1987-09-25

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 24, 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.
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, yesterday the clock outran me, not being the athlete that you were in your glory days. I am very pleased, though, to have this opportunity to speak today about legislation which also has inadequate underpinnings and needs a great deal of exercise.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are not reflecting on the Speaker, are you?


Bill Rompkey: I notice that the Minister is exercising. That is good, because the Act needs a lot of exercise in order to be in shape to do the kind of job which needs to be done.
What we were promised was a gourmet meal; what we have is a stew. That is not adequate. The people of Canada will not think that it is adequate to do the kind of job they want done with the environment, to which they give top priority.
An Act was brought into effect back in 1976 to deal with the environmental impact of chemicals and their effect on human health. Amendments have been under consideration since 1981. The principal concern was that the Act did not adequately provide for the identification and assessment of new chemicals in Canada before they are used and dispersed in the environment.
The Minister has made provision for that in the Act, and we are prepared to accept that it is a good step forward. We support the initiative that new chemicals will be identified, and some will be banned and that action will be taken. We also support the provision that some chemicals now in existence will
be put on the list and will be banned. Those provisions are good ones.
The problem is that we do not know what chemicals will be on the list. Another problem is that the resources devoted to this item are such that it will take a long time before we know. There is a schedule in the Act right now, but it is limited.
In order to go through all the Acts which are coming into this new amalgamation or pot-pourri, it will take a lot of work by a lot of people. The financial allocation to do that work is inadequate to meet the need or do the job. It will be years before the proper chemicals are identified on that list to give adequate protection to the people of Canada.
Therefore we had to question whether the intent is serious when we looked at the resources devoted to doing the kind of job which is talked about in the Act.
In his earlier statements the Minister said that it would deal with all sorts of things. In November, 1985, the St. Clair blob was discovered, and the Minister began promising that the amendment to the Environmental Contaminants Act would somehow clean up the St. Clair River and other existing pollution problems. However, that is not the case. The Minister made that claim repeatedly, but this piece of legislation cannot and will not clean up the Niagara River, the St. Clair River, the waste dumps, and the air pollution from factories. It is not going to do that. It is not going to do the job it was heralded to do in the beginning.
When the Minister released the draft legislation in December he called it the toughest pollution legislation in the western hemisphere. However, by the time he introduced the legislation in the House in June it had diminished to a first step toward cleaning up the environment.
The Minister also promised an environmental bill of rights and instead delivered some elegant prose in the preamble which really has no legal status at all.
There are 24 federal Departments administering 57 environmental laws. The Minister claims that Bill C-74 will streamline that process. Really all that is happening is the merging of three Acts, the Clean Air Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act. It is a merging of existing legislation without any change to those Acts at all.
This morning on the way in I heard of an operation yesterday off the East Coast of Newfoundland by the Canadian

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Coast Guard. It was an experimental cleanup of an oil spill. Oil was dispersed on the water and the Coast Guard tried its technology to see how it would work. It did not work as well as it should have worked. The Coast Guard admitted that there are faults in the technology and faults in the systems in place now to clean up potential spills off the East Coast. That is a very serious situation because the most important resource in my province and the Atlantic provinces is the marine resource. Ironically, the most serious threat to that marine resource is the other greatest potential economic benefit in that area, oil and gas.
There must be protection for our primary marine resource. The marine environment off the Atlantic Coast must be of paramount importance. It must be a priority. The Government must provide through legislation, not just through technology, adequate protection for that most important resource, but that has not been done. There has been no examination of the Ocean Dumping Control Act.
One could make the case that trout and salmon in streams are better protected than the cod off shore. The Fisheries Act is an Act with a lot of strength. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) has wide-ranging powers to enforce laws regarding the spill of toxic chemicals into rivers. Salmon in their natural habitat are protected.
In my own province, a paper mill was dispersing effluent into the very important Exploits River. The Government worked with the company to ensure that the effluent did not kill the salmon resource in that river. The Fisheries Act allows for certain steps to be taken. It gives the Minister wide-ranging powers to protect the marine resources in rivers. However, that Act does not form a part of this legislation. What does form a part of it is the Ocean Dumping Control Act and that has not been examined, updated, beefed up or given any teeth. Yet we are entering an era in which we hope to develop oil and gas resources off the East Coast.
As I said at the outset, we support the idea that new chemicals will be identified and put on the list and the idea that chemicals already existing will be put on the list in the schedule of the Bill. However, I must repeat that inadequate resources have been allocated by the Government to do that.
As far as we are concerned, some parts of the Bill are objectionable. We find the preamble objectionable. A legislated environmental bill of rights would provide a right to a clean environment and provisions to empower citizens to take action to protect their environment in the courts.
1 noticed that my colleague from British Columbia made the point yesterday that there should be provisions for individuals, for groups and for private citizens to have a part in seeing that the environment is adequately protected. After all, who does the environment belong to? It does not belong to the mining companies or the forestry companies. The environment belongs to the people of Canada. It is their heritage and they have a right to see that it is adequately protected and kept in a proper state for them and their children.
This Bill really does not contain an adequate provision for individuals in local areas to take their responsibilities seriously and to ensure that this Bill and indeed Canada's other environmental laws are properly administered to safeguard their environment. That is a weakness in the Bill.
There are various other weaknesses in the Bill. In our opinion, the Minister missed an opportunity to improve existing legislation that is being rolled into the Environmental Protection Act. I mentioned the Ocean Dumping Control Act already. Some critics argue that the Clean Air Act may in fact have been weakened by its inclusion in the proposed Environmental Protection Act.
As it stands, the Clean Air Act now deals with acid rain and air pollution internationally rather than domestically and domestic emissions are regulated by the same process of toxicity testing and information requirements as other chemicals. Under this regime, one may ask whether or not sulphur dioxide, for example, would qualify as a toxic chemical for regulation by the proposed Environmental Protection Act.
Then there is the question of Ministerial discretion. There are several clauses in the Bill that give the Minister discretion to deal with toxic chemicals. Clause 29(4), for example, would allow the Minister to waive the requirement for any information he decides is unnecessary. Clauses 15 and 16 would allow the Minister, on request of the applicant, to extend the time allowed to meet information requirements or other acts of compliance without public explanation or consultation. Clause 37 would allow the Minister to exempt chemicals from regulation at his discretion.
The Minister has these powers of discretion. If we are to have a law with teeth, there should be a written and clearly expressed intent to ensure that the environment is adequately protected and that those people who are using it, those who are temporary stewards of it, are not allowed to get away with practices that would destroy it for people now living and for their descendants.
There is the question as well of federal-provincial agreements. What we really want to have is a national law with national standards. We know that the provinces have their prerogatives and priorities and we know that everything is not equal across this country. Some provinces must operate in certain ways just to try to maintain equality with other regions of Canada.
The Atlantic Provinces, for example, have to bend over backward to attract industry to the area. I understand the difficulty and the extremes to which one must go to try to create jobs in primary processing. On the other hand, the Government should offer us a national Bill with national standards that is administered without any watering down of jurisdiction. We think it must be very clear that the Government set national standards and enforce and administer them itself.
September 25, 1987

Those are some of the difficulties we have with the Bill. It is an extremely important Bill but it really will not do the kind of job that, first, we were promised it would do, and second, the kind of job that needs to be done in Canada if we are to protect the environment.
We welcome certain provisions in the Bill. It is a step forward but it is not what was promised. It is not adequate. It contains weaknesses that we feel should be improved. We hope the Government will take a second look at it and that the Minister will revise it with a view to trying to do what he said he would do in the beginning, with a view to giving us a good, solid piece of legislation that will do the job that needs to be done.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the Hon. Member endorse this legislation that is designed to protect the environment. We appreciate that the speakers from the Opposition have endorsed this Bill in principle.
The Bill results from consultation which took place, using draft legislation, in December of 1986. Meetings were held right across the country, and written submissions were received as well. Upon reflecting on those meetings and submissions, the Minister made changes. When we took office in 1984 we said we were going to consult with the provinces and individual Canadians and, indeed, we have. We can be very proud of this legislation.
As the Hon. Member indicated, there has been some merging of legislation. He also said that is really all it is. However, it is much more than just that. Bill C-74 is the strongest piece of environmental legislation ever brought before this country. We are very proud of the fact that this Bill has teeth. Offences under this Act will be punished by fines and/or jail sentences.
As well, I hope the Member recognizes the importance of individuals being able to bring complaints to the Minister and the fact the Minister must respond. He talked about the discretion of the Minister, but when 12 people bring forward a complaint about a particular environmental situation the Minister must respond. That is a very important part of the legislation and I hope the Hon. Member will reflect on that fact.
This is not just a merging of legislation. It contains some new and very strong provisions which will indeed protect the environment.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary but I do not believe that the teeth she claims are in the Bill, or the process she has alluded to, are adequate. She has said citizens can bring forward complaints and the Minister has to respond. All well and good. Yet we do that every day. We get up for an hour in this House asking questions and the Minister has to respond. That is part of our system and there is nothing really new in it.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
If you apply for a TV licence there is a public hearing. Officials have to sit there and listen to what you have to say. Is this good for the community or bad? How should it be changed? Even with the granting of a TV licence, which is not nearly as important as the protection of the environment, our legislation has at least a minimum of teeth. Yet even that, in my experience, has not always been adequate. There are things we can improve. I am just using this as an example, but the CRTC has to have a series of public hearings where people can come and present their views so we can hear the other side. There is a public process of examination.
We need something that goes beyond simple complaints coming to the Minister to which he has to reply. There have to be stronger provisions for public participation in the process so they can make their views known. Let the officials try and defend themselves. That is the kind of teeth we would like to see in the legislation. This may be a step forward but it is not as large a stride as you used to make, Mr. Speaker, on the football field when you were in your heyday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no further questions or comments, debate.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this is probably the strongest environmental Bill brought forward by the Government of Canada. Yet that just indicates the conscious neglect of previous Governments. It certainly does not mean this Bill is adequate.
Canadians are looking for the protection of their total environment. They care about that. They are not looking just for protection against toxic substances. We need a bill of rights to protect the environment. I feel strongly about the fact that we were given stewardship over this planet, but not just to exploit and then destroy. I congratulate the Government on bringing this Bill forward, but it is tragic that it has not shown the necessary leadership and given us a Bill which would really be a bill of rights for the protection of our environment.
I represent an area familiar with these problems. Hamilton Harbour contains many contaminants in its sediment. We know 28 per cent of the fish in the harbour have lip cancer. That fact helps us to recognize the existence of health hazards there. Yet there is nothing in this Bill which says that you as an individual can prove that damage. Yes, a corporation can do it. It looks to commercial protection but not the safety and health of individuals. We feel very strongly that individuals should have the ability to launch a complaint and take action against the people contaminating the environment, whoever that may be. It is important that the legislation be in place so that action can be taken.
Environmental groups should be consulted. We have a wealth of knowledge among people who have devoted many hours of their lives to determine what kind of policy would protect our environment. Yet there is nothing in this Bill that

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
says those people should be recognized as people who know what they are talking about. We have to care about what happens in our environment here in Canada. We speak of acid rain and other similar problems internationally. Yet we do not really take a strong stand on the issue of how we are destroying our own environment. It is crucial that we look at this and decide there are steps we can take.
We as a Party would love to participate in the process of putting amendments forward to strengthen this Bill. The necessary amendments would allow for public participation, consultation with environmental groups, as well as allowing the individual to complain. As an example, we know how heavily contaminated Hamilton Harbour is. There has been a passing of the buck from one body of government to another. There is nothing in this Bill which strengthens federal powers to clean up and protect the environment.
The Act provides that if you develop cancer from swimming in the Hamilton Harbour and can prove that that is where the cancer came from, you can take action against the Government. Surely we should be looking at prevention rather than taking action after the fact. It is very important that we are able to take action when contaminants are being put into our waters, our air, and our earth rather than waiting until the death sentence has been imposed on people because of that contamination.
The environment has become one of the greatest concerns of the people of Canada. The public is ahead of the politicians and legislators. It is very important that we recognize their desire for a clean environment and to protect this planet so that we can pass on to future generations a legacy of which we can be proud.
We believe strongly that the Act should enable the public to have some influence in the decision-making process. We believe that the powers of the Minister are too broad and can, therefore, be very discriminatory in individual and collective cases. We also believe that there must be a process for discussions with environmental groups. This Bill must enable the people of Canada to take action and be guaranteed protection.
The Bill has consolidated several Acts which could amount to an environmental protection Bill. However, the result has been that some of our environmental protection legislation has been weakened. At this time in our history we need a very strong environmental protection Act. We should be responding to the priorities of Canadians. We must recognize that once the environment is destroyed it is gone forever.
As a result of post-war development we paved over very precious agricultural land. We have bemoaned that tragedy since. A strong environmental protection Act now would keep us from weeping and wailing years from now, saying it is too bad that we did not put some clout into this Act, asking why we did not care enough. I am sure that Members on both sides
of the House have received letters in support of strengthening the Act and ensuring that protection exists so that we will no longer have to apologize for the things which are happening in our environment.
We have contaminated the beautiful Hamilton Harbour and yet we are still not willing to enact legislation to ensure that it is cleaned up. There have been all sorts of recommendations made that we return the Harbour to its previous state in order that people can enjoy it, as our grandparents did. This Act gives us no ability to do that.
We are still talking about preventing toxic substances from entering our environment rather than protecting the environment as a whole or cleaning it up. I find it very difficult to believe that this Bill was drafted without the inclusion of herbicides. We have recognized the danger of the use of herbicides. We know this has harmed health. We have stopped using herbicides in many areas because we were no longer willing to accept the destruction they were causing.
It is also difficult to believe that the Bill does not identify any kind of nuclear substance or radiation. We know that those elements have caused a lot of problems. Research on them is ongoing. Extensive research is being done on low-level radiation. We are very concerned about the genetic problems which they can cause. We know that if the gene bank is destroyed in the human family we will be facing very serious problems.
We should be saying that we care enough about our environment, our country, and our planet that we will not continue on this road of destruction which we have been travelling at a very high speed over the last number of generations. Instead of that we are saying that after destruction has taken place, providing it has caused some type of commercial damage, charges can be laid to stop the destruction, but by then it will be too late.
We know that treatment is much more expensive than prevention. We have the ability to enact a very strong Bill which will protect our environment for many years to come if only we have the political will to do it. We know how people feel about the environment. We know that they care. Therefore, why are we not enacting legislation which will protect the environment for the future?
In conjunction with talking about the environment and this Bill, we must talk about the ability to strengthen federal powers. This has been discussed in the committee on the environment and on the Meech Lake Accord. People have been talking about how we can unify our nation. That is a common goal throughout the country and there is no doubt in my mind that the environment is another.
On this issue the Government can take a strong stand and show the leadership which is so important right now. It can have the courage, which previous Governments did not have, to enact legislation that will really protect the environment, not legislation that will only limit the introduction of toxic
September 25, 1987

substances; a bill of rights for the environment so that people will be protected with ongoing legislation.
We must ensure that people do not have to become terminally ill before they can take action against polluters. It is possible to do these things, but not with this Act. Unless we are willing to accept some amendments that will strengthen the Bill, we are really saying, yes we are ready to give some type of cosmetic support to your concerns about the environment, but we are not ready to take action and say that for us as a nation it is a priority and for us the time has come. Many of us recognize that it is not a case of the time having come, but of the time having long past. We recognize that the time is long past by the type of illnesses we have seen, and when we look at the air that has been so badly polluted.
We have taken some steps in beginning to restrict some of the emissions from our industrial plants. Certainly, I have seen an improvement in the air pollution in Hamilton Mountain, but not to the extent I would like to see. When we have a resource that is as beautiful as the harbour itself, we should recognize that there is nothing in the legislation that would help us clean up that harbour or help us restore it to the state that it was when our grandparents were there, or to make us realize at long last that these are the resources that we can enjoy and use in a very positive manner for future generations.
Citizens must have some type of input, and there must be public participation. Over the years my experience both as a local politician and working on committees has been that very often we get a great sense of knowledge, direction, and problem solving from our communities. The grass roots are living with the problem on a day-to-day basis. They have recommendations and the ability to spend a lot of time and study and know the types of things that are affecting their immediate communities, and the types of things they can do about it.
I do not think that it was the bodies of government or the bureaucrats in the country that brought to the fore the dangers of herbicides. It was the people who were starting to have reactions within their own systems, and who saw the effects on their families and children-they made their presentations. In many cases in the communities across the country they had sit-ins. They refused to let the people spray their parks and their environment. At that point people became aware that there might be a problem with herbicides. We then started to look at the research and recognized that there is a problem.
This is one time when we do have the ability to do something, and not just wait to react. With this Bill we have the ability to put in some strong amendments to make sure it has broad scope, that we do have a bill of rights for the environment, that we do recognize it is the individual's rights that are being eroded by contamination pollutants, and that herbicides and all types of low-level radiation must be recognized as pollutants and contaminants.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
We also must recognize that there is a need for public participation, for consultation with the environmental groups to protect the wealth of resources in this country from the commercial factories that may figure it is too expensive for them to stop polluting and, therefore, they can take a case and defend themselves against it. We must look at what we are attempting to do.
I would hope that the Government recognizes that it is the people of Canada that it wishes to protect, and it is this planet that we have been so blessed with.
I wish to urge the Government to accept some strong amendments to this Bill in order that we who have been part of this legislative body can feel proud in the future to know that we have put some protection there for our children and grandchildren, and to say that we do recognize the beauty of the creativity of this planet.


Ms. Mitchell:: I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). On this side of the House we are very proud, and I am sure her constituents also feel the same when she speaks out so strongly on these issues. I particularly liked the reference of the Hon. Member to a bill of rights for environmental protection.
Coming from the Lower Mainland of Vancouver where we have the beautiful basin of the Fraser River and the Fraser Valley, I was particularly interested in her comment that one of the pollutants we sometimes forget about is blacktop. In our community it is appalling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member, but 1 would appreciate it if she would return to her own seat, unless there has been a change in the seating arrangement. I know there have been some changes in the New Democratic Party. If the Hon. Member would return to her seat, I will recognize her again.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have now returned to my proper place.
I was commenting on the Hon. Member's reference to blacktop as a pollutant, and the fact that in my community of greater Vancouver it is indeed a very vicious pollutant which is covering very lush farmlands and thus depriving us of produce.
In the Hon. Member's community of Hamilton Mountain, and the surrounding area, which is an area I grew up in and certainly recall with fond memories, I wish to ask the Hon. Member if there are any problems concerning the farm lands as far as pollution is concerned, and particularly protections from the acid rain hazards.


Marion Dewar: I passed over it lightly, but it is important that not only is acid rain destroying our environment on an international basis, but we must be very strict in our own domestic legislation to ensure that the acid rain problem is solved because of what it is doing to our own agriculture. I have seen some of the blight that has happened to the beautiful

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
orchards in the communities surrounding Hamilton Mountain. It has literally wiped out whole orchards, and it is very serious.
We cannot allude to problems of the environment only on an international basis, and ignore the fact that we do not have the type of strict legislation in this country that would allow us to go to the international forum and talk about what we have implemented to restrict our people from contaminating our environment. In that manner we will have a much stronger voice internationally.
The tragedy that is happening is not only with acid rain, but also with the types of pollutants that have been emitted over the years from industrial plants. We have found that we can put in protection, and the emissions do not need to be at the high level that they have been in the past. Interestingly enough, industrial plants can still produce their products without having to contaminate us. Perhaps the profits may not be quite as high, but they are still adequate, and certainly that will protect the planet for future generations.


Mr. Heap:: I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), and enjoyed what she said. In Toronto there is a harbour and islands. It is quite a few years since I went with my children to swim in the waters off the north shore of Centre Island in Toronto Harbour, and the way it is going I may be able to walk on it before I ever swim in it again.
Toronto City Council has been considering methods of cleaning up the harbour and the Commissioner of Public Works has worked out figures on how many people would be employed in the work that would be necessary to clean it up. However, it is something that is considered rather beyond the budget of even a large city like Toronto.
The question that has been raised is whether the federal Government would help with that clean-up, since it is a harbour and to that degree under federal control. I wonder if there are similar discussions going on in Hamilton about specific plans for cleaning up Hamilton Harbour?
There are many, many recommendations for cleaning up our pollution, and it may be that the public works department of Hamilton has some ideas of what could be done, but less idea of where to find the money. I wonder if the Hon. Member can comment on the question of the funding problem for the cleanup that would be necessary?


Marion Dewar: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a very clear plan put in place for the clean-up of the harbour. I guess my concern about this Bill is that it does not address any kind of pollutants that are already in place. It talks about toxic substances that are going to be put into the environment but does not talk about any kind of remedial work for pollutants that are already in place.
There have been recommendations from the regional Government of Hamilton-Wentworth, as well as from the
city itself and the province and, certainly, federal representatives. They all agree that it is possible to clean-up the harbour, but one passes the buck to the other and there is no legislation in place stiff enough to say, they have to get on with it because this is a priority. My feeling is that the citizens in the community are saying that they recognize that other things might have to go by the board to clean up our harbour, but they feel it is important enough that they want to enact those kinds of studies and the recommendations that come from those studies.
If we stiffened up this Bill the opportunities would be there to say that action must be taken, and there would be some respect for the citizens of the community. I really think Hamilton deserves this. We deserve to be able to use our harbour the way we could use it. The Hon. Member is right, children can no longer swim in the harbour. If they do, there is danger, and we know what the danger is, we know the health hazards. I really think the opportunity is ours now. We could put in some amendments to this Bill that would give it the kind of strength that would set the priorities, not just for the federal Government, but it would help the municipal and provincial Governments to enact what the priorities are of the people of Hamilton themselves, and the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, although it does not make me particularly happy to say it, I have to note that this is not a Government which has given Canada very strong or effective leadership in dealing with some of our nation's very serious environmental concerns and problems. Although we have a Minister who is very good at political preening and prancing, he has done very little with his responsibilities on a wide range of environmental issues that are of considerable concern to Canadians. I have in mind the control of toxic chemicals and the effect they have on human health. I have in mind acid rain which is causing such drastic damage to the forests in the part of Canada I represent in this House. I am thinking as well of Great Lakes water quality control.
Rather than having done much in the last three years since the Government was elected in terms of positive action towards creating a wholesome, healthy and clean environment, the Government has gone the other way in many cases. For example, we know it has made some very deep cuts to the environmental budget. We know it has ended funding for the Guelph-Toronto Toxicology Research Centre, and we know it has gutted the Canadian Wildlife Service.
I am concerned that the Government is withholding information about what is going on at the renegotiations of the Great Lakes Water Quality Control Agreement. I am concerned because there is clearly a pattern developing, as exemplified by the Meech Lake Accord and by the free trade fiasco, that the Government is quite prepared to give away a great deal and receive very little in return. I am nervous that
September 25, 1987

the Great Lakes Water Control Agreement may be going the same way.
However, in the dying days of the Government we finally get for purposes of debate Bill C-74, an environmental Bill. The Minister dares to describe it as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. He dares to describe it as a protection Act. We know it is going to do very little to protect the environment. This EPA is really more of an environmental propaganda Act.
A number of very important environmental groups and organizations put out a press release in which they said that Canadians want a real environmental protection Act, that the content of the proposed Act does not merit the title "Canadian Environmental Protection Act". The federal Government must assert its responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake. This group went on to say that Canadians put protection of the environment at the top of their priorities and it is time this Government did the same.
1 agree with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) who delivered an impressive speech this morning. I agree with her that Canadians want, expect and deserve very strong action from their federal Government in terms of protecting the environment. They want an environmental protection Act, but I would argue that what they are getting in Bill C-74 is really an environmental deception Act.
As 1 said, this is the first time we have had the Government bring forward a Bill regarding the environment which was debatable. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is not much. Whenever the House has turned its attention in the last three years to questions about the environment and the state it is in, it has usually been because motions have been brought forward by one or the other of the Opposition Parties. That is when we have had vigorous debate in this House on the environment.
As you know, Sir, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), has been very diligent and vigorous in the defence of a clean environment, whether air, water or land. He has become Canada's best known watchdog on the environment. He is a respected individual who regularly brings to the attention of this Parliament our fears and concerns about the environment. In contrast to that, we have a Minister who eulogizes, sermonizes and stage manages concerns about the environment. All of that gives us very little in the way of any forward movement.
You are signalling, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to the next stage of our proceedings. I will complete my remarks when we resume debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4)-

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



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, before the Ontario Provincial Court last May the Bank of Canada, the National Research Council, the Department of Transport, and the Department of Supply and Services were accused of breaking the law by dumping toxic waste into the Ottawa River. We have learned this week that charges against these departments and agencies have been tossed out because the environment protection legislation does not apply to the federal Government. The very fact that it does not abide by its own legislation goes to show to what extent the Conservative Government could not care less about the rights of Canadian men and women to live in a pollution-free environment.
How can this Government condone environmental pollution while at the same time spending $74 million under a tripartite agreement aimed at cleaning up the Ottawa River? Last June the federal Government tabled a legislative measure which is designed to protect the environment, human life and health and which is so severe that it provides life terms and unlimited fines in cases of crimes against the environment. If all Canadians are to be subject to the proposed legislation, so should the Canadian Government.



PLANNED PARENTHOOD WEEK


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this week is Planned Parenthood Week and the theme is "Your sexuality lasts a lifetime: Make it healthy". President Norma Buchan states:
With the current public focus on the negative aspects of sexual activity such as unplanned pregnancy and the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, a positive health-oriented approach to sexuality is more important than ever. Education and awareness are the first steps to a healthier sexual life-style.
Canada is very fortunate that such a responsible and dedicated organization as Planned Parenthood of Canada is active in our communities. I commend it for its excellent work, which is acknowledged in an international comparative study to be published next month.

September 25, 1987
Canada, Australia, France and Italy tie for third place out of 15 developed countries in providing family planning programs. Although we rate lower on the availability of abortion, sex education in schools, and contraceptive information, much of the credit for our relatively respectable standing among developed nations should go to Planned Parenthood of Canada.
* *
*



RESEARCH


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, what do you do with 21 million used tires? That is the number that Canadians discard annually. Only so many of these can be used for dock bumpers. The balance remain to pollute our landscape or, if burned, they pollute our air.
However, a solution might well be on its way. Pilot-scale testing of a new vacuum pyrolysis technique which turns old tires into valuable carbon black and pyrolytic oils which can be further upgraded into heating oils and high octane additives shows a great deal of promise.
Private industry, universities, the Centre de recherche industrielle du Quebec, and the Department of Energy, Mines and resources have contributed to this research which, hopefully, will turn an environmental problem into new industrial opportunities and new jobs for Canadians.



FREE TRADE-SOCIALISTS' POSITION

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, for two and a half years now the socialists have been denouncing our free trade negotiations and the $95 billion market developed by Canada's enterprising business community. The socialists do not want to hear anything about it, yet they often illegally fill their own coffers with the union dues of automobile workers who are already protected by free trade.
Still they continue to claim that other Canadian workers should not have access to the lucrative American market. So where is their logic, Mr. Speaker?
For the past two and a half years the socialist leader has been campaigning hard against free trade, but now he wants an emergency debate. If we make abstraction of the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, should we not conclude that the socialist leader's vision of Canada does not extend beyond the automobile workers?
Everything for the Oshawa riding! The socialist leader is prepared to trample on anything to be reelected in Oshawa, to the extent that we have to wonder whether his name might be on the Canadian Auto Workers' secret payroll.
*
*



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, at least one Canadian is fed up with empty rhetoric and Tory promises. I read today in The Toronto Sun that an individual by the name of John Ruffolo is suing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for $90 for breaching campaign promises to increase the efficiency of the Post Office.
There are 338 Tory promises in the little book that I have in my hand, most of which have not been delivered. At $90 a promise for 338 undelivered promises, it will be a very expensive proposition for the Conservative Party. I suggest that the Conservative Party start making out cheques right now to every single Canadian who has been disappointed by its performance.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, a free trade agreement with the United States will undoubtedly affect employment opportunities for women. Women's groups are very concerned about the exact repercussions of a free trade deal. Eighty per cent of jobs in banking and communications are held by women. Two out of three women in manufacturing work on textiles, clothing, electrical equipment or food processing. All of these industries are endangered if free trade negotiations are reopened.

What measures does the Government intend to take to provide new opportunities for these women, many of them being middle aged? When will the Government announce that retraining courses and labour adjustment funds will be available to them? What kind of jobs can these women expect to have in the future?

How can the Government claim a commitment to economic equality for women when these questions remain unanswered? I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take advantage
September 25, 1987

of the present break in negotiations and to call a complete end to further free trade discussions.



LITERACY


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 1985, I made a statement concerning the Parkdale Literacy Project and its efforts to eradicate illiteracy.
Recent reports have told us that the problem of illiteracy is greater than we imagined, with some 25 per cent of Canadians considered to be functionally illiterate. In Metro Toronto 33 per cent of all men and 22 per cent of women are illiterate. Even more disturbing is the report that more than one-half of the 4.5 million functionally illiterate said that they attended high school, and one-third claimed to have graduated.
The important question raised by these reports is why our education system is failing. Are the fundamentals of reading and writing not stressed adequately in school curricula? Are young people who encounter difficulties in school because of their lack of language skills dropping out instead of seeking help? These questions must be answered.
Literacy should be considered a basic right for all Canadians. By working together, with all levels of government, in cooperation with educational authorities, we can win the fight to eradicate illiteracy in Canada. Only then will all Canadians be truly equal.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when 1 questioned the Minister responsible for the Post Office in the House the other day he referred to the Post Office labour negotiations as economic warfare. We do not need images of a battlefield when we are dealing with collective bargaining negotiations. We would prefer if the Minister looked at them, if he wishes to use such images, as a peace conference, as a way of resolving disputes through talk rather than through promoting confrontation by provocation.
The conciliator made his report public. One of the things that became evident from this report is that we are not just dealing with a matter of a collective bargaining relationship. We are dealing with a matter of government policy. The key obstacles to bringing about a settlement at the Post Office are matters of public policy. They are the Government's commitment to viewing the Post Office as a private profit-making
business. They are the Government's commitment to franchising-out post offices.
These items of policy have to be changed in order that there are fewer hurdles to a negotiated settlement at the Post Office, so that postal service can continue and so that people can get the service that they deserve. The Government has to wake up and realize that the Post Office is a public service.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to commend the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) and the Department of External Affairs for their positive response to the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade regarding Canada's official development assistance policies. The report is entitled, "For Whose Benefit?"
[DOT] (mo)
As a member of the standing committee, 1 was pleased to participate and contribute to one of the most important, indepth reports which took 12 months of study. Our Government has fully accepted 98 of the recommendations made in the report, agreed in part to 13, and rejected only 4.
To respond effectively to the needs of developing countries, the Government has agreed to concentrate on human resource development, to adopt a new system of determining country eligibility, to untie more Canadian aid programs, and to decentralize CIDA administration. This strategy will improve aid delivery and better respond to the needs of Third World countries.
Saskatchewan food aid procurement is among the highest in Canada, selling many of its commodities to CIDA for Third World distribution. The response to the Government's recommendations from NGOs across the country, and particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan, has been very positive and supportive.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the consultation paper tabled in the House yesterday by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) dealing with proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan.

September 25, 1987
These proposals, which are the result of discussions between federal and provincial Governments, increase CPP benefits for surviving spouses under the age of 65 and for dependent children.
The paper proposes an across-the-bord increase of almost $100 per month in survivors' pensions for spouses under age 65, bringing the maximum pension to $385.15 per month. For the first time spouses under 45 years of age would qualify for the same benefits as those between ages 45 and 65.
The paper's other main proposals increase the amount for dependent children of deceased and disabled contributors to the plan to $ 121.48 per month from $94.79.
This is just a further example of continuing improvements and reforms to the Canada Pension Plan for which I congratulate the Government.



HOUSING


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, we recently had a conference in Ottawa on the subject of homelessness, and we recently heard through the media how the former Mayor of Toronto went through the park near his home early one morning and found over 40 people sleeping there because they had no other place to sleep.


An Hon. Member:: By choice.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: There is some well fed person across the way who says they are sleeping there from choice. I challenge him to go to that park and ask those men whether they are sleeping there by choice.
There is a very severe shortage of housing for people of middle and low incomes in Toronto. Traditionally there has been empty accommodation among some of the recently built and expensive condominiums, and anybody with $200,000 or $300,000 is welcome to bid for them, but for those without there is a great shortage of housing.
A few years ago Toronto City Council planned, through its responsibility for municipal planning, that Harbourfront would include a great deal of assisted housing. The management of Harbourfront under federal direction has mostly squeezed that out. I call upon the Government to reverse that injustice.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, tonight in an interview with Doug Small on the Global Television Network, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going to say the following: "Canada needs more immigrants. We need and should be accepting more refugees, but this has to take place in a system of respect for the law". He is going to go on further to say that accepting more refugees in our country will be the wave of the future. This will be aired tonight on the Global Television Network.
We do not want queue-jumpers, or ship captains dealing illegally in human flesh, at our borders as we saw this summer. That was one of the reasons the House was recalled.
Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 dealt with the issue. They have been considered in the House and will be considered by the Senate. I want the Senate to pass these Bills so that we can get on with the job of building the country with new Canadians.
In 1832 a man named Mike Grimes came to this country from Tipperary, southern Ireland, and he settled around the area of Kingsmere where your home now is, Mr. Speaker. He was a tree cutter and lived to be 93 years old. He grew up in the area around Kingsmere, Old Chelsea, and King Mountain.
My mother is one of his descendants. She was Nora May Grimes. If that man had not come here to this new country, to build this land, to cut trees, and to develop the Ottawa Valley 155 years ago-and in fact he is buried at St. Stephen's Church in Old Chelsea-I would not be here today.
My ancestry goes back to that evolution. That man came here as a new Canadian, a new person, to develop the land. My Irish descent is strong in me.
I hope the wave of the future will be well recognized by the new people who come here to build this land, to make it a healthier and happier one for all of us.



EFFECT ON CANADIAN ECONOMY OF UNITED STATES PROTECTIONIST ACTIVITY

Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, with the recent suspension of the free trade talks, a lot of hopes of New Brunswickers have been dashed. They were looking forward to seeing more open doors between our provinces in eastern Canada and our neighbours to the south.
Certainly the Government of Canada cannot be faulted for making efforts to try to reach a successful resolution to the problems facing Canada, as we see more and more protectionist activity in the United States putting up tariff barriers and countervail duties against our raw materials and resources.
September 25, 1987

What has happened to softwood lumber in eastern Canada is an excellent example of why we should be discussing, with our neighbours to the south, the problems we are having with regard to trade.
Luckily, because of the efforts of the Government of Canada through the Department for International Trade, we have received an exemption for 85 per cent of our softwood lumber producers. However, there is still much hardship to be faced by some of these producers if we are not able to get a complete exemption for softwood producers of the Maritimes. It is a good example of what protectionist activity in the United States is causing to happen in Canada.
I hope those people who have been very critical of our efforts to reach a free trade agreement will stand up when the time comes, as we face more and more protectionist activity by the United States Congress against our raw materials and resources which are extremely important for jobs throughout Canada.
The Government should be commended for the efforts it has put forward and should be encouraged to get the door open so that we can continue with the talks which are so important to Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, in the deepened hope that we will be able to get some straight answers for a change in the House of Commons.
Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give any indication of what might be the plan of the Government in relation to the negotiations that have been suspended with the United States. Yet, outside the House, the Prime Minister's press secretary surreptitiously slipped out information that meetings were being held at the highest level.
My attempt this morning is to see if we can get answers in the House of Commons and not through the sidelong glances of a press secretary.
Specifically I should like to ask the Minister of Finance is he undertaking meetings with Secretary of the Treasury Baker to speak explicitly about the free trade negotiations? Does he have a mandate from the Prime Minister and Cabinet to try to restart those negotiations?
In particular, will the Minister of Finance tell us what kind of concessions the Government of Canada is planning as a way of inducing the Americans back into the talks?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should know that the meetings which I will be having this weekend and early next week in Washington are part of the regular annual meetings of the IMF, the World Bank, and the Group of Seven.
These meetings have been planned for a number of months, in fact years. There is nothing special about that. I will see Mr. Baker during the course of these meetings, but at this point it is strictly to talk about matters relating to the international debt issue, to the progress we have made in dealing with some of the problems with sub-Saharan Africa, to consider a proposal by the managing director of the IMF, and things like that that are related to the international debt situation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I believe it is fair to say that he strains the credulity of the House and of Canadians generally to assume that he is to have a little tete-a-tete with Secretary of the Treasury Baker and not discuss the most important issue between our two countries at the present time.
What kind of guff are we being given this morning in the House? Will the Secretary of the Treasury and the Minister of Finance discuss the opportunity to start negotiations again, or has the Government clearly said that no further negotiations are to be undertaken? Why does the Minister of Finance not come clean for a change?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am being very direct with the Hon. Member. He may not like the answers I am giving him, but 1 am giving him direct answers.
There are no tete-a-tetes planned between Mr. Baker and myself. We will be meeting as part of the broader meetings of the Group of Seven, and at the IMF and World Bank meetings. That is the sum total of the meetings and that is the direct response to the Hon. Member's question.


CANADIAN POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another glaring contradiction that has occurred. The Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that he thought it would be inappropriate for him to meet with President Reagan. However, in an interview he gave to La Presse last evening, reported today, he said he thinks that maybe they should have a meeting. Furthermore, he went on to declare that the Government is prepared to water down its position on a dispute settlement mechanism-the mechanism does not have to be binding and it can be brought in gradually.
Is what is really happening right now that the only softening up that is going on is not with Americans but with the

September 25, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian people? Is the Government not really trying to pave the way so that it can make further concessions to get its free trade deal? Is that not really what is taking place?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The situation is quite clear. The negotiator for Canada suspended negotiations because the proposals then on the table from the United States were not acceptable to Canada. It is up to the United States to make new proposals if it wants to have the negotiations continue. Those new proposals have not been received. The ball is very much in its court. 1 think that has been made clear to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, and is clear to everyone willing to understand.


FREE TRADE-ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN TWO MONTREAL NEWSPAPERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I again direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and seek clarification on the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement impasse?
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the ball is in the American court and ruled out the possibility of a summit meeting with the American President. Indeed he told the House, as reported in The Gazette of Montreal:

-"PM rules out meeting Reagan now".

A few hours later in Montreal he met with the editorial staff of La Presse and said the opposite: "Mulroney says he is prepared to meet with Reagan". No wonder we are asking questions! Who is telling the truth, La Presse or The Gazette of Montreal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of reports published by La Presse and The Gazette of Montreal, but I can speak for the Prime Minister and the Government. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House, and 1 quote:

It would be, I think, inappropriate at this time and perhaps unhelpful at this very moment for the President and myself or anyone else at that level to get involved.
That is the position of the Government of Canada as stated in the House and as stated in Montreal. Just so that the House understands the situation, if there were ever to be any meeting on a higher level, it would occur only after a change in the United States position.


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister accurately quoted the Prime Minister on page 9286 of Hansard, and I quote word for word:
It would be, I think, inappropriate at this time and perhaps unhelpful at this very moment for the President and myself or anyone else at that level to get involved.
Here is my question: Who is this person? Is it Derek Burney who spoke to Mr. Howard Baker and submitted the five Canadian conditions? Were there negotiations yesterday afternoon?
What I want to know is this: Is the Canadian public being manipulated? Is public opinion being manipulated by this Government, because on one hand they would have us believe that negotiations have broken off, and on the other that negotiations are being handled by the No. 1 man in the Prime Minister's Office, Derek Burney, and that there are five conditions to the resumption of negotiations? Who is telling the truth?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. The Government of Canada did not submit five conditions-nor three nor seven-since the chief negotiator suspended negotiations.
I know there have been rumours, but they are false. Of course, certain Americans and certain Canadians do have conversations and that is quite normal. But the essential point to resume negotiations is a change in the American position, and it is up to the Americans to get in touch with us on that issue.


POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post reports today that President Reagan and his top trade advisers decided at a meeting that the President should not call the Prime Minister in order to initiate some further action with respect to the free trade talks. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can guarantee to the House that neither he nor Derek Burney, who is also going to Washington, will be making further concessions and contacts with the White House administration in order potentially to sell out Canada by trying to get these talks restarted on bended knee.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member, travelling at high speed, has smashed into a brick wall and is showing the consequences.
The situation is very clear. The Hon. Member may try to distort it if it serves his ideological purposes but the situation is quite clear. We have entered into negotiations that we believe, if they succeed, will be very much in the interests of Canada. They are at a point of impasse. They are at that point of impasse because the position last put forward by the United States is not a position that Canada can accept.
September 25, 1987

We hope that the United States will change its position. That is up to the United States to decide. It is up to the Americans to communicate that to us.
I make the point in passing that the United States cannot seriously expect to make the progress it says it seeks in multilateral trade negotiations if it will content itself with the position it left at the table in its negotiations with its most important trading partner, Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, at least we recognize a brick wall when we see one.


PRIME MINISTER'S NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whoever has decided to speak for the Government on this issue to comment with respect to the so-called exclusive interview with the Prime Minister last night by La Presse in which the Prime Minister took some major steps backward in a commitment to an immediate binding dispute mechanism which he previously said was crucial to any solution to the free trade talks. He said-

"We must be in a position to introduce, perhaps in stages, a mechanism which will have a beneficial impact for both parties".

That is a retreat. The Government knows that and I would ask whether or not this is a signal to the United States that such a retreat is taking place on our part.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no retreat, there is no signal, and there is no change in the Hon. Member's infinite capacity for self-delusion.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in fact that it has been this Government which has been deluded right from the start in hoping to get this agreement.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, how can the Government expect the Canadian people to believe it when at the same time it says the ball is in the U.S. court it is setting up contacts with U.S. officials? It is sending the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff to Washington, and then softening its demands. Is this not trickery of the Canadian people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, very frankly, the trickery is in the attempts by that Hon. Member, thankfully not very successfully, to distort what is going on. He is suggesting there has been a setting up of contacts by the Government of Canada with the U.S. There has been no setting up of contacts. What has
Oral Questions
happened is that because I am a NATO Foreign Minister and George Shultz is a NATO Foreign Minister, and summit Foreign Ministers met earlier this week, we met together. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, is carrying on normal meetings with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
Is it the position of the NDP that because there is an impasse in the trade negotiations we should stop all normal contact with the U.S?
We know Gerry Caplan, the thinker for the NDP, has said we should get out of economic summits. We know it is the position of the NDP to have Canada get out of Europe, NATO and NORAD. We know their policy is to get out of the world, except in southern Africa where they want to resort to violence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are quite rightly confused, to put it gently, about what kind of game the Prime Minister is playing with them. We have the Ottawa Citizen-


Mr. Fennell:: A great Liberal paper!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -saying the Prime Minister rules out trade summit with Reagan. The Gazette says the meeting has been ruled out for now. The Toronto Sun says there is a 50/50 chance of a meeting. La Presse says the Prime Minister is ready to meet the President right away. We are wondering what kind of game is being played. Is the Prime Minister trying to manage a trade talk crisis or manipulate the Canadian public?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said a moment ago there has been no change in the Canadian position with regard to the dispute resolution mechanism. Is he now confirming, then, that the Canadian position is and has been, as the Prime Minister is quoted in La Presse as saying, that Canada is prepared to grant a concession by accepting a dispute settlement mechanism that would be introduced by stages and over an extended period of time? Is he saying that is the position, has been the position all along despite earlier assurances, and therefore there has been no change?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I can help the Hon. Member out of his confusion arising from reading too many newspapers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Only the headlines.


Charles Joseph Clark: Reading the headlines of too many newspapers. He has not yet told us his views on the Sunshine Girl, or as we say in my family, the Sunshine Person.

September 25, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would suggest that if he wants to know the position of the Government the best place to find it is in that time-honoured parliamentary publication, Hansard. He will see it there in black and white and it might, if he is able to read words consecutively, clear up his confusion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That answer would lead any reasonable Member to wonder about the totality of the acreage between the Minister's ears and come to the conclusion that it is indeed barren ground.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: George Baker for Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Both the Minister and the Hon. Member are at the moment coming out just about equal. Perhaps, if the Hon. Member would put his question directly, we can move on.


NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister to spread a bit of sunshine and light on the question. The Prime Minister is quoted, and you cannot wish away his words, as saying in La Presse last night in an article to be published in full this weekend that he is prepared to consider granting a concession by accepting a dispute settlement mechanism that would be introduced in stages over a period of time. That is a radical departure from what he has been saying for the last several weeks.
The Secretary of State insists on saying there has been no change in the Government's position. Is he telling us that the words spoken by the Prime Minister last night in La Presse are the position which has been put to American negotiators over the last several weeks? If it is, the people of Canada have clearly been conned by their Prime Minister and Government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me try to identify the question raised. I think it was-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Watch out for swinging doors. Just answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am advised to watch out for swinging doors. I think that is much more a problem in the caucus of the Official Opposition than it is here. However, the point is that a dispute resolution mechanism is, in our judgment, essential to the successful conclusion of any negotiations. The Americans know that. What they put forward in the discussions that were suspended-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is that what we put forward, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: -if the Hon. Member would just be quiet for a moment-was not acceptable to Canada. It is in their hands-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What did we put forward?


Charles Joseph Clark: -as to whether or not they will come back with some proposals that are more acceptable to Canada. If they do, we will consider them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are not answering, Joe, deliberately, with good reason.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: The font of all knowledge speaks.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government announced regional economic development agencies for the Atlantic provinces and the West. Once again the Territories seem to be left in limbo. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has undertaken a six-month consultation process which the Assembly of First Nations says they will not participate in because in their view the decision has been made.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when we will see some action on a northern development structure so we can get on with planned economic development?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a consultation process from which, she says, the AFN has withdrawn. I would bring to her attention that groups in the Yukon have indicated their willingness to participate in the consultation process and we look forward to it. We have the Native Economic Development Program in place and Yukoners are taking advantage of it. We are considering applications right now from that area.
The Hon. Member would be helpful to natives and Yukoners by advising and encouraging them to participate in this consultation process.


CONSULTATION PROCESS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. His colleague suggests I should be encouraging people to participate in consultation. I should certainly be happy to do so. Over two months ago government leaders wrote the Minister asking what is happening and what consultation will
September 25, 1987

take place. They have received no response. Would he care to comment on that?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the consultation process on DRIE's native economic programs was launched July 24. We have a team which is inviting interested persons from all across the country to make their views known. To my knowledge, groups in the Yukon have indicated that they will participate in that process. We look forward to their views and suggestions.


TOURISM POTENTIAL OF NORTH
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Tourism is probably the industry with the greatest potential in the North at this time. I understand that the Territorial Government and the Travel Industry Association have been negotiating for some time for a funding agreement with the Minister's Department which would allow for the financing of tourism development. Will those negotiations bear fruit in the near future?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Department has been negotiating with that Government on a tourism subagreement. The Hon. Member has made several representations to our Department. I can assure him that we should be able to make a positive announcement in that regard within the next few days.

[Translation\


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice, who reasserted yesterday that the law does not allow the Canadian secret services to spy on the unions. We know however that the CSN was kept under surveillance by secret agent Marc Boivin, and we learned yesterday evening that the former Solicitor General and now Minister of Defence had confirmed in a letter to Mr. Zander, President of the British Columbia Carpenters' Union that his union had also been subject to surveillance.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is ready to recognize that it is time for the Government to throw some light on this scenario which is beginning to sound like a James Bond movie. If unions have been spied on, and two cases have now been
Oral Questions
confirmed, can the Minister tell us which other unions in Canada have been subject to illegal surveillance?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the point which I and the Solicitor General have made over the last number of days in response to similar questions. The contention of the Hon. Member is incorrect. The law which governs the operation of CSIS is quite clear in this regard.
Because members of the Progressive Conservative Party were vigilant during the debate on the Liberal legislation setting up CSIS, they were able to bring forward amendments which instituted a series of ways in which the operation of CSIS would be scrutinized and monitored. We have the Security Intelligence Review Committee process. The Solicitor General has augmented this with other examinations of the operations of CSIS. The Inspector General is part of the process of scrutiny to ensure that the agency operates within the bounds of the law.
If the Hon. Member has any specific evidence to justify his contention to the contrary made under the protection of the House, he should do the proper thing, that is, bring it to the proper authorities for investigation by these independent commissions. That would be the proper thing for him to do rather than making general and unsubstantiated allegations on the floor of the House.


REQUEST THAT SURVEILLANCE BE ENDED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that it is illegal and not have me ask why it is happening all the same. That is the problem. A letter bearing the signature of the former Solicitor General was shown on television last night which confirms that the carpenters' union in B.C. was under surveillance.


John Barry Turner: Debate.


Jacques Guilbault: That is a fact. If it is illegal, why is it happening just the same? How many other labour unions are being subjected to this Orwellian type of surveillance? When is the Government going to put an end to this?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can only remind the Hon. Member that this specific question has been answered by the Solicitor General. He does not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question.
My information from the Solicitor General and his Department is that CSIS is operating within the law, within its mandate, within the legal constraints and obligations placed upon it in the legislation which we inherited from the Liberal Government. If we can give any further information to the Hon. Member in order to be of assistance, he need only ask.

September 25, 1987
Oral Questions


QUEBEC SECURITIES COMMISSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is with regard to the privatization of Teleglobe which was sold by the Government to Memotec a few months ago.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that this morning the Quebec Securities Commission laid insider trading charges under Section 178 of the Quebec Securities Act against a number of the board members of Memotec? Amongst those charged was Peter Blaikie, the former National President of the Conservative Party of Canada. Can the Minister confirm this information?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 was informed of that transpiration of events just before I entered the House. I have no details on the matter and it would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment until such time as those details are ascertained.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has confirmed that this has indeed happened, since Mr. Peter Blaikie is a former National President of the Conservative Party of Canada with many important connections, and since many of the board members have been charged, would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into the sale of Teleglobe?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the clear rule in this place that questions to the Treasury Bench must be directed to some aspect of the administration of government. I regret to have to tell the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that I believe that, under the circumstances, his question is out of order. The Hon. Member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as Deputy Leader of the Government would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree to a parliamentary committee investigating the whole matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 thought I had made the position of the Chair very clear. 1 am always, of course, impressed, and sometimes influenced, by the ingenuity of Members in putting a question in a different way. However, I see no difference in substance between the question the Hon. Member has just asked and the previous one.
I ask Hon. Members to keep in mind that there are rules applying to questions that may be asked. It is my obligation as Speaker to ensure that they are followed. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and pertains to the free trade office leasing deal. I hope he will be allowed to answer the question without being interrupted by the Minister of Justice as was the Minister of Public Works yesterday.
On September 23 the Minister of Public Works said in this House, as reported at page 9236 of Hansard:
The lease was pursued according to the ordinary standards set by Treasury Board.
Is it the position of the Government that paying a Tory friend $50,000 on a leasing deal is an ordinary standard? If so, what is an extraordinary standard? Is it $100,000, $200,000? What is the number?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question on behalf of the Minister of Public Works. I remind the Hon. Member that this matter is under current investigation as he well knows.
I again remind him of the admonition of his Leader that personal reputations are involved whenever there is an investigation. His own Leader indicated that we should follow the practice in this House of not commenting on a matter while it is under investigation until charges have been laid, if in fact that happens.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if that rule applied as the Minister wants, it would preclude us from asking almost anything in this House, particularly bearing in mind the kinds of scandals with which the Government has surrounded itself.


IMPORTANCE OF AMOUNTOF MONEY PAIDTO MR. DESROCHERS.
Don Boudria: My
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. According to the answers given by the Minister of Public Works yesterday, negotiations on the Metropolitan building were carried out directly between representatives of the Metropolitan and public servants. If this is true, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why Mr. Gervais Desrochers received $50,000? If he has done nothing as the Government has suggested, why has he been paid $50,000? This is not peanuts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1984, when addressing the Solicitor General of the day the Leader of the Opposition stated that he wished the reinstatement of "the
September 25, 1987

practice that used to apply in this House, and I believe still should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty" The Leader of the Opposition stated, "He must realize the reflection that announcements of investigations may have on private reputations ..."
Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should take to heart the advice of his own Leader. The Hon. Member does the House of Commons and its reputation no good by getting into the gutter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Cannot rise above it.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns leaked documents from the American Paper Institute on the presence of dioxin in ordinary paper products. Since dioxin is an extremely hazardous substance and the processes of production of paper are the same in Canada, I wonder if the Minister would tell the House what inquiries he is undertaking to make sure that Canadian consumers are not exposed to this very hazardous substance in their ordinary paper products?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my Department does not have that responsibility. Under the Hazardous Products Act we have the responsibility of making sure that hazardous products are identified, but not identifying what is or is not hazardous. That would fall under the Department of Health and Welfare. I will communicate the representation of the Hon. Member to the Minister.


DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Lynn McDonald: Dioxin is a substance that affects waterways and fish, and all types of things that are dealt with in other Departments. Ordinary paper products stlch as toilet paper, disposable diapers, and writing paper are commonly used products. I do think his Department has some responsibility.
Will the Minister undertake to ensure that consumers, in purchasing these ordinary products, are not exposed to dioxin, a substance to which we have no reason to believe there is any safe exposure? This is something for which his Department ought to be taking responsibility.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's concern about this hazardous material, and the fact that Canadians may be exposed to it through various paper products.
Oral Questions
I have to inform the Hon. Member that under the Hazardous Products Act, as passed by Parliament, it is not legally my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Health and Welfare.
Perhaps the NDP do not feel that the legal niceties need be obeyed as long as they have pronounced on it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Are you not an advocate for consumers?


Lynn McDonald: These are consumer products.


Harvie Andre: I will make the representations to the Minister. I will send the Hon. Member a copy of the Act, and perhaps over the weekend she can read it and acquaint herself with Canadian law.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Where is your role as an advocate?


Mr. Young:: Where is your Minister of Health?


An Hon. Member:: Who is speaking for the consumer?
*	* v


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the Meech Lake Accord.
This week the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the national umbrella organization representing multicultural associations across the country, had the following to say about the Accord. "Our worst suspicions about the process of the hearings were confirmed as the report merely rubberstamped the Accord . . . while we were taken for a ride ... we cannot sit back and watch multiculturalism being set back for years".
Since multiculturalism, like bilingualism, must be recognized throughout the Constitution and not only in the Charter if we are to truly express and support the full nature of Canadian society, why has the Government adamantly refused to entrench multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic in the opening clause of the Accord? In an attempt to treat everyone as first-class citizens, can the Minister tell the House that he is prepared to reconsider the position of the Government?


David Bruce Daubney: You obviously have not read the report.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was very interested in receiving the report of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. I thought that the report addressed the question very well that is raised by the Hon. Member.

September 25, 1987
Oral Questions
As a Member of the House, as is the Hon. Member, who comes from those Canadians who are not of English or French extraction, I feel proud of my country. 1 am proud of the Constitution, and I am proud of the Meech Lake Accord. It has done much to bind the wounds of this country and bring Quebec back into Confederation.
I know that the Hon. Member is working hard to have his Leader reverse his position and to vote against the Accord. 1 wish the Hon. Member would do that on the basis of a position that is justifiable, and not one which has been shown to be incorrect.


CANADIAN HERITAGE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House, I too am very proud and loyal to my country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you loyal to your Leader?


Sergio Marchi: As a Member of the House, and as a Canadian citizen, I would like to try to make this Constitution better. I believe we could, and I make no apologies for attempting to do that.
Leaving aside the issues in the Accord of the manner in which the country will be governed, and what shape our institutions will take in years to come, I wish to ask the Minister why he is unwilling to promote and proudly depict in the opening clauses of the Accord, the intrinsic heritage of Canadians which is proudly bilingual and proudly multicultural?
Since it is a policy of the federal Government, and a policy promoted by all provinces, does the Minister believe that the entrenchment of such a resolution and recognition in the opening clauses would hurt and dismantle the entire Accord?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the motivation of the Hon. Member, and I understand the sentiment with which he indicates his point of view. I think he is wrong. The vast majority of people who have investigated this matter think there is no substance to the contention put forward by the Hon. Member.
I wish to point out to the Hon. Member a couple of things that should bring his some solace. At last we now have a whole country with Quebec as a participant in Confederation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the Territories?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is an important and historic occurrence.
Secondly, we have now institutionalized constitutional discussion in our country. This means that we can build on the strengths that we have within the Charter of Rights and our Constitution.
On an annual basis we will be addressing these matters with the First Ministers to improve, where we can, the Constitution.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member would do a great service to the Liberal Party of Canada by standing up and giving his unequivocal support for the Meech Lake Accord and voting for the resolution when it comes before the House.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, nurses, psychologists, and other professionals who work in the health care field in Canada's penitentiaries are dealing with inmates who have been involved in major crimes, including robbery, arson, and rape. Those inmates need help from competent people.
In the absence of the Solicitor General, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Government give up the bizarre idea that it can save money for the people of Canada by privatizing this service, getting rid of the people who have had experience and who know what is required, and giving the work to some poorly trained part-time workers who will create tremendous problems for the country and for the inmates?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in answering the Hon. Member on behalf of the Solicitor General, I have to say that the Solicitor General addressed this matter on previous occasions.
My recollection is that in the process of examining the area referred to by the Hon. Member, probably the prime consideration of the Hon. Member is the quality of service which will be given to inmates. The Hon. Member in generalizing in a rather negative way does not state the actual fact and intent of the policy. The so-called privatization can mean a more effective, sensitive and efficient delivery of services in some instances. I know this is contrary to the teachings of the New Democratic Party, but they haven't had an original thought since the 1933 Manifesto.


Mr. Broadbent:: It is largely better than never having had an original thought.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North on a short supplementary question.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Orlikow: Does the Minister of Justice not realize that the question I raised has been brought to the attention of the Solicitor General and the Government
September 25, 1987

by the Professional Institute? Its president wrote a letter to the Solicitor General, backed up by a petition signed 1,400 people concerned, in which she said:
To work competently in a correctional setting requires a repeated, consistent
exposure to that environment. An incorrect decision when confronted with a
dangerous or life-threatening situation can escalate into tragedy.
That is the opinion of the people who work in the field. So again I ask the Minister if the Government will give up this bizarre idea which is based simply on its ideology that anything done by the private sector is better than that done by the public sector?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. The Conservative Party does not have that particular philosophy. As proof positive of that, I think we were the ones who originated the CBC.


John Edward Broadbent: Socialist!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What can I say?


John Edward Broadbent: Public ownership, holy smoke!


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance, but I see that he has had to leave to catch his plane for Washington to meet the other Ministers of Finance of member countries of the International Monetary Fund and the governors of large central banks, I am sure that his Cabinet colleagues will be able to tell us about the main message which Canada plans to give at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund this weekend. I would like to add that the socialists would do better to listen since the only thing they know about financial matters is how to appropriate workers' funds!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is up to me to reply to direct questions such as the one just asked by my friend for Levis. A large part of the message of the Minister of Finance at the Washington meeting will certainly deal with the need for the developed countries to continue to co-operate to improve the international economic situation, especially as concerns the Third World debt. As the House is well aware, Canada already plays a major role in this regard. We have just announced forgiveness of a large part of the official debt of francophone African countries and there will be a similar statement for anglophone African countries at the Commonwealth Conference in beautiful Vancouver.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Indian Affairs. I believe that is his title now. It was on September 2 that I again raised in the House the question of the Lubicon Lake Indian Band. The Acting Minister on that date, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, said that a full announcement ought to be made by the Minister himself and that he would advise him to do so.
In view of the serious health problems in that community, in view of the fact that the UN Committee on Human Rights is involved, in view of the fact that there is social disintegration going on at an alarming rate and that this national disgrace is adversely affecting our otherwise good publicity and plans for the Calgary Olympics, is the Minister prepared today or, at the latest, early next week, to make an announcement that the negotiations will be resumed and that the Government will use a report prepared for it by E. Davie Fulton, especially that clause which says all the people in the band should be included in the settlement, not half of them only?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his question touches on a whole range of topics which are of interest to the Lubicon Lake Indian Band. He knows the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has expressed his hope that negotiations will recommence, and it is the intention of the Minister to announce the nomination of a negotiator pretty soon in order to ensure that those negotiations can start again.


FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATIONS
B. Keith Penner: I wonder if the Minister would simply explain to the House how the Government can justify excluding half of the band's members from a land settlement? Will he tell us today that in appointing this negotiator he will also make use of the services of the Hon. E. Davie Fulton as a third person mediator in this tragic dispute?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we will change the policy of the Government re land claims. We will not negotiate on the floor of the House. We will leave that to the negotiator.

September 25, 1987
Tabling of Documents
With respect to Mr. Fulton's report, the Department and my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, continue to view his paper to be used as a guide for negotiations.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to nine petitions, Nos. 332-2959 and 332-2991 to 332-2998 inclusive.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the pleasure and obligation to table a petition signed by residents in Canada who visited the famous Byward Market in my riding this summer.
These petitioners would like to have the House consider their petition which states that, whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular, on medical supplies, dental supplies, snack foods, candies and soft drinks; whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food; whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life; and whereas the imposition of this tax could have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low-income taxpayers and youth; the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two different petitions. The first one is from residents of Vancouver East who call on the Government to do away with the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to locate the transfer point for dangerous goods at the Burlington Northern Railway ferry slip in Vancouver East, which presents an extreme hazard to the residents and the workers in the surrounding vicinity. They call on the House of Commons to order the CTC to immediately relocate the transfer of all hazardous commodities to a location outside the inner harbour of Vancouver.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions to present from Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and various parts of Ontario. The petitioners state that, whereas cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 deaths each year, and that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year, and that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians from these hazards, they call on Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Oshawa, Lindsay, Whitby, Mississauga, Guelph, North York, Oakville, Milton, Barrie, Minesing, Orillia and Burlington, Ontario. These people point out that cigarette smoking is the major preventable health hazard in Canada and responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, 500 of which are of involuntary smokers. They point out that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers.
They therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from residents of Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan who recognize that cigarette smoking is one of Canada's major preventable health hazards and is responsible for over 35,000 deaths each year, as well as 500 deaths of involuntary smokers.
The petitioners wish to show that Bill C-204, which seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, should be supported.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility to present a duly certified petition from Canadians living in Williams Lake, Cranbrook, Victoria, Vernon, Calgary, Brandon, Winnipeg, The Pas, Dartmouth, and even Toronto, which points out that cigarette smoking is responsible for the deaths of some 35,000 Canadians each year and is Canada's major preventable health hazard. It is also implicated in the deaths of some 500 involuntary smokers.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204, which will restrict the promotion of tobacco and guarantee smoke-free air to workers and travellers.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. One is signed by residents
September 25, 1987

of Manitoba, including residents of the towns of Clearwater, Crystal City and Snowflake. The other is signed by residents of Ontario from St. Thomas, London and other cities. They state that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year.
Therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I too have a number of petitions to present today all on the same subject. They are signed by residents of such places as Oakville, Kitchener, Nepean and Mississauga, Ontario.
All of the petitioners state that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for some 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, and that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year.
They state that, whereas Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air for Canadian workers and travellers, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners indicate that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year-


John Horton McDermid: Don't forget pipes and cigars.


Cyril Keeper: -even if the Hon. Member across the way thinks that is insignificant.
The petitioners certainly feel that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. They state that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand two duly certified petitions signed by citizens of Canada from New Brunswick and Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to thus present a grievance before this honourable House.
They take note of the serious health hazards presented by smoking and by the impact of the air into which enters the smoke of cigarettes from smokers.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-204, a Bill entitled the Non-smokers' Health Act. In duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from Canadians, mainly from Ontario, although there are certainly petitions which are
Petitions
coming in from all across the country. They are from Toronto, Rexdale, Willowdale, Markham, Scarborough, my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood, Thornhill and Agincourt.
These petitioners support Bill C-204. They point out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for the deaths of 35,000 Canadians every year who smoke and is implicated in the deaths of 500 Canadians every year who are involuntary smokers.
Whereas Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility to present these petitions from people from across Ontario, in particular from Burlington, Stoney Creek, Scarborough, Toronto and, most important, Hamilton.
These citizens ask that we be cognizant of the fact that smoking causes over 35,000 preventable deaths each year and that 500 of those deaths are caused by secondary smoke.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-204.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a degree of pleasure and responsibility to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 106, two different sets of petitions.
The first one deals with Bill C-55, the Government's legislation establishing new refugee guidelines. It is signed by residents of Toronto, Cambridge, Peterborough, Scarborough, and Willowdale in the Province of Ontario and by residents of Vancouver and Richmond, British Columbia.
The petitioners suggest that the safe third country concept and the prescreening stage be deleted and that the legislation should be complemented by a strong, accessible, fair and expedient appeal mechanism to discourage those who wish to abuse the system.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions concerns the Meech Lake Accord. It is signed by Canadians living in Elliot Lake, Hamilton, and my own riding of York West.
They are very much pleased that an effort is being made to bring Quebec back into the constitutional family. However, they would also like the Government to recognize the multicultural heritage of our nation and of our people as a fundamental characteristic alongside the English-French linguistic duality.

September 25, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Therefore, they call upon the Government to amend the constitutional accord by entrenching our nation's multicultural heritage and reality as a fundamental characteristic in the opening clause of the Constitution.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, question No. 176 will be answered today.


Mr. McCurdy: Since 1970, have any charges been laid under the provisions of the Tobacco Restraint Act, and if so (a) how many (b) how many cases were fines levied?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A review of departmental records has indicated no charges under the Tobacco Restraint Act have been laid since 1978. No reliable statistics are available prior to that date.


John Horton McDermid: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Member that I have received two applications under Standing Order 29 for the adjournment of the House. I will deal with them in the order in which they were received, and first I will call upon the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the consequences of the collapse of the free trade talks between Canada and the United States.
As of this moment neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), nor the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has made a statement to the House on this critical matter. Members of Parliament deserve the opportunity to debate the matter fully so that we may understand what are the immediate plans of the Government in terms of these talks and, if they are truly finished, just what alternatives the Government may be pursuing concerning our trade relations with the United States.
If Your Honour so rules that the conditions of Standing Order 29 have been met, I would be happy to move the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has a similar application.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when similar applications under Standing Order 29 were put forward, your comments which 1 have noted with great care were as follows:
-that the issue is of extreme importance.
You then said:
-it is fair to say that I might be in a better position to consider the matter
again after today's proceedings.
That suggests to me that Your Honour was taking proper consideration of what initiatives the Government might take to inform the House and, through the House, the Canadian people on what actions it was purporting to take to respond to what is a very serious crisis facing the country, by the Government's own admission. You, Sir, presided over Oral Question Period both yesterday and today and realize that on a number of very key points the Government has not been prepared to share information with the House.
I think it is of some great indignity to the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when queried in a very straightforward way would refuse to answer, yet outside the House the Director of Communications of his office would then go forward and give answers.
It would seem to me that it is very important that we try to restore the House of Commons as the forum in which important matters of state are examined and discussed and in which a dialogue takes place; not between the Director of Communications and the media. I think that is an unfortunate trend and it is something-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that under Standing Order 29 a Member wishing to move such a motion "shall" present without argument the statement referred to.
This sounds like the debate has started, and the Government will not have an opportunity to reply to some of the accusations which have been made.
September 25, 1987

I believe the Hon. Member is going beyond the rules contained in the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will of course have heard the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary. While the Chair, because it is an important issue, gives a certain amount of latitude in the presentation of the application, I am sure the Hon. Member would take the comments under consideration.


Lloyd Axworthy: I was attempting to present a reason to Your Honour in light of the statements made yesterday in the House that the matter would be considered further after the proceedings. 1 was simply drawing to the attention of the House what those proceedings were or were not, as the case may be.
I believe that the timing is of essential and critical importance, because we still have before us a number of major unanswered questions to which obviously many Canadians want answers. Until we have an emergency debate, it is clear that we will not have an opportunity to receive them.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in raising again today an important matter. I do not think there is any question but that it is considered important, not only by Hon. Members in this place and the Government but, of course, by the public.
Yesterday I said, and 1 quote:
I have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I agree with both Hon. Members that the issue is of extreme importance. At the moment it is not my disposition to order an emergency debate for today, but that does not mean it might not be ordered at some other time. I think it is fair to say that I might be in a better position to consider the matter again after today's proceedings.
Later, in response to a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who was seeking some elucidation of my earlier comments, I said:
The representations of the Hon. Member are, of course, important. I said earlier that as of 11 o'clock this morning it was not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate to take place today. I think I made it clear to representatives of both opposition Parties that that does not close the door to other applications at another time. If the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members wish to make other applications, the Chair will, of course, consider them.
I have again given serious consideration to the applications which have come in from both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, and 1 must remain of the same view as 1 was yesterday, that I am not at the present time disposed to order an emergency debate.
This is an ongoing matter and, as I indicated yesterday, events may change and I may be disposed at another time to take a different position.
I hope all Hon. Members and the public that is watching and listening to this will realize that a matter can be of very great importance, but it may not necessarily be deemed appropriate by the Chair for it to be debated in an emergency debate.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I see that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is here, as are the Leader of the New Democratic Party and very senior representatives of the Official Opposition. I would say to all of them that there are other means by which this matter might be debated. I would suggest that they might have certain consultations among themselves in that regard.
Again, my disposition today should not be taken as saying that this particular subject might not at some later time be the subject of an emergency debate.



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.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was making some comments on Bill C-74, the Bill which the Government calls the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, though I believe that to be a misnomer. However, I had not completed my remarks when we moved to Statements by Members and Question Period.
At that time, I was pointing out to the House that this is the first environmental Bill to be introduced in the House for debate by this Government in its three years in office.
In the fall of 1985, nearly two years ago, the so-called St. Clair River blob came to public attention. At that time the Minister, responding to concerns raised by environmental leaders throughout Canada and to questions raised in the House by Members of Parliament, said that he planned to bring in an environmental contaminants Act which would clean up this foul, putrid mess. He said that it would do more than that, that it would solve other problems as well. He told us that we could expect that this planned legislation would deal with matters relating to the Niagara River, that there would be legislation which would help us deal with old waste dumps and that something would be forthcoming to deal with the pollutants that pour forth from a variety of factories across Canada.
In December of 1985, the Minister put forward a Bill which we did not debate. In his vain fashion, he called the Bill the toughest pollution legislation in the western world. That Bill died on the Order Paper, and the following June another Bill was introduced. This time the tough guy lines that had been scripted for the Minister had to be changed and we got a different story. Instead of the toughest pollution legislation in the western world, this time we got just a first step toward

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
cleaning up the environment. We went from tough guy to timid first step in a matter of a couple of months.
NoxV Bill C-74 is before us. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary was back using tough guy words once more. However, we know that those words really do not apply to Bill C-74. Later on I will bring to the attention of the House some evidence supporting that charge.
Bill C-74 is the merging of some legislation that has been around for quite a while. It merges the Clean Air Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act. These Acts have been brought together for streamlining, as described by the Minister. However, a spokesman for the Alberta group of the Sierra Club of western Canada has written the following:
We feel that this proposal is not a complete environmental protection act as it leaves out important areas such as acid rain, motor vehicle emissions, recycling of wastes, hazardous goods movement, protection of flora and fauna, and a host of other very important factors in protecting Canada's environment. The Act should be renamed.
At one point in his career, the Minister spoke in the vainglorious terms, for which he is famous, of an environmental bill of rights. That is a lovely bit of sermonizing, a bill of rights based on environmental concerns. Of course, there is nothing close to a bill of rights in Bill C-74. Instead, there is a preamble to the legislation itself. The theme of the preamble is the environment. It is a prissy little piece on protecting the environment and human health.
We all know what a preamble is all about. On certain occasions in a court of law it may help the interpretation if there has been bad or vague drafting of the legislation. However, for the most part, a preamble has no legal status at all. It is usually just a bit of propaganda and exists for decorative purposes. It is a cosmetic that disguises reality.
What is the reality? The reality is that there is very little in the way of new action on environmental control in Bill C-74. In support of this argument, I quote Toby Vigod, a lawyer working with the Canadian Environmental Law Association:
-the preamble to the proposed EPA is not legally enforceable. Case law and authorities on the subject of preambles generally conclude that they are not enforceable in and of themselves. They, however, can be used as a limited aid to interpretation in determining the meaning of statutory provisions that may be unclear and ambiguous.
I hope that the Minister has not given us a Bill which is unclear and ambiguous, but if he has, then perhaps his little preamble will be helpful in certain cases. Vigod goes on to conclude the following:
However, this does not confer rights on citizens to protect their environment.
Let me turn to another source to support my argument. Pollution Probe has described this environmental Bill as being meaningless. Pollution Probe has said, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen:
Environment Minister Tom McMillan's claim to have produced the country's first environmental bill of rights is meaningless, a Pollution Probe spokesman says.
Janine Ferretti said in an interview from Toronto that if McMillan had wanted to include an enforceable bill of rights in his draft Environmental Protection Act, unveiled this week, he wouldn't have put it in the preamble of the new legislation where it has no legal basis.
Since there is no bill of rights at all, we do not need to talk about that any longer.
It has been said that this Bill does some streamlining. I challenge that as well. I do not think much has been streamlined when there are still 24 departments of Government responsible for 55 different statutes that deal in one way or another with environmental matters.
To be fair, Bill C-74 does one useful thing. It sets up a system that will assess the impact of new chemicals that come on to the market on human health and the environment. That was a task begun but not completed under the previous Government. However, my concern is that there will not be enough resources available to adequately do that important task. We know that there is a very fixed and restrained budget in the Department to help it undertake this task.
I want to agree with my friend from Newfoundland and Labrador when he says it is time the Ocean Dumping Control Act was given new force. You may have read, Sir, that the Act, brought in by the previous Government, is now being challenged in the Supreme Court. Here was a chance for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to add new force to that Act, but he did not. He just folded it into C-74.
1 fear, as does my hon. friend from Newfoundland and Labrador who spoke earlier in the debate, that the Clean Air Act as encompassed in C-74 may possibly-we cannot say categorically-permit sulphur dioxide to slip underneath the existing regulations and escape control altogether. That is so because, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, acid rain is to be subject to the same toxicity test as other chemicals. So you can see that sulphur dioxide may escape altogether.
In addition, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) also asked whether C-74 gives the Minister too much discretionary power. I wonder, and other Members wonder, should he be allowed to exempt chemicals from regulation altogether simply at his discretion?
Undoubtedly Bill C-74 is weakened by allowing each and every province to have a veto over the legislation if they feel- not if they prove but if they feel-that they have legislation of their own comparable to this legislation. I would ask, who is going to be the judge of that? No, I think C-74 suffers from what I would call the Meech Lake blights. I quote The Toronto Star.
Specifically, two sections in the bill before Parliament would require McMillan to consult all the provinces before he drafts regulations or issues emergency orders to control toxic chemicals.
While Ottawa would retain the right to act on its own after the consultations, the provisions invite Ottawa to take the weakest possible action, so that everyone can agree.
September 25, 1987

In sharp contrast to that, Sir, the Brundtland report says what is really needed is strong national standards enforced on a national basis. In my view, that is what Canada desperately needs and that is borne out of the kind of federalism that we are gradually negotiating away day by day.
I want to conclude by pointing out that the Parliamentary Secretary made the argument earlier today that this was a tough piece of legislation, the toughest we have ever seen. I want to quote from The Financial Post, an article by Doug Hunter who says:
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, tabled in Parliament on June 26, talks tough, with million-dollar-a-day fines against polluters and provisions for jailing executives of offending companies. CEOs probably won't be marching off to jail in leg irons, though, unless their pollution is accompanied by such gross misbehaviour as fraud, obstruction of inspectors or the death of innocent bystanders.
Environmentalists criticize the act for its failure to set broad national standards, particularly for water quality.
"It's Swiss cheese with fewer holes," says Toby Vigod, a lawyer and clinic director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. "If I was in industry, I wouldn't be particularly perturbed. It's not going to affect day-today business."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in response to what the Hon. Member said concerning Bill C-74. He mentioned the Brundtland report. That report was prepared by a committee chaired by Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway. We were very pleased with it. Indeed, this House unanimously endorsed it a few months ago.
The Minister set up a task force of environment Ministers which met as recently as the last two days in Quebec City. That task force was set up five months after the World Commission on Environment and Development warned that environmental problems on this planet are approaching crisis levels. Our task force was to respond to that report as it looks at how the world is going to have to view environmental issues. I would like to quote from a Globe and Mail article of yesterday which said:
Mr. MacNeill, who was secretary-general to the Brundtland commission, said no other country is as advanced as Canada in dealing with the recommendations of the world commission.
Not only are we getting recognition from around the world for our outstanding contribution in this area, let us look specifically at the acid rain abatement programs which the Member talked about. We have made an outstanding contribution in reducing acid rain. We have reached agreements on reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. We are getting our House in order. We are now into very difficult negotiations with the U.S., but we heard on the floor of this House the President of the United States talking about an accord on this issue. Just last week we had the Montreal protocol on the ozone. Our Minister of the Environment took a very strong leadership position in getting that protocol. We have produced automobile emission standards which will lead to the phasing out of
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
leaded gasoline. Indeed, there are many other examples which show the great accomplishments of this Government in cleaning up the environment.
Bill C-74 is another example. We are looking at chemicals coming on to the market, controlling those chemicals, producing priority lists, and putting teeth in the legislation in the form of penalties for those who pollute the environment. I think we should congratulate the Government on its fine work.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, you will know, as I do, that there is a world of difference between Setting up a task force on a report which is as significant, useful and pointed as the Brundtland rep'Ort is, and actually carrying out recommendations. One of the recommendations in the Brundtland report is that a nation requires a central authority for pollution control. If you decentralize pollution legislation and control and authority, the chances of getting effective pollution law and action is diminished. That is one of the messages in the Brundtland report.
When the Government tells us it has accepted that report and is going to take its responsibilities seriously, that we are going to have effective environmental protection law, then we will sit up and pay attention. However, when the Parliamentary Secretary talks about another task force we on this side are not very convinced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, you asked Whether the House was ready for the question. We on this side; of the House are certainly not ready for the question. I am a little surprised that Members of the Government did not take the opportunity to enter this debate. I am surprised that they are not sufficiently concerned about environmental matters to elaborate upon the policies that the Government has chosen to legislate.
They reacted in a very negative way to the critical comments made by my colleague to my right. They reacted very defensively when he criticized the inadequacies of the legislation before the House. They reacted to his criticisms with a minute-long question. I would have appreciated a much more extensive and thorough response. I would have appreciated the comprehensive and in-depth debate which is required.
This Chamber is set up with the Opposition on one side of the room and the Government on the other. That encourages adversarial discussions which have merit. However, in addition to the Opposition blaming the Government and the Government advertising its own merits we need a thorough and profound debate on environmental questions. I invite members of the Government to enter that debate. I invite them to share with the public the thinking, if any, that they have done on environmental questions.

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I am obviously not going to pretend that I do not enjoy pointing out weaknesses in the Government's legislation when they exist and need to be pointed out. However, I do invite members of the Government to enter this fundamental and serious debate, which is a watershed debate.
It was not so long ago that we would not be having a debate about environmental protection or health as related to environmental matters. It would have been taken for granted that the supreme value was economic development of any kind at any cost. We would have assumed that the planet could sustain any efforts at economic growth, that the earth could recover from any pollution and damage to the environment, and we could continue merrily on our way.
Over the last number of decades we have become much more aware of the seriousness of environmental matters. There are serious questions on survival for the planet and the human species and on the equality of our life. The vast majority of the general public is becoming aware of these matters.
We are establishing new bottom lines with regard to the environment. We are establishing new standards and new expectations on the environment. People are no longer willing to put up with the old economic blackmail of companies saying that if they are required to meet environmental standards they will have to close plants and do away with the jobs. Such economic blackmail has been going on for years and has made governments afraid to set the necessary standards to preserve the environment. The ultimate threat against a government is that of pulling out investment which will cause the loss of jobs, and thereby the loss of votes and office.
That game was played effectively until now. However, there is an emerging new consciousness on environmental matters. The politics of the environment and the economy are in the process of changing and we must recognize that. Of course new standards for environmental protection put limits on economic growth and development. However, it is implicit in creativity that you have some limits. A creative person is not free to do anything he or she wishes. A creative country recognizes the limits and then, within those limits, does that which needs to be done.
We must ask ourselves how we can develop our economy and have economic growth and employment as well as environmental protection. How can we have a good, safe, clean, healthy environment and employment as well? We must stop accepting the false dichotomy that the choice is between environmental protection and employment. We must say no to industries that want a licence to pollute. One way of learning to say no to that kind of blackmail from industry is to develop new types of economic development which will respect the environment.
If we do not find new methods of economic development which are environmentally sound, we will have no economic development at all. When all the rivers and forests are destroyed by acid rain there will be no employment and no economics at all. It is a very narrow perspective which says
that we must choose between environmental protection and employment. We must broaden that perspective. We must lean how to develop the economy in ways which will respect the environment.
I would like to address Bill C-74 specifically. As we set out our goal of a safe environment and a dynamic economy we must figure out how to achieve it. Does the legislation before the House today contribute to moving toward such a society? The legislation does make some progress toward environmental protection. I do not want to be entirely negative about what the Government is doing, but I do want to point out the shortcomings as they must be pointed out. While this is a step forward, it is only a small step. It is a disappointing step. Much more needs to be done, and much more could have been done.
One of the most shocking things about this legislation is the manner in which it was drafted. It was drafted behind closed doors in somebody's closet. Rather than having comprehensive public hearings involving the citizens of Canada and those groups that monitor the environment and seek to protect it for the rest of us, and having them assist in drafting the legislation and setting the new standards, the Government goes behind closed doors and drafts the legislation. That is a major discrepancy and serious weakness with the legislation.
It is clear that we cannot arrive at a point where there is strong, sound environmental legislation unless we involve the public and inform the citizens of the process of developing that legislation. We are involved in a process of creating a new political culture, and setting new standards of conduct affecting the environment. That is a democratic process which requires the will and the support of the people. It cannot be done behind closed doors, it must be done in a public environment. That is one of the first weaknesses of the legislation and the process.
Another problem and major criticism of the legislation is that it does not include an environmental bill of rights. The Government has spoken glowingly about its legislation. Of course, we expect it to do that. We would like to hear more from the government side of the House in this debate. While it speaks glowingly of the legislation, it does not include an environmental bill of rights.
It is important to acknowledge that people have a right to a healthy environment. It is not some privilege, but it is a fundamental human right. It is important to have a safe and healthy environment because human beings cannot survive and reach their potential without a healthy and safe environment that is non-polluted. This is a matter of human rights. I know that it is a new concept to consider a non-polluted environment as a matter of human rights. It is a more familiar concept to think of human rights as concerning matters of race and discrimination. We are not yet familiar with the notion of the environment as a human right, but fundamentally it is, because in order to live and grow and reach full potential a
September 25, 1987

human being must have a safe, healthy and non-polluted environment.
What else are we referring to when we talk about an environmental bill of rights? One of the central points made by environmental groups is that the public must have an opportunity to be involved in this process and play a role in the enforcement of environmental law. Why are those groups asking for ordinary citizens to have the right to play a role in entorcing environmental standards? Surely when we pass legislation in the Elouse establishing environmental standards, that means there will be an end to pollution. We will stop laying waste to our environment. It should not be necessary for an ordinary citizen in my riding to become involved in the process in order to ensure that these standards are met.
The problem is that environmental legislation is often window dressing. While Governments have good standards on the books, they allow a great deal of discretion for their Ministers of the Environment and Cabinet. We may have good statements of commitments from Ministers, and we may have good standards written into legislation, there tend to be loopholes in these situations and Governments have failed to carry out these standards with the vigour required. When it comes to the environment, Governments tend to follow behind public opinion. Citizens feel that they cannot trust their Governments. Government continues to allow the environment to be polluted and succumbs to economic blackmail. Therefore, citizens feel that it cannot be left to the politicians, they have to become involved. They must have a legal right to be involved in the process because Governments fail to follow through. That is what we mean when we talk about an environmental bill of rights.
Another key point in regard to an environmental bill of rights is the fact that citizens should have some right to participate in environmental decision-making. The Minister has the right to set standards and to outline what levels industries have to meet, but the public must have an opportunity to be involved with regard to the establishment of standards. That cannot be left to the Ministers alone.
Some serious criticisms have been brought forward in this legislation. I am not only making these criticisms to make the Government look bad. I must say that sometimes the impression is that the Government invites that to be done. I am not doing this only to be negative because I am on the opposition side and my friends are on the government side. 1 am doing this because it is important for us to realize that public opinion is ahead of public policy. When it comes to the environment, up until the present time Canadian citizens have had much higher standards than public policy indicates.
The legislation before us today takes some steps forward, but those steps are feeble compared to what the public is demanding and what the public will support. Canadians are asking Governments to set a new bottom line when it comes to the environment, and to say, "No more polluting the environment, no more laying waste to the environment, no more acid
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
rain, no more building of nuclear plants and building up wastes that we do not know how to handle which will be a problem for unforeseen generations. No more creating problems that are a danger to human health and survival".
The public is out in front and needs decisive and strong action from Governments. We need the Government to represent the people and to say that we will no longer allow the environment to be laid waste by industry as a result of economic blackmail. Governments should be creative in the manner in which they handle economic development and preserve the environment.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would have a few comments on the allegations made by the socialist Member who said no Conservative Members rose today on this matter. I would remind him that six Government Members have already spoken, that this Government has had a day and half of debate on this legislation, that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is impatiently awaiting the House's acceptance of the Bill on second reading, so that it can be referred to a committee where it will be very well scrutinized.
I would also like to tell him that, as far as relations with industry and environment protection are concerned, he is not so well abreast of the situation because he should read the report presented yesterday, September 24, to the National Council of Resources and Environment Ministers. That report of the Council chaired by no other than Mr. Gerald Lecuyer, a socialist from Manitoba, has this to say in its introduction: "This report includes ideas and recommendations to harmonize Canada's sustained economic development with its environment". So we do not have that many lessons to receive from the socialist Member concerning any harmonization between environment protection and the industrial community.
Finally, he blames us for acting alone in the discussion of this Bill.
First, I would like to point out that it is very difficult to cooperate with the socialists. However, we have not acted unilaterally. There have been many public meetings about this Bill. The Bill itself has been published and fully explained. Minister have made speeches throughout Canada. There have been meetings at the provincial level.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind the House that the Hon. Member is able to speak about the environment today simply because his leader was unsuccessful in obtaining a debate on free trade. He objected to having such a debate for two and a half years, but he asked for one today. Now, he wants to fill the gap because the Chair refused the NDP request for this debate, with good reason, as it would have been quite inconsistent with everything the socialists have said for the past two and a half years. If the Hon. Member wants to go on wasting taxpayers' money and the time of this House, he can do so, but we of the Conservative party have done our duty

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
by preparing a good Bill. They should now shut up. This is what more and more Canadians are asking them to do.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to reply to my capitalist friend across the aisle. I should like to add that this capitalist colleague of mine says his caucus has taken part in this debate. However, I have noted today that not one Conservative Member has asked to speak before me. A Liberal Member spoke but afterwards, not a sound was heard from the benches of the capitalist Conservative Members. I want to hear the great capitalists in this House. Mr. Speaker, I want the legislation to be improved. If you want this legislation to be passed by the House, you have to take part in the debate and state your reasons. This is the intent of the House. However, my capitalist colleague said that the Minister from Manitoba, our Minister of the Environment, talked about the harmony that exists between environment and industry. It is true. This is the value we are advocating in this House but no harmony achieved at any cost. We should be ready to set standards so that the industry will not keep on polluting the environment.
I should like to reply to the comments of my capitalist colleague on free trade.
I am against free trade if this new committment, if any, will reduce our environmental standards in Canada to the same level as in the United States where the President will not acknowledge the problem of acid rain.
With respect to acid rain, 1 should like to know if my capitalist friend agrees with the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan. Is it the reason why he supports the free trade concept?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) wishes to speak?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I understand your natural confusion because you would automatically look to your right to see what kind of response members of the Government would be making to this important Bill. The fact that there are no such speakers prepared to defend their legislation is certainly justification for the slight lapse in recognition. I am very pleased you were able to adjust very quickly and to realize that members of the
Opposition are certainly very much interested in environmental protection even though members of the Government apparently are not.


An Hon. Member:: Who presented the Bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: That is part of the problem. The Government presented a Bill which does not really provide environmental protection. I always try to be fair and balanced in my comments in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Certainly, some Members of the House of Commons acknowledge that fact. Therefore, I would like to provide complimentary words as well. This is a wonderful piece of camouflage. It is great cosmetics. It is a wonderfully constructed subterfuge. However, 1 do not think it is going to do much to protect the environment. It is reorganizing, rearranging and consolidating agencies and Departments, but what does that have to do with the fundamental causation of environmental spoilage in this country and elsewhere?
The legislation ignores the the most serious fundamental responsibility of any Government, and that is to provide for implementation and enforcement of controls, rules and laws. When one looks in this Bill to find the so-called teeth, to see the kind of clear and effective penalties, and application of those penalties, one is obviously disappointed.
We should not be surprised because we have seen in the past three years a serious avoidance by this Government of the hard issues of environment. I would not want to throw this House into a fit of unrestrained laughter if 1 tried to talk about the Government's record in dealing with acid rain. We all know the record there. We have been treated to the grand parade, the drums and symbols of the United States President being ushered into the House of Commons to announce a significant breakthrough that he and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) arrived at a deal on acid rain.
The mimeograph machine and the electronic parliamentary networks were all churning out the message to the Canadian people: "Don't worry, the problem has been solved". That is until we found out just a little more than a week ago that indeed it was not only a total and complete mistake but it was a series of miscalculations, and it was portrayed as such. That is part of the problem. There is no shame in this kind of environmental protection by public relations. It is as if somehow the imagination of the PR flacks on the government side is sufficient reason for Canadians to be confident that something will be done about the environment. That seems to be about the only serious recourse to action with which we have bee greeted.
It has taken three years to come out with this whimper of a Bill, this modest gesture which is simply a shuffling of a few departmental responsibilities and co-ordinations without really
September 25, 1987

looking at what is happening in the environment, without really examining the kind of matters which are of great concern.
One of the things that I would like to draw to the attention of the House is that interesting analysis provided by Barry Commoner, who I think is an acknowledged expert in environmental matters. He said in the New Yorker magazine about two months ago that one of the real disillusions for him personally as a leading environmental advocate is how in the last 10 years or so the environmental cause has become more of a lobby than a crusade, that this is simply another business-as-usual public policy matter that can be dealt with in the normal routine ways. We have kind of lost that sense of outrage and indignation. 1 can recall as a young student hearing Rachel Carson talking about the Silent Spring. It was then that we first discovered that our systems of nature, our ecology, were being poisoned.
The problem is that we started dealing with symptoms and not with causes. The fundamental cause is the way in which we organize our economy. Most environmental pollution is not caused by a secret band of environmental criminals who are out spilling oil into water or deliberately spewing things into the air. It is caused most often by those to whom we give the most respect, those who produce our goods and services, and by consumers themselves. Because we place such a premium on economic calculations we have avoided and evaded environmental ones.
It has been pointed out that perfectly good products that used to be drawn from natural commodities are now being replaced by artificial sources which require the use of far more petrochemicals, which has created a generation of something in the order of 40,000 or 50,000 new forms of chemicals in the last decade. These are all designed to ensure that we do not put our groceries in paper bags any more but, instead, in highfalutin plastic things that may cost less. But when we add up the spoilage of our ecology that is taking place and the spoilage of our human bodies, then those costs cannot be calculated.
We do not have the courage or the sense to tackle this issue. We just nibble at it, but only around the edges. We marginalize environmental issues by saying, "Let's tinker with it. Let's find some kind of soporific answer. Let's provide a few little penalties and fines", rather than saying that there are certain things that should not be produced and just getting rid of them.
We just cannot afford, as some western countries have pointed out, the use of DDT. It is poison. It gets into the food-chain and ends up in birds, human beings, fish and everything else. The only final answer is to get rid of it. The answer is not to say to some manufacturer, "If you are found using it we will give you a $5,000 fine, if we are able to take you to court". As we have pointed out, there have been something in the order of only 18 initiatives taken to court over the last few years. That
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
is hardly what we would call putting fear and trepidation into the hearts and minds of polluters.
The fact of the matter is that if we want ultimately to come to grips with environmental issues in North America, to say nothing of other parts of the world, then we have to face up to some very hard economic questions. One is whether or not we want to continue to produce these products.
When I was the Minister of Transport we were being diligently lobbied by people in the Toronto area, to say nothing of those in other urban areas, about the movement of dangerous goods. The following is a wonderful case study of how not to do something. I am quite happy to offer it to the House because it is pqst history and it was my own Government which was responsible. We identified that the rail and truck cartage of dangerous goods had reached catastrophic proportions, that the numbers and volumes of railway cars and long-haul vehicles going through our major cities each day was increasing geometrically, and that the mathematical probabilities of a serious disaster taking place was increasing by the same proportions. Governments laboured mightily after the horrible accident in Mississauga to come up with answers. We came up with a stack of regulations on how to identify dangerous chemicals, what to do in case of accident, whom to notify, if chlorine gets on the skin what kind of crisis centre should be talked to and who should be informed. We did everything but ban the movement of dangerous chemicals through highly-populated urban areas.
We have the biggest pile of red tape and regulations that one has ever seen because we were not prepared to face a fundamental issue by telling chemical companies, the railroads and others, "I am sorry, you cannot take those goods through downtown Toronto, Winnipeg or Halifax. We will have to build railway yards that skirt the cities. We will have to find other forms of protection".
I see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) is in the House. He and I live in a city where a major railway assembly line is in the middle of the city. I would not want to frighten this House by telling Hon. Members how many dangerous goods go through that piece of geography per day and threaten the lives of people on its periphery. I think it is best to say that both the Hon. Member and I have fought over the years to get that railway yard removed. I can tell Hon. Members from where the opposition came. It came from all the very powerful economic sources in the country which have said, "We are not prepared to do it". Why are they not prepared to do it? Because it will cost a certain railway $115 million. Hon. Members have only two to choose from, so they can take their pick. The same is true in Calgary where there was a serious accident that was almost catastrophic and was simply averted by timing. There have been similar close calls in virtually every city of the country. Yet we are not prepared to come to grips with the central issue, which is either finding some way of putting an embargo on this type of multiplication of artificial and highly toxic matters or at least finding ways of providing some immunity to people and the environment

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
against them. Thus we have Bill C-74, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It talks about consolidating agencies and providing some new penalties, in some cases, and totally misses the whole point of the exercise.
The reason I wanted to intervene in the debate is to express my hope that at some point we will have a serious environmental debate. I hope it will be a non-partisan debate. I do not think this is a Tory, Liberal or New Democratic issue. We all share it. We all have to live in it. Therefore, we all have to be concerned about it. We have become captive to fallacious thinking. We have allowed ourselves to become so imbued with the wrong values that we do not see what is essential and important versus what is peripheral and marginal. We may be more prepared to accept that it is crucial to have green garbage bags versus paper and that that somehow is a great sign of society's progress, while not recognizing that the production of such products are the basic root cause of many of the environmental problems we now face. I am not here to pick on green garbage bags. But they are symbolic of the kind of matters we face. I could point to all kinds of areas where we simply do not get to the root cause of what is spoiling our environment.
1 simply say that a Bill such as the one that is before us is fundamentally useless. It is simply window-dressing. It is throwing hot air at a problem. It will not come to grips with what 1 think the country faces.
In the moment or two that I have remaining I would like to say that one would think that we should be providing some degree of leadership on this issue as a so-called sophisticated, well-developed industrial society so that other countries which are emerging into that status might get some signal as to how to prepare themselves. Instead, we are doing the opposite. I am reminded of what I think is one of the greatest criminal acts of the century. I refer to the disaster in Bhopal, India. In a sense it was a corporate decision to put into a Third World country a plant that was unsafe. Granted, India is a powerful country, but it is still a country of the Third World. The plant was placed there on the grounds that it would make good economic sense.
Our cavalier disregard for the environment and, in fact, for human life is staggering. For those who have travelled in Third World countries, and I think many Members of the House have done that, and have seen how that example is repeated time and time again, we can see that we are even less careful in other countries than we are in our own, if that is possible. We have more disregard for the environment and more disdain for proper protection and controls. We always justify that by saying that we are doing them a big favour and that we are providing jobs because we are introducing the industrial society to countries that need a lot of help. However, I am not sure that the help is always of the best kind.
|
My recent trip to Central America made me cry at times to see how beautiful countryside with gorgeous lakes and forests was being ruined. For example, a plant which made batteries was spewing its effluents into a lake and destroying it for generations, for centuries. It is tragic.
I am reminded of a particular quotation-and I do not know who said it-that one thing which distinguishes human beings from all other kinds of life is that we are the only ones who befoul our own nests, that we have achieved such a high level of maturity and understanding that we know how to poison ourselves and the environment around us.
I do not want to take a lot of time dealing with the particulars of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), our environmental critic, has done a superb job, and other Members of the House have spoken. However, I am here this afternoon, and Friday afternoons seem to bring out the whimsy and oftentimes seem to provide opportunities for one to say things in which one really believes. Let us quit tinkering. Let us quit lecturing on navigation as the ship is going down. I believe most Canadians want us to do something serious about the environment. Let us quit playing charades as we see than in Bill C-74 and do something worth while for a change.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a question from the government side, and in order to further this debate, let me indicate that I was interested in the comments of my colleague with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods. They were really educational in the sense that he said that when the Government of which he was a part faced an important issue involving the environment, rather than dealing with the central question, which was the banning of the transportation of dangerous goods through large metropolitan areas, it dealt with many other peripheral matters. They were probably important but they were peripheral.
I appreciate the frankness of my colleague in this area, and I wonder whether he can educate us in other areas. Were there other areas, when he was Minister in the last Liberal Government, in which the Government failed to come to grips with central questions as they affect the environment? Could the Hon. Member elaborate upon that for us?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thought one confession per afternoon would be enough.
First let me say that I did not use that example by way of doing a mea culpa or a sort of public self-flagellation. I was trying to demonstrate how Governments themselves are reflective of a broader point of view in society.
We began to address seriously the movement of dangerous goods. We attempted to go beyond dealing with the effects of an accident and to deal with the causes of it. We seriously considered how to reduce speeds, to bring them down to a point where we would substantially reduce the probability of accidents. It was something we were beginning to work at
September 25, 1987

through a meeting. We brought together the major railway companies and, in a sense, gave them an ultimatum to come up with a decision on how to reduce speeds in major areas. I do not know what happened, because unfortunately the event on September 4, 1984 took place and I was no longer in a position to maintain that. I cannot answer for my successor as to whether he continued on it, and 1 have not persisted on that particular issue.
What I am trying to say to the Hon. Member is that I used that example to show that it is not a cost-free exercise. There are times when environmental advocates do not deal with hard reality. If they really want society and the Governments which govern it to deal seriously with environmental matters, they must recognize that there will be a very heavy price to pay. If we were to ban the movement of dangerous goods through urban areas, someone would have to pay a couple of billion dollars. It would probably be the Government and the railway companies combined. That is a large amount of money to swallow, and we have all the competing pressures for dollars.
My plea was that this debate be conducted in a non-partisan way. Is it in the best interests of the country to apply those kinds of costs? If the Hon. Member wants other examples, I can give them to him. I can give examples from the Government of which I was a member. I can give examples from the time when I was a member of the provincial Legislature of Manitoba and the NDP was in government: It did not do what it was supposed to do in the northern part of Manitoba. It allowed the flooding of hundreds of thousands of acres of Indian land for the sake of Manitoba Hydro. It was not just the Liberals who made mistakes; the NDP in Manitoba made mistakes. Earlier I used the example of the Conservative Government's attitude to acid rain. It was not prepared to ban it; it was prepared to issue a public relations release.
If the Hon. Member wants me to tar all Parties with the same brush, I could do it for another hour. My point is that I do not think any political Party in the country is prepared to face those hard questions. If we really want to deal with environmental problems as they should be dealt with, there will be a heavy price to pay, and we had better start conditioning and arguing for that price to be paid so that we can have a safe environment.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the Hon. Member said in his speech this afternoon, because some 40 trains per day carrying many dangerous goods travel along the Grand Trunk line which goes through my constituency.
Since the Hon. Member has not been following what has happened since September, 1984 in this regard, I thought he should be brought up to date. A major project is ongoing in Toronto involving the examination of alternate routes and how we can get dangerous goods through metropolitan areas safely. It is also examining speed limits and so on. It is being conducted by a former Deputy Minister of Transport for the Ontario Government who is an authority and is doing a very thorough
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
job. There have been public hearings in our community and in various communities around the Toronto area.
One of the problems-and I think the Hon. Member will agree-is that many industries within urban centres require chemicals for whatever they do. I agree that our research and development people should be looking into the transportation of those goods, whether it be by road, rail, or whatever, in a safe and meaningful way. It is either that, or else we, the Governments of the land, should move these industries out to isolated areas and only there allow them to use dangerous chemicals.
I think that idea is unrealistic. I do not think our economy could handle that type of thing all at once, but it may be something to work toward. I wanted to bring the Hon. Member up to date on what is going on in the transportation of dangerous goods. It is an ongoing concern of the Government on which action is being taken.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive information from the Hon. Member. 1 would only say that it strikes me as deja vu. When I was Minister of Transport we had the same committees and the same high level people examining the same subjects. It is now three years down the road. I wish them well and I hope they make progress, but I still think it misses the point I am making.
[DOT]'(1340)
The Hon. Member and I have had exchanges in the House many times. We have different philosophies about the way an economy should be managed and run. Let me point out to him what I tried to say in my speech.
Perhaps the problem is that far more chemicals are being produced than we need. Perhaps we have got ourselves into a chemical cul-de-sac. I would use the example provided by Barry Comoner of the fact that there exist a number of good consumer products that do not create toxic wastes. For example, paper garbage bags could be used rather than green polyethylene garbage bags. The difference in environmental terms is enormous. Barry Comoner quoted hundreds of products for which that is the case.
In essence, we are partly responsible for despoiling the environment. We are resorting more and more to industrial processes because it is in the interests of large manufacturers to do so. That is an issue that must be part of the debate. It is not simply a question of asking how we move toxic wastes. We should ask whether we should be producing them at all.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is a tradition after one speech, but I would like to follow the precedent set by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) by trying not to make this a partisan issue. I too want to speak frankly to the House about what seems to me to be a tremendous gap between what I hear in the House of Commons and what I see happening.

September 25, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
The Minister and his Department have made an effort to demonstrate the significance the Government attaches to environmental issues. However, I would like to compare that with what has been the reality in my part of the country as shown by actual performance and activity on environmental crises. Perhaps I am talking about the difference between smiles and rhetoric in the House of Commons and dismal performance on the ground. That is the way I see it at the local level in Essex-Windsor.
The Government made very important commitments in 1985 and 1986 to do something about the so-called St. Clair blob. It committed itself to trying to find its actual source and to deal with what was causing it. There was tremendous publicity at the time. As the publicity disappeared, so, I am afraid, did the commitment to find what was actually causing that tremendously dangerous sediment to form on the bottom of the St. Clair River.
Adjacent to the Dow Chemical Company on the St. Clair River, there are still increasing deposits of dangerous chemicals including Dioxin TCDD2378, a chemical which has a tremendously damaging effect on the human body and has been tied to the emergence of cancer. We have not solved the problem, despite the great amount of publicity at the time.
Just across the river from the City of Windsor, an incinerator is being erected by the City of Detroit. This incinerator does not have the basic safeguards which are required to stop air emissions from polluting not only Detroit but, even worse, polluting Windsor and some of the best farmland in Canada which is in Essex County. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), in a press release last year, said that we would find a solution to this problem. However, the urgency expressed rhetorically has not been shown in practice.
The incinerator project continues to go forward, despite 30,000 signatures from the people of Windsor and Essex County on petitions opposing its establishment without adequate safeguards. The Government is not prepared to take the tough diplomatic action which is necessary. Frankly, I suspect this is because it has been trying to avoid any conflict with the United States that would create more problems for the doomed free trade arrangements.
Beginning this week, I have presented petitions to the House and will present petitions in future weeks to come about the Fermi II nuclear plant in Monroe, Michigan, just 10 miles from the edge of my constituency. This nuclear reactor has experienced a continual series of devastating mishaps, glitches and mistakes which have left the people of my constituency without any confidence in it. Its basic design raises clear concern over danger. In addition, explosive testimony has been given to a House of Representatives subcommittee in the United States demonstrating that the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission was frankly hoodwinked into providing licencing for Fermi II.
Given this hoodwinking and the tremendous danger to our economy, our society and our people, we have asked that our
Government make a commitment to get Canadians and Americans in neutral positions to review Fermi II before it comes into full operation and see to it that it is given a complete and thorough safety check. If it does not meet the full-scale safety review, it should be shut down and shut down for good. Again, however, the Government came through with its eternal no to a basic environmental concern.
Similarly, we can talk about the municipal sewage problem in the City of Windsor and Sandwich West. This is not just a local problem. It leads to a flow of effluent into the Detroit River, thereby polluting an international body of water. Yet despite the most consistent pressure brought to bear on the Minister of the Environment, he has not been prepared to offer any assistance whatsoever in upgrading the sewage system. The same thing applies to the Turkey Creek situation in Sandwich West which is dangerous to the health of people in that part of my constituency and to the community itself.
This is not something this House has refused to do before. We have provided help for upgrading of such municipal services in the past. It has worked tremendously to generate jobs as well as providing environmental protection. Yet in this great Bill entitled the Environmental Protection Act there is absolutely no commitment of any kind to this type of activity. Another eternal no.
As well, my constituency has asked the Minister and regional environmental officials to provide assistance to environmental groups who are working hard to try to counter these serious problems. We have asked for help for MAD, Maidstone Against Dumping; RADAR, the Rochester Township group; and the Clean Water Alliance of Windsor. In case after case, despite smiles and graciousness here in the House of Commons, we have in the end received a no from the Government.
The same is true with respect to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which the Government is now renewing. The Government has attempted to portray the renewal process as a great step forward. Yet in practice it has rejected the principle of zero discharge of toxic substances. We think that this is crucial to turning around a disastrous situation in the Great Lakes. We have asked for changes in the agreement and the IJC committees monitoring the agreement. These changes would permit public representatives, not just scientists, to have some role in developing agreements.
I could go on, but I have chosen to illustrate only cases from my constituency which demonstrate this sense of rejection at the ground level of initiatives which could put our environment in better shape. That is why it is impossible to take seriously this legislation which claims to protect the environment. The reality is that nothing serious is being done, and the suspicion has to be that this legislation will work in exactly the same way at the national level. It is clearly weak. It has gaps through
September 25, 1987

which, frankly, one can drive a train-load of toxic chemicals. It needs desperately to be improved.
First, it does not include clear-cut public enforcement mechanisms. It is not possible under this legislation, for example, for groups to sue the Government over environmental problems which develop. It is not possible for groups to play a public role in the setting of environmental standards. It misses the notion of an environmental bill of rights which could include such important things as the right to judicial review of administrative action, the right to broad access to information, and the onus being on the proponent of an activity to justify an action which may harm the environment. The legislation is extremely vague on what will be done with respect to the Minister's activities. He is given tremendous powers, but none of them are outlined or specified.
Finally, with respect to the emergency powers which are so often crucial in an environmental crisis such as we had on two or three occasions since this Parliament began in 1984, the Minister has to consult with the provinces prior to emergency action being taken. That is surely a ridiculous approach.
In conclusion, let me just say that we urgently need a new philosophy concerning the environment. We need fairness, equality and honesty in our approach to this and other problems. We put this to the Government and urge it to move as quickly as possible to try to remedy this Bill and, we hope, do much better with what comes out of the committee hearings.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES WITH DECREASED MILITARY BUDGETS
James Douglas Manly: That, in the opinion of this House, in the interest of Canadian security and world peace, the government should consider the advisability of transferring, on an annual basis, 1 per cent of its defence budget to Official Development Assistance, over and above the present expenditure, which would be made available only to those countries which decreased their military budgets by at least 1 per cent on an annual basis.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to debate my motion which, in the interest of Canadian security and world peace, urges the Canadian Government to transfer one per cent of its defence budget to development assistance. The 1987-88 Estimates list our defence budget at $10,340 million. One per cent of that would be $103 million. My motion says
Development Assistance
that this money would be made available only to developing countries which had also cut their own military expenditures by one per cent.
The motion, therefore, requires a decrease in military spending both in Canada and in developing countries. I am sure that all Members in this House are aware of the link between military spending and underdevelopment in our world. The most dramatic statement of that link for me came in the spring of 1986 when an Ethiopian Cabinet Minister told me and some other Members of this House that if it were not for military spending Ethiopia could have fed itself during the 1984 famine.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, in its study last spring and fall of official development assistance, and in its final report For Whose Benefit? notes this link. I would like to quote from it on human rights and militarization as follows:
It is alarming when Third World countries spend more on the military than on basic needs such as health, education and other social services. Some of the African countries most at risk from famine-Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Mozambique-are also countries torn apart by internal violence. In 1984, the value of arms imports to Africa exceeded that of grain imports. In Central America, too, armed conflicts have devastated local economies and caused untold human suffering. Under these circumstances, programming long-term development aid is very difficult.
Moreover, while high levels of military spending may sometimes be justified as necessary self-defence against aggression, all such cases should be examined critically in regard to continued eligibility for ODA (official development assistance).
The report emphasizes the following:
Our aid should not allow any government to spend more on arms and less on basic needs than it otherwise would. In keeping with our own priorities and values, Canada should ask questions and expect answers in the case of recipient countries whose governments' budget allocations put more emphasis on the military than on programs of social and economic welfare.
More generally, because the issue of disarmament and development is a critical one that ultimately affects us all, the Committee urges Canada to take a leadership role in discussions of this subject in multilateral forums.
Canada should also work with others to control the traffic in arms destined for developing countries.
The approach taken by the committee to this link is basically the desire to use development assistance as some kind of sanction. When there is too much emphasis on military spending in developing countries we should be very careful about the kind of development assistance that we give. I endorse that point of view, but I think it would also help if we took a positive approach, if we used the carrot as well as the stick. That is what my motion attempts to do.
Doug Roche, our Ambassador for Disarmament, quoted former United States President Eisenhower who said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed.
Today world expenditures on armaments equal $1 trillion or $1,000 billion. That $1 trillion is directly related to the death every day of 40,000 children from hunger or hunger-related

September 25, 1987
Development Assistance
disease, a modern holocaust which is related to the $1 trillion which we spend every year on military equipment and the military.
We will all remember that last July it was estimated that the total population of our world finally passed the 5 billion mark. For 5 billion people on our planet we are spending $1,000 billion on arms. That works out to $200 for every man, woman and dying child on this planet. If we compare that expenditure of $200 per capita for every human being on this planet with the Gross National Product per capita of some of the poorer countries, we will see just how immoral this whole situation is.
In 1982, Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, had a Gross National Product per capita of $290. Bangladesh had a GNP of $140 per capita; Nepal, $160; Burma, $190; Laos, $90; Chad, $80; Ethiopia, $150; Mali, $170; and Zaire, $180.
These are 1982 figures, and I presume they are up slightly since then. However, it gives us some sense that the total income per capita of some poor countries is less than what the world spends on an average on munitions.
Of course, these poor countries are not at all guiltless when it comes to their own spending priorities. With extremely limited public revenue many of the poorest countries have spent a disproportionate amount of their funds on the military. This can perhaps sometimes be understood in the light of the need for some defence against a real enemy. However, too often these expenditures are used by the military and dictators to repress their own people.
While we can all recognize this link in general terms, I think we need to explore it in a little more detail. In fact, if we look at the situation we will see that military expenditures in the Third World account for 25 per cent of the total debt burden of $950 billion held by developing countries. Military expenditures result in a bad disproportion of the economic priorities of these countries. The need for money to pay for military hardware leads to an increased emphasis on cash crops for exports. To get those cash crops peasants are forced off land which had been used for generations for subsistence farming.
We see increasing evidence in our world that when every Third World country is pushing exports of basic commodities, basic commodities tend to glut world markets and the price is driven down, forcing nations ever deeper into debt and forcing them to submit to the IMF prescription which cuts back on social programs, cuts wages, and insists on opening up their economies to foreign ownership.
This is a vicious cycle. Instead of military spending actually defending the sovereignty of these countries, it actually betrays their sovereignty. In Third World countries a military elite tends to attract the best and brightest of the educated young people. Instead of going into medicine, education, business, engineering, or one of the trades, they go into the military. The sectors that are more closely related to the needs of the people
are ignored. Many young people go into the military because they are concerned about their families. The military gives a dependable income that cannot be found in an otherwise harassed economy.
Military expenditures lead to the militarization of political power. All over the Third World we have seen a proliferation of military dictatorships. Finally, the very heavy spending on the military leads directly to the start and prolongation of local wars.
Since the end of World War II, the Armed Forces of some 90 different countries have been involved in war-war is defined as a state where more than a thousand people per year have been killed. The territory of more than 80 countries has been involved in war. We see the direct effect of military expenditures on the Third World.
How about the developed world? The two superpowers, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R., account for half of the trillion dollars expended for arms throughout our world. It is very difficult to get accurate figures, particularly from Russia which claims military expenditures of some $22 billion a year, while western experts estimate that it would probably be ten times that amount. The United States is more open about its spending which totals approximately $300 billion a year. Those two countries account for more than $500 billion of arms spending a year.
What are the effects of that spending on those two countries? We are all aware of the shortage of basic consumer goods in the United States, and the growing pockets of persistent poverty characterized by malnutrition. There is hunger in the United States, lack of decent housing, deteriorating cities, and a lack of access to health and education services. This poverty in the richest nation in the world contrasts with the growing affluence in some of the sunbelt states that profit from military contracts. The spiralling deficit in the United States is directly attributable to military spending. As in the Third World, the armed forces and military research take a disproportionate share of the best and brightest of American and Russian youth.
The ostensible purpose of all this spending is to provide us with more security. Earlier this year our Minister of National Defence released a White Paper calling for massive expenditures in order to obtain nuclear submarines for Canada. This is supposed to increase our security as Canadians. We all know that it will do no such thing.
In recent weeks one event more than any other has given an increased sense of security to Canadians and to other people throughout the world. It was the agreement reached by President Reagan and Gorbachev to get rid of some 1,000 nuclear missiles from Europe and the Soviet Union. Getting rid of these nuclear missiles brought a sense of increased security, not the hardware itself.
September 25, 1987

Earlier I talked about the immoral expenditure of money on weapons. In another sense, it has always been easier to get the weapons in the first place than to get rid of them later on. Last week's agreement came after months and years of negotiations, wranglings, false hopes and dashed expectations. How ironic it is that we can all heave a collective sigh of relief when the superpowers are able to agree to remove weapons that were supposed to be designed to protect us. It is increasingly ironic that at the same time Canadians are contemplating increasing our own contribution to the arms race.
As a middle power, Canada is not in the arms race in the same manner as the United States or Russia, or even as France, Britain, or West Germany. We still spend $10.3 billion a year on it. There are calls for us to spend more in the name of national security. At the present time I am not naive enough to argue for unilateral disarmament. I do maintain that increasing our military expenditures will not increase either our sense of security or our real security.
On the other hand, anything that we could do to relieve or decrease the level of world tension would help our security.
Murray Thomson of Peacefund Canada, has quoted the late Olaf Palme of Sweden who said, "Security must be achieved not against one adversary but together with him". In our world that is very true. We must find some method of common security. We cannot have some type of fortress mentality that will guarantee our security against an adversary.
On the face of it, a 1 per cent decrease in arms spending by Canada would not be very significant. But it would be a start, and it would require a reciprocal decrease in some of the Third World countries. The idea of taking money from armaments and putting it toward development is not new.
Clyde Sanger in his 1981 book entitled Safe and Sound: Disarmament and Development in the 80s, summarizes the results of Inga Thorsson's three-year United Nations study on disarmament and development. He pointed out that there have been several different proposals to deal with this issue.
For example, in 1955, Prime Minister Edgar Faure of France proposed that all countries reduce military expenditures by an increasing percentage each year and contribute some of the savings to a development fund.
In 1956, Russia called for a 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in her own arms expenditures as well as those of the United States, Britain, and France. Again, some of the savings would go to development.
In 1973, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a U.S.S.R. resolution calling for a 10 per cent reduction in the military budgets of the five permanent members of the Security Council, stipulating that one-tenth of that reduction would go to development assistance.
There have been other proposals from Romania, Brazil, Senegal, and France.
Development Assistance
My proposal, Mr. Speaker, is more modest. It does not need to wait for the big military powers to agree. Canada can lead the way along with one or two Third World countries.
On August 24 of this year, our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), speaking at the international conference on the relationship between disarmament and development, stated, " . . . the test of this conference will be what we do, not what we say. There is rhetoric enough on the evil of arms and the need for development. What we must seek to achieve here is practical co-operation, not mutual recrimination". He also stated, "The relevant question is how do we make progress, not whom do we blame".
He went on to say, "As a first step now, we should attach higher priority to the development of confidence-building measures, which are a prerequisite to any major arms limitation agreement". He pointed to the examples of Europe and Central America. He stated, "These examples differ in form, but demonstrate that small, steady, practical steps can create the confidence that leads to progress. We should increase our efforts to promote such co-operation at the regional level".
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my proposal to take 1 per cent of our defence budget and make it available for development assistance to countries in the Third World that decrease their own military spending would be one such small step. It would be a small step that Canada is uniquely situated to make, a small step for Canada, but if followed by others it could be a big step toward world peace and security.
IVIrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare): Like many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is interesting, but in fact it is unrealistic.
As my colleague pointed out a few moments ago, I also think that Canadians are supportive of disarmament, but in a world-wide context. He would want that to be done as soon as possible on a world-wide basis.
Still, Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind the fact that nations have been making and keeping arms for quite some time, and that they will continue to do so as long as they have reasons to justify this course of action.
If I take a closer look at the motion before the House today, it reflects the widespread notion that there is a causal link-I would almost say a reverse connection-between defence and development expenditures. The belief appears to be that a reduction in defence expenditures will be followed by a corresponding increase in funds earmarked for international development. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not work out quite that way.
Admittedly, if billions of dollars are spent every year on armed forces throughout the world, there is a connection, but

September 25, 1987
Development Assistance
it relates to the billions of dollars which cannot be spent on the other needs of the people of the world. These needs are numerous and vie for funds which are already limited. Some which come to mind immediately include medical research, education, environmental protection, housing, day care centres, and care for senior citizens. The connection between defence and development is not exactly a particular case, for the same link exists between any other two sectors affected by public spending. In every country efforts are made to grab every spare dollar from military appropriations, and people dream of the day when nations will feel secure enough to spend less on armaments.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I said that the proposition of my colleague is interesting. As 1 see it, its best feature is its inherent originality based on an excellent basic principle.
The Hon. Member is quite right to suggest that Third World countries must be encouraged to reduce their military spending. The defence budget of developing countries is minimal when compared with their outlays for all other social endeavours, be it health, education or the environment. Canada can certainly help restore the balance and reverse the trend in Third World countries seeking to improve their defence, and it will do just that.
1 commend the Hon. Member for suggesting that nations ought to be encouraged to cut down military expenditures, but his approach leaves me wondering. 1 think it is a good principle which is badly applied and raises a series of questions and problems.
First, taking money for aid out of the military budget of Canada could be a symbolic gesture, but it would also be an arbitrary reduction which would not take into account the real needs and costs of maintaining armed forces in Canada. It would be a mistake to think that our defence budget just sits there until it is put to good use. 1 believe that this is an important point.
Second, if we think about the recipients, it seems to me that the mechanism suggested would be perceived as a paternalistic gesture by the Third World, and even as an attempt to corrupt other countries. Developing countries are as sensitive as we are about their national sovereignty. They want to make their own decisions about matters which concern them, such as defence, in spite of our disapproval in many cases.
Third, the mechanism suggested would inevitably favour offending countries. It would reward those that have chosen to spend a lot for defence in the past and are now reducing somewhat their expenditures and completely ignore those that have allocated a large part of their resources to development for years and have kept their military budget very low.
Fourth, and this is a fundamental point in my opinion, this approach does nothing to attack the cause of the problem, that is the reason why developing countries spend too much for military purposes. It would only hide a few symptoms and could only be a symbolic gesture.
Why do so many Third World governments spend so much for their armed forces? Because they lack confidence, because they fear their neighbours or because of internal tensions or discontent on the part of their population. The causes are varied and therefore require a varied response.
Many aspects of Canada's foreign policy can help to deal with the root causes of the problem, and this is exactly what this Government has done and is still doing. For instance, we are trying to alleviate tensions and insecurity in Southern Africa by providing support to front-line countries and to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference. On the other hand, we are also putting pressure on the South African Government to abolish apartheid and let its neighbours live in peace. In Central America, we have given our full support to the Contadora proposals and are now supporting the conditions for peace proposed by the leadership of countries in the region.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, governments spend too much money on armaments when they fear the reactions of the population, the reactions of people who are desperate and have nothing to lose. We are terrified at the way those governments make ill use of their powers, infringe upon human rights, and resort to weapons for domestic repression. In my view, the Canadian Government is not taking all the steps needed, two of which I would like to examine more closely.
First, we must increase our external help. We must make it more efficient, we must better target it to those who are the most in need, the most vulnerable. The Government's response to the report of our Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and External Trade is ample proof that such steps are being taken now. We are now going to decentralize our public development assistance mechanisms and transfer them to regional offices and we will make them more flexible. Also, we will further concentrate on fighting poverty and improving human resources in developing countries. All those improvements are aimed at giving those populations the hope of a better life, and the opportunity to contribute to the development of their countries, so as to lessen domestic tensions, and we hope that those governments will feel a lesser need to resort to armed repression.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we can also help in encouraging and supporting the growth of civic institutions and social values that still remain to be developed in some Third World countries, if they are to enjoy peace, stability and the respect of human rights. The Government response to the report of the Standing Committee outlines the policy followed by Canada in this very sensitive area, which is to take action which will not be punitive or lead to confrontation, but be positive, constructive and supportive.
I am glad that the Hon. Member saw fit to raise this very important issue, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the policies followed by the Canadian Government are helping to reduce the need for Third World countries to spend their meager financial resources on weapons. I approuve the suggestion of
September 25, 1987

the Elon. Member to provide an incentive for them to do so, but I believe that the formula he suggests is impractical. I have nothing better to suggest, but if someone else has any brilliant ideas, I think that we should at least consider them.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the policies of the Canadian Government help to maintain a balance between national security, world peace and international development, in the best interests and with the support of the Canadian population.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to, first, of course, commend the proposer of this motion for his sincerity because I believe he is a member, as I am, of the group which was investigating changes to the policies and improvements to the policies of our Development Assistance Program. He made a very helpful contribution in that regard.
I am sure that the other members of my caucus would join me, as I am sure other Members of the House would join me, in favouring world peace. We all favour world peace. We would all like to see world disarmament. Our country has contributed to both these causes. We would all like to work for the reduction of military spending and an increase in development aid to countries throughout the world so that their wealth may be increased. By their improvements we would also see a better world for ourselves and our children.
I say in all sincerity that I believe the motion is in one sense tragic. It is typical of the fantasy land or fairyland approach that we so often find espoused by members of the New Democratic Party. It calls for the Government of Canada to transfer on an annual basis 1 per cent of our defence budget to official development assistance. In other words, the Hon. Member is calling for a 1 per cent reduction of our defence budget and dedicating it to overseas development.
According to his motion, these funds would be made available only to those countries that decrease their military budgets by at least 1 per cent on an annual basis. We can all see the intention and the thrust of the motion. But it is such a simplistic approach, an over-simplified way to find an answer to the problem.
What does this motion try to achieve? Does it try to achieve disarmament? Does it try to disarm Canada? Does it try to disarm the states being provided with our assistance? Does it try to bring about justice or peace? No matter which of these objectives we attribute to the motion, it fails totally.
There are many countries which receive our aid and which need more of our aid which would suffer from such limitations. 1 cite, for example, Mozambique. Mozambique is one of a number of front-line states which is faced with a life and death military struggle with South African terrorism and aggression. For months 1 have been demanding in the House of the
Development Assistance
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that we increase our aid to Mozambique, Earlier this week I pointed out that South Africa has mounted a deliberate campaign of aggression aimed at destabilizing the independent nations of southern Africa to make them more dependent than ever on trade and transportation links with South Africa. With this strategy in mind, Mozambique warrants special attention. It is a major transportation and communications link to all the front-line states.
I pointed out that South Africa invades Mozambique periodically, while bands of terrorists it sponsors roam the countryside spreading terror and destruction. As a result of these repeated attacks, the Government of Mozambique has been unable to deal with the unprecedented drought and floods that have plagued it throughout this decade.
The destruction of the economy and the communications system has made Mozambique the runaway winner of the International Index of Human Suffering, which is devised from a rating of human misery in more than 100 countries. Mozambique rated 95 out of the highest possible level of suffering, which is 100.
Statistics released by UNICEF in January of this year revealed the startling fact of the human tragedy in Mozambique. The 1983-84 famine in Mozambique resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 people. The contributing factor which resulted in the famine other than weather or agricultural policy was the dislocation of rural life and food production in southern Mozambique by South African-sponsored rebels. The 1986 statistics state that approximately 140,000 children from both Mozambique and Angola have died from war and destabilization-related causes. In view of this tragic situation in Mozambique it is clear that these people require more than emergency food aid and some $25 million in aid from CIDA.
I would also like to point out that South African terrorism and aggression has been a destabilizing problem for the other front-line states, other states that receive aid from Canada. These include Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Angola, Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana. These nations are facing military incursions right now. At the upcoming Commonwealth Conference it is up to Canada to bring forward its concerns with respect to the military problems faced by these front-line states. It was suggested by our High Commissioner in London that, possibly, we should send to the front-line states military boots and other non-lethal military equipment to help these countries survive the attacks of South Africa or the guerillas which it sponsors.
It is clear that we have talked about the possibility of peacekeeping forces, either United Nations or Commonwealth peace-keeping forces. This means that Mozambique and the front-line states are facing military problems. In view of the fact that Mozambique is spending 42 per cent of its budget on defence, what a strange suggestion it would be then that we should now go through the NGOs and other organizations and give more money to Mozambique for non-military purposes

September 25, 1987
Development Assistance
while asking it to cut back its ability to defend itself in the face of the very problem that is destroying it, which is a military problem.
That would be the result of such an idea as expressed in the motion which is before us. It would bring about tragic results since it would make a demand on Mozambique to cut back its military forces. It seems somewhat inconsistent that our NDP colleagues want to see us do something about these front-line states in order to help them, and then on the other hand suggest that we pass a motion that would cut back by 1 per cent their ability to fight militarily, something which they do in a weakened state as it is. Would the NDP want us to cut back on the aid we give to Nicaragua, or not give it aid? After all, it has to expend its military forces to fight off the American-backed Contras and their terrorist bands. Perhaps the NDP would like to see Nicaragua cut back its military spending by 1 per cent in order to receive our overseas development assistance?
The terms of the motion show the inconsistency of this particular suggestion. We cannot link on the one hand the cutting back of aid or allow these countries to spend their military budgets, while on the other hand increasing aid to them on the other side of the ledger. Some countries could not afford such a program. It would be tragic to impose such a program on them.
The NDP is inconsistent in other ways as well. We have had presented to us by it the idea that Canada should cut back its spending on defence by 1 per cent. I suggest that, too, would be an inconsistent idea, if the NDP is also calling for us to withdraw from NATO. If we were to withdraw from NATO, it seems to me that we would have to spend more on defence rather than less, if we are to maintain our sovereignty. If we are to maintain our sovereignty and our independence by withdrawing from an umbrella organization in which we share the costs, then it seems to me that Canada would be reducing its ability to be effective, unless it increases its military spending.
As a matter of fact, perhaps the NDP realizes that it is not less defence spending that we need but better priorities on what we spend it. Canada requires defence spending if it is to continue its peace-keeping work. Canada requires more defence spending if it intends to play a larger role in the monitoring and the verification of disarmament. This inconsistency to withdraw from NATO and at the same time cut back on defence spending does not seem to make sense.
Another point I would like to make is that we have a long history of NDP ideas which reek of inconsistencies and contradictions. First, we witnessed the proposal to cut back on NATO spending. Then we heard from the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) her support for terrorism and violence. Now we must endure this equally ludicrous motion of the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).
I wonder what is next to come from this Party of military strategists!


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if a Canadian Government implemented the substance of the motion as proposed by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), funds earmarked for defence would be diverted to official foreign development assistance. On the surface no one can, if one assumes the world is perfect, argue against such a well-intentioned objective. I reinforce the fact that I honestly feel that the motion is well-intentioned. However, the world is not perfect. It would appear that the motion and most of the foreign and defence policies of the Hon. Member's Party seem to come from the same naive idealistic base.
I would argue that the support accorded by the NDP for such policies conveniently ignores the historical, current, and future realities governing world affairs. They conveniently deny the existence of Canadian defence and economic priorities which have and will continue to be fashioned in a manner that reflects the fact that Canada exists in an interdependent and imperfect world.
In the real world in which we live, Canada need not apologize to anyone on the level of development assistance provided to other countries. However, up to very recently, June 5 to be precise, this was not quite the case for Canada's defence effort.
From a situation where Canada had firmly established itself as a credible actor on the world stage, through collective defence efforts in World War I, World War II, Korea, and NATO and NORAD in the post-war era, and through a multitude of diplomatic initiatives, many through the United Nations, Canada's international reputation became tarnished because of the defence policies of the previous Government. This is the situation which the present Government is correcting.
For over 16 years Canadian defence policy was underfunded. As a result, equipment in the Canadian Armed Forces is inadequate in quantity and quality. Even when the former Government belatedly decided to embark upon a re-equipment program, it made no long-term commitment for funding. How could the defence planners work in this environment when it can take more than 15 years to implement fully the acquisition of major weapons systems? The previous Government had no sense of vision when it came to defence policy.
On June 5, when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) tabled the Government's White Paper, a visionary defence policy was set out. It was based on the realities of the world and Canada's role in it; on the only sound concept for the country, that of collective defence; on the economic abilities of our country; and on the will of all Canadians to defend our democratic way of life.
September 25, 1987

How can the Hon. Member suggest that funds should be diverted from the defence budget? I would assume that he has consulted with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), or indeed his own Leader. When the Hon. Member for Brant announced his Party's position on defence matters last summer, no cuts were proposed. In fact, evidence shows that defence spending would increase under an NDP Government. 1 think this reinforces the NDP's position of consistently being inconsistent.
It was admitted at that time that indeed the previous Liberal Government had underfunded the defence effort and had left defence policy in shambles.
1 should like to say a few words on two other key elements of Canadian security policy-disarmament and development assistance. The position of the Government regarding the relationship between disarmament and development is well established. It was made clear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) at the UN Conference on this subject which was held in New York last month. Both remain major commitments of the Government. We continue to view both as fundamental policy objectives but as distinct processes related only through security. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs noted in his statement to the General Assembly, "Progress toward development and progress toward disarmament can both contribute to that security, but their relationship is not simple".
The approach to both must be global in scope and involve all countries. Both must be pursued together, recognizing that Governments are unlikely to disarm at the expense of what they consider their security in order to divert funds to development. We must accept that the level of a nation's security is the main criterion against which efforts for disarmament must be measured. Security is the touchstone. The reality is that each nation will judge its own security in its own terms.
In this sense security involves not only a military dimension but a state's economic and social well-being. A nation's security is the main criterion against which efforts for disarmament must be measured, not the level of economic gain. Development in its broadest sense can contribute to security by helping to create a stable international system. This will in turn diminish the importance of military strength as an element in a nation's security. Collaboration at all levels will be the mainstay of this process. It will remain necessary to continue to support and to further, as we are dedicated to do, existing global and regional institutions and agreements which promote disarmament and development.
In respect of the particular proposal made by the Hon. Member, the Government continues to believe that the idea of any prescribed transfers of funds saved through disarmament is unrealistic. Such savings when and where they occur can be used to support broad development objectives in numerous ways, such as debt reduction, stimulation of trade, investment and economic growth. These decisions are primarily for sovereign Governments to make in accordance with their own
Development Assistance
assessments of circumstances and events. Rather than specify particulars, we believe the accent should remain on a practical approach to these issues. It is a question of political will and of giving support to existing development and disarmament institutions and negotiations.
A further difficulty with the motion is more fundamental. Disarmament and development each constitute basic and longstanding government commitments whose importance has been consistently reaffirmed in annual expenditure reviews by Cabinet. The notion, therefore, that Canadian defence expenditures should be reduced for the purpose of transferring funds for development in the Third World ignores the fact that the level of such expenditures is decided in accordance with over-all security considerations.
Furthermore, Canadian development assistance is provided in accordance with well-established socio-economic criteria which, in the Government's view, must remain the principal guide. Even if any potential recipient country were to reduce military spending by 1 per cent, we would not wish to provide development assistance to a country on this basis. The Government would continue to insist that socio-economic determinants for the allocation of development assistance be given priority, if only to ensure that official development assistance is allocated in the most effective way.
In advocating this approach we do so from a position of strength and achievement. We have since 1949 provided $24 billion in official development assistance. Unlike the situation in some other parts of the world, none of this has been used for military assistance. The global ratio of military spending to official development assistance stands at about twenty to one. In Canada, the ratio is four to one, among the lowest in the world.
In disarmament, we continue to participate actively in all multilateral arms control and disarmament forums where our contribution is well established and of long standing. We make our views known at the bilateral level.
We are set on a course of action dedicated to the enhancement of our security and to international security in its most basic sense. This is consistent with both our policy on disarmament and our commitment to development. The motion put by the Hon. Member does not support this purpose.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I did not intend to rise, but one might say that I have been provoked by the interventions of my colleagues from the Liberal and Conservative Parties.
I understood this to be Private Members' Hour. I thought we were here as individual Members of Parliament to debate a matter of substance rather than engage in a partisan harangue about the policies of particular Parties. I am a little disappointed in that regard. I think it is important for us as individual

September 25, 1987
Development Assistance
Members of Parliament to have serious debates about important questions.
Let me remind Hon. Members of what the Hon. Member's motion says. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, in the interest of Canadian security and world peace, the government should consider the advisability of transferring, on an annual basis, 1 per cent of its defence budget to Official Development Assistance, over and above the present expenditure, which would be made available only to those countries which decreased their military budgets by at least 1 per cent on an annual basis.
The strongest criticism levelled against this motion was that it was naive, well-intentioned and idealistic. It is incredible that my colleague has the effrontery to be idealistic. Can one imagine being idealistic in this place? Why did he not bring forward a motion that was cynical, manipulative and realistic? That would have found support on all sides of the House, I am sure.
Yes, of course the motion put by my colleague is idealistic. Rather than putting it down for that, why do we not acknowledge that the concepts in this motion are in fact prophetic, not in the sense of being unrealistic but in the sense of having a broader perspective on reality, of having a vision of the kind of global society in which we must live. If such a society is to come about, we must start taking steps in that direction now.
I would like to challenge Hon. Members who found fault with this motion to come up with alternative proposals that would do what this motion seeks to do. What does this motion seek to do? As 1 read it, it links official development assistance with defence spending and provides that we take some practical action in that area. It points out that the nations of this world spend far too much on military budgets relative to what is spent on human and economic development.


John Barry Turner: A trillion dollars.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, a trillion dollars. As a result of underspending on human development, some 40,000 children die each day.


John Horton McDermid: Those are the countries that are spending the money. That is the point.


Cyril Keeper: Obviously my colleague across the way does not understand that there is a link between spending money on arms and spending it on development. Hon. Members across the way do not seem to appreciate that unless we as a planet stop putting all those trillions of dollars into swords and start putting them into ploughshares, we will not be able to do something about the fact that 40,000 children die each day. That is the central point of the motion.
In the absence of any other practical, or even cynical or manipulative motion that would take us in the direction of a world with a new set of priorities, this motion must be supported. For too long we have spent far too much on the world's military budget. We must shift that priority. We must
find ways to resolve conflicts between nations in a peaceful way rather than always relying on guns.
We cannot feed everyone, we cannot house everyone and we cannot provide the water that everyone on this planet needs without shifting our priorities. That is why defence spending should be linked to development spending. There is no way that we can continue to spend as much as we are spending now on military budgets and at the same time spend money on development. We must do both, and that means that we must find a new way of resolving problems and conflicts. This motion identifies that link and asks that we take action now. Until someone from any corner of this Chamber comes up with an alternative practical suggestion that we can support, let us support this motion. Let us do something.


John Horton McDermid: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Development Assistance

It being 3 p.m., the Elouse stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 3 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, September 28, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers