National Defence-which is a complete exception-will still deal with environmental problems.
What is wrong with having other Departments involved? The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are most oriented to people whose livelihood immediately depends upon prices. They do not have an economic interest in what is going to happen in the longterm. They are interested in their immediate survival. We know agriculture and the fisheries have survival problems so we have to be sympathetic to those concerns. My point would simply be that we also have to think of the long-term and the future jobs of fishermen, fisherwomen and farmers.
We need to have a Department of the Environment that is strong enough to stand up for the environment for future generations, one which will not be too much under pressure because of what the immediate prices are this year. It should be able to speak strongly for the environment. This Bill does not do that. It is a housekeeping measure of the Department of the Environment itself. It is amalgamating things which previously were in a number of different Acts, bringing them together in one Act.
Another major criticism of this Bill is that there is a certain tendency to deregulation. There are certain areas in which there is a strengthening, but there are also areas which could be looked at as showing a trend to deregulation and devolution to provincial jurisdiction.
Many organizations have raised objections to Bill C-74 saying it is a step backward. Admittedly, this is a complicated matter. The British North America Act back in 1867 did not state whether the environment was a federal or provincial matter. At that time the environment could be taken for granted. They were not worried about chemical substances or about nuclear waste disposal. This subject was not awarded to Section 91 or Section 92 of the British North America Act. After that there was a tendency to treat the environment as a provincial matter because resources are provincial and commerce is provincial.
The point is that we cannot think of resources as being purely commercial commodities. It is hard to think of an environmental question that can be dealt with solely at the provincial level. Provinces should certainly have the right to set stringent standards. If they have, for their own provincial requirements, the need to have a particularly high standard, they should certainly have that right and we should applaud it. No one would want to interfere with their right to protect their particular interests.
However, it is necessary to have strong national standards because the problem of pollution is national-indeed, it is international. I think, for example, of the St. Clair River, the Great Lakes, and most of the major river systems which cross provincial and territorial boundaries. Of course, the Great Lakes are very much an international question. We need a very strong federal presence in the area of the environment because of the nature of the problem itself.
September 17, 1987

The Canadian Labour Congress Workplace Health and Safety Group has criticized Bill C-74 on grounds of it being a step backward in terms of regulation. I would like to cite a few of its comments which I think are very pertinent to our discussion today:
We are most concerned about Section 37(4), which provides that consultation must take place with the provinces before any regulation goes forward.
We believe that this is a step backwards from existing environmental legislation, such as the Clean Air Act which provides for the federal Government to enact national ambient air emission standards without the necessity of consulting the provinces. We contend that Section 37 in fact will ensure what we have been afraid of all along-that the federal Government has no intention of regulating in the toxic chemical area. We feel that the Minister of the Environment has been getting extremely conservative advice as to federal constitutional authority to protect the environment.
Obviously, the Canadian Labour Congress Workplace Health and Safety group takes the view, as I do, that we have to get away from treating this matter as a provincial-commercial question and begin treating it as a national question of ongoing concerns.
The C1C further states:
It is our opinion that the federal Government should be setting national standards to ensure that Canada does not create pollution havens.
It actually states that it thinks Clause 37 is an impediment to what has been called "cradle to grave" legislation of chemical substances, that in fact it will not be as thorough and comprehensive as the Government has claimed it will be. The CLC goes further:
The general principal 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.
I would heartily concur with that kind of analysis. Apart from the amalgamation parts of this Bill and its non-mandatory guidelines, there is one compulsory part and one new part which does bring in new measures, that is on toxic substances or, let us be very clear, some toxic substances, because even here there are exceptions.
The Environmental Contaminates Act did have deficiencies. It did not allow the Minister to obtain information from industry or from importers unless there was virtual proof that the substance was toxic. In short, there had to be enough information before hand, and, of course, the point is, how do we get the information if we do not have a process? The onus on the Government was to build the case and it could not ask for information from the industry to establish the case.
With respect to new chemicals imported into Canada, and there are about 100 a year-we have 30,000 in Canada already out of some 100,000 chemicals in use globally- existing legislation will require manufacturers or importers to report to Government. The new legislation would set reporting
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
requirements on toxicity, on potential impacts on the environment, on biodegradability, on health studies. The importer would have 90 days to provide this material and, of course, would not be authorized to sell it or import it during this period. The Government would then make the decision whether to allow, prohibit, restrict or to require further information on the chemical.
Because of the great backlog of chemicals already in use which have not been properly scrutinized, there will be a priority substances list established of chemicals which have already been allowed in for use which possible should not be. Once items get on this list, the Government will be assessing them.
Those are the new departures in the Bill. Certainly, I am pleased to see them there. However, I think we will have to look very carefully at the process at committee to ensure that the loopholes which have been built-in, and the possibilities of waiver, and so forth, are not excessive. We have to make sure this process which has been set up is one which will really be effective. I have a few questions about it. I think it is something about which we are going to need some expert advice.
Let me go into a few other very specific points which I think demonstrate the weaknesses of Bill C-74. Right at the beginning of the Bill, after the very weak preamble, Part 1 begins. It refers to the Minister's environmental data and research obligations. Clause 7 states:
(1) The Minister may
a) establish, operate and maintain a system of environmental quality monitoring stations;
There are then a whole list of good things the Minister may do. But the Minister is not required to do so. I think this is what we are very concerned about. The Minister may collect, process, correlate data, conduct research and studies and so forth. This is non-mandatory, and it is simply not adequate when we realize the severity of the problem right now.
Clause 7(3) states that the Minister may, in exercising the powers conferred, act alone or in co-operation with any government, government department, and so on. I have very specific criticisms with respect to the following subclauses of the Bill. When the groups which may be consulted are listed, the environmental groups are not included. Clause 7(3) states that the Minister may, in exercising his powers, consult with any government, government department or agency, institution or person and may sponsor or assist in any research, studies or planning by any government institution or person in Canada. But it does not mention the environmental groups. I am surprised and somewhat distressed at the omission. Obviously, an environmentalist is an individual who can be consulted.
On page 7 Clause 8(3) states:
(3) In carrying out the responsibilities conferred by subsection (1), the
Minister may-
Again, it is not mandatory.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(a)	consult with the government of any province, any government department or agency or any person interested in the quality of the environment-
It does not mention environmental organizations. Subsection (b) states that the Minister may:
(b)	organize conferences of representatives of industry and labour, provincial and municipal authorities and any interested persons described in paragraph (a).
Again, there is an omission. I hope that it was just an omission by inadvertence and that environmental and public interest groups can be added to the list.
The Bill goes on and on with respect to consulting with governments and provinces, organizing conferences with industry and labour, provincial and municipal authorities, and any persons interested in the preservation and improvement of public health. There are organizations directly involved in environmental public health. They have experts who are very committed people. One of the things the Government ought to realize is that one of the resources that we have available is public spirit and knowledge, the commitment of people. Canada has a great history of voluntary organizations working in all types of areas. These people give their expertise to Government, as well as their knowledge and passion in working on these questions over the years. We should be grateful and pleased that we have the benefit of this type of advice. We should be pleased to receive it and not omit it from the list, having them come to us importuning to be consulted. We would like to see some changes in language to include these people.
The Liberal critic in his remarks yesterday on this subject noted that as well as dealing with imports and with manufacturing of toxic substances there ought to be regulations with respect to exports. I do not know how extensive a problem this is, but on principle I agree that if a substance is too toxic to import to Canada and to manufacture here then any of it that we already have ought not to be exported but ought to be dealt with in some other way. It would certainly be very wrong to consider it all right to get rid of it by exporting it to some other country.
Although I agree with a good part of the substance of the Liberal spokesperson's remarks, I cannot entirely understand his outrage at the Government's failure to enact many of the measures which he has urged it to enact. The environmental problems we have did not begin to develop after September 4, 1984 when the Conservative Party was elected to form the Government. These problems have been around for a very long time, and they have been increasing gradually.
Almost everything that the Hon. Member recommended that ought to be done encompassed measures that he himself could have undertaken when he was Minister. It is unfortunate that this matter should be seen as a politically partisan one. It would be far better to ensure that we work together on these issues. Certainly, his outrage at the Government's failure to act when he had the opportunity to do so is quite unjustified.

Naturally, we have to pass this Bill, and I hope that we can pass it with amendments which will make it stronger and more effective. In any case, I shall oppose no measure to protect the environment, even one as weak as this Bill.
I shall be proposing amendments at the committee. I invite the environmental groups to play a vigorous role in the consideration by the committee. The New Democratic Party will continue to fight to achieve real protection of the environment.

Let us get on with this Bill. The Government could help enormously by announcing very promptly its willingness to accept amendments now. I would be pleased to see the Government announce a willingness to work with opposition Members and ecology groups to make this as effective a Bill as it can be, given the limitations of the subject matter.
I hope that the Government will also give an undertaking of its willingness to bring in a real charter of rights for the environment, as well as really strong and effective measures to make the environment the top consideration and to give citizens the right to protest, to go to court to insist that the Minister act to enforce and to implement the Bill. We must ensure that the Department of the Environment is the Department which will be involved in the enforcement of environmental measures, that the powers in the Bill will not be dispersed to those who will have conflicting obligations in the here and now as opposed to the long term. I hope that the Government will give this type of undertaking.
Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the environment. I do not have to urge the Government to read the public opinion polls with respect to this subject. I just hope it will look at them seriously and see that they reflect changing opinions, opinions that are developing for very good reasons. Jobs depend on the environment, as do future jobs. People are concerned about health, the health of their children, their grandchildren as well as their economic health, not to mention their day-to-day health. As we have an increasingly diseased environment, the enjoyment of life decreases. People are beginning to say, "We have to take steps now. We cannot afford to have this slack approach of everything will take care of itself and all we have to do is make money and the environment will clean itself up". People know that that does not work. They realize the extent of the damage that has already been done. Canadians want strong national standards for water, air and land. They want stronger enforcement measures.
This Bill introduces the beginning of criminal sanctions for environmental destruction. Ten years ago that would have been unthinkable. At that time public opinion was not there. Environmental destruction was just considered to be something that happened in the process of business. People do not see it that way now. People want strong standards. Nobody wants to see criminal sanctions actually used, but people are prepared
September 17, 1987

to use them where there is a need, because environmental protection is that important.
The ultimate importance of attaching criminal sanctions to such destruction is that we can say to people, "You are a criminal if you violate this law". It will not be as if they have broken just an administrative law, but they will become enemies of society. It is like saying, "We give you the ultimate in our disapproval in establishing criminal sanctions". Canadians have reached that stage. They have seen that other measures have not been adequate to do the job. Canadians demand criminal penalties and they want stronger enforcement. They want to reverse the trends of slack enforcement. Canadians believe that too many mistakes have been made already and that we have to start to undo those mistakes and the damage they have caused. We must set up mechanisms to ensure that those mistakes do not continue to be made. Canadians want action and leadership from the Government. I will not refuse a one-quarter, one-half or one-sixteenth measure, the kind that we have before us in Bill C-74 today.
In conclusion, I want to assure Hon. Members that my Party and I will continue to work very hard for stronger, better and more effective environmental protection so that Canadians will have a truly safe and healthy environment in which to live and work.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to say a few words in support of Bill C-74, a Bill which is entitled an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health. This Bill is commonly known as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I am pleased that there is a Bill of this nature before us at long last.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken very strong action to put together this legislation. Back in December of last year it issued a draft Bill for discussion purposes. At that time the Minister stated that he would be introducing a specific Bill on this subject in the spring of this year.
I waited patiently, and you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that on June 23 I rose in the House and asked the Minister what was happening to the Bill, since two days before, spring had passed into summer. Well, I am very pleased that here we are in September, not quite into fall but getting close to it, and finally we are dealing with second reading of the Bill. I hope today it will be moved to committee stage in order that it can be in place before much longer has passed.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) when she referred to the Bill from the point of view of the New Democratic Party. Yesterday I listened to the comments of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) from the point of view of the Liberal Party. Quite understandably, as you as and I, and all members of the public can realize, their job is to point out some of their
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
concerns with the legislation. It is quite normal for them to raise areas of concern. Personally, I am looking forward to the opportunity to deal in detail with those areas of concern in committee. Today my purpose is to deal with another aspect of the Bill, so I will not be specifically dealing with all those concerns.
I do wish to comment on one concern raised by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. The Hon. Member pointed out concerns about a citizens' environmental bill of rights. She also pointed out that in the whole area of the environment there is a constitutional problem. Unfortunately, in her remarks she did not link the two. She pointed out that there is a constitutional problem, but did not link that with the problem of attempting to put together a Canadian citizens' environmental bill of rights. That is one of the serious difficulties in trying to do that.
The other question raised by the Hon. Member dealt with the rights of citizens to take action to protect the environment, apart from government action or from criminal action. The Criminal Code as you know, Mr. Speaker, is the underpinning of the rights of the federal Government to deal with environmental matters.
I had hoped that the Hon. Member would point out that this legislation does have some provisions in it to deal with that concern, including the right of any 12 persons to petition the Minister to investigate an alleged violation, and that the Minister must respond with his findings. There is also the right to petition the Minister to have a substance included on the priority substance list, and that the Minister must respond with this decision. There is a right of a person to appeal the decision not to regulate a substance as toxic. That appeal must be considered by a board of review.
Although there may not be all of the provisions and the rights for the ordinary citizen that the Hon. Member would wish, there are a good many not included previously that have been included in this legislation by the Minister and the Government.
Yesterday I listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary outlining all the benefits and features of this legislation. Of course, that is of great significance. But you, Mr. Speaker, the official critic for the Liberal Party, the official critic for the New Democratic Party, myself, all Canadians, and all Members of the House know that you do not get effective legislation and protection unless there is enforcement. The manner in which environmental protection legislation of any type has been enforced by any government, whether provincial or federal, has been of great concern to Canadians.
In the past there has been a concern that perhaps the regulatory bodies, the enforcement bodies, have been in bed with the polluters. The time has come to make a clear distinction and get on with the proposed Act, and the question of strictly enforcing this legislation in order to ensure that Canadians are truly protected.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
In that regard the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has unequivocally stated his intention to get tough with those who by design or through carelessness allow dangerous substances to enter the environment. The Minister is aware that reviews of past enforcement practices have been critical; specific criticisms have focused on a lack of national consistency and concentrated effort devoted to enforcement. The Minister has indicated that in the future the Government will be more vigilant about pursuing violations than governments have been in the past, while at the same time continuing efforts to encourage voluntary compliance. Both the aspect of encouraging compliance through education and co-operative efforts, and the vigorous enforcement in the face of violations are important. Environment Canada intends to continue its approach of collaboration with provinces, territories, industries, and environmental groups. But the Department will respond to public concern that the flouting of environmental laws is a serious crime.
At the same time the Minister introduced Bill C-74 for first reading he also introduced a draft enforcement and compliance policy which is in harmony with both the public's concern and the Government's intention as far as enforcement is concerned. The general guiding principles that are the underpinning of that draft policy are quite clear and unambiguous.
First, compliance is mandatory with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and its regulations. This means that Environment Canada will put in place a planned program of regular inspections complemented by spot checks. The frequency of the inspections will be determined by the risk to the environment or to human health, and by the compliance record of the individual or the company involved.
Second, as set out in this draft enforcement policy, enforcement officials will apply the legislation with an emphasis on prevention of damage to the environment. Serious violations will be subject to the full force of the law to ensure the protection of the environment and human health. Enforcement officials will examine every suspected violation and will take action consistent with the policy. They will use rules, sanctions, and processes securely founded in law and in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and the citizens' code of regulatory fairness. They will respond to the violations in a manner proportionate to the nature and the gravity of the offence.
This will require the development of procedural manuals, expanded training and investigative techniques, and the proper gathering of evidence and legal matters such as rules of evidence and court procedures. In addition, inspection personnel will be augmented to handle the increased responsibilities that will result from the scope of requirements under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That is where the extra funding of $37 million announced by the Minister will be used to beef up the inspection and prosecution portion of the Ministry.
Third, the federal Government will use education and information as preventive tools to achieve compliance with the Act. Environment Canada is already planning a more far-reaching information program in order to provide, upon request, copies of the new Act, its regulations and the enforcement and compliance policy. It will also provide bulletins on specific enforcement and compliance procedures, a registry of court actions under the Act, including injunctions, convictions, court orders, copies of case law as precedents are established, and state of the environment reports, fact sheets, et cetera.
Finally, in order to ensure consistency of enforcement across Canada, which is essential under the Charter provisions, the enforcement and compliance policy will be a major feature of the administrative agreements to be negotiated with provincial and territorial Governments. The agreements will spell out procedures for audit and evaluation of enforcement and compliance activities.
Environment Canada and its partners in enforcement, namely, those provinces and territories which elected to sign agreements for administration of the Act, will iron out procedures for auditing of enforcement and compliance activities, because consistency and predictability are keys to fair enforcement practices and to making those enforcement practices stick.
While we want vigorous enforcement, the Government and the Canadian public also want fair enforcement. Under the enforcement compliance policy, when they encounter or are informed of a violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, enforcement officials are required to consider four factors when deciding what enforcement action they should be taking.
The first of these is the nature of the violation, which includes consideration of the seriousness of the harm or potential harm to the environment; the intent of the alleged violator; whether it is a repeated occurrence; and whether there have been attempts to conceal information or otherwise subvert the objectives and requirements of the Act.
The second of these is the question of effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the violator. The "desired result" is compliance with the Act within the shortest possible time and with no further occurrence of violation.
The aspects to be considered here include the alleged violator's history of compliance-does the individual or company have a history of violation of the Act, or does the firm or person normally operate in compliance with the Act- the violator's willingness to co-operate, evidence of corrective action already taken, past experience in achieving compliance through the use of particular enforcement action, and whether other federal, provincial, or territorial authorities have taken administrative or court related action for the same offence.
September 17, 1987

The third factor is the effectiveness in generally promoting compliance by others, that is, whether the enforcement action taken in this case will serve as an example and deterrent to other potential violators.
The fourth factor is the cost effectiveness of alternative procedures, that is, whether a warning or other enforcement action short of prosecution or injunction will achieve compliance within the same or a shorter period of time and at less cost.
However, cost effectiveness or alternative procedures will be weighed extremely carefully against the nature of the violation and the consideration of achieving compliance within the shortest possible time frame, with no recurrence of the violation. I think that is most important because Canadians expect firm, strong, and unwavering enforcement. They do not want the Government or a regulatory body to fool around or to keep giving violators extensions and time to comply. They want firmness. Although we look at cost effective alternative measures, it is important that we do not use that as an excuse for delaying what the public is looking for-effective enforcement.
Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, enforcement officials will have at their disposal several different enforcement measures. I want to comment on three of them-compliance guarantees, prosecution, and special court orders upon conviction for an offence under the Act.
Compliance guarantees are a new approach on which Environment Canada is seeking input from the public and other stakeholders during the consultation period for the enforcement and compliance policy. A compliance guarantee is a written commitment to compliance made by an individual or company which has failed to meet a requirement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The purpose of the guarantee is to ensure compliance and to prevent repetition of the offence. A guarantee will contain technical details of corrective measures which the individual or firm must undertake to attain compliance or ensure continued compliance.
These measures could include such things as putting in place technology to prevent unauthorized releases of substances, and establishing programs. We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday about one of the effective ways in which some new technology was put in place in her own constituency in order to deal with a problem of this sort.
The compliance guarantee will also contain a condition requiring reports to the Minister on the progress in implementing the required measures.
When deciding whether or not to accept a compliance guarantee, enforcement officials will take into account several factors: First, whether the degree of harm to the environment, human life or health appears to be minimal; second, whether the individual or company has a history of good compliance with the Act; third, whether the individual or company has co-
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
operated fully with enforcement officials; fourth, whether the person or firm has made reasonable efforts to remedy or mitigate the consequences of the offence; and, finally, whether court related action is necessary as a general or as a particular deterrent.
A compliance guarantee will not be a licence to pollute or violate the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Considerable forethought and evaluation of the case in question will be required before enforcement officials agree to accept a compliance guarantee. It is not intended that compliance guarantees will be renewed or extended. Again, it seems to me that that is very important and very significant, because if Canadians are to feel confident that effective and strong enforcement is taking place, they must feel that there is no waffling around or no extensions. It must not be the kind of situation which we saw recently in the Province of Ontario with pulp and paper companies, where extensions were given which undermined public confidence in the enforcement of environmental protection legislation.
Turning to prosecutions, where a violation of the Act meets the criteria of the enforcement and compliance policy for prosecution or other court related action such as an injunction, enforcement officials will pursue these avenues. The draft policy specifies those instances in which enforcement officials will always recommend prosecution proceedings.
These are where the death of a person occurs; where there is serious harm or risk of harm to the environment, human life, or health; where there is fraud; where the violation is deliberate; where the alleged violator did not take all reasonable measures to avoid the violation before the fact; where the history of compliance of the alleged violator indicates that he or she might repeat the offence; where the alleged violator obstructed the inspector in the carrying out of his or her duties and responsibilities under the Act; where the alleged violator concealed or attempted to conceal evidence or relevant information after the offence occurred; where the alleged violator did not take all reasonable measures to comply with a ministerial order issued under the Act or a direction by an inspector; where the alleged violator interfered with a substance seized and detained by an inspector; where the deterrent effect of prosecution on the alleged violator or other regulatees is high; or where a person or company convicted of an offence under the Act has not complied with a court order.
In all these cases the Canadian Environmental Protection Act stipulates that certain offences are to be prosecuted by summary conviction, and others by way of indictment. In the case of the so-called "hybrid" offences, where prosecution can take place by either means, of course it is up to the Crown prosecutor to decide whether to proceed by summary conviction or by way of indictment.
This Government has ensured that under this Bill the Crown prosecutor must always proceed by indictment where the

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
alleged violation has led to the death of or to serious harm to a person, where the risk exists or where there is loss of the use of the environment due to a disaster caused by negligent or reckless activity.
Those are a few of the situations concerning some of the enforcement provisions of the Act. 1 could go on to deal with a great many more but I think as we get into committee on this Bill we will see quite clearly that the Government means business. I for one intend to be monitoring the Government to make sure it does mean business. I am confident that this Bill is the kind of Bill that will help restore the faith of the Canadian people in environmental protection legislation and government enforcement actions.
Having said that, I think we on the government side and all members of the Opposition as well, if they mean business in cleaning up the environment, should get on with passing this legislation as quickly as possible. Having heard the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, I am sure there will be no delay on the part of the New Democratic Party. 1 am sure too that my hon. friend who is about to speak for the Liberal Party will tell us that the Liberals want the Bill in committee just as quickly as possible so we can put it into place.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two questions for the Hon. Member. I ask them knowing that the Hon. Member is one of the strongest supporters for cleaning up our environment. It seems to me that there are a number of omissions and deficiencies in the Bill and I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) about these.
As he knows, there are thousands of workers who may very well be in contact with hazardous chemicals daily. Does the Hon. Member not find it strange that the Bill does not provide for an advisory council on which workers would have representation by law through their unions so that they can be consulted, over the priority list for existing chemicals as reported in the ECA report?
Second, regarding the part of this Bill which provides that consultation must be placed with the provinces before regulations go forward, is this not a step backward from the existing environmental legislation, such as the Clean Air Act, which provides for the federal Government to enact national air emission standards without having to consult with the provinces?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his questions. As the Hon. Member knows, there is provision in the Bill, and I am dealing now with the Hon. Member's first question, concerning the question of consultation with workers about the right to put particular chemicals on the priority list. As the Hon. Member knows, this legislation allows the Government to establish a priority list. The Government would be placing on the priority list at its own initiative chemicals which it feels are of the greatest concern. After that there will be the right, and there is the right provided in the legislation, for anyone to petition the Minister to have a substance
included on the priority substances list. The Minister must respond with his decision.
Although there may not be a consultation process in the same sense that the Hon. Member would normally envisage it by people sitting down and talking about what should be on the list, there is the right in the legislation for any worker or group of workers to put forward a specific substance, having it either put on the list or having the Minister give them the reasons why not.
That to my mind is actually stronger than merely a consultative committee, because the committee may or may not get a response from the Minister-certainly it may or may not get one publicly-and would not have the right to put forward specific substances of this sort under the legislation. The only right would be that of consulting. I think the legislation goes much further than the Hon. Member is suggesting it should go. I am sure he will be happy when he examines this matter closely.
As the Hon. Member is aware, as his critic for environmental matters has pointed out, there are some constitutional difficulties in dealing with problems in the area of the environment. These have become more significant perhaps with the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that sort of legislation. On top of that, the Government has taken the approach of trying to be co-operative and consultative with people, instead of telling them what they are going to do, whether they like it or not-either accept it or lump it. The combination of those factors is at the root of the legislation with which we are dealing here. The Government expects to be co-operative and consult but there are some legal difficulties in not doing that.
There is some residual power in the legislation for the Government to take action if the field has been left vacant. That normally would be an area in which the Government would be taking action but would be consulting with the provinces in the first place, because if there is a constitutional difficulty as to whether this is a federal or provincial matter, it would be much better to have the province agree to put the provision in place and not have to run into court challenges which could tie the matter up and prevent the effective enforcement of the legislation for many years. I know the Hon. Member is interested in effective enforcement and I know he is not interested in seeing all these things dragged through the courts to delay and discourage the effective enforcement of this kind of legislation.


Mr. White:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) who is very knowledgeable on the issue. If one checks the record over the past three years, it is obvious that the Hon. Member has been a strong advocate of environmental issues from the beginning. It is also obvious that the control and compliance provisions are extensive and comprehensive and will be of benefit to the life and health of all Canadians.
September 17, 1987

I have two brief questions to pose to the Hon. Member. First, what financial and human resources does Environment Canada intend to devote to the enforcement of this Act? Second, does he feel that Environment Canada's new attitude about enforcement means the end of the collaborative approach with industry which the Government has had in the past?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his questions and his kind reference. He may recall that at the time the Minister introduced this Bill for first reading in June of this year he indicated that the Government had agreed to commit some new money for enforcement of this legislation, something in the vicinity of some $37 million, which was not there before. This is in addition to the funds already in the Department of the Environment and in other Departments, which will be called upon to enforce environmental legislation. Some $37 million of new money was committed to beef up the enforcement provisions and allow for the hiring of new inspectors and enforcement officers. That is a very strong commitment to making sure this legislation is strongly enforced.
So far as the consultative process is concerned, certainly it is quite clear the Government intends to continue that process with the provinces and industry. There is no intention whatsoever to ride roughshod over other people. If you can obtain rapid compliance in the first place, that is the best way to do it, rather than getting into long harangues and struggles at constitutional conferences, federal-provincial conferences, or meetings between Ministers. It is much better to consult and try and work out common ground. The Government is committed to that principle and the legislation embodies that principle.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the difficulty of the Hon. Member when 1 asked my question, but I ask him to think about the situation in New Brunswick. It is a poor province which has to try and encourage as much development as it can. Yet it is run almost as a feudal empire by the Irvings. They have continuously flouted, ignored or rejected any attempts by the province, or I suppose the federal Government, to make them live up to any kind of environmental standard. If the provinces are to be consulted, is there not a danger that nothing will be done?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows from examining the Act, it provides tremendous penalties for polluting. It provides not only for fines but jail terms of up to life imprisonment. Environmental offences are now being treated for the first time as serious offences.


David Orlikow: I would love to see one of the Irvings in jail.


Alan Redway: The Hon. Member knows that provisions are in place to take firm and strong action, and I know he will be
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
holding the Government accountable to make sure that is done. I can assure him that I will as well.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my grain of salt and take part in this debate on Bill C-74. In the first place, I should like to point out that the Opposition welcomes Bill C-74, I would not say joyfully since its scope is limited, but we acknowledge that it is a step in the right direction. I will now reply immediately to the question asked by my colleague from York East (Mr. Redway) upon completing his comments a while ago; he said he hoped the Opposition parties would pass that Bill quickly in the House of Commons and send it to a committee. The reply to this is: yes of course. However, this being said I would like to put things back into their context.
We should not imagine that this Bill is a cure-all that will solve all our environmental problems. On the contrary, considering that it is the first bill dealing with environment which the Government has deigned to table in the House of Commons at the beginning of the fourth year of its term of office, we cannot say in the first place that it is too soon. We have been waiting such a long time for the Government to do something about the environment and nothing had been done till Bill C-74 was tabled. Secondly, the environmental problems faced by Canadians are tremendous. The Bill is very narrow in its enforcement; in fact, to be realistic it only deals with a small part of our problems. Indeed, it will be regulating the new toxic chemicals which could enter the market place. We should not then exaggerate and suggest that it is a great feat.

It is not the big thing that Ministers would like Canadians to believe. It is not the best invention since sliced bread. It is not bad. It is a step in the right direction. I tell my friend from York East, yes, we will vote for the Bill. My God, if we did not, what else would we be voting for in this Parliament in this area? Nothing else has come before the House.
I am going to describe some of the things this Bill does not do and that Canadians would like to see it do. I do not have to spend much time heralding its virtues. They are not too numerous, and besides, my friend from York East has been on his feet doing just that. He focused his remarks on compliance. I heard the words "compliance" and "enforcement" about 20 or 30 times. He is very honest in doing that because that is what the Bill does. It does nothing else.
For example, this Bill is not going to clean up the environment. When he completed his remarks, my friend said something about if opposition Parties are serious about cleaning up the environment. That is the only mistake he made in his speech. He is always very honest, but that was a bit of overkill. This will not remove the blob in the St. Clair River. This will not remove toxic pollution lying at the bottom of the St. Lawrence River which I can look at from my riding. I remember the Minister in Montreal calling the St. Lawrence

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
River an open sewer. Sure, he made headlines, but this Bill is not going to clean up my St. Lawrence River where I used to swim when I was a kid.


Mr. Riis:: Can't now.


Jacques Guilbault: I cannot swim in it now and I will not be able to swim in it after this legislation is passed, or even 10 years after this legislation is passed. Why? Because the legislation is an attempt to stop the use of new toxic chemicals. That is a step in the right direction, I agree, but it does not solve the problem of toxic chemicals presently in our rivers and lakes.
Let us not take this Bill as a cure-all, or as the best thing on earth. I am not even sure this will be carried on the new Tory news network. I jokingly call it the TGNN, or Tory Good News Network. I do not think it is good enough to be heralded on that new network.
Another thing this Bill does not do is provide the superfund which both the Minister and environmentalists across the country have been talking about. We know we need a lot of money to deal with buried toxic chemicals leaking into our rivers after rain storms and so on.
We have been saying time and again that in order to improve our environment we do not need the rhetoric on which the Minister has been extremely strong, what we need is money. That is what he has been short of. I do not know how to say it any more clearly. To clean up our environment we need money, whether you call it funds, dollars, greenbacks, mazuma or millions of coins.
The only concrete action which the Government has taken, aside from this Bill, which is a step in the right direction, has been cuts in environmental budgets. What good is it to bring forth legislation to control toxic chemicals if we are not sure that it will be properly enforced? Will there be enough people to police the polluters? This Bill does not say that more people will come on stream to enforce this legislation.

This Bill does not provide either a Charter of rights for the Environment. Still, the Minister had referred to that with much enthusiasm.
In the opening lines of the Bill-if we go through the trouble of looking at it-there is a little prose or rhetoric, but that has nothing to do with a Charter of Rights for the Environment, it would not give Canadians clear legal rights to use them against polluters.
I listened a while ago to the spokesman for the NDP who dealt at length with the matter. On this level alone, we can say that the Minister has not delivered all of his program.

There is not much in this Bill which remotely resembles an environmental bill of rights. There is a bit of rhetoric about it, but there are no teeth and there is nothing precise. I realize that I am being negative, but I am here to point out the failings of this Bill. My friend, the Member for York East, and the Parliamentary Secretary, have been very kind with regard to the Bill. They are trying to lead Canadians to believe that this Bill will solve a lot of things. I say that it will not.
For example, this Bill will not regulate some of the toxic chemicals which are closest to people in every day life, because some of these materials are regulated by other legislation. For example, people use herbicides and pesticides every day on their lawns. People eat additives in their food every day. These things are specifically excluded from this piece of legislation.
This Bill does not consolidate many pieces of environmental legislation as we were led to believe it would. If we had not been led to believe that, I would accept the Bill for what it is, but we were told that this would be an Environmental Protection Act. That is a big title, but that is not the fact.
There are about 24 departments of the Government which somehow administer legislation which has an impact on the environment. There are 57 different environmental laws. We thought that if this Bill were to wear the impressive name of Environmental Protection Act it would streamline everything. It does not. It controls new toxic chemicals, which we support, and merges two existing Acts, the Clean Air Act and the Ocean Dumping Act, with the existing Environmental Contaminants Act. This Bill is not even worth being heralded on the Tory "good news network".

Another thing that the Bill fails to do, and I was commenting on it in English, is that this is not really a piece of legislation which protects the global environment. Instead, it is a solution to a future use of new chemicals-perhaps we had to start there-to prevent new chimicals from being discharged in the environment. But, for goodness' sake, when are we going to start doing what must be done, and clean what is already within our environment to prevent us from enjoying it and which is a threat to our health?
And this is the reason why we will not delay passage of this Bill. If we were to do that, well, the Government might not bring in another environment bill before the end of its mandate. There remains virtually a year or a year and a half, and without being nasty, Mr. Speaker, anyone reading the polls must conclude that this Government does not have much time left to honour its commitments and clean up the environment. It might be that after the next election Government Members would not be in a position to deliver the rest of their program.
Finally, the legislation does next address the very important issues like acid rain, because toxic chemicals are present in acid rain. But this legislation will have no impact on acid rain.
September 17, 1987

On the other hand, the Bill prohibits the export of substances that are prohibited for use in Canada, or rather it does not prevent their export-it would prevent the use of those substances, and that is good. But it would not prevent us from exporting them. Morally, that is a major omission. If those substances are too dangerous to be used in Canada, why allow manufacturers or distributors to export them either to Third World countries or to our neighbours down South, the Americans, to punish them because we are not satisfied with the free trade negotiations? That flaw in the legislations I find amazing, because if those substances are too dangerous and must not be used in Canada, we should also ban their export in my view. If it is not good for us, it is not good for the others either.

I do not want to drag this debate out too long. This Bill has to be passed quickly. In conclusion, let us call a spade a spade. This Bill deals well with a narrow aspect of pollution. Let us vote for it because it does that. However, let us not start pretending that it will clean up the environment, because it will not. In the long run it will control polluters better so that we will have less pollution from toxic chemicals, and that is good.
Let us pass this Bill quickly so that we can be back on our feet in this House pressing the Government for a genuine Environmental Protection Act and for the money which must accompany it in order to start removing some of the pollutants from our environment. That is the reason we will not be dragging our feet with this Bill. We wish it a speedy passage through this House so that we can see what the Government will be bringing in as the second piece of environmental legislation during this term.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. friend with respect to this Bill and its speedy passage. I was concerned, however, that he may have left the impression-and I am sure he did not really want to leave that impression-that this was the only action with respect to the environment the Government has taken in the past three years it has been in office. There is no question but that this legislation deals only with one aspect of environmental problems. It deals with the present and future. It does not deal with the clean-up aspect. However, my hon. friend is well aware that there have been other actions taken by the Government in the past three years with respect to the clean-up aspect of environmental problems. I know he would not want the public to be left with the wrong impression.
For instance, I know the Hon. Member would want me to remind him, and the public of Canada, about the program the Government undertook starting in March of 1985, a program to reduce acid rain by 50 per cent of its 1980 levels by 1994. That program included, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a commitment of funds-SI50 million for emission controls at smelters, $25 million for technology development, $70 million for a cleaner use of coal, $18 million per year for research and
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
monitoring efforts, and an effort to increase the use of low-sulphur western coal. My hon. friend knows that there are discussions presently going on between the Premier of the Province of Ontario (Mr. Peterson), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and their representatives, with respect to increasing the immediate use of low-sulphur western coal in the Province of Ontario, particularly for Ontario Hydro, which will generate thousands of jobs in western Canada as well as in eastern Canada and at the same time cut acid rain emissions.
Those are some of the things which have been going on. The Hon. Member knows as well that on September 1 of this year, just a few days ago, new automobile emissions standards were put into effect to reduce acid rain emissions. He knows as well that last spring there was an agreement reached between the federal Government and the Province of Ontario, the Government of the State of New York and the American federal Government with respect to the reduction of pollution and toxic chemicals going into the Niagara River and the monitoring of it. He knows as well that the Government has put in place during its term of office new regulations to restrict and regulate the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.
The Hon. Member is well aware, therefore, as are the Canadian public, that there have been a good many other initiatives taken in the area of the environment and environmental control by this Government. I know he would want to give the Government credit for those things.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the litany of things listed by the Hon. Member again are not measures which would clean up anything. I am not against, for example, all the measures on acid rain which were started before 1984 by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), a previous Minister of the Environment. I agree with the figures mentioned by the Hon. Member. I think they square with reality. This will reduce future emissions of acid rain. That is fine. But that is not the point I was making.
The point I was making is that there is nothing in this Bill, and nothing in the measures which have been taken by the Government so far, that clean up the environment. It is good to bring in measures so that there will be less future emissions, but that does not remove the blob in the St. Clair River. It does not solve my problem of not being able to swim in the St. Lawrence River which borders my riding. Canadians want these contaminants in the environment removed and the Government has done absolutely nothing in that respect.
The measures mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), are all measures that deal with future contaminants in that they will be better controlled. That is good. I am not saying we should not do that. I think we should do more of it. I think we should increase, for example, our pressure on the Americans, because so far all this Government has been able to accomplish is a recognition by the President of the United States that the problem is there. That is not much. Having regard to one

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
research project, we have looked at the United States budgets from time to time and have found out and disclosed to this House that some of the funds which were promised were not there.
There is still a lot to be done in that area. There are toxic chemicals buried in the ground at various locations in Canada which seep and leak into our rivers. Something has to be done to either remove these contaminates and bury them somewhere else or to improve the sites where they are buried so they stop seeping into our rivers and lakes. I am not trying to downgrade what has been done. I am just saying this does just a narrow part of the job. Let us call a spade a spade, because that is what it is.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member. I am sorry to hear him being so negative about this very important subject. We have an opportunity now to really do something positive. I am pleased to see that the Hon. Member is willing to pass this legislation quickly, and we look forward to getting it passed quickly. However, just to set the record straight, with the negative aspects referred to by the Hon. Member, let me give Members a few of the positive points.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has components such as authority to control the introduction into Canadian commerce of chemical and other substances that are new to Canada, anything that is coming on-stream, and the authority to obtain information and require testing on both new substances and substances already existing in Canadian commerce. We have some 100,000 chemicals in use today. We want to be able to get information on them to the Canadian people and to control it. The Act has provisions allowing control of all aspects of the life cycle of toxic chemicals from the development, through the manufacture, the importation, transportation, distribution, storage and use, the release to the environment as emissions at various stages of the life cycle and their ultimate disposal as waste.
We also have the authority to establish regulations; we have the authority to establish guidelines. Indeed, this Bill is very good news for Canadians. I would think the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party would see this very much as good news legislation. I would like to characterize his comments as the "DNN"-done nothing network, really and truly, as we listen to the Liberal Party speaking about environmental issues and look at that Party's record, which is indeed very dismal. I think we should look at the Liberal Party as the "DNN", done nothing network".


Jacques Guilbault: 1 have no objection to the description the Parliamentary Secretary has given of the Bill. That is in fact what is included in the legislation. And this is why we will support it. However, she should understand that when, after more than three years in power, a government for the first time brings in legislation on environment matters, such a legislation is too narrow in scope. Even if it is good, we
cannot be completely satisfied with the Government's performance, and its action on environment matters. Since after three years in power this is their first environment legislation before Parliament, it gives Opposition parties an opportunity to review the whole environment situation in Canada. And this is where the Government's performance is less than brilliant.
I will therefore recognize the merit of this Bill to that extent, and I know the Parliamentary Secretary probably has worked on the drafting of the Bill. If she did, I commend her-she is then worth her salt and the extra pay she is getting as Parliamentary Secretary. But let us not be carried away, let us not blow this Bill out of its true proportions. We will support it for what it is, not for what it should be.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member comment on the prohibition of commercial manufacturing and processing uses of dodecachloropentacyclo decane, chlorobiphenyls, polybrominated biphenyls and, of course, the famous polychlorinated terphenyls?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is an extremely interesting question. I do not know if my colleague has a degree in chemistry or if he knows the meaning of these words. While I know what BPCs are, I must admit that I do not know some of these other chemicals. When a Bill contains thousands of chemicals, obviously we do not know many of them. Therefore, I cannot do much more than laugh at the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland).


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-74. I was somewhat disappointed by the reaction of the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), and like him I simply cannot pretend to be an expert on all toxic products. Mr. Speaker, what disappointed me in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques-he who represents a highly urbanized riding, who, if memory serves me right, has been a Member of Parliament for at least twelve-odd years, if not more, who belonged to a government which way back could have taken preventive measures to curb environmental pollution-is the fact that he now berates this Government and our Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for failing to introduce Bill C-74 before today, a measure which is the outcome of consultations. Perhaps I might point out something which my colleague from Saint-Jacques would certainly remember: his Party had never been overly enthusiastic about consulting interest groups or the public at large to find out whether the Government should come up with a legislative measure to meet real needs.
September 17, 1987

A moment ago he referred to the fact that this Bill does not cover all pollutants already in the ground, on river beds, or wherever. Perhaps he should have asked himself this question when he first came to Parliament, and perhaps he should have urged his own government during all those years it was in office to introduce a measure like Bill C-74, not today but 15 or 16 years ago when he first came to this House. We all know how easy it is to criticize the Conservative Government, indeed it has become a habit. But why do they rake the Conservative Government over the coals? Because it dares take action. It is not afraid to consult Canadians on contentious issues, and the environment happens to be one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this House about my concern for the potential effects of toxic chemicals on the environment and on present and future generations of Canadians. Unlike my Liberal friends I am concerned about the people who will soon be replacing us. Over the past several years, we have all had numerous opportunities to witness the kinds of mayhem that can result from the use of a wide range of chemical products. Past toxic waste disposal practices were inadequate and have resulted in the release of toxic contaminants to surface and ground waters, threatening the supplies of drinking water for millions of people. We have realized that acid rain can wreak havoc with our lakes and forests and Canada is taking action to minimize these effects. However, we are now just awakening to the prospect that toxic chemicals may also be transported over long distances through the atmosphere and can harm humans, animals and fish.
I believe that the time is right for this government to show leadership in tackling the problem of toxic chemicals management. We need a national approach-one that respects the interests and responsibilities of all levels of government, and all sectors of our society. We must prevent problems rather than react to them. We must learn to live with chemicals from the point that they are created in the laboratory, through their introduction to the market-place and our homes, and to see that adequate disposal practices are followed. It is only through such measures, Mr. Speaker that we can sustain the health of our population and the quality of our environment and, as a consequence, the economic viability of our place in the world market.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act that we are discussing today, is the result of over 3 years of deliberations with all sectors of Canadian society. I want the Liberal Members to know that we have had consultations. It reflects the concern of this government for the potential effects of toxic chemicals on the environment and on present and future generations of Canadians. This legislation is the result of two consultative exercises than began in 1985. The first initiative began in February 1985 when the Ministers of the Environment and of National Health and Welfare released for public review and comment, proposals for amendments to the Environmental Contaminants Act.
In response to the comments received during this public review period, the Ministers established in June 1985 a
Consultative Committee with twelve representatives drawn from business, labour, public interest groups, and federal and provincial governments. It was not a habit of our predecessors to seek the advice of provincial governments. The committee was taken with reviewing the original government proposals and the submissions received during the public comments period, and recommending proposed amendments to the Ministers. The Committee met for the first time in September 1985 and, after a series of meetings and considerable study, submitted a final report to the Ministers on August 29, 1986. In this report, the committee made a series of recommendations to increase the scope of the Environmental Contaminants Act and to strengthen the role of the Federal Government in dealing with the problems of toxic cheminals.
The Second initiative began in September 1985 when a second consultative group started to address the problems associated with the management of all aspects of toxic chemicals in order to minimize risks to human health.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I will have to continue after the lunch break.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, a Manotick physician has been cleared of sexual assault charges concerning a 21-year-old female patient in the emergency ward of his hospital.
Anyone making a study of recent publications on the subject will discover that the veil of silence on this taboo-physicians sexually abusing their female patients-is being raised.
In the case of the patient from Perth, an attempt was made to show that, far from calming her, the Valium prescribed by her physician had been the source of a libidinous perception.
Mr. Speaker, since when is Valium a stimulant, given the fact that evidence gathered over a number of years proves that the depressive conditions of many women can be traced back to this drug?
Allow me to question the soundness of comments on Valium. Even the judge has stated that he still entertains reasonable doubts in his mind.

September 17, 1987
What more do we need, what kind of evidence must be submitted when we know that the facts which were corroborated are the same as those which are accepted in cases of sexual abuse of children by adults?
So when will justice prevail in cases of sexual abuse against women, and what more de we need to make judges fully aware of this approach?


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Law enforcement officers have faced a task of tremendous proportions in their efforts to crack down on the drug trade. The National Drug Strategy and, in particular, the new legislation to confiscate the proceeds of crime have at last provided Canadian enforcement officers with the resources and tools to confront and to overcome the growing danger that drug abuse poses to society. New initiatives in public education, treatment and rehabilitation, law enforcement and research, will provide an effective and comprehensive offensive against drug abuse.
1 call upon all Canadians and all Members of the House to put aside partisan politics and support the Government in the fight against drugs.

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Conference to Observe the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless ended its deliberations in Ottawa yesterday. This conference heard firsthand about the crisis of homelessness here in Canada and, indeed, around the world.
In 1982, when the United Nations designated 1987 as the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, one of the objectives was to have every country achieve a measure of improvement in the actual living conditions of those who are at the low end of the income scale. Today, there is every indication that in Canada conditions are even worse than they were in 1982.
There is no doubt at all that homelessness and the risk of being homeless are affecting a greater number of Canadians today than at any time since the Great Depression. The crisis crosses all segments of our society and impacts most heavily on women, natives, young people and the poor.
The Government's obligation to this international year did not end when the conference concluded. The problem was known to it before it was highlighted by this conference. What is needed now is action and the political will to ensure that homes for the homeless become a right and not simply a commodity on which a profit can be made.


HOUSING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago over 500 people converged on Parliament Hill to protest the lack of shelter that 12,000 or more Canadians face every night. In this the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless we must try to come to terms with this national tragedy.
The plight of the homeless and the poor goes to the core of the issue of human dignity and the right to the basics of life. Deprived of acceptable lodging and adequate food, how can the poor feel that they are an integral part of a developed and humanitarian society?
Soup kitchens, churches and charitable organizations have been left with the burden of helping the needy in our society. It is time that all Canadians and, in particular, all Governments, especially the national Government of Canada, help out and take part in ending what has become a national disgrace.


NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, drug abuse is a growing problem in Canada, a problem which affects all segments of society. RCMP drug intelligence reports that the number of major cocaine traffickers is increasing and that the use of potent cocaine derivatives and combinations with other substances is becoming more prevalent, while domestic production of cannabis and chemical drugs is on the rise.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and the representatives of 43 other countries who drafted an international agreement yesterday. This agreement will help to preserve the earth's ozone layer, the protective layer of gases which shields the earth from the harmful rays of the sun.
September 17, 1987

This agreement comes none too soon. Already there are huge holes in the ozone layer over the Arctic and the Antarctic. Without controls on those chemicals which destroy the ozone layer, the problem will begin to move further into countries like Canada. A depletion in the ozone layer could have a devastating impact on agricultural production in this country, changing weather patterns, and turning the Prairies into a vast desert. Other results would be a significant increase in cases of skin cancer and eye disease.
The successful negotiation of this treaty is proof of the continuing role of the United Nations in establishing international environmental agreements. It is also an indication of the growing awareness of most, if not all Governments that the environment must be preserved in order that future generations will be able to enjoy a healthy environment on this planet, an environment which all too often we take for granted.


USE OF ESTROGEN HORMONE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most misunderstood women's health issues is menopause, and the aging process which brings fears of osteoporosis. This week at two separate health conferences the use of the female hormone estrogen for treatment of women was raised.
The Osteoporosis Society of Canada claims that estrogen is a safe and effective way for selected women to prevent the debilitating bone disease osteoporosis. At another conference a radically different message was delivered that women can safely thwart the natural aging process by using estrogen treatment. This message presumes that menopause is the end of health, vigour, attractiveness, and libido, and that women should seek to remain adolescent beauties all their lives.
I applaud Dr. Joan Harrison who said, "I think staying young is an attitude of mind, and keeping fit and alive and active and interested in life is far more important than any agent".
Let us have more research into the opportunities to age healthfully and gracefully, and less poppycock based on sexist stereotypes of female beauty.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, once again the cries are being heard clear across Canada for extensive reform of the criminal justice system in
our country. These cries for reform are well founded and deserving of serious attention from all Members of the House.
A report recently released by the National Parole Board indicates that in the last 12 years 130 killings have been committed by prisoners who were on parole or who were under mandatory supervision. In a recent and absolutely appalling incident the Parole Board issued an individual, serving a 10-year sentence, a one-day parole pass in order that he could celebrate a special personal occasion. On the same day of his release this individual appears to have committed murder, and two additional serious crimes.
How many lives must be taken, and how many more families must be destroyed before we, as the lawmakers of the country, take concrete	action	to reform	this shamefully
ineffective collection of pacifist nonsense we call our justice system?
In Medicine Hat, Alberta, a family is suffering because of our inept system and	our	failure	to deal with	the premeditatedrepeat murderers. I	for	one will continue	to fight for the
reinstatement of capital punishment and a proper justice system.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather were confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which is now part of the Constitution, and guaranteed in the treaties signed with Indian First Nations. Those treaties are also recognized and affirmed in the Constitution.
Over the years these rights have been eroded by certain laws, including the Migratory Birds Convention Act, a convention between Canada and the United States.
In a judgment given on May 13, 1987, in the provincial court at The Pas, Manitoba, Judge William R. Martin stated:
In my opinion the Migratory Birds Convention Act cannot be used to extinguish the Indian's right to hunt migratory birds for food at all seasons. To the extent that the Migratory Birds Convention Act is inconsistent with the Constitution-it has no force and effect.
Therefore I call upon the Government of Canada to bring to an immediate end the harassment by RCMP officers of Indian persons in the James Bay area of northern Ontario, whose treaty and constitutional rights are being denied through enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

September 17, 1987


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise to inform Hon. Members that last night in New York the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) accepted, on behalf of the Department of Communications, an Emmy Award for technological achievement in television.
This award was for technology that pioneered the use of small low-cost antennae, which provided services to remote communities in the Canadian North.
Today there are 14 North American satellites using this technology all over the continent-in Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
In fact it seems as if everybody is using this technology now. However, nobody would be doing so if a small number of enterprising Canadians had not been willing to accept the risk, the risk that had to be taken, to show the world that this technology could work. It shows what Canadian ingenuity, backed by a far-seeing research program, can accomplish.
I believe that all of us in the House can be justifiably proud of this noteworthy achievement and of the Canadian scientists and officials who made it possible.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the talks in Washington this week between the Soviets and Americans on an arms agreement eliminating medium and short-range nuclear missiles are very heartening. A treaty may well be worked out by the end of the year.
We are encouraged, too, by Mr. Gorbachev's proposal that a United Nations mechanism be created for monitoring compliance with arms control accords. This is very much in line with Canadian proposals in the past, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response when he addresses the U.N. next Tuesday.
Lest we get carried away, however, we must remind ourselves that enormous arsenals of strategic nuclear arms remain, arsenals capable of destroying the planet many times over, and growing daily in technological sophistication and offensive capabilities.
When will we see a halt to the growth in such weapons as air and submarine-launched Cruise missiles? When will we see massive reductions in all strategic offensive arms? When will we see the end of SDI?
What is happening in Washington this week is a prelude, an important prelude but still a prelude, to the enormous tasks that lie ahead.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the hamlet of Wilno in the County of Renfrew is the oldest community of Polish origin in Canada. The post office is in the general store and Rural Route No. 1, Wilno, originates in that location.
Canada Post wants to take the postmaster off salary and replace this position with a contract which will give the postmaster a commission on the sale of stamps, money orders, et cetera. She will receive about 83 cents an hour on a really heavy day.
The National Camp Grounds of the 400,000 Canadians of Polish origin in Canada, named Kaszuby, is just six miles from Wilno, and people come there from all over Canada.
Both the community of Wilno and the Canadian Polish Congress of Canada want the post office retained as is, with Rural Route No. 1, Wilno, kept intact.
The people of Wilno have asked me to tell the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) that they are insulted and angry at his Conservative Government's action.
In a letter to the Chairman of Canada Post Corporation, the President of the Canadian Polish Congress states:
The closing down of the Wilno community post office would be interpreted
as an insult not only to the people of that community, but to all Canadians of
Polish descent.
In the name of Canadian history, and in the name of Canadian heritage, I call upon the Prime Minister to call off the wolves and leave the Wilno post office alone.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Marc Ferland: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, more than 50 countries signed a treaty aimed at reducing by half the chemical products which destroy the ozone layer in the stratosphere. "For the first time in history we now have a global treaty under which the nations of the world have decided to take very specific measures to reduce the production of a product harmful to the environment." This statement was
September 17, 1987

made by Mr. Winfried Lang who chaired the September 8-to-16 conference held in Montreal under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Program. According to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan): "The treaty shows that countries can indeed afford to forget about their diverging views in their quest for a common goal-the preservation of life on earth".
Last April the World Commission on Environment and Development released a report linking international economic and environmental needs.
We have just been witness to the seriousness with which Canada and other countries take this link.
We must commend the Minister of the Environment and all others who worked hard towards the signature of this important treaty which is the kind of tool we need to protect our planet.


APARTHEID
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1977, Stephen Biko, the heroic advocate of black independence in South Africa, died of savage injuries sustained while in police custody. Ten years later little has changed.
This week in the South African Parliament two proposals are being debated. One offers blacks throughout the country the opportunity to elect their own representatives to a National Advisory Council, and the other is a report on changes to the Group Areas Act which is the basis of residential segregation. The first has been rejected by black leaders. The second appears to be a token gesture.
Black leaders such as Oliver Tambo, Alan Boesak and Thabo Mbeki have repeatedly called for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions and a break in diplomatic ties, although this might mean isolation.
Now is the time to step up the pressure on South Africa before it is too late.

Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the third anniversary of the swearing in of the Mulroney
Oral Questions
administration. The quantity and significance of the legislation introduced and passed by this Government is without parallel in the history of Canadian federal politics.
The employment and economic record since September, 1984, is nothing short of remarkable. Nine hundred and seven thousand new jobs have been created; 88 per cent of these new jobs are full-time. There were more newspaper pages devoted to help-wanted ads in July of this year than at any point during the past 25 years. Interest rates have fallen 3 per cent. Five-year mortgages are down 2.75 per cent. Housing starts are up 86 per cent. Consumer spending has increased 32 per cent. Inflation is steady at 4 per cent. The deficit has declined in three consecutive years for the first time in 30 years.
Indeed, our economic growth now exceeds that of all major western industrialized nations. The Government has contributed to this outstanding economic growth by sensible policies on deficit and spending controls, deregulation, and foreign investment. It has also laid the foundation for continued growth by its leadership and vision in pursuing freer trade with the United States, and tax reform.
I admit that we, as a Government, have made some mistakes. However, no one can deny the outstanding record of these past three years.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's approval of the performance of his Solicitor General and that gentleman's predecessor is based upon a dangerous ignorance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and a dangerous ignorance of the law. I want to recite the Prime Minister's answer to me yesterday, for the benefit of Your Honour:
-ministerial responsibility has been adequately and faithfully discharged by the Solicitor General at all times and in all circumstances.
The head of an independent agency decided to submit his resignation and the resignation was accepted.
Those were the Prime Minister's words. The Prime Minister is dead wrong, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Intelligence Service is not an independent agency like the CBC is. It is directly responsible to a Minister of the Government. Section 6 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Act-and I will be glad to hand it to the Minister of Justice to refresh his limited memory-reads:
The Director, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Service and all matters connected therewith.
In other words, there is a direct ministerial responsibility here. Hopefully the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the ministerial responsibility of the Solicitor General. Will he

September 17, 1987
Oral Questions
confer with the Prime Minister and obtain that gentleman's resignation?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Right Hon.-


An Hon. Member:: Whatever.


James Francis Kelleher: -Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Gormley:: For now, anyway.


James Francis Kelleher: -I am certainly not resigned to the problems in CSIS. I have been taking action. Whenever a problem has come to our attention I have acted. I can mention what I did after the matter of the affidavit. Immediately upon learning of it we advised the court. I immediately asked the Inspector General to conduct an investigation. I immediately asked the Osbaldeston team to look at this and recommend a plan of action. I also advised the Security Intelligence Review Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very reluctant to interrupt the Minister. While what he is saying is of course important, it does not relate to the question asked.


Mr. McDermid:: Let him speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian-


John Kenneth Gormley: Page two of the speech.


John Napier Turner: -Security Intelligence Service Act was changed at the instance of the then opposition critic, now Minister of Justice. He caused the Bill to be amended to make the Minister accountable, and I want to recite his words.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: This is found at page 1279 of Hansard of February 10, 1984:
.-the agency should be an open book to the Minister. There is absolutely no question that that is how it must be. The Minister must have full political responsibility. Accountability must be absolute.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Hear, hear! Absolutely.


John Napier Turner: In accordance with the Minister's eloquence, the Bill was changed and the Minister was made accountable to Parliament.
Once again I ask will the Deputy Prime Minister secure that Minister's resignation, and in particular the resignation of his predecessor for signing that false application to the court?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been accountable to Parliament. He has been here every day answering the questions the Opposition have been putting forward, and rightly so.


Mr. Nunziata:: Why not a judicial inquiry?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Look who is creeping up to the second row!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the Deputy Prime Minister is in the midst of answering it. That answer is not made any easier by colleagues of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition interrupting with comments.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind you, Sir, and Members of this House, that the Minister has been accountable to this House. He has taken firm and definitive action. He has accepted responsibility and outlined a course of action. I am not sure what more the Opposition wants. It is now talking about a judicial inquiry. The Minister went as far yesterday as to say he was prepared to appear before a parliamentary committee to deal with this whole matter to its fullest extent. If that is not accountability then the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has a different version of it than I have.



John Napier Turner: What we want, Mr. Speaker, is ministerial responsibility on the part of the Minister and his predecessor who threw a public employee to the wolves to save their hide. Now that the Prime Minister himself, ultimately responsible for national security, chairs the Cabinet committee on national security, why is the Prime Minister not aware of ministerial responsibility, and why do the present Solicitor General and especially his predecessor refuse to accept their ministerial responsibility, and why do they not resign as a result of this incident?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not interested in the facts and in getting to the bottom of this issue. All he is interested in is the removal of a Minister. This Minister is not going to resign. He is going to resolve the differences and difficulties which are inherent in the organization.
This organization was put in place in 1984. There was a difficult transitional period within which it had to operate. This Minister and previous Ministers have dealt with that. The Minister is taking action and will continue to take action.
September 17, 1987

The answers are clear. I am sorry to disappoint the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition but the resignation of the Minister will certainly not satisfy his requirements if he is interested in getting all the information and facts with regard to this situation.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister assured this House that the federal position in the fishing talks between Canada and France would be in accordance with the wishes of the fishermen and the provincial Governments of eastern Canada.
I will direct my attention to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he explain to this House why the position of the federal Government, during talks which took place this past weekend in Paris, was not in accordance with the wishes of the fishermen and provincial Governments of eastern Canada? The fishermen do not want northern cod on the bargaining table.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that a political Party which is now in the process of backing away from the Meech Lake Accord is putting forward in the House of Commons the proposition that the completion of international negotiations in federal jurisdiction is a matter subject to provincial veto. We have involved the Province of Newfoundland and other provinces fully in preparations for these negotiations and in the negotiations themselves.


WITHDRAWAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND FROM TALKS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland has announced this very hour that it will withdraw from talks between Canada and France because Canada has agreed to discuss, at talks to begin October 6 in Ottawa, giving France more fishing rights than it ever had before.
Why did the Government of Canada renege on a commitment made by the Prime Minister to the fishermen and Governments of eastern Canada? We know what is on the menu for the French on October 6. It is cod au gratis.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegation is false. Premier Peckford had asked that he be involved in the negotiations. We involved him in the negotiations. He had asked to be part of the delegation. His representatives were part of the delegation. The Premier of Newfoundland and
Oral Questions
Labrador has taken a position to withdraw his negotiator from the Canadian delegation.


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is his decision. We regret it.
We want to make two things clear. First, we would welcome the return of the Newfoundland representative to the Canadian delegation involved in this very important negotiation. Second, the negotiation which we are conducting with France to resolve a question left unresolved as a result of the failures of former Liberal administrations is being conducted with the purpose of serving, protecting, and advancing the interests of the fishermen and the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Solicitor General. Mr. Ronald Atkey, head of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, has indicated that as soon as he heard of Mr. Marc Boivin's connections with our security services the review office began an inquiry into the matter which has now extended to a number of trade unions in Canada. On Tuesday in the House the Minister said categorically that the security services do not target trade unions.
In light of what Mr. Atkey has said does the Minister stand by what he said in the House on Tuesday? If so, what is Mr. Atkey investigating?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the article referred to by the Hon. Member is not new. This is nothing more than what Mr. Atkey said at a press conference following the tabling of his annual report in June of this year. I have already begun to act on that because immediately upon learning of Mr. Boivin's activities I asked the Inspector General to launch an investigation into that matter. That also forms part of the mandate of the Osbaldeston review committee.
What I said with respect to targeting of labour unions, and what I say again, is that under the Act CSIS cannot target labour unions because they are a labour union. It is not within its mandate and it would not do so.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not because they are a labour union that perhaps CSIS has targeted them, but they are a free organization and the people in this country believe non-violent democratic organizations in this country ought to be free and not infiltrated by the security services.

September 17, 1987
Oral Questions


QUERY CONCERNING WHO IS RIGHT
John Edward Broadbent: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Atkey believes that certain individuals who work for our security service in one capacity or another did infiltrate unions in Canada. Who is right about this issue, the Minister of Mr. Atkey? Which one?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member, as he well knows, that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits CSIS to investigate anybody who is a security threat to Canada. That is far different from suggesting that it has the right to target labour unions because they are a labour union. I repeat again that they do not and they cannot.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been correct in citing the Act. He will know that the McDonald Royal Commission, all the Attorneys General of the provinces of Canada at the time, the Official Opposition which was his Party at the time, as well as the New Democratic Party said that the Act he just quoted has been defined too broadly because it gives the security services the right-which they should not have-to monitor people who do not believe in or advocate violence in any form.
Considering that this is the case, and that the security services evidently are clearly running amok now, will the Minister agree to accept the recommendation of the McDonald Commission and his own Party's recommendation at the time, and introduce an amendment that will change the Act to restrict the security services only to those kinds of activities that should be monitored in a free society?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows well that there is a five-year review called for under the CSIS Act. Second, the Hon. Member is talking as if the review by Mr. Atkey's committee has already arrived at and finalized its conclusions and that what he is suggesting is in fact true. That is not the case.
The investigation is barely under way. We too are concerned about that. That is why I have asked the Inspector General to carry out a review of Mr. Boivin's conditions of service. That is why I made that part of the mandate of the Osbaldeston committee, to give me a plan of action with respect to countersubversion activities which I will implement immediately upon receiving the report.


AIR-IND1A CRASH-ADVANCE WARNING QUERY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General was asked about advance knowledge which government officials may have had with
regard to the Air- India tragedy two years ago. Yesterday the Solicitor General refused to answer, suggesting that because the matter was sub judice he would not be able to answer questions in the House of Commons.
He knows that in a civil matter the sub judice rule only applies when the matter is at trial. Therefore, he ought to be answering questions in this regard.
I want to ask the question again. Did the RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service have any advance warning with regard to the Air-India tragedy?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's legal opinion is obviously at variance with the opinion I have received from the Department of Justice. Frankly, I am prepared to accept the latter over the Hon. Member's. For that reason I cannot get into the facts. However, I can quote the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, former Minister of Transport, from Hansard on June 25, 1985, when he said:
Mr. Speaker, from to time there were requests for additional security by Air-India authorities. There were extra RCMP deployed both at Toronto and at Mirabel, as there has been for some time. I should point out to the House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight 182 and, as a result, the extraordinary precautionary measures were not put in place.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on the question of whether or not the matter is sub judice, Beauchesne says at page 118-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is aware of what Beauchesne says. This is not the time to argue it. The Hon. Member will put his question and I will hear the reply that is forthcoming from the Minister.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps I could rise on a point of order later.


ACTIVITIES OF UNION INFORMER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will ask another question of the Solicitor General with regard to Mr. Boivin. Mr. Boivin, who was a paid informer of the Security Intelligence Service of Canada, has pleaded guilty to four charges of conspiracy to bomb motels in Chicoutimi, Ste. Foy, Drummondville and Montreal, and two charges of conspiracy to cause explosions in hotels in Chicoutimi and Ste. Foy. All the while he was a paid informer of the security service of Canada. Was the security service aware of Mr. Boivin's criminal activity at the time?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said to another Hon. Member, immediately upon learning of Mr. Boivin's activities I utilized the Inspector General-it was his Party that brought in the Act and set up the office of the Inspector General to do those very things I asked of him-to investigate and report to me. I think the Hon. Member should give the Act and this Solicitor General a chance to operate properly.
September 17, 1987


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs assured the House that the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the Canada-France negotiations had been discussed with representatives of the industry, fishermen, and the Government in Newfoundland. When the Government went to Paris did it change its position to the detriment of Newfoundland, to cause the Government of Newfoundland to withdraw from those talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada did not change. I want to make it very clear that the negotiations are not at all to the detriment of Newfoundland. What would be to the detriment of Newfoundland would be for us to fail to try to resolve this very serious difficulty that has been left with us as a result of the failure of the inadequate earlier negotiations. We are trying to resolve the problem. We are trying to bring security, stability, and growth to the fishing industry and to the lives of fishermen in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada.


REQUEST FOR HALT TO NEGOTIATIONS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, since the Newfoundland Government has withdrawn its team from the negotiations because of the position taken by the Government of Canada, will the Minister not call off the negotiations until it comes up with a position that is acceptable to the people and the Government of Newfoundland?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has made its position known on a range of international obligations. They want to run away from NATO, they want to run away from the trade negotiations, they want to run away from fisheries negotiations. The only cause they are prepared to espouse is the cause of violence, such as was put forward by their former spokesperson for international affairs earlier.


REQUEST FOR COMMON STRATEGY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. May I say there has never been a more shameful attempt to run away from a legitimate question. The question here is the Prime Minister's word and its worth. Every Member heard the Prime Minister apologize to the Government and to the people of Newfoundland for having signed a deal with France behind Newfoundland's back. Every Member heard the Prime Minister say that in future no deal shall be reached until the people and the Government of Newfoundland agree with the contents of that deal.
Oral Questions
We now have at least one of the Atlantic Governments walking away from the table. The question then becomes what is the worth of the Prime Minister's word? Will these talks be suspended until the Canadian negotiating team, that is, the federal Government and all of the provinces involved, can get their act together and agree upon a common strategy at the negotiating table?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the quite extraordinary position being put forward, 1 presume on behalf of the Liberal Party, is that every province should have a veto over every international negotiation in which the Government of Canada participates. That is not the undertaking which was given by the Government of Canada. The undertaken given by the Government of Canada was that we were going to involve fully the industry, the fishermen, and the provinces affected. We have involved fully the industry, the fishermen, and the provinces affected.
The Premier of Newfoundland had been consulted, has been involved, had sent representatives to the negotiations in France. We regret he has taken the decision. We hope he will understand that we would welcome him and his representatives to come back into the negotiations.
We are negotiating to try to bring benefit to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, the fishermen of Newfoundland, the fishermen of Canada. Those negotiations are continuing. If it appears we are not able through those negotiations to help and advance the interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland, naturally there will be no conclusion to those negotiations, but we are trying to get a good deal for Canada.


REQUEST THAT CANADA-FRANCE MEETINGS BE ENDED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary position being put forward by the Liberal Party-extraordinary given the history of this place- is that the people of Canada should be able to expect that when the Prime Minister gives his word he will keep it.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Transport, Newfoundland's Cabinet representative, have all said that northern cod is not on the table and no deal shall be signed without the consent of the Government and people of Newfoundland. That is now not possible without Newfoundland at the table.
Will the Government immediately put an end to the scheduled meetings next month between Canada and France, convene a meeting of all of the players involved, that is, the Government of Canada and the Atlantic Provinces, and see whether or not a common strategy can be found? If a common strategy cannot be found, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs ensure that his Prime Minister keeps his word, solemnly given, I presume, in this House to the people and Government of Newfoundland?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just read the statement by the

September 17, 1987
Oral Questions
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The position being taken by the Hon. Member is considerably more extreme than the position put forward by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason for that is evident. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is interested in protecting the legitimate interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Hon. Member is interested only in hurling accusations across the floor of this House.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on May 26 of last year, after a visiting Punjabi cabinet Minister was shot and seriously wounded in British Columbia, two Ministers of the Crown rose in this House and said no security protection was provided because his presence in the country was not known.
Today I provided to the Minister a transcript of wiretaps showing that CSIS clearly knew at least a week beforehand that the Minister was in Canada. Given this confirmation in the transcript of dangerous CSIS bungling that led to serious injury, will the Minister now finally fire those agents responsible and order a full parliamentary Inquiry into this very serious matter?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Hon. Member was kind enough to deliver some transcripts of something to me at about 2.15 p.m., and for this I thank him. 1 will certainly have these reviewed by my officials to ascertain what they contain and the accuracy of them. But let me state that immediately following the shooting incident, the then Solicitor General immediately asked the Inspector General to conduct an investigation, as he is mandated to do. I received that report and immediately implemented the recommendations contained therein to improve the system.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that this Minister is now admitting that the first time he even bothered to look at the transcripts of the wiretaps of these conversations was when I presented them to him. That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what he said. Tell the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member will put his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that these transcripts have been available to the Minister for several months now, and in view of the very serious nature of this allegation, the fact that Ministers of the Crown stood in their place in the House and denied that the Government knew what was going on, how much more will it take before this Minister accepts his responsibility and recognizes there must be a full parliamentary inquiry? If he does not, why on earth does he not do the honourable thing and resign, because he is utterly incompetent?


James Francis Kelleher: In the
first instance, with respect to the Member's preamble, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. What I said was I have not as yet had an opportunity to review the documents, myself or my officials, which were delivered to me at 2.15.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Take your time, Jim.


John Edward Broadbent: Take a few more months.


James Francis Kelleher: If anyone is shocked and dismayed, it is this Minister, at the Hon. Member who may very well be jeopardizing the investigation into this heinous crime which we are presently carrying out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Come on!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last evening many Canadians watched on television the discovery of yet another Canadian who was brutally murdered, dismembered, and dumped along highway 417 near Ottawa. We read in the newspapers and see on television virtually daily occurrences of such savage murders in our country. It is imperative that a life sentence mean that.
In light of this ongoing travesty, would the Minister consider removing parole for any individual who commits a premeditated first-degree murder?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think we all in the House share a sense of horror and disgust with respect to these brutal acts that take place in our society. We as legislators have an opportunity to improve our judicial and justice system. Indeed, the Hon. Member will know, as a leading member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, that we have in fact launched into a very thorough and intensive examination with respect to the whole question of sentencing.
September 17, 1987

The committee itself, of its own volition and initiative, is in fact looking at the whole question of parole. We have the Archambault Sentencing Commission which is now the subject of intensive discussion not only with Members of Parliament but with my provincial counterparts. I can assure the Hon. Member of the commitment of this Government to move forward as quickly as possible in areas of improving our system of justice and I thank him for his great interest in this area.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I want to ask the Minister about the resignation of Ted Finn, who was a Deputy Minister. The Solicitor General is asking the House to accept the resignation of the Deputy Minister as parliamentary accountability for the problems in the Security Intelligence Service. If the Minister is asking us to do that, at the very least I think he ought to have come clean with the House and told us all the reasons why the resignation was offered and all the reasons why the resignation was accepted.
I would like to ask him about that. What were the reasons for Ted Finn offering his resignation to the Government?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions, Mr. Finn submitted his resignation and it was accepted.


REASONS FOR RESIGNATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of accountability the Prime Minister wants, or offered to the House in explanation or accountability for all the things that have gone wrong within the Security Intelligence Service. What were the reasons the resignation was given? Surely we are entitled to them. At least we are entitled to know in particular if the resignation of Ted Finn was solicited by the Government, by the Minister, or by anyone on his behalf.


Mr. Rossi:: Who are you covering up for?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I will repeat what I originally said and have been saying all along. Mr. Finn submitted his resignation and it was accepted.


John V. Nunziata: Why?
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Mission for Peace has just returned from Nicaragua where we found that the Government and the people are very committed to the peace process. They very much fear that a resumption of Contra funding will not only continue to devastate the countryside but will destroy the peace process itself.
When the Minister speaks to the General Assembly of the United Nations next Tuesday will he not only condemn in general terms all foreign interference and military support in Central America but will he make explicit Canadian opposition to further funding of the Contras by the United States of America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked and answered before. Our position has not changed.
While I am on my feet I would like to commend the initiative taken by the Hon. Member, his colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, and others, in visiting Nicaragua and holding those kinds of conversations. If there is particular information that they think would be useful to convey to me, I would be most appreciative of receiving it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to speak with the Minister personally.
We visited a co-operative farm and we saw burned buildings and destroyed equipment. This is the result of a Contra war against development. Does the Minister not recognize that continued funding of the Contras is a major act of bad faith? Why, then, will he not speak out loudly and clearly now when Canada's voice can make a real difference to the peace process?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just so that we are absolutely clear, 1 think that there are some things that Canada can do to make a real contribution to the peace process. That is why I sent representatives down immediately after the plan was accepted by the five Central American Presidents. That is why I genuinely welcome the active initiative that was taken by the Hon. Member, his colleague and others. That is why I am trying to do whatever will turn out to be practical. That involves making clear our view that the presence of foreign powers in that conflict and in that region is not helpful.

September 17, 1987
Oral Questions
I do not believe that what the Hon. Member proposes we do would be constructive, helpful, or have an effect. Consequently, I want to maintain our capacity to look at and to pursue those avenues which will have an effect.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the dredging of Pictou Harbour in Pictou County, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware that officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have made very strong and specific recommendations to Environment Canada on the proper and safest ways to dump quantities of PCBs, heavy metal, and other pollutants so as to protect marine life. Can the Minister give a clear assurance to the House that the recommendations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be followed to the letter with regard to protecting the health of Canadians, as well as marine life and tourism in that particular area? Can he give us that assurance?


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada is indeed very sensitive to the situation which the Hon. Member mentions in relation to the possibility of PCB contamination. On previous occasions the Government has taken every step to ensure that PCB contamination was handled with every precaution.
I know that in the constituency of Cardigan, at Georgetown, in the last couple of years the Government has taken extraordinary measures to ensure that PCB contamination is adequately handled. I assure him that the same situation will prevail here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTAMINATION HAZARD
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the briefing book of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans it states that Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are under pressure from the local Member of Parliament, the Minister of National Revenue, to ease the requirements for ocean dumping recommended by DFO because of the added cost associated with the stipulations.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice will be followed. Will it be the advice and recommendations of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to PCB contamination? Or will it be the advice of the Minister of National Revenue? Whose advice will be followed?


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, once again I assure the Hon. Member that, first and foremost, the Government of Canada is concerned about the protection of the environment. All measures necessary will be undertaken to ensure that there is no PCB contamination which can be avoided.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It refers to the decision yesterday by the Canada Labour Relations Board that Canada Post forced its workers in the last strike to do work that would normally be done by striking employees. The Canada Labour Relations Board ruled that that was illegal and went against the Canada Labour Code.
Further to that, I have a Canada Post document in which it states that among the problems with that strike was intimidation used to provoke employees to obey instructions, often against their own better judgment or personal fears. It also states that intimidation often consisted of threat of dismissal, reprimands, or damage to the Canada Post careers of these people.
In that Canada Post is obviously breaking the law of the land will the Minister of Labour personally intervene to ensure that the law is obeyed?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will definitely look into the situation and act according to the law, if the law is not being followed.


OBSERVANCE OF LAW
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. Since this is a Canada Post document, since it admits that this is happening and that there has been a Canada Labour Relations Board decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that if postal negotiations break down- and there could be another strike next week-the Post Office will not be allowed to break the law of the land again?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any side is entitled to disobey the law of the land. I will look into the situation referred to by my hon. colleague and see what has to be done, if anything.
September 17, 1987


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In recent years in the face of carnage, chaos, and destruction, Canadian development aid to Mozambique has been totally inadequate. Much of the little we have sent has been destroyed by South African-backed rebels. Last week our High Commissioner in London suggested that Canada was considering sending boots and other non-lethal military aid to help the front-line states resist South African aggression.
Does the Minister share the views expressed by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ramphal, who stated that Canada and other Commonwealth countries "will have to provide more than army boots if they are serious about meeting the security needs" of these front-line states?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, evidently, I share the view expressed by the Secretary General. The Secretary General understands, as does the House, I think, that there has been in Canada for some time a reluctance to become involved in what is traditionally called military aid. We do have the MTAP program that has very limited application. I do not think there would be much support in Canada for going beyond that kind of program, just as I do not think that there would be much support in Canada for the Government of Canada endorsing, as the New Democratic Party has, the resort to violence.
I do make the case, as I have to the Secretary General, and I want to assure the House, that we are looking with other Commonwealth countries, including countries such as Britain which has a different policy with respect to military aid, at ways in which we can work together to bring stability and certainty, particularly to transportation corridors, in Mozambique. Obviously that would have a very real impact on the economic viability of the other front-line states.


MOZAMBIQUE-SUGGESTED STATIONING OF PEACEKEEPING FORCES
Roland de Corneille: As the
Minister has stated, Mozambique requires more than good words, it requires economic stability and secure borders.
Will the Minister undertake to get the Commonwealth to support the stationing of Commonwealth or United Nations peacekeeping forces in Mozambique to prevent further South African incursions and raids, and block South African weapons and supplies from reaching the roving bands of terrorist rebels operating within Mozambique? This move would help to derail South Africa's plan to destabilize the front-line states.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, regrettably it is not that easy. There are troops of Commonwealth countries operating, providing training, and located in Mozambique. We are seriously looking at practical actions that the Commonwealth Countries can take together that may contribute significantly to stability in the front-line states, and in particular may provide some guarantees with regard to the security of one or more transportation corridors through Mozambique.
I cannot yet indicate to the House whether there is a reasonable prospect of us being able to reach agreement on that type of package from the heads of government meeting in the Commonwealth. That is what the Prime Minister is looking for, and that is what we are attempting to achieve.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
As the Hon. Member is aware, last week in Saskatoon there was a senseless and fatal accident involving a vehicle and train collision which occurred due to the lack of a mechanical traffic barrier.
Considering the fact that there were 525 rail related accidents in 1986, can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House what steps have been taken by the Department of Transport, and the Canadian Transport Commission, to avoid the recurrence of such an accident, in particular at this crossing in Saskatoon?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members regret the tragic death of Mr. Carriere at this crossing in Saskatoon. There are hundreds of railway highway crossings in Canada; each one is potentially dangerous. As a result, Parliament has set aside a fund of money, administered by the CTC, and it can direct or order the installation of flashing lights, barriers, overpasses, or underpasses, depending on the criteria.
I know that as a result of the accident and the intervention of the Member, the CTC is looking at this crossing. That could lead to a change from a flashing light to a barrier, or some other technical advance which I hope will improve the crossing.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Beaches.

September 17, 1987
Business of the House HOUSING


FAMILIES WITHOUT ADEQUATE HOUSING
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
The Minister will be aware that yesterday in Ottawa the international conference on the UN resolution on the homeless ended. The Minister will also be aware that the Government itself has advised that approximately 750,000 Canadian families suffer from either inadequate housing, or a total lack of housing.
Will the Minister advise the House and Canadians what the Government intends to do in order to provide the type of measures which will alleviate the crisis facing those 750,000 Canadian families?


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government did not wait for this conference to be held in Ottawa before looking after destitute Canadians. All the Hon. Member need do is review what has been announced to help these many people.
As to the conference which has just ended in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, it was supported not only by the federal Government but also by spokesmen for Canadian society as well as Department of National Health and Welfare representatives, and we are looking forward to receiving the report of conference delegates.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: The Government is aware that it has done virtually nothing to alleviate this crisis in housing. I wish to ask the simple, clear question, does the Government fully expect Canadians to accept that throwing a couple of thousand bucks to organize a conference on the homeless in this country is the end of the Government's obligation? It should be ashamed of itself.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the question is totally unfair. The Conservative Governnent did not wait for this conference before taking action. Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Government has already made a commitment to make as much money as possible available to help the most destitute. That is what we did, that is what we will continue to do, and the conference itself cannot be construed as a guideline for Government policy.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday I should like to ask the Government the traditional question, to wit: What House business has the Government in mind for the coming week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will call Bill C-68, known as the Bretton Woods Agreements, which has returned from committee. There is some suggestion that that will move very quickly and it can go off to the other place.
We will then begin the report stage on Bill C-55. On Monday, we will continue with Bill C-55 at report and third reading stage until it is completed.
On Monday, I will be meeting with the other House Leaders to discuss future business, and make some arrangements for an orderly debate on the constitutional resolution.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). On October 10, Canada will honour Her Majesty's visit to Canada with a state dinner on the West Coast. A state dinner is a non-partisan gathering. It is an occasion to provide an opportunity for people from various regions of the country who represent various groups in our society to participate in such an event.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate what steps are being taken to ensure that equal distribution will be pursued, and that this occasion does not become a Social Credit Party event on the West Coast of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In response to the Hon. Member, I wonder if he would feel comfortable at a non-partisan event.
I will certainly take the Hon. Member's comments as a representation. Perhaps I can get back to him.
September 17, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
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.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House suspended the sitting at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) had the floor.


Marc Ferland: I was saying before lunch that the second initiative began in September 1985 when a second consultative group started to address the problems associated with the management of all aspects of toxic chemicals in order to minimize risks to human health and the environment while supporting industrial productivity and competiveness. This committee developed a report entitled "From Cradle to Grave: A Management Approach to Chemicals". This report establishes the "life-cycle" concept as the key analytical tool for managing chemicals as they proceed from their creation through research and development efforts, are introduced to the market place, manufactured, transported, distributed, used and, eventually, disposed of.
The draft legislation before us incorporates many of the recommendations contained in these two committee reports. We accept the principle that we must have measures to anticipate and prevent the problems of environmental contamination as well as be prepared to remedy harm when it has been done.
To this end the following provisions of the draft legislation are notable.
A brand new provision has been included to deal with the beginning of the life-cycle of a chemical: a strict regulatory program is proposed that would require industry to notify the federal government when a chemical substance is going to be manufactured in or imported into Canada for the first time. Sufficient information would be provided to clearly identify the chemical and to allow scientists within the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare to carry out a preliminary assessment of the potential of the chemical to create a health or environmental threat. This program would allow Canada to live up to international commitments made at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The details of this proposed scheme were developed by the consultative committee under the Environmental Contaminants Act and have the support of representatives of both industry and public interest groups and should merit the support of all members of this House.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
To complement the proposed measures for "new" chemicals, is a series of measures designed to cope with the problems associated with the thousands of chemicals currently in use in our society. The draft Environmental Protection Act would obligate the Minister of the Environment to develop and publicize a list of chemicals that would be assessed for health and environmental hazards on a priority basis. Any member of the public could make representations to the Minister of the Environment to include specific chemicals on the Priority List and the Minister must reply to each request. This system would provide for strong public input and accountability for the process of selecting chemicals for review. As hazard assessments are completed, they must be made public and all decisions to regulate or not to regulate a chemical will be open to an appeal process. This procedure for selecting and assessing chemicals should maintain public participation and restore the public's confidence that the Federal Government is making a timely and appropriate response to the potential threats posed by the chemicals that have become an integral part of our life in this country.
One of the purposes of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is to control toxic chemicals in Canada. This draft legislation contains provisions to regulate virtually any of the foreseeable events in the life of a toxic chemical. In addition to the provisions 1 have already mentioned for controlling the entry of new chemicals to Canada, controls could be placed on the use, manufacture, import, release or disposal of toxic substances.
If toxic substances are imported, manufactured or distributed in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, a recall, and possibly disposal, of all products containing the substance could be required by the Minister of the Environment. This type of provision is not found in any other current federal legislation and should encourage industry to comply with regulatory provisions of the Act and thus to prevent the contamination of our environment.
Another new provision would give the Federal Government the power to intervene when a spill or release of a toxic chemical is imminent or has occurred. This measure is designed to minimize or, hopefully, prevent damage to the environment that may be caused by the sudden release of large quantities of chemicals that are commonly used at industrial sites. This is another example of the kind of anticipatory measures that are part and parcel of a comprehensive cradle-to-grave approach to managing chemicals.
Mr. Speaker, as we attempt to protect the Canadian environment, we must realize that we are part of an international community. The ongoing international conference on ozone in Montreal is a prime example of the necessity for collective action on some environmental problems. We now recognize that some chemicals have the physical or chemical characteristics that allow them to become distributed about this planet of ours regardless of the original localized area of their use.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Recognizing this need for international cooperation, the draft Environmental Protection Act contains a measure that would require Canadian industry to notify foreign countries if a toxic chemical listed under the Act is to be exported. This practice should ensure that recipients of Canadian exports are aware that we have regulated a chemical and the reasons why we have done so and, thus, can evaluate the need for any measures they may deem necessary. There are many international aspects to controlling the hazards of existing chemicals and an important part of implementing this new Act involves Canadian participation as a leader in such organizations as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Program and the Organization for Enonomic Cooperation and Development.
Mr. Speaker. The current laws for protection of the environment from toxic chemicals were conceived in the social, political and scientific milieu of the late 1960's and early 1970's. We have learned a lot over the past 20 years-a good deal of that from our failure to cope successfully with the insidious and ever-present problems of environmental contamination.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to recall the lethargy and apathy of our Liberal predecessors, and the complicity of our NDP colleagues, there is no need to recall how these people failed to live up to their responsibilities; aware at the time of the existence of certain very important files, denouncing a wide variety of chemical products, that Liberal government propped up by the New Democrats never did anything to curb this scourge. The people of Canada are demanding a stronger and more effective approach to prevent the contamination of our environment by the chemicals we have collectively chosen to live with in our society.
We have employed a novel approach over the last three years, involving representatives of the various sectors of our society in the development of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. While this Act deals with other threats to the environment, those portions relating to toxic chemicals assessment and control are, I believe, comprehensive, forward looking, and with the support of the members of this House, should be implemented in a timely fashion. These measures should help us progress to the twenty-first century in such a manner that we can assert to our children that we have not misused their inheritance, Mr. Speaker, and not the kind of inheritance which you and I and the whole Government were left with when we came here in September 1984, faced as we were with the consequences of the outright apathy of the previous administration which had never had the gumption to get a handle on such serious issues as that of the environment.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard Opposition Members say that this Government has not done anything. In the course of my remarks I indicated that we began to deal with environmental problems as early as in February 1985. With respect to acid rain our Government signed agreements with the seven provinces which were the worst offenders in terms of acid pollutant emissions. We did manage to conclude an agreement
with the Government of Quebec, something which our predecessors had always deemed unthinkable, unworkable. Well, this Government and this Minister did manage to negotiate an agreement under which it will be possible to reduce acid fallout by 50 per cent in Quebec. That is the kind of constructive measures we took.
I realize that my time is very limited, but still I would like to highlight the efforts of this Government to enhance the environment. We have now been in office for three years, and I believe we have created the highest number of parks in this country, more than ever before in the last hundred years, if I am not mistaken. Recent announcements were made concerning South Moresby Park in British Columbia, Ellesmere in the Northwest Territories, Bruce in Ontario. More projects are on the negotiation table and the Minister is committed to develop marine parks. All these initiatives to protect the environment reflect the commitment which our Government, our Minister and our Prime Minister have always advocated to show that we as a Government, as Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, are intent on leaving as a legacy for our children an environment which will be in better condition than what we found on September 4, 1984 when the people gave us a very specific mandate: first, to try to set the Canadian economy on an even keel and, second, to try to repair the damage which had been done to the environment.


Ms. McLaughlin:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I agree it is a good first step in this very complicated subject of toxins which change frequently with new technology. It is an area with which we have to keep up. I certainly laud the sentiments and the commitments which the Hon. Member sees as reflected in the Bill.
Could he comment on the enforcement aspects? We have seen many attempts made with good intentions, but it is very difficult unless things are well enforced.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, about the same question was asked to one of my colleagues this morning. The Minister has stated that it is not enough to introduce this Bill, even though it is quite impressive and important, as well as a first in Canada, contains clear commitments and also provides for very clear penalties, because we also need the means to implement it. Hon. Members will recall that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) made such a commitment and mentioned new funds of $37 million. This was not an empty promise as action has already been taken. We have taken action and showed some courage while our predecessors never had the courage to face Canadian businesses and polluters and tell them: Enough is enough! Hon. Members should recognize that we have had that courage.
The new Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) has at least had the courage, with her Party, to recognize that we have
September 17, 1987

made these efforts, but I have to remind the Elouse that we need more money. We also have to remember the last agreements signed in relation with acid rain, another pollutant which attacks not only our forests, but also the water resources which are the very basis of survival on this planet. We have signed agreements with the private sector and the Quebec Government and we have decreased substantially the level of acid rain.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know the Eton. Member is a very knowledgeable Member on environmental affairs. Although this Bill does not deal with the issue of acid rain, a number of speakers from the Official Opposition have indicated that during the past three years the Government has not taken any steps whatsoever with respect to the environment, apart from the introduction of this one Bill.
I believe the Hon. Member is a member of the House committee on acid rain. He has outlined a few of the things the Government has been doing in the area of acid rain. I know he is aware that 50 per cent of the acid rain emissions that cause problems in Canada originate here and the other 50 per cent originate in the United States. I know he is aware as well that this is the very first Government that has placed the question of acid rain as a first priority in discussions between the United States and Canada. I believe the Member was in Washington not too long ago in an effort to try to convince Americans to take some action in this respect.
Would he outline to the House, particularly for those in the Official Opposition, who do not seem to be aware of the efforts that have been taken respecting the environment and other issues, some of the steps that have been taken and what progress is being made?


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for York East (Mr. Redway). People often have the impression that those who are concerned with environmental problems live mostly in rural areas. However, my colleague is from the city, and I appreciate the interest he has always shown for the quality of our environment. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is essential for Members of Parliament representing urban areas to become more aware of this issue. I went to Washington with my colleagues of the Committee on Acid Rain to make the American legislators aware of their responsibility to their good Northern neighbours, as they like to call us. I must say that we had very serious meetings. I believe that the American Senators and Congressmen saw in our comments a very firm will on our part to have them develop policies similar to those applied in Canada. We clearly told them that the fact that they were our good southern neighbours did not give them any right to destroy our lakes, rivers, forests and fauna, and that they had no right to threaten the health of Canadians. I should not have to remind the House of the reports received by the Committee on Acid Rain which state that, each year,
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
about 15,000 people in Canada die because of acid rain, toxic emissions, holes in the ozone layer, and so on.
1 see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his questions as well as the Members opposite, and I encourage all Members of this House to give very quick passage to Bill C-74. It is one of the tools that our young people need to protect their future.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the proposed law, of course, will deal with toxic substances or a certain number of them and ensure, we hope, as it is enforced, that they do not come into Canada and are not manufactured here. We know that there are many toxic substances already here in the Great Lakes system at the bottom of the rivers and lakes and so forth. What does this Bill do, if anything, to get rid of the enormous accumulation of toxic substances already in place, particularly in our rivers and lakes?


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I see that the New Democratic Member who has been here for a number of years is asking the same questions as his colleague from Montreal was this morning, the latter however being a Liberal.
I would like to remind him that this is the first time a Government has the courage to table a bill. And it deals both with existing toxic materials and others that will be produced in the future. I am asked what we are doing about what is already under water, on river beds. I must tell you that quite a number of scientists have quite different opinions as to whether we should go down to the river beds and, by means of a siphoning process or whatever technique, remove the substances that have collected on those river beds, or whether we should simply leave them there. I must tell you that this debate is not over yet, and you may rest assured that we will continue, and the Government will continue performing the analyses and studies required before reaching the proper decision at the proper time in order to correct the errors made in years past.
If we must remove what is at the bottom of rivers, at the bottom of lakes, we will do so, although we must know whether, when stirring up the sediments at the bottom of those rivers, we will not multiply by 10, 20, or 30 the level of pollution and whether we will not be accelerating problems rather than trying to find a long-term solution.
I therefore feel this legislation is aimed at preventing what is being done as of now. But as to what was done in the past, I think we still need to have much more accurate analyses in order to develop the right technology and the right technique. And you may rest assured that the minute we know exactly what is the best means of bringing back to the environment its former quality, this Government will need no prompting, especially from the Opposition. We will on our own assume our responsibilities and will be the first to table in this House a legislation with the relevant funding, in order to be in a

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
position to give back to our youth, our future children the opportunity to enjoy a quality environment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have mixed feelings about rising today to debate Bill C-74 which essentially proposes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It should be renamed because it is a minute step towards development of an environmental protection Act.
It is fair to say that we feel encouraged to support this legislation at this stage when we are discussing the principle of the Bill. However, it falls far short of the goals laid out in the first part. It sounds great when you read that first part, but as you go through it to determine what it actually accomplishes, that is unfortunately not much. I would not say it does not accomplish anything, but it is only a minute step in the right direction. We are thankful for at least that, but we have a long way to go.
I remember that for years and years in this House, particularly when the Liberal Government was in office, we called for a major initiative by the federal Government to develop a comprehensive environmental protection Act. All of us as responsible citizens recognize that without an environment which is clean, pristine, safe and healthy, we have nothing. We have been reminded just in the last few days about the dangers involved in the gradual disappearance of the ozone layer surrounding the earth and what that can do to the ecology and to people.
We spend hours and hours debating all sorts of things in this House. Some are more interesting than others. Some are more useful than others. Yet on critical issues affecting the environment, I notice that the only time it is debated is on opposition days. The Government has never introduced something which would give us an opportunity to discuss the state of the environment in Canada. That is a tragedy. That has been the case under the Conservative Government and that was the case for years and years under Liberal Governments. It is time we changed that and gave priority to our environment. We should place it before all other matters requiring consideration. If we do not preserve our pristine environment as we know it in most parts of Canada, we will have nothing in the long run. We owe it not only to our citizens today; what is more important, we owe it to our children and their children and generations yet to come.
Having said that by way of introduction, I want to point out that this Bill comes along at a time when Canadians generally are not encouraged by this Government's commitment to serious environmental protection. One of the most popular environmental issues across this country is that of leaded and unleaded gasoline. Most Canadians buy gasoline every few days. When you go to the pumps you have a choice between the two. Yet when the Government has had the opportunity to change the tax regime to encourage Canadians to use one over
the other, what do we do? We take steps to encourage them to use more leaded gasoline because it is cheaper. People see their purchasing power erode year after year and have to cut corners, and we encourage them through our tax system to purchase the worst kind of gasoline, the high lead content kind. That sends a very clear signal that the Government is not particularly concerned about lead in our environment.
I could talk about lead in other substances on which no action has been taken. I could talk about the fact that one of the major initiatives by the Government when it took office was to cut the plan to develop a Canadian toxicology centre. If we require anything, it is a centre doing research into toxic chemicals. Cutting the funding for that centre does not send a clear signal that the Government is concerned about the environment, past, present or future.
I could go on and talk about major cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service. Many ecological and environmental activities had to be cut as a result. I could talk about the inaction of the Government on the St. Clair River blob, that great big gob of chemicals sitting in the river. Year after year we poke away at it and so on, but nothing much ever happens.
I could go on and on but I think the point is clear. Our track record in dealing effectively with environmental issues facing Canadians, indeed all people around the world, has been anything but good.
That is not to say the Government has not done anything. It would be inappropriate to say that. Yet when you look at what we should be doing, you will find that we are falling far short.
A major concern for those in the environmental movement has been the commitment of the Government to deregulation. It makes some of us sick to think, as we stand here today, that hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage is being dumped into the St. Lawrence River. The same is true of the Fraser River and others across this country. Nothing much is being done about it. We have had proposals from municipalities to deal with this critical issue which will only grow worse in the future.
The proposals involve not only cleaning up the environment but also providing thousands of jobs. They suggested a sharing arrangement such as we have had in the past where provincial Governments pay one-third, municipal Governments pay one-third, and the federal Government pays one-third to develop the necessary sewage treatment facilities. The cities were in unanimous agreement. Then the provinces all came onside. There was only one group which held out and said it was not prepared to co-operate: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the present federal Government. That is a missed opportunity if ever there was one.
You would have to look long and hard to find a single country that does not have a program where the three levels of Government, sometimes four, share in funding of municipal infrastructure. Yet in Canada we stand alone. The federal Government says that this is not our responsibility. We will
September 17, 1987

stand by and watch the rivers die from pollution because the local tax base is simply inadequate to provide funding. Yet we have done it in the past. The federal Government used to participate in these plans. As an alderman in Kamloops I would submit proposals along with my colleagues, and they were granted, one after the other, to upgrade sewage treatment plants. However, deregulation and an unwillingness to cooperate have caused major concern and sent a negative image across the country with respect to this Government's commitment to cleaning up the environment and protecting it in the future.
I guess it was brought home to me this past summer just how critical it is to develop a federal environmental protection Act. I was out sailing in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. As someone who travels a great deal across Canada you have probably been there and know about the pristine environment I talk about in the Gulf Islands. Clean beaches, unpolluted, no smoke-stacks, beautiful trees. A fantastically beautiful environment. I remember getting up one morning and there were about 50 pleasure craft, some very large and some very modest, in a small cove. They had lain there overnight. 1 was going to jump in and have an invigorating swim in the Pacific Ocean. I got to the side of the boat and was about to dive in when I looked at the water. The surface was covered with small pieces of thin paper and chunks of human excrement, along with all kinds of other things. People on these boats were going to the bathroom in the morning and dumping it all overboard. It was floating around all over the place. It almost made me sick. That the laws of our country, provincial, federal, or regional in this case, allow this to happen is absolutely unacceptable. This is a rather horrible description of the need for legislators at the various levels to take action immediately.
Every day when I am in Vancouver I see big barges loaded with garbage going out to dump it beyond visual limits. I shudder to think of what is going on on the ocean floor with the hundreds of thousands of tons of garbage being dumped there.
I do not want to go on about the obvious need for a decent environmental protection Act. I am sorry that this is not it. This legislation falls far short of that, but it is a step forward. I will talk about the little baby step which this legislation does take. It does take a step forward in dealing with toxic substances, because the burden of proof will lie with the company importing new toxic substances as opposed to lying with the federal Government. Until recently the federal Government had to prove that a particular industrial chemical was bad. The onus of proof will now lie on the manufacturer, and that is a step forward.
However, what about the over 60,000 industrial chemicals already in this country? I assume that some of these substances are toxic and not good for us. I believe there are 19 people in the office which looks after this. If 19 people are to
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
evaluate in excess of 60,000 chemicals, it may take centuries. In the meantime, this list is being added to by in excess of 1,000 new chemicals every year. We are faced with serious problems.
Anyone who has tried to figure out who is responsible for environmental protection knows what an incredibly tangled web there is of contradictory jurisdictional regulations. In the Department of the Environment alone there are 57 different laws dealing with environmental issues. There are 24 federal Departments dealing with environmental responsibilities. The assumption was that an intelligent government bringing forward a federal Environmental Protection Act would consolidate these.
However, nothing is done to consolidate those 24 different federal Departments. The 57 laws were reduced to 55. That is not much of a gain. People who understand what a federal environmental protection Act should be are perplexed when they learn that this tangled web will remain.
There is, of course, a dispute over who is responsible. For three years I have been working with the Shuswap Concerned Citizens Committee. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are hundreds of house boats which float on the large Shuswap Lake complex in central British Columbia. All sorts of things enter the water from these boats. This is a large lake, but when the people on hundreds of house boats and thousands of pleasure craft dump things into the water a serious problem develops.
The various jurisdictions have been trying to determine who is responsible for ensuring that this water remains clean. Is it the local regional district? Is it the various provincial departments? Are federal Departments involved and, if so, which Departments? For three years I have been trying to figure that out and still have not been able to determine who is responsible because no one accepts responsibility. Due to the overlapping jurisdictional regions we find a great deal of buck-passing going on.
I want to read from a report by the Canadian Environmental Law Association to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitutional Accord. It says:
The Constitution Act, 1987, which reflected the problems and concerns of 1867 when it was enacted, did not allocate legislative authority for the environment to either the federal or provincial governments. As a result, there is a large degree of overlapping jurisdiction because of the generality of the federal and provincial powers as defined in the Constitution. Without clear responsibility for environmental concerns, both levels of government have been able to disclaim authority for dealing with environmental problems by alleging that it is within the other's jurisdiction. This has resulted in "jurisdictional buck-passing."
Such is the case, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for the federal Government to exert a strong federal presence to deal with environmental problems which are national in scope. The Canadian Environmental Law Association said further:
We have also maintained that the federal government has the clear constitutional authority to take action in regard to many of the environmental

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
problems of the 1980s. This is especially the case in the area of toxic
chemicals, which do not respect provincial boundaries.
They go on to point out that this situation, bad at the moment, could get even worse in the future as a result of the Meech Lake Accord.
The solution to this problem is obvious. It requires a federal government which has the will and commitment to deal effectively with environmental issues. I suspect that if we were to take on that responsibility, our provincial colleagues would be quite pleased to agree that this is a federal responsibility and would allow us to get on with dealing with it to ensure that our land, water, and air remain clean or are cleaned up.
As Canadians become more and more involved with pleasure crafts on the waters of Canada, particularly the inland waters, the matter of gray water becomes more of a problem. Gray water is dishwater, shower water, or soapy water as opposed to black water which contains human excrement. At the moment there is absolutely no restriction on gray water in the Shuswap area and only vague restrictions on black water. Slowly but surely the entire Shuswap Lake system is being polluted. Once we reach a point of no return the lake will be finished, as has already happened to some waters in central Canada.
My friend, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), was pointing out to this House how odd it is to see in the summer, in the great City of Toronto, people on the beaches lining up to swim in the swimming pools because the water at the shoreline is polluted. That is a tragedy which we must take action collectively to change.
1 also want to comment on PCBs. It has been brought to my attention that PCBs are entering the underground water system in parts of Canada. Many submersible pumps, particularly those imported from the United States, have PCBs in their insulation and wiring. These pumps are lowered into wells where they operate near the groundwater level. They are often abandoned as they break down or properties are sold. These pumps then deteriorate and PCBs leak into the water system.
There is only way for people buying these properties to determine whether there are PCBs in the water and that is to give the pump to Environment Canada which will analyse the pump by destroying it. It is not an encouragement for people to have such an analysis done to know that Environment Canada will destroy their S3,000 pump in order to tell them whether or not there are PCBs in the water. There must be a greater commitment to deal with PCBs in the underground water system by establishing a decent investigation process to determine whether or not these elements are in our water supply.
The whole area of pesticides has been left out of this legislation. A great deal of work must be done in this area, and I do not believe anyone would suggest that the federal Government does not have a responsibility to deal with this.
One of the greatest shortcomings of Bill C-74 is that it does not include an environmental Bill of rights. Environmentalists and others who are concerned about the environment for many reasons strongly believe that there is a need for a Bill of environmental rights and the ability to resort to the courts to ensure that our environment is preserved in a clean and pristine nature.
Considering the absence of a Bill of environmental rights, which we feel is an absolute necessity, the fact that major sectors have been ignored, and the fact that the Bill does nothing to consolidate this vast web of interlocking jurisdictions and regulations, we will be offering amendments at the legislative committee stage in order to improve the Bill.
The best we can do at this stage is to pass the Bill quickly, realizing that it is a small step toward an Environmental Protection Act. We can begin from scratch again and, with proper consultation this time, bring forward a Bill that does represent what an Environmental protection Act ought to represent.


Alan Redway: As always, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments. I feel compelled to respond to each comment, but time will not permit me to do so. However, let me attempt to respond quickly to a few of his points.
First, he expressed great concern about the lack of time made available in this Parliament to debate environmental matters. In fact, one year ago, the issue of environmental protection was very much an integral and significant part of the Speech from the Throne. The Government provided some eight days after the Speech from the Throne in which the Hon. Member, any of his colleagues, or anyone in the House, could have debated matters of environmental affairs if they wished to do so. While I have not looked at the record, I suspect that there was very little time devoted by the Hon. Member and his colleagues to the question of environmental affairs during that debate on the Speech from the Throne.
The Hon. Member repeated a comment which had been made in the House on a number of occasions yesterday and today by opposition Members, that is, that the Government has done virtually nothing with respect to the environment in the past three years. The Member knows that that is certainly far from the truth. The Government has taken many actions in that respect. This includes action on acid rain, with a national program to reduce acid rain by 50 per cent of its 1980 levels by 1994. They include a commitment to spend SI50 million for emission controls at smelters, $25 million for technology development, $70 million for cleaner use of coal, and $18 million per year in research and monitoring.
There is a commitment to increase the use of western low-sulphur coal. The Hon. Member knows that great strides have been made in negotiations between the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Premier of the Province of Ontario with respect to the use by Ontario Hydro of low-sulphur western coal.
September 17, 1987

On September 1, new automobile emission standards to reduce acid rain were introduced. In addition, there was an agreement between the federal Government, the Province of Ontario, the Government of the United States and the Government of New York State with respect to reducing the flow of toxic chemicals from the dumps along the Niagara River into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Furthermore, there has been the tightening up of standards with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.
Just within the last day or so we saw the international ozone treaty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Could he put his question, please?
Mr. Red way: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance only to mention a few things.
However, there is one matter that really bothered me. The Hon. Member indicated that he, as a councillor in the City of Kamloops, was able to obtain federal funding on numerous occasions for the reduction of pollution as far as water treatment and sewage were concerned. That interested me specifically because I know that in my municipality, in spite of years and years of trying, the only time we were able to get any federal money was when the former Government was so desperate to get re-elected in the last years of its mandate that it went around making special grants to very selected municipalities, including ours. Will the Hon. Member give me some examples of the federal Government in the past sharing these projects? I would like to have the opportunity to make that case with the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it would be my pleasure to answer the last question first. In 1968 or 1969, the Liberal federal Government at the time offered to enter into an agreement on a cost-sharing formula with provincial Governments. The federal Government made an offer to enter into an agreement with the Government of British Columbia which, in turn, entered into an agreement with the municipalities, according to the constitutional jurisdictions of the country.
The critical factor was an agreement first being made between the federal and provincial Governments. I believe the Conservative Government in Ontario at the time was unwilling to participate in that program, so that perhaps it never existed in the Province of Ontario. However, it did exist in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
The provincial Governments signed separate agreements with the federal Government and then signed separate agreements with the various municipalities to participate in a three-way cost-sharing for a municipal infrastructure, not only for sewage treatment facilities, but for water upgrading facilities generally and roads, sidewalks, lights and so on. Obviously, the Ontario Conservative Government at the time did not want to participate.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
At the outset, I said that the fact that issues of environmental concern were only debated when the Opposition chose to do so was an indication of the federal Government's commitment to environmental concerns. My hon. friend said there were opportunities to debate this during the Throne Speech. I was waiting for him to indicate other occasions on which this has been debated because we are required to debate countless issues that are included in a Throne Speech. Rather than an environmental debate, it is a Throne Speech debate. However, the Hon. Member did not mention any other occasions on which environmental issues were debated. It is a pathetic state of affairs when the only argument the Hon. Member can make is to say that we had a Throne Speech debate a year and a half ago.
Finally, in the fourth year of the administration, we welcome the opportunity to begin a debate on this matter of environmental protection.
The Hon. Member mentioned western coal as one of the initiatives of the Government. In all fairness, I believe I said that the Government has taken some initiatives. Incidentally, this initiative was introduced by one of my New Democratic Party colleagues from the Kootenay area in British Columbia in 1981. At that time, we felt that this was an appropriate initiative to take and began the process.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member raised this question because the head of the miners' union for that area is in the lobby listening to the debate right now. He just happens to be here at this time. He also worked with the NDP Member from the Kootenays at the time to begin this process moving with the previous administration and the Ontario Government. I am pleased to say we are still moving. Perhaps sometime in the next little while we will have an agreement. However, I do know that the report which was done by the special task force looking into this matter made not a single recommendation for further study, further deliberations and so on. Again, if the Government meant what it says it means, it would take action, not study, study, study.
Here is a situation where we can improve the acid rain phenomenon in central Canada, we can provide the much needed jobs in both central and western Canada. Let us get on with it. What are we waiting for?
This proposal was introduced by my colleague from the Kootenay region of British Columbia in 1981, and we are pleased that we are debating this again today. But let us recognize that we have a long way to go. What is required is a federal Government with a will and commitment to deal with these difficult and major issues. Quite frankly, we do not have any alternative. We must deal with these issues.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quoted from a letter from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Citizens' Network on Waste Management, Pollution Probe and Energy Probe, who are concerned that the Meech Lake

September 17, 1987
Adjournment Motion
Agreement and, in particular, the right of the provinces to opt out of shared-cost programs, may discourage the federal Government from assuming its responsibility to protect the nation's environment. They are particularly concerned that the uncertainty created by the ambiguous nature of Section 106 relating to shared-cost programs, may affect such potential shared-cost programs as setting up a super fund to clean up toxic waste dump sites.
The letter is addressed to the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. It is dated September 10 of this year. I believe the committee wrapped up its work by September 10 and the report was to be published last week. However, it has been delayed because of translation problems. In the concluding paragraph of the letter they urge the committee to proceed with caution and to consider substantive revisions to the sections relating to shared-cost programs to clarify that the Accord does not take away from the federal Government's authority to set national standards for environmental protection.
I would like to ask the Member, first, if he shares those concerns. He quoted from the letter, so I presume he shares those concerns, but I would like him to state so specifically, if that is indeed the case. Second, I would like to know what he and his Party are prepared to do about it. Will his Party be proposing an amendment to the Meech Lake Accord in that respect? I would be very pleased to hear his views in this regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first, I think the point made by my hon. friend when he quoted from the letter of the Canadian Environmental Law Association is accurate. It is concerned that Section 106(a)(2), which states that the section does not alter the existing division of powers, again does not help us in defining what is exclusive provincial jurisdiction in environmental matters. In terms of the point the Hon. Member makes regarding the national shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, I think it has been demonstrated by the work of the committee. I recall reading a transcript of the proceedings which indicated that this matter was dealt with, and in fact national cost-shared programs may even be enhanced, so that it was decided by the all-Party committee that it was not of critical concern.
However, 1 do not think that this is the issue here. I think the issue is that even if it were-which of course it is-a concern, if the federal Government took the initiative and said: "We are not going to turn Canada into a toxic waste dump for North America or wherever", and made that commitment and then put into place a federal program to provide that special fund to provide for the clean-up of existing hazardous waste sites and abandoned and enclosed waste sites, it would develop a sense in our country that this is something that must be done. If the Government said this is something that must be done and something we are prepared to fund, any province daring to opt out of that program, or any province that would dare not to implement its own program of even increased standards, would
be severely condemned by the electorate in that province or territory.
I think the concern is a serious one. It has been one of concern to my caucus. During the deliberations, on balance, we felt that it is a concern that was simply flagged, but in reality that is not the case. Even if it were, it is the will of this Parliament and the will of this Government combined that would ensure that such would not take place, and the concerns that were brought to the joint committee's attention by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, if we do our job properly, would never have to be a concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Employment of visible Minorities; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)- Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission-Bell Canada rate increase application-Minister's letter to Commission; the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)-Small Businesses-Native economic development-Consultation process-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed considertion 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.
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation, something about which all Canadians are concerned.
I would like to say that this Bill, on which the Minister has done considerable work, will receive support right across the country. The legislation introduced by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) will unquestionably make Canada a leader in the battle to prevent pollution from toxic
September 17, 1987

chemicals and thereby protect the public from adverse health effects which could result from exposure to such pollution.
Protecting the environment is not the sole responsibility of any one Department, one Government, one province, or even one nation. Toxic chemical pollution is a world-wide problem and demands intra-national as well as international cooperation to achieve solutions.
There is another more obvious reason, however, why this is a joint effort. This legislation is intended not only to protect our environment for its own sake, but also to protect the environment because of its direct link with human health.
It has been realized for some time that there are numerous opportunities for the wide variety of complex chemical products in use in Canada today to be released into the environment during manufacture, use, transportation and eventual disposal. These releases can result in contamination of the food, air and drinking water on which humans depend for their well-being and, indeed, survival. Exposure to environmental contaminants can have serious effects on health and longterm social and economic consequences.
The primary concern of the Department of Health and Welfare is the threat posed to the health and well-being of the Canadian population by either short-term or long-term exposure to the environmental contaminants, which are often present at relatively low levels. Of particular concern is the prospect that health effects may only be observed after long periods of exposure or long after exposure has ceased to occur.
Chemicals can bestow enormous benefits on mankind, but we must ensure that our health is not compromised in the process. This is a major thrust in this legislation. This Bill will provide the necessary power to move much further than before in developing objectives and guidelines for environmental quality that are designed to ensure that our environment remains in a healthful condition.
There are several factors which contribute to the complexity of toxic chemical problems. The number of chemicals in use is very large and is constantly increasing. Individual chemicals are complex in nature. There are numerous sources and mechanisms for release of chemicals to the environment. The Canadian population is being exposed to a complex mixture of chemicals, and the effects of exposure are difficult to estimate. Some chemicals that are likely to have minimal impact on the health of most Canadians may have great impact on the health of groups within the general population who, for reasons of age, sex or genetic composition, economic status, occupation, lifestyle or geographical location are more sensitive to the effects of certain toxic chemicals.
My concern, and of course the concern of all Canadians, is over health hazards associated with chemicals in the environment, which can well be illustrated by examples such as the contamination of edible fish with mercury compounds that
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
leaked from plants formerly used to produce chlorine and alkali used in the manufacture of pulp and paper. It was the consumption of fish tainted with mercury in this way that placed the residents of Grassy Narrows in northwestern Ontario at risk.
Another widely dispersed metal which poses a threat to human health is lead. The toxic effects of lead are well known. The major source of lead in our environment is the burning of leaded gasoline in motor vehicles. While measures have been taken to reduce exposure to lead by phasing out the use of leaded gasolines and, indeed, to reduce exposure from other sources of lead in the environment, we must remain vigilant and reassure ourselves that substitute products are safe both from an environmental and health viewpoint.
I am sure that all of us are aware of the threats posed by synthetic organic chemicals such as PCBs which, by virtue of their resistance to degradation, can persist and accumulate in living organisms. From a health standpoint PCBs are not extremely toxic in terms of short-term exposure. Long-term exposure is of concern because of the effects on the liver, reproduction, the immune system and the possibility that PCBs, or impurities contained in them, may be associated with cancer.
Over the years the federal Government has enacted several laws to combat the effects of toxic chemicals. Control of toxic substances is required from manufacture to disposal. Legislative control, federal and provincial, must cover the following elements: manufacture, importation, transportation, storage and handling, use and sale, discharge to water, air and land, spills, occupational health, and ultimate disposal.
There are some 24 federal statutes which exercise some form of control respecting toxic substances. For example, the basic regulations for contaminants in food and drug products are found in regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.
The Fisheries Act prohibits the deposition of a "deleterious substance" of any type in water frequented by fish. The Hazardous Products Act is a product-oriented statute which prohibits the advertisement, sale and information of certain hazardous products, and which was recently amended to ensure that workers are given information relating to workplace hazardous products.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act has been designed to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, including chemicals. The Ocean Dumping Control Act is designed to control dumping of waste and other substances into the ocean.
Notwithstanding the scope of these various statutes, the proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides a focused and integrated approach to toxic chemicals. It will allow the federal Government, in co-operation with the provinces, industry, labour, and the public, to identify different ways to reduce human exposure to chemicals at each stage of their life cycle. The control of toxic chemicals as envisaged in

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
this Bill was not possible under the provisions of the Environmental Contaminants Act, the Clean Air Act, and the parts of the Canada Water Act which are now incorporated into this proposed legislation.
The public is deeply concerned about what is sometimes viewed as a fragmented approach to dealing with chemicals. Our laws do not meet public expectations. Often, they are products of dealing with the problems of past decades. They are inadequate for dealing with the problems of today. They must be revamped, streamlined, consolidated, and they must address the real problems of environmental protection.
I believe that Canadians need and deserve a comprehensive management approach for toxic chemicals, an approach that manages chemicals throughout their life cycle in a manner that prevents them from leaking into the environment. It will mean that at any stage in the life of a chemical from cradle to grave-whether it is its introduction into trade and commerce, its manufacturing, its transportation, its use or disposal-all participants who use and care for that chemical must act in a responsible manner to protect the environment and the health of Canadians.
When consumers such as ourselves use chemicals, we must be equipped with the best information to use them properly, to dispose of them safely, to act in an emergency situation, and to choose alternative products and practices.
Chemicals must be transported and stored in a manner that eliminates leakage to the environment. If accidents do happen, clean-up must be fast and effective and victims must be compensated in a just and equitable fashion.
We must not forget disposal, both for the chemical itself after its useful life and for wastes. Waste cannot continue to be added to the environment in the naive hope that the environment can safely accommodate it and cleanse itself. We can no longer say that the solution to pollution is dilution. There must be adequate destruction facilities operating in this country to dispose of hazardous waste.
In particular, I am encouraged by the process whereby the legislation that is before us today has been developed. All affected segments of society, including representatives of industry, workers and environmental interest groups alike, have taken part in developing a scheme that relies upon good scientific knowledge to develop the regulations that will underpin this legislation. The result of this is agreement by all parties concerned on the need for adequate testing of chemicals, and a basic understanding of the way in which the knowledge that emerges can be most effectively used to prevent injury, disease and death from accidents and pollution problems.
The sheer number of chemicals we use is intimidating. Over 65,000 are produced commercially on the global market with over 1,000 new ones added annually. Only a small fraction have been tested for the environmental and health consequences. We must clearly define the ground rules for allowing
a chemical to enter the Canadian market. Since we are part of the global chemical market, we are promoting the adoption and utilization of common international approaches to evaluating chemicals and to setting standards. We must also promote alternatives to the use of high-risk chemicals.
Canada alone cannot test all the chemicals we use in a reasonable timeframe. It has to be an international effort. It is one we are committed to put in place and we are working hard through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Program of Chemical Safety to do just that. There is a lack of public confidence in the country when it comes to chemical management. Our ability to solve the problems has not kept pace with our ability to detect the problems.
The proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act represents a crucial step in developing a comprehensive strategy to control toxic chemicals in the environment. The extensive consultation which followed the introduction in Parliament in December, 1986, of the proposed environmental protection Act, has indeed been invaluable in helping to attain this objective. As a result of these consultations and submission of numerous briefs, the legislation now proposed has been broadened to incorporate the provisions of the Ocean Dumping Control Act; increase the emphasis on evaluating and controlling existing chemicals; include provisions to deal with the products of biotechnology; require the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to develop guidelines, objectives, and codes of practice to protect health and the environment; provide for enhanced public participation in implementing provisions of the Act; and provide for working cooperatively with provincial Governments to avoid duplication and overlap.
We have already mentioned the value of developing an environmental protection strategy that allows for the control of toxic chemicals from the time that they are introduced into commerce until their ultimate disposal.
One of the key factors of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is that it focuses on preventing the introduction into commerce of chemicals that will constitute a danger to public health or the environment. For example, the "new chemicals" provisions of this legislation will place the onus on industry to demonstrate the safety of new chemicals prior to their use in Canada.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act puts human health and safety where it should be, before everything else. Under the new life cycle management approach, decisions affecting human health will be incorporated into the decisionmaking process. They will no longer be relegated to the realm of afterthoughts.
In addition, the new Act will extend the Government's authority to set national environmental standards, guidelines,
September 17, 1987

and objectives. These guidelines presently exist for the emission of toxic substances into the atmosphere and would be retained in the new Act. The new Act would be expanded to include water and land, using the Clean Air Act as a model.
The new national standards would be developed in cooperation with provincial Governments. They could be used by provinces and municipalities as the basis for regulations to provide minimum levels of environmental quality across the country.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act will also help Canada meets its international obligations with such bodies as the United Nations Environment Program, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Under the new legislation, exporters who intend to ship toxic chemicals to a foreign country would be required to inform the country of that intention. We will benefit in Canada because participating countries will extend the same courtesy to us. This will allow us to better prepare for and control the amount of toxic chemicals that come into Canada, and thus better protect human life.
I wish to conclude by saying that ultimately our society will have to come to grips with the fact that many of our environmental problems are rooted in the lifestyles that we have chosen. We have chosen a chemical society, and with it, the responsibility to protect our life support system from our dependence on these chemicals.
I believe that Canadians are ready to take a major step toward learning to live successfully and respectfully with chemicals. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act represents a major contribution to this endeavour.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I wish to ask my hon. colleague a question since he represents the government side of the House. I am glad to see that a senior Minister from British Columbia is also present, and I am sure she is interested.
Does the Hon. Member think that the federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that government agencies do not contribute to environmental pollution?
I wish to give an example. In Vancouver East, the Port of Vancouver which is a federal jurisdiction contains a large garbage incinerator on a barge that is moored very close to a residential neighbourhood. This barge is the method by which all the garbage is burned from the cruise ships in the Port of Vancouver. It emits a foul smell and smoke which pollutes the neighbourhood for many blocks.
Since this is a federal jurisdiction, the Port Corporation for Vancouver is a federal agency, and the manager of the Port Corporation refuses to take any action. I wonder what are the views of the Hon. Member. Does he think that the federal Government should intervene? If so, what action can be taken?
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: First, I wish to say to the Hon. Member that I believe both the federal Government and the federal Crown corporation should be involved. The legislation that we have put forward today gives an opportunity to those involved. I would say that in the Hon. Member's riding, representation should be made under the new guidelines, and certainly it should be looked at.


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) has raised a number of sensible points in his speech. I wish to ask the Hon. Member a specific question which perplexes us. The preamble to Bill C-74 is very specific on the federal responsibility for environmental pollution. It refers to the environment as a matter of national concern; toxic substances once introduced into the environment cannot always be contained within geographical boundaries, particularly provincial boundaries. The Government of Canada in demonstrating national leadership should establish national environmental quality objectives, guidelines and practices. It refers to Canadian waters and other federal responsibilities.
Yet Members on the government side have used constitutional excuses for government inaction. One Hon. Member even stated that the Charter of Rights was an excuse for the federal Government not to take action on environmental protection. It is an absolutely astounding idea that we should be gaining civil rights but losing the power to protect the environment. I think that is quite an astonishing development.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member how he can justify the statement of national priority concern and responsibility with the cop-out on the part of the federal Government, and the willingness to leave it up to the provinces. If they do not legislate adequately, tough luck, use the constitutional excuse that the federal Government has not been given the specific power to act in this area and somehow it does not have a responsibility to act for our environmental protection.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: In a short period of time this Government has taken many steps in many directions to attempt to make a better way for all Canadians. The Bill before us indicates that the Government and this Minister are prepared to sit down with both the provinces and the industry in order to start to work together to solve some of these real problems.
These problems did not happen today. They have developed over the last many years. It is with this type of legislation and this Government that we will be able to sit down and negotiate with the provinces and the industries to make sure that there is a happy medium. Those individuals who may be involved within an industry will still have the opportunity to have the employment that is required, and the provinces will be able to adapt to the guidelines within this legislation.


Mr. Brightwell:: The Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) has ably set out the factors involved in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. He has touched on the aspect of a number of chemicals in the environment, and touched a raw nerve with me. I am very concerned about the

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
fact that chemicals are there. We do not know what they are presently doing, or what they will do in the future. Will the Hon. Member comment further on the manner in which the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act will deal with chemicals that are already in use?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: We are aware that someone who comes from a northern region, or other parts of the country, has great concerns. What we should look to is that the Minister of the Environment place an increased emphasis on screening the chemicals to ensure that the products are ones that we feel comfortable with, ones that perhaps we are looking at coming in, and that they be screened before Canadians make use of them. This is one part of the Bill with which I feel very comfortable. We will be screening those chemicals which are coming in and those chemicals which are here now to make certain that the environment is looked after properly.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member. First, he talked about consultation on the part of the Government, provincial Governments, and organizations interested in the environment. He left the impression that the Bill, as a result of consultations, meets the objections, questions, and criticisms of past practices made by many of these organizations.
is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, two major organizations, are very critical of the Bill because so much of what needs to be done is not covered in it?
I have another question for the Hon. Member because he represents part of northern Ontario in which there are a number of mines and a number of pulp and paper mills, two industries that have been notorious for their ability to maximize their profits by dumping waste products into our rivers and lakes.
Is there anything in this Bill, or in any other Bill, which gives Canadians any confidence that in the next 10 years or 15 years such irresponsible activity will cease to continue?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this Bill is certainly a step forward which has not been taken by any previous Government. I think that is the first thing we must recognize.
I am interested in some of the items about which the Hon. Member talked, such as the Canadian Labour Congress. We have come quite a distance in bringing forth this piece of legislation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government always believe in going out to speak with Canadians, whether in provincial Government, labour, or business, to ensure that they know the thoughts of Canadians before moving forward. The Hon. Member must realize that the Canadian Labour
Congress certainly has its views, but we are taking a step which is very positive for the environment.
The Hon. Member referred to mines and paper mills in northern Ontario. There has been quite a change in the last three years to five years with regard to upgrading and in terms of pollution going into our waters. Filtration plants in the mills have been changed.
With regard to mines, I think the industry itself has recognized that changes were required. However, on the other hand, I ask the Hon. Member how far we can go and be able to compete in the international market with other countries.
Would he sooner see individuals in the mines and pulp and paper industries not having jobs, or would he sooner see the Government and the provinces working toward a goal to clean up the environment as best we can yet still be competitive in the international market?


David Berger: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the non-governmental organizations which are dedicated to protecting our environment. Mr. Speaker, you are certainly aware that hundreds of organizations from coast to coast play a fundamental role in educating and motivating the public, as well as in lobbying the Government and parliamentarians. All these efforts contribute to creating a public opinion which is highly receptive and fully aware of the need to protect the environment. 1 feel confident that you agree with me that an enlightened public opinion is prerequisite to any government action.
Canadians often ask themselves the question: What can I do? This question has often been put to me, by younger people particularly. The answer is simple. Get involved in nongovernmental organizations like the Greenpeace Foundation whose Montreal regional office is located in my own riding of Laurier, or the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Pollution Probe, hundreds of suchlike organizations which are active throughout this country. The impact and benefits of this kind of commitment cannot be understated.
When the World Commission on Environment released their report last spring the Canadian representative, Mr. Maurice Strong, came here to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians and spokesmen for organizations actively working in the environment and wildlife sector. Sad to say, only two or three Members attended this meeting.
What struck me most in the message conveyed by the World Commission on Environment is that we must divorce ourselves from segmentation in our approach to environmental issues. Environmental problems cannot be tackled on an isolated basis. For example, hydro power plants produce electricity in many regions, but other people are made responsible for eliminating the resulting acid rains.
Mr. Speaker, the challenge facing us today is twofold: first, making economic development agencies-and even the
September 17, 1987

Minister of Finance-responsible for that sector of the environment which is affected by their decisions; and, second, environment ministries in the various countries must wield more power to fight pollution.

The sense I got from the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development was that the most difficult challenge we are facing is to develop management systems on national and international levels to deal with environmental and developmental problems which defy simple, compartmentalized ways of looking at things.
This is the standard against which we must measure the Bill we are studying today. Is it forward looking? Is it innovative? Will it provide the means to come to grips with urgent environmental problems posed by economic development?
It is also particularly important to remember that environmental legislation in Canada is reviewed only once every 10 years or so. We must use the opportunity before us at the present time to get it right. This point was made by Toby Vigod of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
While Bill C-74 establishes procedures to deal with new chemicals, it is not particularly innovative and does not get around the institutional and management problems which have plagued us in the past. On the contrary-the Conservative Government abdicates its responsibility to set national standards and leaves environmental protection up to the provinces.
Take, for example, the idea of an environmental Bill of rights, which the Minister has in the not so distant past espoused. In fact, very recently he was an advocate of such an environmental Bill of rights. This novel approach has been abandoned in Bill C-74. What we have instead is a preamble to this Bill which is not legally enforceable. It does not confer rights on citizens to protect their environment, which is what every group has been asking for. It does not provide a right to protect the environment in cases where personal damage has not occurred. Yet as far back as 1970, other jurisdictions have given citizens the right to take polluters to court even in cases where they have not suffered direct damage.
Some of the most striking provisions of this Bill are those that would require the Minister to consult all the provinces before he or she drafts regulations or issues emergency orders to control toxic chemicals. It is laughable that even in the event of an emergency, there are stringent consultation requirements before the Minister of the Environment for Canada (Mr. McMillan) can take action. Even in the event of an emergency he is obliged to go through a painstaking consultation process. The Minister, furthermore, is allowed to regulate only if he is satisfied that not all of the provincial Governments are prepared to implement provisions, and I am quoting here "substantially the same as those contained in the regulation" which the Minister proposes to adopt. Here we
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
come to the $64,000 question. What is meant by "substantially the same"? Who will decide what is meant by that? The Minister? The provinces? The courts after extensive legal challenges? What if the provinces argue that their regulations are substantially the same, even if their standards are much lower? Will this not ensure that any national program will amount to the lowest common denominator, to which all of the provinces may agree?
Is this language not strangely reminiscent of the Meech Lake Agreement in which the federal Government has transferred enormous powers to the provinces? Does this same spirit not doom the idea of a super fund to clean up abandoned waste disposal sites? The Canadian Environmental Law Association proposed that such a fund be created through a tax on chemical feed stocks and waste disposal owners and operators. Presumably such an initiative to create a super fund to clean up toxic waste dumps would require some kind of provincial participation, even if it is limited to the road leading up to the dump. Before you can say Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker, we will have a shared-cost program. I hate to say so, but before you know it, the provinces will be able to say, "Well, we, under the Meech Lake Agreement, will set up our own program. We will opt out of the federal program". Again, it will take years of litigation before we determine whether a provincial program is substantially the same or is compatible with the objectives set out in the federal initiative, which I think reflects the language in the Meech Lake Agreement.
This concern was raised by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Citizens' Network on Waste Management, Pollution Probe and Energy Probe in a recent letter to the Clerk of the standing joint committee on the Constitution. They feel that the right of the provinces to opt out of shared-cost programs may discourage the federal Government from assuming its responsibility in the area of environmental protection if it can be argued that an initiative may be in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Even a program in an area of concurrent jurisdiction where both the federal and provincial Governments have jurisdiction may be affected by this provision, as was noted by the groups in their letter.
As our spokesman for the environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), stated yesterday, Bill C-74 should propose strong national standards that can only be superseded by provincial legislation which is stronger than federal legislation, but surely not by provincial legislation which is weaker. Instead, what we have with Bill C-74 is legislation which will ensure that the federal Government will give in to lower provincial standards and, therefore, create a chequer-board type of treatment of the environment across Canada, in other words, better protection of the environment in one province than in the other, which defies the nature of pollution which very often cuts across boundaries and artificial boundaries.
What about water, Mr. Speaker? Apart from our hockey players, I think you would agree with me that water is Canada's greatest natural resource. Yet this Bill contains no

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
provisions to establish national water quality standards and no authority to set drinking water quality standards. Furthermore, the major provisions of the federal water pollution law currently found in the Fisheries Act have not been incorporated into this Bill, and therefore some of the progressive and innovative sentencing techniques found in this Bill will not apply to those who pollute our waters. Bill C-74 does not deal with the hundreds of toxic chemicals found today in Canada's waterways.
This Bill will be referred to a legislative committee for study, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope that members of the committee take full advantage of the opportunity to improve the Bill, particularly in light of the fact that it is only once in a decade when Canada's environmental laws are revised and we get to study a Bill of this nature. I hope the Bill will be turned into the kind of forward-looking, innovative legislation that will provide the means for Canada to deal with the urgent environmental problems which face us today.

In considering what amendments should be made, the committee can do no better than to refer to the recommendations of the environmental groups of Canada which met on June 25 and focussed on three proposals for amendments.
First, that we recognize the legal right of citizens to take legal action; and included in the same recommendation, that we provide financial assistance to ordinary citizens so that they may take part in the decision-making process. As everyone knows, the companies involved in the decision-making process can deduct their expenses from their taxable income, which means that half their legal costs are paid by Canadian taxpayers. Ordinary citizens and environmental groups do not have the same financial resources as companies and should receive some financial assistance from the Government.
Second, that we reinforce the power of the Government to apply anti-pollution standards. There should be national standards, and this should not be left under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces.
Third, these groups emphasized the importance of creating a data bank to which those involved would have access and which would include the standards for the quality of life and the protection of the environment which the Government intends to apply.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying it is a pleasure to speak to this Bill, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health. As my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap said, there is certainly no issue more important than this on which the time of this House should be spent.
As my colleagues have said, we are happy to see the Government introducing a first step, yet it reflects what we
have seen from all Governments historically in Canada, a form of crisis management as opposed to a strong political will to deal with this very serious issue. Because of that, we see a general lack of faith by the public in the environmental information we receive. This has very serious consequences. It means that much of the information Governments of all Parties give out may be received with less than enthusiastic acceptance. There have been many cover-ups, not necessarily by Governments or political Parties, in an attempt to avoid alarming the public over particular environmental issues. Again, the legislation is positive but it reflects an attitude of crisis management.
There are a few areas I would like to address which illustrate that. First, I would like to speak to a particular issue relative to the area I represent north of the 60th parallel. Nowhere else do we see the importance of good environmental legislation which balances the need for development and the need for preserving the environment. I happen to be one of those who believe that this is possible if the political will is there. It does not have to be a choice between jobs or the environment. We need both for our life and health, and both must be in balance. For example, I quote Don Gamble, Executive Director of the Ottawa-based Rassion Academy of Aquatic Science, speaking in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. He said, concerning water pollution, that:
Governments must do more than collect water data and regulate effluents.
Their efforts should be based on what is called an eco-systems approach which
recognizes that all economic activity ultimately depends on a viable
environment.
It is therefore my belief that legislation can achieve both these objectives and do it well. If we do not, the future of our economy and our health is in jeopardy.
Canada has a long history of resource extraction without proper controls. This has resulted in legal uncertainty for both the industry and those involved with the environment. North of 60 is often referred to as the last frontier. I suggest that for many people it is the last frontier environmentally as well as in other respects. It is the last chance to do things the right way. We have not totally polluted the environment and we must be particularly vigilant.
To some extent I agree that this Bill begins to address the important area of toxins. That, after all, is the major thrust of the Bill. Yet one of the things it omits is a Bill of rights for environmental health. I strongly believe that an Act presented as protecting human life and health must include that Bill of rights. The history of our country is such that medical care has been the right of all Canadian citizens. Surely environmental protection, a clean and unpolluted environment, is the concomitant Bill of rights, otherwise a medical care Bill of rights does not make much sense.
I would like to address three areas in the Bill which I think warrant greater discussion in committee. First is the question of enforcement. I have seen many instances where we have had really quite good laws on the books but neither the resources to carry out enforcement nor in some cases the will. Certainly the
September 17, 1987

Government will have to commit itself to putting forward adequate resources for enforcement. Otherwise, it again underscores the lack of faith the public has in laws and regulations, and undermines the public's faith in the bureaucracy and politicians, as well as generates a sense of hopelessness over the question of whether anything can really be done about the environment.
That is something one sees as having happened through the 1970s when there was a great environmental movement. As we move through the 1980s the problems become more complex because of new chemicals being created every day, a problem which this Bill attempts to address. Yet there is an increasing sense of hopelessness. What can we do? Therefore, legislation must ensure enforcement in order to give hope to people.
I feel that this Bill does not illustrate as strong a commitment to enforcement as we would like to see. Clause 7 says that the Minister "may" do certain things with respect to enforcement. That illustrates the point I was making earlier. There are adequate laws on the books, but they are not enforced. It is not necessarily so because people do not want to enforce them; there may not be the personnel and so on. In order to maintain the public faith and send the message that the Government is serious, the objectives outlined in Clause 7 should be made much stronger and I hope this will be given consideration when the Bill is in committee.
North of 60 we have had a number of examples of a lack of enforcement. That is why I feel so strongly about it. We have territorial water boards under the Northern Inland Waters Act. That Act is fairly adequate. However, the enforcement capability of those water boards is really not very strong and is subject to a lot of controversy involving the industries affected, involving legal certainty, as well as the public at large who ask, what is the point in having hearings, interventions and guidelines if in the end nothing can be enforced? There is no recourse for those who are concerned that such guidelines and regulations be carried out.
With regard to Clause 7, which provides that the Minister may do a number of important things which I think should be done, an issue right now which is of consequence to all of Canada, in particular the North, is the proposed transport of plutonium between the United States and Japan. I think anyone would consider plutonium to be a toxic substance. There is a lot of concern about what Canada can and should do about that. This legislation does not particularly address that issue, of course, but I see nothing in it which would allow the Minister of the Environment to intervene. I realize that this also affects other Ministries, and that leads to my next point about the strength of this legislation with regard to coordination.
North of 60 there is probably no greater problem in environmental and industrial issues than the lack of coordination. Other speakers have mentioned that this Bill
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
reduces the number of laws from 58 to 55, but I do not think that will cause rejoicing in the general public. The lack of coordination is extremely confusing for both industry and individuals and leads to the most serious problem of lack of accountability and responsibility.
When there are 24 Departments and 55 laws involved, finding the committee, board or Department which will accept responsibility is virtually impossible unless one is a lawyer, and perhaps even then. This legislation does not send out a strong signal that the Government is committed to taking over the management of the environment, that it will not allow it to be destroyed but will spend a great amount of time and resources cleaning up the mess that has been allowed to develop. This is not an area in which mistakes are easily redressed. We have seen many examples of that, some of which other speakers have mentioned. This is an area in which we must anticipate as well as work. While there are some parts of the Act which do that, I am very concerned about the lack of co-ordination, the lack of one identifiable source which is committed to taking this on seriously.
I certainly agree with the preamble of the Bill which states that environment is one area which really is a federal national concern. Air pollution, pollutants in the soil, and pollutants in the water are no respecter of territorial, provincial or international boundaries. That is an area in which we must be very vigilant. I find that section particularly vague and hope the committee will find it within its purview to study it. North of 60, international relations concerning the environment, particularly with Greenland and the United States, are very serious, as many people here will know.
Again on the issue of co-ordination, there have been many recent examples in my own riding of problems with this. One example is the dumping of raw sewage into the Yukon River. Millions of tonnes were dumped before anyone knew about it. The reason given by one level of Government was that it did not want to alert the people downriver because they might get upset. Given that they drank the water that came downriver, you can be darned sure that they were upset when they eventually found out. There were a number of federal, municipal and territorial Departments involved in that issue. That illustrates the need for good communications, good coordination, and having someone in charge. I hope the committee will very seriously address the issue of co-ordination.
Environment is one of the issues which is closest to everyone. Everyone knows something about the environment and has some opinion on it. The more complex we make legislation, the more difficult we make the consultative or advisory process, the further we are from doing something meaningful about the environment. Although it is very important for the federal Government to take the initiative and the responsibility, it will only work if everyone participates in it.
1 will again use the health analogy. We can have very good health programs and a national medicare system, but unless people take some responsibility for their own health, these

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
programs are very difficult to implement. Therefore, the federal Government must send out strong signals of leadership in terms of proposed legislation.
I suggest that our success with enforcement and the public perception of the Government's commitment to enforcing environmental legislation has been undermined somewhat by our history. As an example, an article in the Edmonton Journal in April of this year reported the first ever conviction of a firm for Arctic pollution. There has been a lot of pollution in the Arctic, as many people will know. The judge in that case said that with the great potential for harm to the northern environment people in businesses operating in the northern extremes of Canada have a substantial burden to take precautions to protect the delicate balance of nature.
The fine in that case was $14,000. It was certainly a symbolic fine and I do not suggest that this was the responsibility of the federal Government. However, the public perception is that this issue has not been taken seriously. I believe that the public is looking for leadership and a strong commitment to the environment. While we support the step being taken by the Government in this legislation, I do not believe that it signals to the public the strong commitment that the public is seeking for the protection of all of us, our health, our agriculture, our water, and all that sustains us.
In Clause 5 of the Bill, the consultation processes, the establishment of advisory committees, and so on are being discussed. I realize that much of this is in the legislation, but I think that when these committees are being considered it is important to recognize that aboriginal people who have lived on and with the land, particularly north of 60, but in the south of Canada as well, have much to contribute to this consultative process. I hope that in some way this legislation, and the regulations in particular, will reflect that significant participation which would be essential to good and useful legislation.
In conclusion, I concur with my colleagues who have stated that this is a good first step. However, there are some amendments which should be made which we will propose during committee stage. I hope the Government will take a much stronger position and demonstrate to the Canadian public a political will to show leadership on environmental issues beyond this small piece of legislation.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member on her excellent speech. She touched upon some very important points. Enforcement is indeed a very important issue as is co-ordination, both of which she brought to the attention of the House.
The Hon. Member mentioned the enforcement mechanisms in Clause 5 and Clause 7. Clause 5 deals with advisory committees and Clause 7 deals with objectives, guidelines and codes of practice. The real enforcement clauses are Clause 100, Clause 101, and Clause 102 under investigation of
offences. Clauses 103 to 107 under offences and punishment are also very strong.
I believe this Bill is very tough in terms of enforcement when one considers the various punishments of offences that are outlined. I believe the Government should be congratulated for what it has brought forward in terms of punishment for those who pollute the environment.
Furthermore, individuals have various rights. There is the right of a person who has or may sustain a loss or damage as a result of action prohibited by the Act to seek an injunction from the courts to stop or prevent the action. There is the right of 12 persons to petition the Minister to investigate an alleged violation. The Minister must respond with his findings. There is the right of a person to have his or her identity kept confidential.
The legislation provides for fines of $1 million and the punishment of life imprisonment. The chief financial officers of companies can be subject to jail sentences. The enforcement sections of this Bill are very extensive, and I want to bring that to the attention of the Hon. Member who spoke very eloquently on a number of points. This Bill is very loud and clear in its enforcement sections. She may wish to review those clauses of the Bill.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have read the clauses which the Hon. Member has highlighted. I agree that they are good clauses.
My point is that we must ensure that there are sufficient resources in order to carry out those investigations and so that complaints can be promptly investigated and considered. However, I realize that that may deal with regulations more than the Bill itself.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is the New Democratic Party spokesperson on tourism. Would she give us some of her views about what this Bill will do for tourism?
We all depend on better environmental protection, but people in the tourist industry, including small business people and others, have a more immediate dependence on the environment being healthy in order to attract people to their part of the country.
Does she believe the measures in this legislation are adequate to take care of environmental pollution and will be welcomed by the tourist industry? Does she think that these measures will achieve the significant results they need? In other words, how beneficial will this be to tourism in Canada?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised an extremely important point. During my speech I referred to the importance of the environment and economic development. I certainly include tourism potential in that area.
One of the difficulties with environmental issues is that many environmental problems are not readily identified. Therefore, it is important that experts in the area anticipate
September 17, 1987

these problems before the environment is too polluted to be restored.
While it is extremely important to preserve our environment for ourselves primarily, it is also important to take into account the enormous tourism potential of our environment. Many people visit all parts of Canada, not only the North, and come here to see the wilderness. They want a clean environment, with clean air.
For example, I talked to American tourists who came to the North and were awed by our clean environment and clean cities. That is one of the reasons that they visit us.
I believe in a Bill of environmental rights that guarantees a clean, healthy environment for all of us, not just to develop economic possibilities. However, a clean environment is certainly a consideration for economic development where tourism is concerned. It is extremely important to remember that tourism is a big industry in Canada and represents some 10 per cent of our employment.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments with respect to the whole question of enforcement in this Bill and in environmental legislation in general. I was also interested in her concern about the commitment, including the commitment of resources, that is necessary if environmental legislation is to be actually enforced.
We know that there has been a great deal of criticism by various environmental groups and the public at large about the commitment and effort that has been made in the past by previous Governments in enforcing this kind of legislation. However, the Hon. Member referred to the one and only conviction for ocean dumping that was registered very recently in the Beaufort Sea near her own constituency. It was a conviction against the Gulf Oil Company, with a fine of almost $200,000.
I suggest that because this occurred recently for the first time, as far as enforcement of legislation in those Arctic waters is concerned, it is an indication that there is a commitment to enforce environmental laws, particularly those that deal with the area north of 60. Furthermore, the Minister announced in June a commitment of a further $37 million over and above the existing budget to be directed specifically toward that commitment to the enforcement of environmental legislation.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that there has been, specifically through that Gulf Oil prosecution and the further commitment of funds, a very substantial and positive indication on the part of the Minister and the Government that they are serious about the matter of enforcement of this legislation?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the case to which I was referring occurred last spring, in which there was a $14,000 fine. However, the Member's point is well taken and I believe the examples he has given are positive ones. I hope we will see
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
more of them. It is the public's perception that such convictions have been limited in the past, and I hope the kinds of examples which the Hon. Member gives will increase so that we are not simply discussing one or two isolated cases.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in the debate on Bill C-74 as presented by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). Matters relating to the environment are very important to the people of the City of Hamilton. The Department has indeed been very active and visible in the City of Hamilton over the last little while. It was just in January of this year that the Minister came to the city to open an energy-from-waste pilot plant located at the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters right on Hamilton Harbour. This is a very important and new technology. It is one which demonstrates a technique that imitates the natural process of oil synthesis by converting at least 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the carbon in the sludge to a usable form of energy. To date, approximately $3 million has been spent by the federal Government on this particular project.
The federal Government has also agreed to provide at least $1.25 million towards the clean-up of the Windermere Basin in Hamilton Harbour. That is being done as part of its international commitment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and the International Joint Commission. The Department of the Environment, in keeping with its theme of consultation, of course, has consulted with a 45 member stake holders' group to define uses of the harbour and to seek advice during the development of a remedial action plan to clean up the harbour.
Water is an important issue for Hamiltonians. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we border on one of Canada's Great Lakes and we are constantly reminded of the importance of this valuable natural resource. I want to speak today about the implications of Bill C-74 for the protection of water resources from environmental pollution.
There is an old saying with a lesson for us all: "You don't miss your water until the well runs dry". It is a fact that our fresh water resources, particularly along the Canada-U.S. border, are an overused and often abused resource. We depend on these resources for drinking water, recreational and industrial uses, and, of course, tourism. This is more true of Canada than the United States as 50 per cent of the Canadian population lives within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basins, whereas just 12 per cent of Americans live in the same area. Industries on the Canadian side of the border represent over 50 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product, and again the corresponding figures for the United States are much lower.
These national comparisons, however, contrast sharply with absolute statistics compiled on a regional basis. Americans consume six times as much water as Canadians in the Great Lakes Water Basin and are responsible, in my opinion, for a great deal more of the pollution that occurs in that area.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Therefore, it is not surprising that support in this country, especially in the City of Hamilton, is strong for initiatives such as the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the joint Canada-U.S. plan to monitor and reduce toxic loadings to the Niagara River.
It is also then understandable that the Government of Canada is anxious to put in place more effective national environmental protection legislation. The Minister of the Environment brought into Parliament on June 26, 1987, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to begin the process towards legislative approval and enactment. This legislation is important for us in the City of Hamilton, and for all of Canada, because it does a number of things and 1 would like to outline just what they are. First it gives authority to control the introduction into Canadian commerce of substances, whether they be chemical, organic, inorganic, animate or inanimate that are new to Canada. It also gives authority to obtain information on and to require testing both of new substances and substances already existing in Canadian commerce.
It contains provisions allowing control of all aspects of the life cycle of toxic chemicals, including fuels, from development through manufacture or importation, transportation, distribution, storage and use, their release to the environment in such forms as emissions, and their ultimate disposal as waste.
It also contains provisions for regulations governing federal works and undertakings and for regulations to protect federal lands and waters within the legislative authority of Parliament where legislation administered by federal Departments or agencies does not provide for making regulations to protect our very important environment.
There are also provisions to create national objectives and guidelines setting desirable levels of environmental quality as well as release guidelines and codes of practice. The Act also allows control of sources of air pollution in Canada which would likely result in violations of international agreements or which affect another country, and where reciprocal legislation exists to control the sources of that pollution.
It contains provisions for control of nutrients such as phosphates in water conditioners or cleaning products which can interfere with the use of water by humans, animals, fish or plants. There are also provisions to issue permits to control dumping at sea from ships, barges, aircraft and man-made structures, excluding normal discharges from offshore energy facilities.
The Act also contains the authority for the federal Government to sign agreements with the provinces and territories of Canada for the administration of the legislation.
A lot of public attention has been given to the sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that deal with toxic substances. We have been asked how the new Act differs from Canada's current legislation covering these chemicals. That legislation is called the Environmental Contaminants Act.
While both the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act are based on the criminal law power assigned to the federal Government under Canada's Constitution, the Environmental Contaminants Act is residual legislation. That means that under that Act, the Minister is obliged to ascertain whether action to alleviate the danger could be undertaken by other federal agencies or the provinces under their specific legislation. It is clearly back-stop legislation.
The new Act is pro-active and much broader in scope. The definition of "environment" contained in the Act is a clear indication of this breadth. In the context of the new legislation, "environment" means the components of the earth and includes air, land and water, all layers of the atmosphere, all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs of the Act.
With respect to its pro-active character, the new Act allows the federal Government to deal with substances at all points of their life cycle. For example, where the Environmental Contaminants Act had only limited provisions for submission of information on, and review of, new chemicals, the new Act has stringent requirements for submission of information on substances that manufacturers and importers are seeking to introduce to Canadian commerce for the first time. In contrast to the Environmental Contaminants Act, the new Act empowers the federal Minister of the Environment to do certain things, and this is extremely important: first, to issue orders prohibiting an activity involving a substance new to Canada where he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the substance has been manufactured in or imported into Canada in violation of the Act; second, it empowers the Minister to make emergency orders to prevent release to the environment of a substance believed to be toxic where the substance presents a significant danger in Canada to the environment or to human life or health. It also empowers the Minister to issue orders requiring remedial measures to manufacturers, processors, importers, distributors or retailers. These remedial measures may direct an individual or a company to undertake such measures as giving public notice of any danger to the environment, human life or health, accepting return of the substance or product and reimbursing the purchase price to the purchaser, or recalling the substance or product and replacing it by one that does not present a danger to the environment, human life or health.
What are the implications of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act for water and control of water pollution? Because the Act gives new authority to the Government of Canada, it can better control substances throughout their life cycle. This will ensure prevention of the release of harmful substances directly to water, from both surface and underground water sources and indirectly through emissions or from the land due to run-off, leachates, and so on.
Phosphates, as a nutrient, will be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act at the time of its
September 17, 1987

passage. Federal authorities may also consider controls for other nutrients such as organic carbon compounds if these substances are shown to have an adverse effect on the aquatic environment.
As I explained earlier, under the new Act, the Minister of the Environment is required to create environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice. While these objectives, guidelines and codes do not have the force of law, they will influence the direction and level of environmental protection efforts right across Canada.
Environmental quality objectives can apply to specific areas of Canada, or be clearly national in scope. In the short term, federal efforts will likely focus on inter-jurisdictional, that is, Canada-U.S., and interprovincial matters. Codes of practice may specify design operating and decommissioning procedures, or all of these for industrial and municipal facilities, as well as operations involving any form and handling of chemicals, disposal of wastes, et cetera.
Opposition Members in their contributions to this debate have been led astray in their observation that co-operation with the provinces in the protection of our environment will lessen the efficacy of the implication of this legislation. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), for example, suggested that what we need are strong national standards. He wants legislation that will be an imposition on the provinces and not one which is an agreed upon Bill by all parties involved.
The federal environmental authorities will consult with the provinces, as well as with industry, municipalities, labour, environmental groups, and all other interested parties across Canada on the development of these objectives, guidelines and codes. This is in keeping with Environment Canada's traditional approach of consulting first with affected stake-holders, such as provincial Governments and others, in order to understand their concerns and build consensus in both the process and the result.
This legislation is the environmental legislation which we believe will see us into the 21st century. It has the general support of industry which participated fully in the consultation process that over the last five years has led to the creation of this Bill. The preservation and maintenance of environmental quality are the shared responsibilities of Governments, industry and individuals. Canadian society now understands this and understands that further environmental quality is essential to protect Canada's resource-based economy and the many and varied in-stream uses of our virtually priceless water resources.
This Bill, along with co-operation and consultation with all Governments in Canada, is the tool for solving environmental problems and preventing those of tomorrow. This Bill is clearly good news for Canada, and especially good news for the City of Hamilton.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member pointed out quite correctly that the spokespersons for both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, joined by environmental organizations and the Canadian Labour Congress, have expressed concerns about a provision in the Bill which calls for consultation, and I suppose agreement, between the federal and provincial Governments before much can be done. They see this as a serious drawback to effective action being taken. I want to point out a specific case to the Hon. Member and ask him to tell us how he thinks we could deal with it.
We have in the Province of New Brunswick, which is a have-not province, a province in which a large percentage of its people are unemployed, one family, the Irving family, which controls virtually all the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry and the energy industry in that province. It has repeatedly, in its determination to maximize its profits, ignored recommendations, studies-and I am speaking from memory when I say this but I think I am correct-and court orders requiring it to improve its methods of operation so that it can begin to reduce the waste products which it dumps into the rivers of that province and the way in which it pollutes the water, the air and the earth of the province. That family has simply refused to do anything to move in the right direction.
I ask the Hon. Member how he thinks that, without a good deal of federal authority, that disgraceful situation in the Province of New Brunswick can be changed.


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his questions. He has obviously asked several. The first thing I want to say is that the approach of the Government in federal-provincial relations is very much one based on consensus-building as opposed to confrontation, an approach that was adopted by the previous administration. He clearly knows that what we are endeavouring to do is to build a consensus so that all Canadians are onside with respect to matters relating to the cleaning up of the environment.
I think the Hon. Member would agree with me that the construction of regulations, guidelines and codes should be based on a program of consensus with the specific government bodies which have jurisdiction over matters concerning the environment, that is, both federal and provincial Governments.
In terms of the Hon. Member's reference to the Province of New Brunswick, I think the Hon. Member will agree that this legislation gives the federal Government authority to act. If he examines the penalties and the enforcement provisions in the Bill he will agree that once this legislation has been passed there will be significant penalties and clout available to address some of the matters he has raised.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member tell us how this Bill will clean up Hamilton Harbour? How will it respond to the stake-holders' concerns, the International Joint Commission?

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the federal Department of the Environment has already made some significant improvements in terms of improving the quality of the water in Hamilton Harbour. I made reference to two of them at the beginning of my remarks. There is a commitment to spend SI.25 million on the clean-up of the Windermere Basin, as well as the energy from waste operation at the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters.
I think the Hon. Member will agree that the process of building a consensus toward cleaning up the environment, enforcement of the legislation and penalties, will now be available to the federal Government as a result of this Bill, specifically in terms of dealing with some of the problems that we are experiencing in the City of Hamilton.
It took the initiatives of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as well as the Minister of the Environment to get these types of measures under way. We waited for over 20 years while the previous administration did not have the guts to bring forward a comprehensive environmental protection Bill.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in terms of a body of water, Hamilton Harbour has been cited as one of the 10 most important trouble spots in North America. How can the Hon. Member stand up and talk about $1.25 million? What type of effect will that sum of money have on solving this very serious problem?


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the $1.25 million contribution by the federal Government was a contribution shared by the regional municipality and the province. It was the amount of money required to deal with cleaning up the Windermere Basin.
The Hon. Member should also be aware that there were 45 stake-holders and a remedial plan of action being developed with respect to Hamilton Harbour. The Minister of the Environment's commitment to the City of Hamilton and to some of the pollution problems we face is that when these remedial plans of action are available the federal Government will be there to deal with them.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the Hon. Member's remarks, specifically with respect to Hamilton Bay and the problems surrounding it. The federal Department of the Environment has been in place now for some 15 years. It dates back to 1972. I understand that the former Government, which was in power for some 12 years of that period of time, had nine separate Ministers of the Environment during those 12 years. Can the Hon. Member tell us what action was taken during that 12-year period with respect to Hamilton Bay?


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the Hon. Member. He referred to Hamilton Bay. The residents of Burlington refer to it as Hamilton Bay. We in Hamilton refer to it as Hamilton Harbour. I stated earlier that the federal Government has agreed to contribute to some of the plans
outlined by the municipality and the provinces. This Government and this Minister are taking some definite action in moving toward the eventual clean-up of Hamilton Harbour.
I am not aware of any programs during the past 12 years undertaken by the previous administration to attempt to address this problem, which is very important to all the residents of the City of Hamilton.


Lynn McDonald: Reference has been made to Hamilton Harbour. I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question on a waterway a little further along the Great Lakes system in the Toronto area. Year after year there are beaches where no one is allowed to swim because of the pollution. We rely on Lake Ontario for our drinking water. I wish to ask the Hon. Member, what good will this Bill do when enacted for these serious problems regarding water quality and recreation, the ability to use the natural beaches that we have in the Great Lake system, particularly in the Toronto area?


Peter James Peterson: I am certain that the Hon. Member is aware that there is a provision in the Bill where we will now be able to identify the substances fully. There is an additional $37 million to be spent in the Ministry of the Environment for enhanced inspection facilities and personnel. If the Hon. Member understands the provisions of the Bill, she will know exactly what is available to clean up that problem.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would have loved debating the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson) on the sequence of events that led to the federal Government's final awakening to the difficulties in Hamilton Harbour.
The Hon. Member should be aware, since Hamilton Harbour abuts on our ridings, that there was a report tabled which was put together by the City of Hamilton and the region in which they sought from the city, the region, the province, and the federal Government a total package which would amount to approximately $4 million to lead to the clean-up in the Windermere Basin, which is in my riding.
The city and the region got together, because of the nature of the serious problem, and the fact that the International Joint Commission has stated that Windermere Basin is one of the most polluted bodies of water in North America. According to the IJC report, the basin itself contains PCB concentrations which exceed the Ministry of the Environment guidelines by up to 68 times. Immediately the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth agreed to contribute $750,000 to cover their portion of the clean-up costs.
Following that decision in September, 1986, the provincial Minister of the Environment, Mr. James Bradley, immediately agreed that the province would commit approximately $1.2 million. The Ontario Government immediately came in with a commitment. The federal Government and this federal
September 17, 1987

Minister, who made many promises that he was going to clean up the environment, refused to do so.
I have stacks of correspondence in my office where he suggested that he is studying the matter and looking at it. In fact it was not until I managed, as the Member for Hamilton East, to get the whole matter referred to the intelligent Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry that it was agreed the matter would be put before committee because the federal Government was stalling on its contribution.
Meanwhile, another relevant event entered the picture which in a positive manner changed the outlook of the Minister on the difficult situation in the Windermere Basin. It was called the by-election.
After the full Liberal caucus went to Hamilton, met with the Mayor, reviewed the evidence of the serious contamination and pollution in the Windermere Basin, and after the Hon. Member for Hamilton East convinced the committee Chairman, I must admit that he was very quick to accept the suggestion that there be a reference. The Regional Chairman wrote to the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry seeking an opportunity to appear before the committee to present the case of the City of Hamilton. The Department of the Environment was dragging its feet on coming up with its portion of a mere, piddling, measly, miniscule $1.2 million to help clean up one of the most polluted bodies of water in North America. The by-election was called, and I am glad that the Minister finally agreed.
I was also glad to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton West state that the Minister will be prepared to follow up on the recommendations from the stake-holders' report. I assume that that means the Minister will follow up financially. If the Minister is prepared to follow up financially, we on this side of the House will be looking for significant financial contributions from the federal Government far in excess of the rather piddling $1.2 million set aside to assist the city. The city and the region have taken the initiative in this area in completing their proposal to clean up the Windermere Basin.
The Windermere Basin is probably a microcosm of the whole problem that the Government faces in terms of credibility. The Minister of the Environment himself started his tenure by saying that environmental protection in Bill C-74 would be the strongest piece of legislation in the western world. In the same manner as the Government said it was committed to cleaning up the Hamilton Harbour and the Windermere Basin, we have seen foot-dragging. Surprisingly, and even shockingly, this is the fourth year of the Government's mandate. This is the first piece of environmental legislation to be introduced for second reading and debated in the House.
On the one hand, the Minister can say that he is committed to the environment and his Government makes it a priority, but the reality is that for three years in this Chamber we have not had a second reading debate on an environmental Bill at a time when the environment is one of the issues uppermost in the minds of most Canadians. That is not to say that there has
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
been no activity in the Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, that activity has been of a negative nature.
In November, 1984, we raised in the House the issue of the Canadian Wildlife Service. The Government and the Ministers of the Crown said that there was no problem cutting back on the Canadian Wildlife Service. It will not have any effect. In particular, the Canadian Wildlife Service was in the throes of researching and analysing the eggs of certain gulls and birds that flew over Lake Ontario in order to determine when toxic chemicals in the water and in the air actually caused cancer, mutations, and deformations.
The scientists felt that if they could see those conditions in the birds first, they would be able to predict what may happen to human beings if we do not start to clean up our act. The Canadian Wildlife Service was performing a valuable and critical service when one considers the present state of some of the Great Lakes. That service was cut back. The Minister said it was no problem, it is just a few scientists studying gull eggs. What difference does that make?
At the same time, the Government cancelled funding for the Guelph Toxicology Research Centre. One would think that the Minister would be proposing positive legislation to help clean up the environment, but instead he seemed to be more interested in moving on his own public relations campaign. We will remember when the Minister was flown to the Laurentians during some type of environmental conference. He absented himself from the conference in order to fly to the Laurentians to be filmed singing a song about the environment for Canada's Environment Week.
However, what happened when his scientists wanted to tell the story about what was happening with chemical and toxic chemical contamination? When one scientist-and I think it is the most notable example, Mr. Speaker-dared talk about contamination in the St. Clair River, he issued an order that scientists should keep their mouths shut, not because their information was incorrect or inaccurate, but because they were telling the truth, the truth was actually getting to the Canadian public, and the Canadian public was becoming rather concerned about it.
Instead, we have had a Government and a Minister who have neglected to tell the public about the real crisis we are now facing in our environment in terms of chemical contamination of air, water, and land. The Minister has neglected to bring forward positive legislation. While the Bill before us today is supportable, it is certainly in no way near the legislation which he claimed would streamline the system and be the toughest legislation in the western world.
In fact, it must be frustrating for people in the public who are trying to understand what legislation governs the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the factories in which we work.

September 17, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Let me refer to what I was rather stunned to discover. I know this will prompt the Hon. Member from Toronto to jump to his feet with his oft repeated question: "What did you do for the last 16 years?" I think the public is getting a little tired of that tune and would like to hear what the Conservatives are doing. In any event, I have presupposed the question and answered it in advance.
1 was rather stunned to discover that there are 24 federal Departments administering 57 environmental laws. It is no wonder that Canadians get frustrated when they want to find out if they can swim in their beaches or drink water. The Government is bringing in legislation which is supposed to streamline the law, but Bill C-74, as it now is, will result in 24 federal Departments administering 55 laws. Three laws will be merged into one law, which will give us 55 laws administered by 24 federal Departments.
However, it is a step forward, albeit a baby step; of course I have babies on my mind these days. It is not even a small step forward; it is a baby step for man and mankind, but we shall support it.
We support the fact that there will be a system to assess the impact of new chemicals on human health and the environment. This is one reason that I, as health critic, was so pleased to speak on the legislation. We believe that for any legislation to be effective, there must be in place a system to assess the ultimate impact of new chemicals on human health.
The shortcoming in this piece of legislation is that it will not deal with existing chemicals. In particular, if we consider the fact that fertilizers, weed-killers, and such chemicals are specifically exempted from the legislation, of course it is a cause for some concern. However, the Bill will allow for the assessment of 60,000 chemicals which are in use today.
If we look at the financial resources which have been set aside for this assessment, we wonder whether it is really practical to expect that with $2 million to $3 million being set aside in each of three Departments we will actually have the teeth to be able to assess 60,000 chemicals in use today and the chemicals coming on stream so quickly. In many cases it is almost impossible to keep up with them.
We also support the fact that the legislation will at least begin the process of allowing the public to understand what is happening with the chemicals in use today, but we are most concerned that the financial resources are simply not available.
We also believe, in respect of Bill C-74, that instead of just englobing a rather rambling preamble, the Minister should have lived up to his promise and his obligation to bring forth a legislative environmental Bill of rights. He has talked about it in the past. We were waiting for it to be in this piece of legislation. Frankly, he just did not deliver.
I am sure another point would interest those involved in the area of human rights as well as foreign policy for Canada. It is rather bizarre that we are bringing forth legislation which could set in place mechanisms to ban a chemical in Canada,
but there is no concurrent mechanism to ban the chemical for export to other countries, most specifically the Third World.
In other words, if we say that a certain chemical should not be used in Canada because it will cause cancer, mutations in the limbs of children born to women exposed to the chemical, or other health problems, it will also cause those health problems in other countries. We think it is immoral that Bill C-74 does not contain a requirement that any banned chemical should be banned for sale and production in Canada and for production and export abroad. For Canada to say that a chemical is good enough for the Third World but not good enough for Canadians is wrong. I am sure my colleague from Toronto would agree with that assessment and would support the amendments we will be bringing forward.
We are also very concerned about the issue of ministerial discretion.

For over three years, and this Government is now entering the fourth year of its mandate, this Government and this Minister have not attempted to introduce for second reading in this House any bill on the environment.
Mr. Speaker, no one can blame us for being afraid that the fact that the Minister wants to provide too much power and too much discretion for himself could create problems.
If we look at Section 29.4, we find that the Minister may waive any of the requirements for information to assess whether a substance is toxic if he considers that it is not needed. If a new chemical comes on the market and the Minister considers that there is no problem as the manufacturer is a good company which he knows and does not want to examine, he can waive the review process without any possibility of appeal by ordinary citizens. This is what frightens us. As the Minister has introduced no bill on the environment until now and has not had the courage to fight to protect the environment for the last three years, we do not want to provide him with any personal discretionnary powers now.
Elsewhere, in paragraphs A) and B) of subsection 37.2, we see that the Minister has a power of exemption to say that any chemical can be exempted from the regulations if he so desires. We find this a bit frightening as we do not trust the Minister in view of the way he is drawn his feet for the last three years and we do not want to give him too much discretionnary power.
As 1 have already said, Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill, but we shall also put him on notice that we are not satisfied with his speeches and his rhetoric and we would prefer more practical, substantive and financial action. The little he is now spending is not enough to protect our environment.
I shall have to close on these last comments.
September 17, 1987



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will not recall the Buddy Evans case which occurred in Metropolitan Toronto in 1979 or 1980. Because it has been a number of years now, my own memory is somewhat hazy about the particular case. Buddy Evans was a Canadian black. He was not too highly thought of by the police department. He became a cause celebre as a result of a shooting which occurred when the police felt that Buddy Evans was perhaps going to do them some harm, and they shot him. As a result, an inquest was held.
That inquest touched off a great furore of marches, demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, some in support of the police department of Metropolitan Toronto and some in support of Buddy Evans. At that time, Metropolitan Toronto came as close as it has ever been in the time that I can recall to having racial violence. It was very disturbing. It led to some major and dramatic changes in our society, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. It led to the creation of a number of race-relation committees in the community. In fact, each one of the six municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto established race-relation committees as a result of that situation. It led to the establishment, for the very first time in this country, of a civilian police complaint review board in Metropolitan Toronto.
You will recall that since we have come to this House, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP Act has been amended to provide for that same sort of mechanism for the RCMP. It provided as well for liaison committees to be set up between the visible minority communities in Metropolitan Toronto and the police department. It also provided for increased efforts to be made to try to establish and augment the numbers of visible minorities who were members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department. All of this was a reflection of the fact that there was systemic discrimination within the police department and, for that matter, within virtually all employment in our own municipality.
Systemic discrimination was the same kind of problem as that of stereotyping, for example, with which women have had a great difficulty over a long, long time. It was one of the reasons that women could not break into many occupations and many fields. We are delighted that the new Deputy Clerk of this House is a woman.
If there is one thing on which my Party, your Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, is founded upon,
Adjournment Debate
surely it is the principle of equality of opportunity. That is why for the very first time ever in Canada the present Government introduced employment equity legislation for the purpose of dealing with federally-regulated companies. It is why for the very first time the Government introduced an affirmative action program for the Public Service and it is why for the very first time it introduced an affirmative action program as part of the contract compliance regulations with which a business has to comply when contracting with the federal Government.
This legislation and policies were based on the fact that women, disabled people, native people, and the visible minorities should all be given equal opportunity as far as hiring, promotion, training and pay is concerned. Included was the concept of setting targets to ensure equality of opportunity. That was not for the purpose of giving priority to people who were not clever or not the best or the brightest. It was for the purpose of stemming and stamping out systemic discrimination in our society.
In August of this year Treasury Board set targets for visible minorities for the Public Service for the very first time, and next June federally-regulated companies will have to comply with those same laws. What about the RCMP? What is their place in this? A study was done recently by Professor Jain of McMaster University. He reported that although 7 per cent of the population of this country are visible minorities and 45 per cent of the labour force are visible minorities, only 1.7 per cent of the federal Public Service are visible minorities, and the RCMP would not even tell Professor Jain who the visible minorities were or how many there were in the RCMP.
When I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) in this House if he could tell me why the RCMP would not give this information to a study of this sort, he said it was contrary to the Canadian Human Rights legislation. That shocked me, because after all this Government will require the private sector to provide this information. It will require by way of an affirmative action policy the Public Service of Canada to provide this information. Why, then, would the RCMP not provide it?
I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight when the RCMP is going to comply with the law of the land. Why will the RCMP, in a concrete and forthcoming manner, not demonstrate whether or not there is equal opportunity of employment in the RCMP? It is only through providing that information publicly that we are going to know whether the RCMP complies with the law of Canada or not.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board affirmative action guidelines and the employment equity legislation constitute comprehensive government policy designed to eliminate discriminatory barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction and to improve the participation of

September 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
qualified women, natives, the disabled and under-represented visible minorities in the workplace, However, I should point out that neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Forces are subject to policy direction from Treasury Board on affirmative action or to the equal employment legislation because of the unique nature of the jobs performed by these institutions.
It should be made clear that I am referring here to the regular member and civilian member categories of employees as opposed to the public servant. These institutions have, nevertheless, attempted in the past to design personnel policies and practices which are in keeping with the spirit and principles which apply elsewhere.
In the case of the RCMP, special affirmative action measures have been developed where a particular need has been identified. For example, the RCMP, because of its extensive involvement in policing rural and northern wilderness areas, has a well-developed native constable employment program. The force employs approximately 240 native special constables to assist in providing policing services to native communities in the eight provinces and two territories where the force serves under contract.
RCMP recruitment policies also ensure that women are recruited equitably in proportion to the number of women seeking to gain entry into the force. While the demanding physical nature of police work precludes disabled persons from becoming regular members, the RCMP has one of the highest employment rates for disabled persons among its public servants.
With respect to visible minorities, the RCMP does not currently have a formal affirmative action program. In the absence of such a program, the RCMP could not legitimately collect information on the racial background or ethnic origin of prospective recruits or current members. Thus, the RCMP, at this time does not have data on the number of visible minorities serving in the force.
The absence of formal affirmative action programs does not mean the RCMP has been inactive in the area. The RCMP has been a forerunner in the police community in its efforts to overcoming cultural barriers through the development of crosscultural training programs. The force has also been successful in overcoming the reluctance on the part of certain visible minority groups from seeking employment as police officers through its contacts with ethnic groups, as well as through the use of the ethnic press in its recruitment campaign.
On May 19, 1987, a report was made by Dr. Harish Jain of McMaster University to a congress of the International Society for Intercultural Training and Research in Montreal. Professor Jain found that visible minorities were underrepresented in most major Canadian police forces as compared to their representation in the communities being policed. On May 26, 1987, when appearing before the Committee on Multiculturalism, Professor Jain asked that the RCMP comply
with the employment equality legislation and collect statistics on the status of visible minorities in the force.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) has been made aware of Professor Jain's proposals. In keeping with the RCMP's commendable leadership in meeting the needs of visible minorities and in attracting recruits from their midst, every effort will be made to respond to Professor Jain's suggestions. I believe I can safely say that the RCMP recognizes the importance of Canada's national police force being representative of the Canadian mosaic and that appropriate initiatives will be developed where required to achieve this objective.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION-BELL CANADA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION MINISTER'S LETTER TO COMMISSION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I recently raised a question with the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) concerning a letter which she sent on behalf of Bell Canada to Bell Canada Enterprises and which has been objected to very strenuously by four organizations, namely, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Association of Competitive Telecommunications Suppliers, a group which does not often get together but which is extremely concerned with the Minister's interference in a hearing before the CRTC for Bell Canada rates.
When the Minister responded to my question, she actually dug herself in deeper. She did not agree to withdraw her letter, which is what these organizations have asked her to do. The letter itself is very clear as to the nature of the intervention. She says:
In accordance with this policy-
-which she cites-
-and provided that Bell Canada submits, as evidence, an audited verification that the costs associated with the temporary transfer of its employees to BCI are recovered fully by Bell Canada, I would be prepared to review any future decision of the CRTC, which failed to reflect these principles.
So, for example, were the Commission to establish or impute a level of compensation from BCI to Bell Canada that exceeded the audited costs directly and indirectly associated with these transfers, I would be prepared to recommend to the Governor in Council appropriate action-
The only action the Minister can take is to recommend that Cabinet overturn that decision. I understand that the letter was also sent to the chairperson of CRTC directly and it was submitted in the documents in Bell Canada's rate case.
This letter is, of course, totally unwarranted interference in a procedure which was already in progress. I note that the decision which the CRTC had previously made had gone against Bell Canada. Bell Canada was incorrectly told that it had to allow $25 million more for expenses on account of risk undertaking by Bell Canada International, the whole point being that one should not shunt a risky business, from which the profits would go to certain shareholders, to the consumers
September 17, 1987

who are the telephone subscribers in a monopoly service. That is a very fundamental principle as the Minister admits.
However, the decision was made by the CRTC. Bell Canada did not appeal that decision, which was an avenue open to it. Instead the Chairperson of Bell Canada Enterprises, Mr. de Grandpre, had a little chat with the Minister. As a result of that little chat the Minister came up with a very convenient letter, which is appended to the rate application. If the CRTC takes the Minister's advice, one of the results would be an additional burden of $25 million on the subscribers. That is very unfair.
There are other issues at stake as well. The Minister is interfering in the process. When the decision is made by the CRTC, it could then go back to Cabinet for a decision. At that point, the Minister is supposed to advise Cabinet as to whether or not it should uphold the CRTC. How can she give impartial advice to Cabinet in a matter on which she has already taken a position? How can she work with the CRTC, with which she is supposed to be dealing on a policy basis, when she is giving it a very strong hint that it had better make a certain decision?
Whatever the decision, she could be in trouble with the courts should she deal with the matter before Cabinet. If the consumers lose, they could go to the courts and ask that the decision be overturned since the Minister was involved in the case inappropriately. She has made it impossible to properly fulfil her role in this whole process.
The Minister's letter puts the CRTC in an impossible position. If it knuckles under and adopts Bell Canada's arguments, it will lose its credibility completely because it is supposed to be an independent agency. If it does not give in to the Minister, it will harm its ongoipg relationship with the Minister.
There are a number of unanswered questions. Why does the Minister want telephone consumer rates to go up by $25 million so that the Government of Saudi Arabia can get cheaper telephone service? If Bell Canada was not satisfied with the decision of the CRTC, why did it not appeal? If Bell Canada International needs a $25 million hand-out, why does it not apply for a government grant?
I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's decision in the first place, and the fact that she is digging herself in deeper. When I raised the question, she responded with a gratuitous insult that hers was a balanced letter which I only need read, suggesting that I would raise a question about her letter without having read it in the first place.
In the view of these organizations that are active in the area of rate setting and very knowledgeable about CRTC processes, the Minister has abused her position by attempting to intimidate the CRTC and dictate its decision on this issue.
Adjournment Debate
The Minister should be giving policy directions to the CRTC and has failed to do that in numerous areas of broadcasting policy and specialty services. She should abdicate the role of interfering in particular cases and take on the role of giving policy direction where it is needed. She has failed utterly to carry out her responsibility and is interfering in a most inappropriate manner in an independent regulatory agency.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member alleged in her question in the House on September 9 that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) had improperly intervened in a CRTC procedure on the part of Bell Canada. This is simply not the case. I am surprised that the Hon. Member, given that she has had ample time to review the Minister's letter to the Chairman of Bell Canada Enterprises, would raise this matter again.
The Minister's letter refers Mr. de Grandpre to the forthcoming CRTC proceedings as the proper opportunity for this matter to be resolved. It goes on to clearly state that the Government supports the CRTCs role in ensuring that Bell Canada subscribers do not subsidize the competitive activities of Bell Canada Enterprises.
Furthermore, the Minister reminds the BCE chairman that the onus is on Bell Canada to provide information to the CRTC that would allow the Commission to make the most informed decisions.
I fail to see how the Hon. Member can arrive at the conclusion that the Minister has taken the side of Bell Canada. On the contrary, she has told Bell Canada that it must take this matter up with the CRTC, that the Government fully supports the CRTC's role in protecting the telephone subscriber from unfair costs, and that Bell should provide additional information to the Commission.
The role of the CRTC is clear and has in no way been affected by the Minister's correspondence. As the Minister pointed out in her return letter to the group which had written to her about the issue, the Commission has full authority to determine this matter according to its statutory responsibility, and she fully supports its duty to make an informed, objective assessment.
The Hon. Member is very familiar with the Bell Canada Reorganization Act, Bill C-13, which dealt with the principle of separating Bell's monopoly and competitive activities. This principle exists in part to ensure that telephone subscribers do not subsidize BCE's competitive activities. The Minister has been entirely consistent with this policy.
I think that on careful reading of the Minister's letter, it is clear that rather than somehow compromising the regulatory process, as some Hon. Members have implied, in fact the Minister has expressed a great deal of confidence in the

September 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
regulatory process and that she has clearly stated her belief that the normal regulatory process is the appropriate form in which to resolve this issue.


SMALL BUSINESSES-NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-CONSULTATION PROCESS-MINISTER'S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it was on August 11 that I asked questions concerning native economic development and a certain consultation process launched by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt). This process of consultation was to help develop a native economic development program within his Department. I want to take the opportunity now to raise some concerns about native economic development in general and its priority with the Government in particular.
I found it interesting that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), in response to my supplementary question to him on that date, chose to quote an excerpt from a resolution passed by the Assembly of First Nations in June 1987. The Minister read in part:
Federal initiatives to date have further entangled the First Nations in a complex web-short sightedness and jurisdictional disputes. Federal Departments responsible for supporting First Nation's economic development are unable to effectively co-ordinate their activities.
Of course, that is all true. The Minister used that statement to justify the very narrow approach being taken to develop a plan for native economic development. It is interesting, however, to read what the Minister left out of that very same resolution. The same resolution from the Assembly of First Nations states in full:
The federal Government continues to give lip service to the ideas of local control, self-determination, comprehensive community planning and adequate resources to establish appropriate infrastructures at the community level.
It went on to say:
-that the Assembly of First Nations would prefer a Government wide review of federal support for native economic development rather than the consultation being planned by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion on the future of its native economic programs.
The resolution then goes on to suggest that what should be happening is that native people should identify the goals they want to achieve and the means by which to achieve those goals, including what funding would be required and what changes are necessary to existing policies and programs.
I do not think the Government can logically argue that we need anything less than a comprehensive approach. Consultation on DRIE's native economic development program is not sufficient. I argue that all programs of all Departments of Government which affect native economic development must be looked at. Indian people must be intimately involved in all aspects, actively participating.
It is clear that often one part of the Government does not know what the other is doing. Programs from one source can deliberately frustrate the efforts of another Department. For example, it is not possible to deny the link between postsecondary education and future employment and economic
development. Yet we know that the Department of Indian Affairs has put a cap on its post-secondary budget and students are being turned away from colleges and universities. I ask the Government, then, how it expects to provide the supply of Indian tradesmen, administrators, professionals and managers that are required. The Government knows, and it has revealed it in an important briefing note to the Minister, which states that effective delivery of devolved Indian programs, advances and local autonomy and increased employability are dependent upon effective training and education of Indians.
The statistics are supportive of that assertion. Some 140,000 natives will become eligible to join the labour force over the next 10 years. The problems this will create cannot be underestimated. Just to maintain employment rates at the present low levels will require 8,000 new jobs annually. Most of the new jobs will be required in rural areas where opportunities have, to date, been very limited. Operational and policy linkages between labour market programming and economic development will continue to be extremely important.
That deals with education, Mr. Speaker. Second, no one can deny the link between adequate infrastructure in a community and economic development. Yet all Hon. Members know that basic water and sewer services are lacking in the majority of Indian communities in Canada.
Third, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has persistently refused to make available to Indian bands the employment funds that they were able to obtain under the former Canada Works program to build houses in their communities. The Canadian Jobs Strategy program is not in most cases applicable to Indian communities. Yet here is where unemployment is the highest.
When the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) was the Minister of Indian Affairs, he commissioned a task force on Indian economic development. It was to prepare a data base on the state of Indian economic development in Canada. The task force determined that economic development in all respects falls far short of the national average.
I would like to quote Douglas Sanders from the Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, who said:
The failure to deal seriously with the questions of Indian economies is the
single most glaring failure of national policy in both the United States and
Canada.
I conclude by saying that what the Government is doing is conducting a very narrow review and avoiding consultation. Behind it all is the present motivation of how it can reduce expenditures in this area or, if I may put it in the euphemistic terms of the Government, how to stabilize economic development resourcing at present levels.
What the Government is trying to do is to save money and to hide behind the consultative process. In the long run it is denying Indian people the economic independence that they
September 17, 1987

need to run their own lives and to get out from under a system of dependency that robs them of their own dignity, political power and the right to have the control over their own lives that they are seeking in a wide variety of ways.
[ Translation]
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member would treat so offhandedly the consultation process announced on July 24.

The consultation process which was announced on July 24 is now being branded by the Hon. Member as not comprehensive enough. What is important for natives and what we have undertaken to do is to go to the grass roots, to seek from them their views regarding the economic development program which is administered by DRIE. The Hon. Member refers to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to CEIC, and other departments that have an interest in economic development. That is the very reason these departments are also part of this consultation process. They are part of the review group which will be able to take into account the views of natives and possibly influence the report which will be submitted to me and from which I in turn will go to the Government with recommendations.
Adjournment Debate
In his statement, the Hon. Member has embraced a whole range of topics which are important to economic development for natives. Of course, I can appreciate the political reasons for the Hon. Member saying that our agenda is this and that. The fact remains that we are committed to working with natives to ensure that they can become economically self-reliant. It is promising to see the reception that the consultation process received from bands and tribal councils. I look forward to the results of the consultation process. If, under the previous Government a department was doing things which the other departments did not know, under this Government we work en unisson and we know what we do as a Government. Cabinet reviews the conclusions of this consultation process. I hope that we will come up with measures that will improve and render more efficient the programs that we wish to put in place to ensure economic development among natives in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, September 18, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers