1987-03-04

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment at the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to withhold the renewal of licences for scallop fishermen for the 1987 season. During the Christmas break, in fact on December 29, 1986, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) released a press release indicating the plan for 1987. So much for openness by the Government which campaigned on that in the 1984 election. Once again an arbitrary decision was made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with no thought or consideration of the effect this measure will have on the lives and livelihoods of the fishermen affected.
In order to qualify for the new licences, fishermen must have landed scallops valued at $350 during any of the last five years. However, this arbitrary threshold ignores the fact that many fishermen simply do not sell their catch. Many keep the scallops for their own consumption, thereby significantly augmenting their over-all income, which is very limited. I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to rescind this order immediately and to end this unfair and arbitrary decision affecting the inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic region.


CHALLENGES TO MEET
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this being the week marking International Women's Day, all men and women must now ask themselves what progress has been accomplished since women took to the streets to claim their equality rights.
As women, Mr. Speaker, we are forced to conclude that even though there has been some progress at various Government levels since the Progressive Conservative Party took office, be it with respect to employment equity or appointments to the upper echelons of the Public Service, unfortunately some deplorable situations still remain in day-to-day life.
Specifically, violence against women in films, television and pornographic literature; minimum and hardly enforced sentences for sexual assaults against women; lack of adequate day care services; wage disparities, particularly in private industry; lack of social incentives with respect to sharing parental responsibilities, just to name a few.
Mr. Speaker, women did make some progress since they first demonstrated in public, but we have to admit that the fight is not over yet and that they still have a long way to go.


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the meat packing industry has played an important role in the economic life of Winnipeg. Its well-being has been a major concern to workers in the industry in Winnipeg, as well as farmers across Manitoba.
Recently Canada Packers announced that it would close its plant in Winnipeg. This will mean the lay-off of almost 1,000 workers, many of whom have worked for the company for 20 or more years and will have great difficulty finding other employment. The decision by Canada Packers to close this plant was, to a large extent, brought about by the federal Government's funding for a new pork killing and processing plant in Neepawa. The Food and Commercial Workers Union warned the Government that the establishment of that plant would mean the likely closing of the Canada Packers plant in Winnipeg.
Burns and Company which has a plant in Winnipeg is contemplating the establishment of an expanded plant, which would mean 200 new jobs. I call on the Minister to make it a condition of government assistance in building the plant that

March 4, 1987
the company give first choice of new jobs to workers at Canada Packers who are laid off.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt because this is the time for Members' statements. However, I want to bring to the attention of Members that we have been going over the allotted 60 seconds for these statements. It is giving me difficulty because it is cutting down on the number of Members who can be heard. I do not want to interrupt a Member because these are important matters. I just want to give some notice that I will have to stand and ask Members to stay within the limit. I just want to give that notice now.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to comment on the plight of Soviet Jews. Many Jews have been denied the right of family reunification. Thousands of refusniks who have applied for exit have had their visas denied. More important, after a refusnik applies to leave, it seems that more often he or she is subject to being dismissed from his or her job. Furthermore, some have had their children expelled from school, some are being arbitrarily arrested, and some have had their personal property confiscated. Because of these Draconian measures, many more are afraid to apply for an exit visa to leave Russia.
When the Helsinki Accord was signed in 1975, one of the main principles agreed to was that participating states would deal in a positive humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family. As a signatory to that accord, the Soviets have clearly not abided by this agreement.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to continue his good efforts in having the Soviets agree to allow these persecuted Jewish people the freedom to leave and join their loved ones in Israel and other nations around the world.


HOUSING
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, according to a Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada press release, a Gallup poll indicates widespread support for co-operative housing organizations: 72 per cent of respondents agree that housing co-operatives should be subsidized to give people an opportunity to find affordable
housing. There are a number of housing co-ops in Montreal, especially in my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic. Mr. Speaker, I was able to see for myself that this kind of housing offers advantages to the residents and the whole community.
In Canada last year, 3,500 new co-op units were built throughout the 10 provinces and two territories. Therefore the number of co-op housing units built in such remote localities as Yellowknife does not meet the demand.
I would urge the Minister responsible for housing to continue to make every effort to meet the needs of poorer Canadians. I would also urge him to find new solutions to provide more financial support to men and women who are not destitute enough to be eligible for Government assistance, yet not so well-off as to be able to find decent housing without having to tighten their belts unduly.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's mining regions reacted very positively to the last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Since February 19 I have been receiving calls to congratulate and thank us for maintaining the flow-through shares program. For many months I have been speaking out in support of this program, admirably seconded by the Quebec Prospectors Association and representatives from the mining industry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and across this country.
Mr. Speaker, we made the point that the benefits of this financing program outweigh what it costs governments in loss of tax revenue. Flow-through shares are effective instruments for providing incentives to major economic activity in Canada's mining regions. Flow-through shares benefit the economically weaker northern regions of our provinces. Mr. Speaker, flow-through shares must be maintained under our upcoming tax reform.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, in a cross-Canada Gallup poll conducted in January of this year, 72 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: "The Government should allocate subsidies for housing co-operatives as a way of providing affordable housing to Canadians". As well, 56 per cent of renters said they would be willing to try co-ops
March 4, 1987

themselves. Yet the Government went back on its promise to provide 5,000 co-op units per year. Instead, it is going ahead with only 3,200 units. This is a significant decline from previous years. It has as well reneged on its commitment to provide 1,500 rent supplemented co-op housing units for 1986. That number has been reduced to 950.
The Co-operative Housing Foundation, which is the voice of Canada's 1,100 non-profit housing co-operatives, wants to know why the federal Government is cutting back when Canadians are saying co-op housing is a high priority. Co-op housing has a proven record and strong public support. I call upon the Government to authorize the promised 5,000 co-op housing units and to release funds for the full 1,500 rent supplemented units.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Canadian beef producers for meeting the needs of health conscious Canadians. Consumers can now be assured that the beef they serve their families is as low or lower in cholesterol than most other meats, including fish and chicken, while at the same time remaining a good source of iron and other essential nutrients.
I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and Agriculture Canada for undertaking research to establish the latest figures on the healthfulness of Canadian beef. This data will now be included in the nutrient file of Health and Welfare Canada and its subsequent publication entitled "Nutrient Value of Some Common Foods". This is good news for all Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Paul Nitze, the senior adviser to the President on arms control, is coming to Ottawa this week to brief the Canadian Government on the White House's reinterpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so as to enable extensive testing of the Strategic Defence Initiative known as star wars.
The response of the Canadian Government should be firm. There is no need for a reinterpretation of that treaty. Although it was signed only by the two superpowers, it is not a private contract to be nit-picked by lawyers in the Kremlin and the White House simply to provide new interpretations which
would permit the extensive testing of this new defensive system.
All humanity has a stake in that treaty. It is the very cornerstone of arms control. The reinterpretation which is sought by the United States could seriously jeopardize the future of arms control negotiations.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in 1983, the Liberal Party of Canada, today represented in the House by 40 Members with as many different positions, concluded an agreement with the United| States to allow the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada.
In November 1986 at their Party convention, those same Liberals decided to demand an end to the testing of U.S. Cruise missiles in Canada.
In February 1987, the official defence critic for the Liberal Party said that testing should be stopped immediately. Visibly embarrassed, the Leader of the party remarked that Liberal Members, even senior members, should not make statements on the missile issue on behalf of the Party. As soon as the Leader of the Liberal Party finished speaking, another member, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri Westmount (Mr. Johnston), the Liberal critic for external affairs, said he agreed with his colleague from Sudbury.
The Liberal Leader was embarrassed again, and said rather awkwardly that he would have something to say when he had something to say.
Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Liberal Party of Canada had no ideas or programs or policies, but is it leaderless as well?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are already some inequities showing in the Special Canadian Grains Program, the $1 billion assistance program to farmers. Some $700 million of the program remains to be paid out. The initial payment has been mailed out to farmers. It was based on a system of providing yield averages based on large crop insurance districts, as opposed to the average

March 4, 1987
Oral Questions
production potential of each farm, as was understood in the first place.
By using these large districts instead of actual farm production, inequities have crept in along the borders in particular. A 20 per cent or more difference exists between one road allowance and another where a farmer is caught in what is a relatively low-producing crop insurance district, even though his land is high-producing, comparable to the land of his neighbour across the road. This is creating inequities in the amounts of the payments.
As well, there are inequities in that producers of the so-called specialty crops are not covered even though their prices have fallen in response to the fall of the general market. Specialty crop prices reflect the market and are down by at least as much as the market for wheat, oats, and barley. The program should have covered those crops as well.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROMOTION CAMPAIGN BY DELEGATION VISITING EUROPE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, a contingent of some 20 Canadian maritime and government officials is now taking part in a joint Canada-United States trade mission to northern Europe. The purpose of the mission is to promote greater use of the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system. They have already met and were well-received by their counterparts in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. They have still to visit Dusseldorf, Antwerp and London.
The Canadian delegation is led by William O'Neil, President of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, along with representatives from two provinces, the users, and port and seaway officials. The delegation is joined by a 22-member contingent from the United States.
This mission, coupled with the federal Government's contribution of $175 million to rehabilitate the Welland Canal, is evidence of the Government's continuing support of the great Seaway system and its commitment to improving trade relations with northern Europe.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Today, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I met a delegation representing the former employees of the Star-Kist Canada Limited tuna packing plant in Bayside, New Brunswick.
The delegation's spokesman described for us the human tragedy which is afflicting this part of New Brunswick. Sixteen months have already elapsed since the closing of the plant which employed over 400 working men and women. The unemployment rate in this area currently reaches 36 per cent. These men and women want to work. They are recognized as the world's most productive fish processors.
Most of them have now run out of unemployment insurance benefits. Some have been placed in job creation projects, while others are on welfare.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote part of their presentation: "We beg of you today to give this matter the attention it deserves, to use all your powers to reopen the Bayside plant and make it possible for us to go back to work.''


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling Oral Questions, I think it would be appropriate for the Chair to give some indication to the Chamber with respect to the length of Question Period. The Chair has been trying very hard to ensure that the maximum number of Members are given a chance to be heard. I think Members will have noticed that, yesterday, we went perhaps a little too long. Thus, I would ask Members today to be disciplined with their preambles and remember that their colleagues are also waiting their turn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will all do our best to stay within those guidelines beginning now, and followed by the succinct, concise replies from Ministers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. It has been reported this morning that the Canadian Wheat Board is recommending a 20 per cent drop in initial grain prices. This will mean thousands more bankruptcies for Canadian farmers, particularly in western Canada. Under those circumstances, if it happens, thousands of farmers will not even bother to plant. Despite all the promises of the Government to the Canadian farmers, we are now seeing the collapse of the western grain economy. Will the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee to the House and to the Canadian farmers that initial prices this year will be at least as high as last year's prices in order to maintain some certainty in a very difficult situation?
March 4, 1987


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition should know that the Canadian Wheat Board makes recommendations to the Government as to what the initial payments should be. The Government looks at those recommendations, and at other recommendations. We are presently in that process of deciding at what level the initial payments should be.
The Right Hon. Member should also know that the Wheat Board did not make public its recommendations to the Government of Canada. What has been happening is that other analysts have been commenting on what they think the Board has recommended. In order to set the record straight, the recommendations that the Board has made to the Government are strictly confidential.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEED RETURN FOR FARMERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is this. We now have the uncertainty arising from this report, and it is incumbent upon the Minister to clarify the situation for the Canadian farmer. The Minister knows that a combination of low world grain prices, a trade war between the European Community and the United States, and the actions of this Government, frankly, are conspiring to drive the Canadian farmer off the land.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has evoked some response on this important matter. Perhaps keeping in mind the fact that we do want to allow the maximum number of questions, all Hon. Members would allow the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


John Napier Turner: I am sure we can understand the nervousness of the Members opposite. There is no Saskatchewan election this year, and there are no more votes to be bought.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: In these circumstances, the Canadian farmer is wondering how he can trust the Government.
My supplementary question to the Minister is this. In view of the uncertainty caused by this report, the Minister has admitted that there has been a recommendation for lower initial prices made by the Canadian Wheat Board-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Minister is free to stand up and say what the situation is.
Will the Minister guarantee the same return to farmers this year as they received under last year's prices? Will he do that today?
Oral Questions


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer I do not wish to minimize the difficulties that are faced in the international grain market. The Right Hon. Member should be fair about the situation. He will know that the Government and the Prime Minister have pushed for settling this dispute at the international level. In the first two years of this Government agricultural spending was increased by 62 per cent in light of the over-all reductions that were made in other government expenditures.
If the Right Hon. Member is fair, and if he has done his homework, he will know that in light of what will happen this year on spending in agriculture in western Canada, which is where the majority of grain will be produced, we intend to increase agricultural spending again by about 50 per cent. That is not abandoning the farmers. In my view, that is supporting them in a very difficult time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I wish to refer the Minister to the Canadian Press report which is far more detailed than he likes to admit.


REVENUE CANADA
John Napier Turner: wish to direct my final question to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that the farm economy is collapsing, yet his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is choosing this very time to exact his pound of flesh by conducting a massive tax audit of every Canadian farmer. He is hitting the Canadian farmer when he is down. Under the present circumstances, will the Deputy Prime Minister order his colleague to stop the tax audit immediately?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I want to assure him and all Members of the House that what he refers to as a massive tax audit or as being discriminatory toward western farmers is a complete fallacy. That is not the case at all. This particular, what he calls, audit has been directed in a gradual way across the entire country for several months. There is only a fraction of 1 per cent of farmers across the country who are even touched by the audit. There have been no reassessments. It is only done, as I am sure he as a former Minister of Finance would understand, to look at the more blatant cases where the capital cost allowance or the investment credit tax credit are being massively abused.

March 4, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER END TAX AUDIT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has already indicated that it is a wide-scale tax review and tax audit by his auditors of over 1,000 farmers, 400 in Manitoba alone. In view of the tremendous financial stress which is being put on western Canadian farmers because of the financial disaster the Minister just indicated, is the Minister willing to call off this wide-scale tax audit which he is carrying out?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague opposite, first of all, that it is not what he refers to as a wide-scale tax audit. It is directed at cases across the country, not at farmers alone but in other sectors where there are, I repeat, obvious abuses. I want to assure him and all Members of the House that several months ago I met with SMIDA. Recently I have met with Keystone Press. I have talked with Members of the House from all Parties. I am not at all interested in doing anything which will put an additional burden upon western farmers or any other sector of our economy.


INVESTIGATION OF FARM EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, farmers are being singled out and victimized by the Department of National Revenue for legitimate private purchases of farm equipment which they made in 1983 and 1984. When is a commercial agreement not a commercial agreement? Why are these being opened up? Why is the Minister not willing to call off this witch-hunt, this harassment of farmers?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect I would invite my colleague opposite to put this down for debate so that I can deal with the issue with him. I repeat, he is giving misinformation to the House. It is not an audit which is directed at farmers. It is not an audit that is singling out any part of the industry. It is simply to get the worst abuses of capital cost allowance and investment tax credits in cases where they are really not in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers as a whole. I repeat, it is not directed at farmers. It is directed at everyone or every company that is using this kind of investment tax credit or capital cost allowance in an improper way.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Just a minute ago the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board talked about what the Government had done for grain producers last year. The crisis faced by farmers is taking place this year, and they want some action by the Government. If the Government
acts on a recommended additional 20 per cent cut in the initial price, it will mean an $800 million withdrawal from the pockets of farmers, which would mean from the whole prairie economy. Will the Government quit talking in generalities and make a specific commitment today? What will it do for Canada's grain producers in this crop year?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's intervention. It should be very clear, if one examines the record, that the Government has always stood by Canadian farmers. Indeed, this year alone we have just paid out over $300 million, that is, the interim payment from the billion dollar Special Canadian Grains Program. Subsequent to that there will be another $700 million. That will be the final payment under the billion dollar program. To indicate our continuing concern and our continuing support for the farm community, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board will commence a new round of meetings with farm leaders tomorrow afternoon.


MINISTER'S ADVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture knows that what he has just rhymed off is what the Government plans to do for the current crop year. What the farmers are now making their minds up about is planting for the next crop year. Since the Minister himself said yesterday, and I quote: "Farmers must base their decisions on the market-"


Mr. McKnight:: On the Prairie you plant potatoes and corn; we seed wheat.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Hon. Member for Saskatoon would be interested in doing something for farmers instead of heckling, the farmers of western Canada would be happy.
At least the Minister is listening politely. The Minister said yesterday, "Farmers must base their decisions on the market, not on what the Government might do". Those are his words, Mr. Speaker. And if they based their decisions on the market' they are going to lose an additional $800 million this year. Is the Minister really saying to farmers either go deeply into debt, or pack up, go to Toronto and look for a job?


John Wise: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the intent. Indeed the Canadian farmers will not take it as an intent or a word of advice in that respect.


Mr.   de Jong@: They will not take it.


John Wise: The Hon. Member should realize that Canadian farm leaders themselves join with us in expressing that word of caution to the Canadian industry. I welcome the opportunity to do so again. Canadian farmers should not plan their 1987 cropping pattern based on the distribution formula in the Canadian Grains Program. We are a Government that would prefer to develop a program not in isolation but rather in
March 4, 1987

concert and in co-operation with Canadian farm leaders. That is exactly what we did in the past and that is exactly what we are going to do in the future. We are commencing that meeting tomorrow.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the case that farmers are looking for action. I am sure all Canadians were moved to see on the front page of The Winnipeg Free Press on the weekend a man who had been farming for 30 years, successfully up until the present market circumstances had devastated his prospects, who has packed up and gone off the farm. We want to put an end to that circumstance. We want Canadian farmers to farm.
Since the Europeans are helping their producers, and the Americans are helping theirs, what will the Canadian Government do in terms of a moratorium on debt, in terms of energy costs, fertilizer costs, and in terms of all the inputs? What will the Canadian Government do concretely to help our grain producers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do exactly what we have been doing, that is, working on a day-to-day basis with farm leaders, sitting down together, working out a program that will be most effective and most helpful that will keep as many Canadian farmers on the land producing food.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have not been able to get answers from either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. We know that the spokesperson for the Wheat Board has said "We are talking about nuts and bolts, economic survival and whether it is worth while for farmers to put in a crop this year". That is drastic language, Mr. Speaker. Can we not receive today a commitment from the Government that it will provide a deficiency payment for the next crop year? Farmers must decide now what to plant. They need that information if they are going to plant a crop and if we are going to have a grain economy in the west this year. Can't we get an answer today?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is a Crown corporation that operates and does a very good job as far as selling Canadian grain is concerned. It regularly makes recommendations to the Government of Canada about setting initial payments. That process is under way and is a normal kind of a process at this time of the year. We will be looking at
Oral Questions
the Wheat Board recommendations and we will be taking other things into consideration before we announce what levels the initial payments will be.
In the meantime, as I said in answer to the first question, if you could take into consideration all government spending in agriculture in western Canada, it looks as though it is likely to increase over 50 per cent in the coming crop year. That is a significant amount of benefit that will flow to grain producers who are suffering from the very severe world market declines.


Mr. Benjamin:: Fifty per cent of what?


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is true that the Wheat Board recommends but it is the Government that decides. Farmers are asking for a decision. They recognize, with the admission of the Wheat Board, that prices will be drastically lower. They need a commitment and a decision now to plant a crop for the forthcoming crop year. Let me ask again, Mr. Speaker, why will the Government not indicate clearly that it will repudiate the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and make a commitment today to provide deficiency payments so we can have crops in the ground beginning this spring?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure the Hon. Member understands the system. He was a former Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I remember one time running into him during the 1984 election and I had to give him instructions on how to sign the forms to provide for cash advances. He is demonstrating the same kind of knowledge about the system now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Just make a decision.


Charles James Mayer: The system is in place. We are in the process of determining at what levels initial payments will be. They have never been announced this early before. They were announced as late as May 15 by the Government of which you were a part-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles James Mayer: -of which the Member was a part. We will announce it at the normal time which is the middle of April.


MINISTER'S PLANS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. As a farmer, he is aware that Canadian farmers are facing a competitive world situation where European farmers will be taking home slightly more than $8 a bushel for wheat

March 4, 1987
Oral Questions
at the farm-gate and American farmers are being guaranteed, with their deficiency payments systems, something in the area of $6 Canadian per bushel. We have come through a year where the initial price we are guaranteed in effect is about $3 Canadian. We are now facing a market reaction that indicates we will have to be looking at something in excess of 20 per cent lower than that again this year. As a farmer, will the Minister tell us what he is going to be planting this year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is asking me what I am going to plant on my own farm, I will be happy to tell him. The Member is the only farmer in both opposition Parties across the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: That is true. I have faith in the ability of Canadian farmers to compete. I intend to plant on the same basis as we have in the past and what we did on my farm. I do not intend to back away from production. I intend to reduce my input costs and do the very best job I can of coping with a very difficult situation.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister then telling us that he does not expect any additional payments through a special grains program to cover the current crop year, and he is making his planting plans accordingly?


Mr. Andre:: What has that got to do with government business.


Charles James Mayer: I did not say that at all, Mr. Speaker. Probably it would be more useful for the two of us as farmers to engage in this kind of a discussion by ourselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE OF POLAND
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery today of Dr. Miroslav Cybulko, Minister of Health and Social Welfare of Poland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Brian Smith, Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Monday, the Minister of Transport tried to pull a fast one on the people of British Columbia by telling employees at Versatile Pacific in Vancouver that their company would get the contract for the Polar 8 icebreaker, while in fact there was only a letter of intent from the Government to the company. Mr. Speaker, to Quebecers this story has a familiar ring, because the Conservative Government has announced three times over that work would start on the Caribou II, the ferry that was supposed to be built at the Versatile shipyards in Lauzon, and nothing has started yet. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why, considering this contract was announced a year ago, in March 1986, work has yet to start at the Lauzon shipyards near Quebec City?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member rose to his feet to get some elucidation on this issue. Regarding the second Caribou, or the caribouboo, the contract was signed and awarded and was entered into by Marine Atlantic with the shipyard in January. That was as a result of the herculean and stupendous efforts of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who straightened out the affairs of Versatile in Quebec and saw to the sale of the operation to Marine Industries in Quebec. The Hon. Member can give the Minister full credit and I hope he will do so in his district and throughout Quebec. Tell them the truth.


INQUIRY WHEN JOBS WILL BE CREATED IN SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would come up for air, he would know that the contract was signed on March 26 but not a single job has started at the shipyard. People want action, work and jobs, not statements. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion went to Quebec City three times to announce that construction would start on the Caribou II. Five thousand shipyard workers
March 4, 1987

in Quebec are still waiting, not just for more words but for a firm commitment, for contracts and jobs, and they're not interested in funny remarks by the Minister of Transport. They want to know when work will start at the three Quebec shipyards in Montreal, Sorel and at Vickers.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no one can be sure what the workers want but what the hon. gentleman is producing for them is not likely to be what they want either. Ninety-five per cent of all the work going on in Canadian shipyards today has been put there by the Government as vessels are either being built for the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Coast Guard. The Henry Larsen is in Vancouver, and there is the Versatile shipyard, and the three Canadian patrol frigates at the Saint John Shipbuilding Company. There is a Type 1100 Canadian Coast Guard vessel at Halifax. There are two Coast Guard vessels at Sorel, and two Tribal Class destroyers at Davie. That is where the work is coming from for Canadian workers.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Scarcely a week goes by that I do not receive inquiries on family reunification and the Soviet Union. I am aware of the representations the Minister and the Prime Minister made to Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in Ottawa last fall. Has the Minister received any response to these high-level representations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest in this matter. The Prime Minister and I raised forcefully and directly the question of family reunification with Mr. Shevardnadze when he was here last fall. 1 am sure the House will be pleased to know that our Ambassador in Moscow was informed last week that of the 42 outstanding family reunification questions involving Canada, 22 have been resolved. That means that 57 individuals will be allowed to leave the Soviet Union to join their families in Canada within the next two months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope that that is a sign that the rest of the cases will be resolved and that this reflects a real change in the Soviet Union. As for the Prime Minister and I, we intend to continue to pursue the remaining Canadian cases both with renewed vigour and with renewed hope.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that in his Budget of this year there were winners and losers in the cultural area and over all it was a net loss for cultural agencies as compared with what they had before. Could the Minister explain to the Canadian public how the CBC can fulfil its mandate with only 87 per cent of the budget it had three years ago? How can it increase Canadian content when there has been this reduction in its budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more appropriately put to my colleague, the Minister of Communications who, as the Hon. Member knows, is in China this week. She should be back shortly and that would be a more appropriate time for the Hon. Member to put the question.


CORPORATION'S MANDATE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is one of government policy and commitment. The CBC has made a commitment and has been required by the CRTC to increase Canadian content. How can it fulfil that mandate to increase Canadian content without a budget? Is the Government reneging? Does it not want the CBC to fulfil that mandate? Is it against Canadian television programming?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The Minister of Communications has commented on this very point on a number of occasions in the very recent past. The Hon. Member is quite well aware of that. The CBC has been asked to work within certain budgets, as is the case with all other government Departments and Crown corporations, in the interests of dealing with the broader problem with which we are faced, the problem of the federal deficit and the growing debt. The success we have had in working on the deficit problem has led to lower interest rates, to a considerable amount of job creation, to record housing starts, to a very healthy economy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister stated on Monday that a new system for notifying Members of Parliament prior to the awarding of government contracts in their ridings is a "non-partisan

March 4, 1987
Oral Questions
mechanism available to all Members of the House". Could the Minister tell the House how she can justify this as being nonpartisan when certain ridings, including her own and that of the Prime Minister, will be notified in advance of any contract award of over $25,000 while all other ridings in Canada will only be notified if the awards are of at least $100,000 up to $400,000? Why the special treatment to herself and the Prime Minister?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this is another question that shows the Opposition has never understood regional disparity.
I announced our Government's intention to work closely with the private sector. We had to set up a pilot project, which is to end on March 20. We had to start somewhere, and who can blame me for starting with the area I know best, the Lower St. Lawrence in the Gaspe?


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Government has educated all Canadians on what regional disparity is about because it is the author of it. Let us be realistic. The Minister is targeting a national program at Tory ridings and is hiding it by calling it a pilot project. Why does the Minister not treat all Members of the House of Commons alike? Why does she not treat her own Conservative colleagues alike rather than having herself and the Prime Minister and a handful of others making-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty determining exactly what the question is.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I just said we had to start somewhere, and that considering the bureaucratic constraints under which we operate, we had to have a pilot region first. If the project proves satisfactory, it can then be extended to other pilot regions.
The figure of $25,000 was set for this pilot region because we had to consider the unemployment rate which is considerable. I know many people in the area selected who would like nothing better than have contracts worth over $400,000 on a regular basis.


CLOSURE OF PETRO-CANADA REFINERY IN MONTREAL- REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Conservative Government is setting the scene for the
gradual privatization and closure of the Montreal East Petro-Canada refinery. Last Monday, 21 workers were laid off after only a week's notice and none was offered alternative employment. Petro-Canada is behaving like a bad employer. My question is this: Will the Minister intervene, first to cancel the unwarranted dismissal of these workers, second to freeze the situation and, third, to grant a 60-day moratorium to study various ways to save these jobs in Montreal east?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is a Crown corporation which is directed to compete in the market-place with competitors. The decisions which Petro-Canada makes in these matters are those of Petro-Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada answers to the Conservative Government. Is this how the Conservative Government defends the interests of Quebec and Quebec workers?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is the responsibility of a previous Government which formed it. It is directed to compete in the market-place like any other company and that is what it is going to do. We believe in the market-place taking precedence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Good-bye, Montreal.


Mr. Fulton:: Good answer. You guys will go to zero in Quebec.


Lloyd Axworthy: Ten per cent in the west. You have a great record.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that Indonesia has officially been conducting a so-called transmigration program which has resulted in what is tantamount to genocide in East Timor and elsewhere. In view of the fact that 10,000 people have recently fled from Irian Jaya because of clandestine violence by the Indonesian Army, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs now publicly inform Indonesia that Canadians are not going to divorce their
March 4, 1987

aid program to Indonesia from their concern about the human rights situation and the cruel violation of human dignity?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Indonesia and the Governments of other countries with regard to which there are allegations of abuses of human rights know very well the position of this Government. The Prime Minister has personally raised, as Prime Ministers before him would not, questions of human rights abuses in Korea, China, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.
With respect to Indonesia, as I had occasion to indicate to the Hon. Member the other day, his facts are out of date. If he is interested in serving the interests of human rights, he should do the elemental work of getting his facts straight first.


REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO VISIT EAST TIMOR
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs recently offered me in this House the opportunity to go to Indonesia to see for myself that things are now quite fine in East Timor, as he and his Ambassador allege they are. Would he be willing to substitute for me representatives from Amnesty International or Pax Romana, or Pax Christi, or the Australian Committee for Overseas Aid, or any of a host of other non-governmental organizations, who told me last week that they are yearning for the opportunity to go to East Timor and Irian Jaya and have been flatly refused permission by the Indonesian Government time and time again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand the Hon. Member's insistence upon having other people do his work for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Be serious. It is a serious question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Treat your office seriously.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the member is making a representation to me, I will certainly convey that representation to authorities in Indonesia. He will know that they have already allowed journalists, ambassadors, and representatives of some organizations into East Timor to see for themselves. My request in return would be that, once evidence is in hand, the Hon. Member start a new practice and base his questions on facts.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for
Oral Questions
External Affairs. It relates to HITEC'87 which is the conference sponsored by his Department yesterday, today and tomorrow to promote military exports to certain parts of the world. Manufacturers have been invited to come to this conference.
Can the Minister explain why the Department would, at public expense, be promoting military and military-related exports to countries which have major human rights violations or are in the midst of conflict or are CIDA recipients? Why are we, at public expense, promoting military exports to those countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we are prepared to promote military exports is because there are a number of Canadian jobs involved in the production of military equipment. The Hon. Member, who is generally characterized by honesty in the House, will know that the term "military equipment" covers much more than weapons. I understand that she talked about military equipment, but I think it is important that it be understood that what is involved here is not necessarily weapons. It is also important that it be understood that there are some very close limits upon the exports of various kinds of military goods to various categories of countries, including those in relation to which there are allegations of human rights abuses. Indeed, I have tightened the law in that regard.


CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter to the Minister today following up on the letter I sent to him a couple of weeks ago on this subject. In view of the enormous Canadian interest, and indeed the taxpayer interest in this country, would he make available to us a list of all the trade officials who have been brought back for this conference, a list of all the companies that have been invited, a list of the companies that have attended, and a list of the proposed military exports which the Department has in mind?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, some of the information which the Hon. Member seeks may not be available for reasons of Canadian law relating to commercial confidences or to questions relating to the Privacy Act. I will, naturally, make available to her all of the information that the law allows, although I am rather surprised that she would use Question Period to raise that question rather than follow normal procedures.


Pauline Jewett: I have written to you today.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would also appreciate precision as to whether it is the view of her Party that there should be no exports of any kind of military equipment to any country receiving CIDA assistance.

March 4, 1987
Oral Questions


REFUGEES
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Mr. Speaker, the CBC has just announced that one of the Chileans who has been on a hunger strike in Montreal for nearly two weeks is expected to die within 24 hours. I would remind the Minister that the families of these strikers had already left Chili for Canada when the Government unveiled its new policy. Given this emergency situation, can the Minister announce that he will allow the families of these strikers to gain immediate entry into Canada? He can review their applications here after these families have been reunited with their relatives.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, one must not play with the lives of individuals. We are very sympathetic. As I said clearly, a people and a country cannot be held to ransom.
We cannot hold a country to ransom. We have done everything humanly possible since Sunday to analyse each case in Buenos Aires. They have not been willing to co-operate. They lost a week before returning the forms to us. All I can say is that at the end of the day, when we have had a chance to review all that has been brought forward, we will then plan how we can work with the group we have.


David Berger: We are talking about a special situation. These people had already left for Canada when the Government's policy was announced.


PROCESSING OF REFUGEE CLAIMS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, given that we are down to a number of hours, that a person's life may be hanging in the balance, and that there is no time for bureaucratic procedures, will the Minister act now and process the claims of these individuals inside Canada, which was the policy of the Government until it regrettably changed it on February 20?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians will want to be assured of who is coming to Canada. We had the right, and we only asked for some basic information. We waited a week for that information and it has taken less than three days to analyse 91 cases. We have sent resources from Santiago and we have sent resources from Ottawa. We are doing all that we humanly can.
Let me remind the Hon. Member that those people who were about to board the plane in Buenos Aires said that they were going to London, England, for a vacation. It was the Argentinian airline that decided not to let them board the
plane because they did not have transit visas. Those transit visas could have been obtained in Buenos Aires.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women.
Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that the report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women entitled Fine Balance has again pointed out a number of anomalies concerning the economic situation of women, would the Minister tell us whether she endorses this report and what measures she intends to take with respect to its findings?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the first question this week on International Women's Week. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is an agency at arm's length from the Government. It does superb research into issues of concern to women and, for the first time, has published a long-term strategic plan. Last November our Government published a work plan on behalf of the Government, which is also the first time that has happened. I am delighted to see that there is a great deal of overlap around the priorities for family and economic equality for women.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands. One question, please.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
I want to congratulate the Government for taking an important first step in ensuring a future for the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: We fully expect that Versatile will be able to meet the financial and technical requirements in order to proceed and get a firm contract to build the Polar 8. In the meantime, however, the shipbuilding industry is in real distress. Will the Minister tell us what further steps he plans to
March 4, 1987

provide shipyard jobs in the months before the Polar 8 contract can go ahead?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member is pleased that this action has been taken. It certainly is an improvement on the attitude of the Official Opposition. We appreciate a little appreciation every now and then.


An Hon. Member:: You need it, too.


John Carnell Crosbie: As a matter of fact, we do not get enough of it. The Henry Larsen is being completed at the Versatile yard. As I said earlier in Question Period, the unfortunate state of affairs is that 95 per cent of shipbuilding under way in Canada today is a result of government contracts. We will continue our shipbuilding program in Defence and in the Coast Guard. However, I cannot be any more specific than that.


Mr. Tobin:: It was under the previous Government. Give us some appreciation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't they win the election, then start talking? They would not say a word when they were in government for the last 20 years.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-467, 332-481, 332-706, 332-720, 332-723 to 332-728 inclusive, 332-762 to 332-765 inclusive, 332-770, 332791, 332-844 to 332-854 inclusive, and 332-923 and 332-1110.


Mr. Speaker:: I would draw to the attention of Hon. Members that the Minister is rising to address the Chamber. I know there is a certain amount of movement at this time because some Members must leave to attend other important matters. However, I would ask Hon. Members to give their attention to the Minister.
Statements by Ministers



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, next Sunday, March 8, will be International Women's Day. On that day, everywhere in Canada women will be taking an active part in the life of our society, as they do today and every day. At home, in their communities, and in every occupation and trade in our economy, women will be making an immeasurable contribution to our national wellbeing.
I am proud to sit in this House as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.

Our Government takes its commitment to women very seriously. It means working nationally and internationally to advance the status of women. It means living up to our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and our commitment to implement the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies.
Since my appointment to this portfolio I have had the opportunity to meet many women in different regions of this country. Just a few weeks ago I travelled to Manitoba and met with and listened to a large number of women who are working with groups involved in worthwhile projects at the community level. This week I will be at Halifax and Wolfville, Nova Scotia, and then to Montreal to do more of the same.
These informal consultations have been an enriching experience. They provide me with a first-hand view of the situations women face in different parts of our country, and an appreciation of their goals, an appreciation of their lifestyles and their concerns. These first-hand experiences offer a perspective on Canada's changing demographics as influenced by the concerns of single mothers, the special needs of immigrant women, visible minority women, rural women, and urban women.
Meeting with them and their groups in their own region has enabled me to bring back to Ottawa the perspectives and perceptions of women from all across Canada. These conversations on every trip reinforce my commitment and dedication to, as well as my affection for the women of this land.

My mandate also includes chairing meetings and coordinating the Government's response to briefs submitted by women's groups on matters of principle. In recent months, my Cabinet colleagues and I met, with representatives of the Catholic Women's League, the National Council of Women of Canada and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

March 4, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Through these meetings we keep abreast of positions taken by women's groups on various public interest issues, from child care to acid rain. The Government gives full consideration to their opinions and concerns when developing its policies and programs, in a concerted effort not to make decisions without first considering the repercussions they might have on the women of this country.
The concerns of women were high on the agenda of the March 1985 National Economic Summit. As a matter of fact, it was the first time such questions were one of the themes of a national economic conference. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) meets regularly with women's groups in the course of his pre-budget consultations. Last spring the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women set up a wide-ranging series of consultations with women's groups, and it has just concluded a national seminar on the family. I am pleased to point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and I had an opportunity to attend this seminar.
As Hon. Members know, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women functions as a valuable channel to the Government for the concerns of women across the country. It is drawn from a variety of backgrounds, regions and perspectives and council members fill dual and crucial roles, both of advising the Government and of informing and educating the public on issues of concern to women. Over the years the Advisory Council has been in the forefront of identifying issues of importance to women and responding to these issues with policy recommendations and publications.
The Council's briefs and other presentations to the Government have dealt with such important issues as women's legal status under the Constitution, unemployment insurance, pornography, prostitution, child care, divorce and family maintenance and home-makers' pensions. In its recent publications, the Council has addressed such topics as wife battering, new directions in family law, adolescents' orientation to the future and women as health guardians in the home.
I am very pleased to see its new work plan for the next few years "Equal Status for Women in Canada in the 1990s". This is indeed a future oriented group.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing a $.5 million permanent increase in the budget of the Council as recommended by the Government Task Force on Program Review. This increase will enable the Council to initiate relevant new research efforts and improve its ability to produce resource materials for new and expanded audiences. This expansion of the capabilities of the Advisory Council is further evidence of our Government's strong and unwavering commitment to the women of Canada. In the coming weeks and months, issues of interest to women will continue to be front and center on this Government's agenda.
Under the Prime Minister's leadership, our Government has brought women's concerns to the fore. Clear evidence of our commitment to women was provided in the document we published last fall Dimensions of Equality. A Federal Government Work Plan for Women. All Hon. Members of the House have received a copy. It is the first time a Government has produced a specific work plan on behalf of the women of Canada in order to give the country the knowledge and background to help us in our work on women's issues. Tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the Annual Conference of First Ministers in Vancouver last November, there has been great demand for this book from across the land. It has turned out to be one of the best things we will continue to do.
Less than four months after its tabling, a number of work plan initiatives have already been accomplished or are well underway. For example, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has announced that the Canadian Forces will conduct trials with women in combat roles. Also in keeping with the Government's commitment to expand the role of women in the Armed Forces, we have had the appointment of Canada's first woman General, Brigadier General Sheila Hellstrom, whom I am very proud to mention in the House today.
A review of sex stereotyping in internal Government communications is being completed. Labour Canada conducted an educational seminar for labour representatives on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value. The Department of the Secretary of State funded a national conference held in Toronto as a follow-up to the 1985 Nairobi Forum and United Nations' World Conference on Women.

Discussions have begun with the provinces concerning child care. I will have more to say about this in a few minutes.
Last November there was a national conference of immigrant women and visible minority women, sponsored in part by the Secretary of State and Multiculturalism Canada.
The percentage of women appointed to various positions on Government boards, agencies and councils now stands at 27, so we are very close to the 30 per cent objective we had set for ourselves at the beginning.
These are only a few of the commitments towards women which our Government has honoured. Among some of our other achievements, I might mention the reform of legislation on divorce and alimony, and the repeal of the Indian Act provisions which for decades had been discriminatory towards native women.

As well, there is employment equity legislation, the establishment of a national training and employment program which, for the first time, sets participation targets for women, measures to expand and equalize pensions and the introduction of legislation to deal with the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
March 4, 1987

At the First Ministers' Conference last November the Prime Minister described adequate child care as one of the most significant factors in ensuring the economic security of women. He has made a personal commitment to improve the accessibility, affordability, quality and flexibility of child care in Canada. I need not remind Hon. Members that child care is a serious national issue. It is a serious issue because first and foremost, it is about children, their future, their development and their place in our families and in our lives. It affects women, our society and our economy. Our Government is firmly convinced that an improved child care system will enable women who need or want to work to be in the labour force and to benefit from such a system. An improved system will provide opportunities for women to take the training programs. There is no point in having training programs if one cannot get out the door. There is no point in having employment equity if one cannot get out the door. On behalf of this Government, we want to give women the key which opens the door to opportunity and choice.
Public consultations have been a major focus for our Government thus far on the child care issue. We established a special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care with a mandate to seek information from a concerned public on this important debate. The committee conducted extensive crosscountry hearings and I am delighted to hear that the committee is expected to present its report to address these problems later this month.
[ Translation]
In the meantime, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has entered into consultations with the provinces which hopefully will lead to an agreement on improvements to the child care system by June 30. Clearly, that issue will remain at the forefront over the forthcoming months.
Women's health is another Government priority. It is obvious that women must be in good physical and mental health if they are to carry on with their numerous essential roles in our society. A good health care system is essential for women to realize their full potential.
The list of health issues of concern to women is a lengthy one. It includes access to health care, mental health, occupational and health safety, drug use and abuse, sexually-transmitted diseases and contraception. In particular, older women, disabled women, immigrant women and native women also have particular health concerns.
Our Government is responding to these concerns through the development of a health strategy for women. A vital component of the strategy will be a health promotion plan of action on aspects of women's lifestyles that are detrimental to their health. A number of research and demonstration projects on women's health issues are already being funded. Health and
Statements by Ministers
Welfare Canada is planning a symposium on the changing patterns of health and disease to take place in the spring of 1988.

A few weeks ago, I was made aware once again of the need for continuing research and awareness efforts on women's health needs when I visited the Women's Health Research Foundation in Winnipeg.
This volunteer, non-profit organization is promoting research on health matters that are closely connected with women. Last month, they sent to some thousand Manitobans a questionnaire aimed at establishing what problems and issues are considered by women to be important for their own health and welfare.
That kind of information is vitally needed to improve our health care system and get it to handle women's health needs with compassion and efficiency.
Our continuing consultations with women and women's groups have no other aim but to promote that exchange of information.

International Women's Day provides us with an opportunity to pay tribute to the achievements of the women of Canada. As Members of this House, we acknowledge that these are challenging times for women, and men, due to the changing demands of what is a transitional society. All Canadians are encouraged to realize their full potential. The Government is determined to ensure that in this process one's gender does not pre-determine the attainment of individual goals. International Women's Day gives us cause to reflect on these matters, to celebrate our progress and to prepare for the years ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy to rise and address the House on behalf of Canadian women on International Women's Day.

This is a week in which women of all social status, all ages, single or married, mothers, single parents, housewives, students, workers and professionals can join in a common cause and celebrate the gains made for women over the years and their evolving role in Canadian society. It is also a week in which they can come together and inform the Government of urgent needs and demands that have yet to be satisfied. They can remind the present Government of all the promises made over the last two years and demand an accounting.
Canadian women are growing impatient with the endless rhetoric of the present Government. They are demanding a Government with the strength to act. The Minister said that the drop in the fertility rate could be the most important women's issue of the 1990s. I ask what the Government has done and is proposing to do about this issue. The fertility rate

March 4, 1987
Statements by Ministers
over the last 20 years has dropped from four births per woman in 1960 to 1.7 births per woman today. The birth rate in Canada is at a level at which it can just sustain the present population size and, by all accounts, the trend will continue downward and worsen.
We are in urgent need of research on fertility. Why are couples choosing to have fewer or no children? Can we do anything to reverse this trend? We need to know more about the ramifications of surrogate mothers and artificial insemination. The cost of raising children is prohibitive. It is possible that the presence of adequate and affordable child care is deterring people from having children. Yet the Government has been abysmally slow, postponing action on child care time and time again.
The Minister said that more and more women are entering the job market.
[ Translation]
As we know, two-thirds of Canadian women work outside the home, most of them are mothers, and 60 per cent of all women with children under three years old work outside the home. I would like to know what this Government is doing to help these women in the labour force.
As for Bill C-62 on Employment Equity, I was listening to the Minister praise this Bill, but I must admit that, in my opinion, it is toothless and is nothing but a collection of data in its present form.

The Government boasts about its Canadian Jobs Strategy Program, yet women complain that the majority of women participants are being trained for ghettoized jobs, clerical, service, sales and routine factory work, which pay low wages and are often seasonal or part-time. The federal Government has failed to fulfil its promises to provide prorated benefits to part-time workers. It has stalled again and again on child care. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) claims that his commitment to child care is real. Women cannot achieve equality in the workplace without child care. Women are tired of empty promises. They want affordable, accessible child care services now, not five years down the road.
The recent Budget did not set aside one penny for child care. How can the Government keep pledging its commitment to this issue in good conscience?
[ Translation]
The Minister indicated recently that four out of 10 marriages ended in divorce and that the majority of singleparent families have a woman as head of the household and live under the poverty line. I would like to know what the Government is doing for these families.
If we refer to the budget brought down in late February, we find that families with an income of $15,000 or less were hit with a 53 per cent tax increase, while families with an income of $100,000 and more have seen their taxes increase by 6 per cent over the last three years.
The Government has also made plans and promises to create a central agency to deal with divorce cases. In my opinion, the Divorce Act still does not reflect the promises made by the Federal Government to Canadian women. It is still impossible to find, or rather, the defaulting husband can perhaps be found, but all that the Government does is to provide an address and say to which province the husband has moved, but a woman who wants to receive her support payments must initiate proceedings in another province and often wait up to three years before getting any money. I therefore do not think that the Government has made that much progress in the area of divorce and kept its promise to Canadian women.
Naturally, there is nothing about the promises regarding part-time work. The Government has done absolutely nothing about part-time work and pension benefits for homekeepers. There is no mention either of housing, even though the neediest families are those without proper housing and the Government has made drastic cutbacks in its housing program.
The Minister knows that one out of 10 Canadian women is a victim of family violence. Again, what is the Government doing about this problem? Last year the budget of the Family Violence Information Centre was cut. The Government underfunds transitional houses for battered women. This action implies that women's issues are not the priority that the present Government pretends. Action in dollars makes programs, not rhetoric.
The Prime Minister said that for many women child care is the key to future equality. Only 9 per cent of the children in need of day care receive approved services. Approximately 60 per cent of Canadian mothers are in the workforce, and many are in desperate need of affordable, accessible, flexible, quality child care. So far we have had nothing but words on this issue, pages and pages of suggestions, but not one penny toward a viable national child care system.

A recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support a universal day-care system. I would really like to know when the Government will do something about this.

Is this simply a publicity campaign? Is the Government stalling so that it can present a comfortable package before the next election?
The Conservative Government was eager to attract women, 52 per cent of the Canadian electorate, and it made all manner of promises. To date there has been the deindexation of family allowance, an increase in federal sales and excise tax which hurts lower and middle income families, cut-backs on programs for training women, cut-backs on transition houses for battered women, and nothing but words and vague promises on the child care issue. The three big Conservative promises that would involve government expenditure and action, namely,
March 4, 1987

home-maker pensions, pro-rated benefits for part-time workers, and the national child care system, have turned out to be empty promises.
I mentioned before that it gave me great pleasure to address the House on this subject during International Women's Week. Having said that, I urge the Government to follow up on these many promises and show a true commitment to women across Canada and their concerns.

There have been many promises, discussions and consultations, but little action. In my opinion, consultations carried out without listening, responding and acting are not of much use to Canadian women.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I owe an apology to my friends, the Hon. Member for Out-remont (Mrs. Pepin), and the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I made a reference to their not asking questions earlier this week. I understand that after agreement with my office it was decided that we would wait until the statements were made before we asked questions together in the House. Like many things, it totally escaped my notice, for which I apologize.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, since 1910 women around the world have met on March 8 to celebrate International Women's Day. We meet to celebrate the achievements of women, to share our knowledge and experience, to extend mutual support networks, and to reenergize so that we can continue to press for changes that are needed on the long road to equality.
Canadian women hold out their hands in solidarity to women in other countries as we work in our own ways for the forward-looking strategies endorsed in Nairobi in 1985. Canadian women provided outstanding leadership at that conference. Our Governments have been slower in implementing these strategies here at home.
We stand in solidarity with women around the world who are working for peace and an end to nuclear arms, in order that the world's children can grow in safety and in health. We ask our Government to work more aggressively for disarmament, and to show its commitment by immediately cancelling the new five-year agreement to test nuclear Cruise missiles.
We stand in solidarity with African women, and women in other Third World countries who are struggling for survival, and who bear impossible burdens, particularly those who bear the burden of apartheid. We ask our Government to implement full economic sanctions against South Africa. We also ask for increased funding for CIDA programs for women in development.
We stand in solidarity with women of Latin American whose loved ones have disappeared, who suffer from the violence of war and dictatorships and oppressive patriarchal relationships. We ask our Government to be more sensitive to
Statements by Ministers
these women and their families, and to welcome those who seek refuge in Canada.
We also ask our Government to provide more support, including language and job training with child care for immigrant women. We urge measures to counteract the racism that visible minority women experience in Canada.
Native women who apply for reinstatement to Indian status face many difficulties. We ask the Government to provide the additional resources that were promised to Indian communities to accommodate resettlement.
Canadian women fought for and won equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was a great legal achievement. But we have not yet achieved equality in fact. Rather than patting itself on the back, we ask the Government to listen to what Canadian women are saying. Many fear that we may be going backward from equality objectives. Unfortunately, I have to say that this movement is being led by some elected Members of the House.
On behalf of many Canadian women, I ask the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. McDougall) to be a stronger advocate and conscience within the Government for women's rights. We ask her to be outspoken and active in removing obstacles that women face, rather than defending government positions. In particular, I ask that the Minister reconsider and reform employment equity to make it mandatory in order that women have equal job opportunities with equal pay for work of equal value in all federally-related jobs. This would be a great initiative, and a model for other employers to emulate.
I ask the Minister to review the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, and to work with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to remove the barriers and improve both training and job opportunities for women. We also ask her to meet with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to implement changes in the Canada Labour Code to cover prorated wages and benefits for part-time workers.
We also ask the Minister, as a women's advocate, to analyse the impacts on women of free trade, deregulation, and privatization policies of the Government. Women are worried that once again they will be the last hired and the first fired.
Feminization of poverty has escalated, particularly for women who are raising children alone. We ask that the Government exempt low income people from taxes, and call for an increase in family benefits with reindexation of family allowances. We urge tax reforms that will redistribute incomes more fairly, along with a concerted attack on poverty through a full employment program and income security policies.
The Minister has said that the Government takes its commitment to women seriously. These are serious concerns of Canadian women which the Government must address. Yesterday the Minister allocated $500,000 to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, for which I congratulated her. Will the Minister also advocate increases to

March 4, 1987
Committee Reports
Secretary of State women's programs which were cut back in funds by 5 per cent last year? This means that women's groups in the front line out there in communities are very short of funds, and many centres are closing down. Will she reaffirm that the objective of equality must be the basis for future funding under this Secretary of State program so that we can continue to improve equality for women? We commend the Government for increasing the appointments of women to various positions and as Deputy Ministers. If only we could adopt a policy of gender parity in the House of Commons, how changed this place might be.
Finally, the Minister talked about child care and women's health programs. Need I say once again that the Government's goodwill toward child care will only be evident when it allocates federal bucks for Canada's children. Federal initiatives and leadership are essential as a precedent to negotiating shared funding for child care with the provinces. Will the Minister not ask that the $300 million, which we discovered in reserve funds in the social development envelope in the current Estimates, be named for federal child care initiatives as an act of good faith?
Questions affecting women's health and well-being have been neglected for too long in Canada. A top priority should be a program of research into safe and effective methods of contraception for both men and women. A secondary area is the need to study carefully, with the full participation of women, new reproductive technologies to develop a sound and ethical policy in Canada.
I know I have not covered many issues, including increasing violence, pornography, and sexual abuse. Women stand together and demand that this abuse must stop. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I extend warm greetings, in sisterhood and in solidarity, to Canadian women on Sunday, March 8, in celebration of International Women's Day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STRIKING


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirtheenth and fourteenth reports of the Striking Committee. .
If it is agreeable to the House, I intend to move concurrence in the fourteenth report later today.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions on three different subjects. The first one is from a group called Senior Power, people who reside in Pangman, Weyburn, and Trossachs, Saskatchewan. They humbly request that the Government of Canada reject the proposals to amend the Patent Act because they believe that they will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. They also believe that the proposals of the Government will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans, wherefore your petitioners do humbly pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have two further petitions to present. They are from Saint John, New Brunswick; Sackville, Wellington, and Sunnydale, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Truro and other points in Nova Scotia. They state that in their opinion transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation, and that economic regulatory reform or deregulation of the dimensions proposed in Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry, leading to unacceptable reductions in safety standards, as well as deterioration in the quality, type, and frequency of service. Wherefore the petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraw Bill C-18 and retain public convenience and necessity as fundamental factors in the development of public transportation policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a further petition to present from residents of places such as Woody Point and Bonne Bay. They say that the proposals of the Forget Commission on unemployment insurance for fishermen are totally unacceptable. They call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendations which would deprive fishermen of the right to collect unemployment insurance and enters into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in Canada in order that improvements to the programs offered to fishermen can be made. In this your petitioners are duty bound and will forever humbly pray.
March 4, 1987




Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis:
That the fourteenth report of the Striking Committee, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 70 will be answered today.



STATISTICS CANADA-PRIVATE COURIER SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: In 1986, did Statistics Canada utilize private courier services and, if so, what was the (a) total cost (b) total cost per province (c) name of the company and, in each case, the total amount spent?


Monique Vézina: Statistics Canada reports:
Yes, Statistics Canada utilized private courier services in 1986. It should be noted that approximately one-half of the total spent in the year 1986 was in connection with the 1986 census.
Total expenditures:	$354,782.93
Total expenditures per regional office and headquarters:	
St. John's	$ 1,059.32
Halifax	24,879.81
Montreal	12,449.89
Toronto	81,936.79
Winnipeg	12,053.61
Edmonton	19,692.13
Vancouver	88,101.98
Headquarters	114,609.40
Total Expenditures are not available by province.	$ 354,782.93
Order Paper Questions
Name of company and amount spent:	
Carrier Name	Amount
Gelco Express	$ 25,538.18
Capital Courier	744.10
Voyageur Colonial Ltd.	10,746.99
Mouland Express	39,877.30
Federal Express	204.00
Horizon Messenger	21.15
Horizon Enr.	88.00
Marathon	440.00
Northern Messenger Ltd.	16,924.31
Quick Messenger Service	10,812.85
Speedy Messenger Service	714.19
Dicom Corporation	4.85
Swift Sure	31,595.39
TNT Skypak Inc.	214.00
Express Airborne	3,304.67
Loomis Courier Service	98,081.14
Purolator Courier	2,029.76
Kwikasair Express	5,407.59
Day & Ross Ltd.	11,607.69
Northwinds Northern Inc.	30.00
Greyhound Lines of Canada Ltd.	2,448.90
Bronco Dispatchers Ltd.	94.50
Red Delivery Service	6.10
Burlington Northern Air	2,746.71
Scamper Delivery	797.00
Pacific Western	19.95
Zipper Courier Service Ltd.	92.00
Canada Messenger & Transfer Ltd.	32.00
Lewis	4,682.00
Bill's Parcel Delivery	1,581.00
Western Carriers Courier	2,686.60
Peninsula	44.46
Corporate Couriers	12.65
Northern Thunderbird Air	480.00
Same Day Courier	6,608.00
Able Courier Services Ltd.	3,461.00
Canada Cartage	67,260.00
Small Fry	112.00
AMJ Van	382.00
J.G.O.	1,955.15
Quebecair	391.00
Satellite	503.75
Total	$354,782.93


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 4, 1987
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, today's sitting will be extended by 34 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@: That this House deplores the government's failure to pursue effectively federal-provincial agreements with the result that the Conservative Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia remain reluctant to sign S02 emission reduction agreements, thus jeopardizing the credibility of the Canadian acid rain program;
That this House also deplores the fact that, two years after the Quebec summit meeting, no benefits to Canada in the form of S02 emission reductions in the United States have materialized; and
That, therefore, this House urges the government to:
(1)	pursue vigorously the implementation of agreements on S02 emission
reductions with the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and
(2)	request at the April, 1987 summit meeting that the United States reduce
S02 emissions over the Canadian border in a significant manner.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in putting this motion before the House today, we in the Opposition do so because we feel that this issue is of public concern right across the country; a matter about which Canadians are deeply and understandably exercised, and in doing so we are making a contribution to the understanding of this issue as it stands presently. We are advancing ideas in the hope that we will eventually arrive at the desired goal of cutting emissions that effect acid rain to the point where the environment around us, human health and other factors will benefit.
The motion itself is couched in the words that express regrets about the situation in which we find ourselves both domestically and internationally, but they are expressed in the form of regret rather than accusations or sharp criticism, because we know that in essence this is an issue that unites all Canadians. It brings together all three Parties in this House. It brings together federal and provincial Governments to a considerable degree at least, and it is an issue about which
Canada has become known abroad as a strong engine in the search for solutions. We want to approach this matter today in a constructive manner, keeping in mind of course that the design of this House and the parliamentary system to which we belong do encourage constructive criticism. It was in that spirit that the motion today was drafted.
I would like to confirm to you, Mr. Speaker that we on this side of the House in my Party applauded the Government in 1984 when it took such an interest in the question of acid rain. We saw it as a desirable continuation in pursuing public interest in a manner that transcended political viewpoints and, in a way rightly or wrongly, as a continuation of the work that had been initiated in preceding years on which I will dwell in a moment or two. It has become quite evident though that we disagree on the process. How do we get there? We certainly agree on the substance of what we want to achieve. We disagree, for instance, on how we should convince the Americans to come on board. We feel that we should not pursue the route of research and demonstration projects, but we know that that is one way of keeping the theme alive.
When it was announced, as a result of the summit a year or so ago, that that was the route which the federal Government intended to take on behalf of all of us, we thought we should give it a chance, because maybe it is the way to proceed. But if we look at the continuum of this process, we find some very important dates in the history and in the saga of acid rain. We find, of course, the agreement of February, 1985 which was a federal-provincial agreement. It was preceded by the agreements that took place in March and June, 1984 between the federal and the provincial Governments, which were also preceded by the conclusion that very same year that we had to go it alone if the Americans did not want to proceed. All of these were preceded in 1980 by the memorandum of intent, to which I understand you, Mr. Speaker, also had a role to play, that we must see this thing over a period of several years as a continuum and as an evolution of policy in the public interest.
At this stage, March 4, we have to express profound regret that no provinces, two years and one month after another confirmation of the agreement of February, 1985 on acid rain, have yet signed and that two provinces, namely, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, seem to have profound problems in adhering and sticking to the understanding and to the agreement itself. In that respect, we are fully supportive of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and of the Government of Canada, that that agreement has got to stick and has to be respected by the provinces, which was understood clearly by all the participants at the meeting of February, 1985, as it was fully understood in June 1984 and in March 1984.
There was a division of labour. The responsibility of reducing acid rain emissions was divided in two parts. It was said, "You, the provinces, take the responsibility of cutting down your emissions through your utilities, because utilities are provincial, and the federal Government will take on the economic burden of modernizing the smelters". It was
March 4, 1987

envisaged that this responsibility would require substantial funds as well, but, nevertheless, something that could be done by way of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Industry at the time and, therefore, it was a reasonable division of labour. The provinces present, through their Ministers of the Environment at the time understood very well this division of labour.
At this stage we find it impossible to understand why the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Nova Scotia would, all of a sudden develop, double talk on this issue, would waiver and indicate that they cannot deliver on a commitment that is just two years and one month old.
The agreement also includes certain important considerations. The Government of Canada in February, 1985 did say that it would make available $150 million for smelter modernization-fine. It also said that for the development of a clean coal technology, which is the important message to the provinces, that it would make available $70 million. Yesterday during questioning in the special committee on acid rain we learned to our amazement that of the $70 million, $35 million has been used by the Province of New Brunswick, by the New Brunswick Power Commission, without any recognition that this amount somehow came from Ottawa and without any indication that that was something the province would appreciate in order to resolve the problem. Half of the amount has been used and so far we have not seen any political expression or will to come on board.
There is also an amount of $25 million for technology development announced as part of the package, as well as research and monitoring funds to an extent of $18 million per year. You can see that the totality of the package is there. The division of labour was announced and explained. The political representatives of the provinces, as mature adult responsible individuals, said yes. Some are coming through. We were told in committee that several provinces are doing what they agreed to, and some are even doing more, as in the case of Ontario. The Province of Manitoba is sticking to its commitment and the Province of Quebec is doing its part too. For the life of us, the members of the committee, we cannot understand why the two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, are not carrying their share, which is actually one of the lowest burdens requested to be carried of all the provinces.
The fact that there is to be an upcoming summit is another reason we are debating this matter today. It is another link in the long chain I mentioned a moment ago, beginning with the Memorandum of Intent of August 1980. I will not bother you, Mr. Speaker, with all the developments that have taken place since, but it seems to us that on the eve of this important meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney) and the President of the United States, a good debate in the House is not only appropriate but is absolutely essential. I look forward to hearing the Minister's and my colleagues' analyses of today's situation.
Supply
It is urgent, therefore, that both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia sign the federal-provincial agreements at the earliest possible date with an indication before the summit as to when they will do so. They have been given two years to carry out that assignment. I suppose the Minister, through his officials, has pursued the matter frequently. I suppose there is a group of officials constantly negotiating the matter so as to bring it to a conclusion. Surely the Prime Minister will not want to go to the summit in April without having closed ranks behind him, without having all the provinces saying that they are ready to deliver and do their share.
The whole policy was based on the premise that we must go to the Americans with clean hands. I must confess that I had some reservations about that approach because there is such a difference between the forces. We emit 4.5 million tonnes a year while the U.S. emits somewhere between 24 million and 25 million tonnes of S02 per year. Even if we go to them with clean hands we will still face damage to the environment, lakes, forests, the aquatic systems, structures and human health. There will be an amount of S02 that will still be threatening us because we are downwind of it. Even if we come through perfectly clean, we will still be damaged. Nevertheless, it was a good gesture.
You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I lack that sense of modesty for which you know me so well when I say that it was actually in February 1984 when Ruckelshaus came back from negotiations with the White House empty handed that we said that we must go it alone because there was no alternative. We said that we could not wait forever in the hope that somehow something would be triggered. We made that decision, and I am sure the present Minister has renewed it himself on a number of occasions, knowing very well that it needed an enormous degree of political commitment because of our uncertainty as to whether or not the Americans would follow. I suppose it was in that light that the decision to go the Lewis-Davis route of further research was made. Having gone that far, the reluctant provinces must come on board.
There is another main thrust of today's motion. We should take the cue of the present Minister of the Environment. On January 22, 1987 he said that U.S. clean coal initiatives will be of no immediate help to Canada. I felt that it took courage to say that. I congratulated him. I suppose he said what he did because his own officials delivered to him a study he had requested last November. He was giving a signal, not only to us in the Opposition, because we watch these things like hawks, but to his own Government as well. He was saying that the approach of further research and demonstration projects was not working. Yes, we agree fully that the U.S. coal initiative is of no immediate help to Canada. Therefore, the second part of our motion urges the Government of Canada to be clear in communicating its message to the U.S. and to say clearly that it wants a significant reduction in S02 emissions that are transboundary and affect our economy, our environment and our health. That is what we really want.

March 4, 1987
Supply
There must come a point when we must make a decision as to how to invest our time. It is our perception of the matter at least, and I am sure it is the perception of the Minister in his own private moments when he turns off the light at night to go to bed, that we must ask ourselves if we have not reached the point at which we must stress a new tack. We must ask ourselves if we should not say openly and frankly, as one must among friends, that the quality of our relations with the U.S. will be affected and will deteriorate more and more the longer the White House ignores the message calling on it to take action of substance, not further research.
We were very heartened when we read a statement made by U.S. Senator Mitchell the other day. On January 16, in presenting his Bill, he concluded that he would also continue to press the administration to change its view that everything must be known before anything can be done. He is saying that we cannot have 100 per cent scientific assurances but that there is a point when we must act. We cannot wait for the last "i" to be dotted and the last "t" to be crossed. He said that each year we wait the cost of not taking action increases and that the price already paid is already too high. We are fully behind that statement and we know that there is a North-South alliance on the matter of acid rain. We in Canada are not alone. Congressmen and Senators are saying the same things as we are saying.
The time has probably come to renew our lobby in Washington and to renew the efforts of those who are on the side of the Staffords and Mitchells of this world. Whichever Government will be in power when we succeed, bully for it; we will applaud it from this side of the House because we all feel the same way. We are telling the Minister to tell it like it is, to ask for emission cuts and to push the provinces. We are telling him that we are 100 per cent behind him when he asks the provinces to stick to their commitment. They made that commitment in the full knowledge of what it meant and they must deliver. We will do our duty along with the Hon. Member from Muskoka by pressing the matter in committee. We might have taken a different tack. It would have been very tempting to ask embarrassing questions, but we refrained from doing so. We can assure the Minister and the Government that on this matter we have the same determination as he, but we are asking him to change at last Canada's position at the next summit because it is time to say it like it is. We want emission cuts.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) with respect to this motion and the issue of acid rain. I was particularly pleased with the credit he gave to the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the present Government. Although his comments may have escaped me, I am sure that at least indirectly and by implication he was giving the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) credit as well for making the acid rain issue one of top priority with regard to discussions between Canada and the United States. As the Hon. Member knows, the present Prime Minister made a
commitment to deal with the issue of acid rain. As I understand it, he is the only Prime Minister who has given acid rain that priority in his dealings with the United States, particularly in his discussions with the President of the United States.
I agree with the Hon. Member's statement. I know that the present Minister, the Government, the Prime Minister and, I am sure, the New Democratic Party as well, agree with the Hon. Member's statement that it is important to get all of the provinces behind us on this issue immediately.
I was particularly interested in the quotation from United States Senator Mitchell who said that on this issue of acid rain we must take action now because each year the cost of not taking action increases. To me that sums up the whole situation. It leads me to a concern that I have, not with the attitude and position of the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but with the approach that is currently being taken by the Province of Ontario with respect to the acid gas emissions from the coal burning generators of Ontario Hydro. On Monday of this week the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) met with Premier Peterson of Ontario to discuss the possibility of Ontario Hydro using low sulphur western coal in order to reduce acid rain emissions in Ontario and Canada.
Apparently the Premier has expressed concern that because of long-term contracts it will take approximately five years before they can do very much about this. That is certainly not in line with the comments of the Hon. Member and it is not in line with the comments of United States Senator Mitchell. I believe that the people of Ontario and Canada want something better than that. They want action on this issue. They want acid rain emissions by Ontario Hydro reduced immediately. Can the Hon. Member advise the House whether he and his Party are prepared to make representations to Premier Peterson on this issue to ensure that actions are taken immediately to reduce acid emissions by Ontario Hydro?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) either does not understand the substance of the agreement or is raising a phoney question. The fact is that Ontario has agreed to cut emissions by 62 per cent by the agreed upon date of 1994. It is left to Ontario to find the means to do that. The fact remains that Ontario has actually exceeded the requested percentage within the specified time. If, within that time, ways can be found to use a different kind of coal, that may even increase the reduction. However, the point is that Ontario has stuck to its agreement. I hope the Hon. Member for York East understands the substance of the agreement, namely, that Ontario was asked to reduce emissions by 50 per cent or so and has managed, by virtue of intense political will generated at Queen's Park, to exceed that target and reach 62 per cent.
I do not need the Hon. Member for York East to paraphrase and regurgitate my comments. I do not need historians to tell me what I said only a few minutes ago, although I appreciate
March 4, 1987

his desire to do so. However, there is one comment he made which I would like to rebut, namely, that the present Prime Minister is the only one who has taken an interest in acid rain. There is a difference in style and approach. The two preceding Prime Ministers, Mr. Turner and Mr. Trudeau, took as intense an interest in acid rain as has the present Prime Minister, if not more so. The difference was that, unlike the present Prime Minister, the two preceding Prime Ministers had enough confidence in their Ministers of the Environment to leave that responsibility with the Minister of the Environment of the day. If the present Prime Minister would have left the file in the hands of the present Minister of the Environment, we would be further ahead than we are today.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is to be commended for his objective presentation today. I think all Members will agree that the Hon. Member avoided any hint of partisanship. I would like to ask him to elaborate somewhat on the maple syrup industry, since this is a very important sector in Quebec and the Hon. Member did not have time to touch on this subject. It is no coincidence that we chose the maple leaf for our flag-and like all Canadians I am very proud of that flag-since it symbolizes one of the major industries in this country and especially in Quebec. I am told that in Quebec, and especially in the Sherbrooke area, the industry's existence is in jeopardy. I would therefore appreciate it if the Hon. Member could give us the benefit of his research in this area.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) is perfectly right. There is another aspect of the damage and hazards caused by acid rain that should be mentioned, and in fact she has already done so.
The maple syrup industry is faced with a very serious problem today. The Government is of course aware that the industry has made representations to the Prime Minister about the cost of this damage, and these have come mainly from the Quebec association of maple sugar producers. An economic study was made, showing how much our failure to act has cost so far. The bill amounts to $80 million. According to the producers, every year that goes by without a decision being made to reduce acid rain will mean an additional several million dollars. This is the first time an economic sector in this country has sent a bill to the Government for damages. It was quite an experience for all of us, and for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) too, I am sure, because it was the first time we had a demonstration of the damages experienced by an economic sector in this country.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, before rising on debate I would like to make a point of order. I must object once again to the practice of recognizing for questions or comment a member of the same Party as the Member who spoke, when there are
Supply
members of other Parties rising at the same time to ask a question or make a comment. That was not the intent of the reform. It is a long-standing quarrel of interpretation between the Chair and myself. I just wanted to reiterate it because a very useful debate between the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was passed up as a result of that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on the same point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, after the Chair has recognized the member of the other Party which has clarified a point or asked questions, and this happens in the Party of the NDP member, when a member of his Party makes a speech we often see members of the same Party repeat the question to the Chair, and I fail to understand why the member should rise on this kind of question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Chair have had a number of discussions over this precise point. Without having to justify the decision of the Chair in this particular instance, I would like to indicate to the member that I agree partially with what he has said, but must point out to him that only one member of the Conservative Party was standing up at the time. It was the member to whom the Chair had given the floor for the first question. Had there been someone else rising I can assure the Hon. Member that that member would have been recognized prior to a member of the Liberal Party, in that case. However, we will proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that diversion. Some points of order bear repetition when the opportunity presents itself.
We welcome the motion moved today by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). It gives us the opportunity to debate the whole question of acid rain. This issue is high on the Canadian political agenda and has been for some time, but it is particularly important this week and in the coming weeks as we near the summit meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, where we expect acid rain to be discussed, and hope against hope that action will be forthcoming as a result of that meeting.
The motion states:
That this House deplores the government's failure to pursue effectively federal-provincial agreements with the result that the Conservative Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia remain reluctant to sign S02 emission reduction agreements, thus jeopardizing the credibility of the Canadian acid rain program;
Anyone who is concerned about this issue knows that I am not an apologist for the Government, but the failure in this narrow respect lies with the Conservative Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and not necessarily with the

March 4, 1987
Supply
federal Conservative Government. Those two provincial Governments have failed to take seriously their agreements with the federal Government in 1985 that they would arrive at subsequent detailed agreements with the federal Government to reduce acid rain emissions in their own provinces. I suggest that nothing has changed to warrant the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia pulling out of this agreement at the last minute. They are doing so at a very inopportune moment, when the Prime Minister ought to be able to show evidence of as much progress as possible when meeting with President Reagan in April.
Yet two provincial Conservative Governments are moving at the last minute to undermine the Prime Minister, and I expect that when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) speaks today he will explain how the Government will address this action by those two provincial Governments.
The Special Committee on Acid Rain is considering calling the Premier of New Brunswick before the committee to hear why the Government of New Brunswick has acted in this way. We have already heard from the New Brunswick Power Corporation. I must say that the reasons it gave why it was unable to live up to the agreement were insufficient. Not only is it jeopardizing the credibility of the Canadian Government in this respect, it is jeopardizing the credibility of Canada's collective political determination to do something about acid rain. In the final analysis, that is more important than the credibility of the Government.
The Government does have a credibility problem insofar as it has backed down on the deadlines for the institution of nitric oxide emission controls and has not instituted as quickly as possible emission controls on heavy vehicles, and this reflects badly on Canada, but the lack of action on the part of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is not the Government's fault.
Let me turn to Manitoba which I believe is proceeding toward an agreement. The Manitoba Government faces a much more difficult question because it is dealing with the modernization of a very old smelter in the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting operation in Flin Flon. The situation is much more delicate than that facing New Brunswick Power and Nova Scotia Power who do not have to worry about a disappearing market. The people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will continue to require electricity. Unlike Manitoba, New Brunswick Power and Nova Scotia do not face the prospect of shutting down if the acid rain negotiations are unsuccessful or if proper funding and restructuring is not provided. However, there is a political will in Manitoba to do something about acid rain, and progress is being made in spite of these difficulties.
The Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia cannot be excused for pulling out of this agreement at the last minute, thereby putting the Prime Minister and Canada in a very difficult situation and, most significant, damaging our credibility on this issue.
We have heard the argument about coming to the table with clean hands. That is not the most important argument and the Hon. Member for Davenport made a good point when he said that such a strategy has its limits. In the final analysis, we must deal with the sheer magnitude of the damage being done to the Canadian environment by American emissions. That is the environmental fact which must override these petty arguments about who will do what and when.
The Canadian environment is at stake, and this, in turn affects the very essence of Canada-U.S. relations. Let me give this analogy. How long would one continue calling a neighbour a friend when that neighbour consistently pollutes one's backyard and garden, and makes the neighbourhood playground uninhabitable for children? How long would one continue to call that person a neighbour, let alone a friend?
The Special Committee on Acid Rain met with a number of American journalists earlier today. The point I made at our meeting with them was the same, that it is not only an environmental question, but a fundamental question of Canada-U.S. relations.
With respect to the process, the motion goes on to state:
That this House also deplores the fact that, two years after the Quebec summit meeting, no benefits to Canada in the form of S02 emission reductions in the United States have materialized;
Unfortunately, this is not a great surprise to a great many people. There was a lot of feeling at the beginning of the very first summit that the approach being taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was not going to work, that he had far too high an expectation of what could be produced as a result of the new relationship he sought to enter into with the President of the United States.
I think the Prime Minister set himself up rather badly by creating expectations that anyone who was paying any attention knew were unrealistic expectations. It was a process, one might say in retrospect, that was destined for failure partly because of the hyperbole of the Prime Minister and that of the Government still today with respect to what it has accomplished. We still hear members on the government side talking about what they have accomplished, that for the first time the Americans have realized that acid rain is a problem. We heard that even today. It is not the first time that Americans have realized that acid rain is a problem either at the administrative level or the congressional level. It is the first time the Reagan administration acknowledged there was a problem, yes. Within the context of the Reagan administration, that is progress. When there is someone who, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is fond of saying, thinks that acid rain might come from ducks, who then admits it actually comes from emissions from industry, I suppose that is progress. However, it is not something I would get up and dance about. It is not something on which I would hinge the credibility of my approach to Canada-U.S. relations. Yet that appears to be
March 4, 1987

the only thing the Government can point to or, at least, that is what it persistently does point to.
In the final analysis, what needs to be impressed upon all Governments and everyone concerned with this issue is the inevitable and unavoidable economic costs of not doing anything about acid rain. We have to be able to do our bookkeeping in a fundamentally different way than that fragmented, piecemeal way whereby everyone takes into account how their own books look, whether it is Inco, the Province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick Power or the West Virginia Coal Company, whoever it happens to be. We must find a way of doing the kind of global ecological bookkeeping which enables us to make over-all political decisions about what is in the best interests of the environment and, therefore, in the best interests of the economy. We cannot build a healthy, sustainable and just economic future on the basis of an environment which is slowly but surely being eaten away every day by acid rain.
I do not know if Hon. Members have heard this story, but the nature of environmental destruction is such that it progresses geometrically rather than arithmetically. That is to say that we never know at what point the damage may quadruple, or whatever, in such a way that we are faced with a very different situation from that which we were able to predict only a short time ago. I think we are in that position with respect to forestry, for instance. Five years ago not even West Germany, where it is most advanced, was aware that there was anything like the significant reduction in tree growth. Yet in Canada, it is now established that there is a two-thirds reduction in growth in trees. I ask Hon. Members to imagine, for the sake of trying to understand how these problems develop, a pond which will be progressively covered by lily pads. It starts out with one lily pad and it will take 28 days for that vegetation to cover the pond. At first there is one lily pad and then there are two lily pads, then four, then eight, then 16, then 32, then 64, then 128. The fact is that if it takes 28 days to cover this pond with lily pads, on the twenty-seventh day half the pond will still be left, but we only have one day to go. With many of these environmental questions, we do not know whether we are in the twenty-fifth day, the twenty-sixth day or the twenty-seventh day, and there are people in industry, in politics and elsewhere, both in Canada and the United States, who say: "Do not worry about it. We have half the pond left. What are all you environmentalists worried about?". The way in which environmental problems progress is as I have just described it. I ask people to think about that because that is our situation with respect to acid rain.
I do not know at what day we are now. I do not believe anyone does. However, I do know there are not that many days left before we will have done irreversible damage to our environment.
I spoke earlier about the economic costs, and a good example of that is what is happening in Quebec.
Supply

With respect to the impact of acid rains in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give as an example the serious situation in that province, particularly concerning the future of sugar bushes. As a result of acid rains, the degradation of forests, and maple groves in particular, is progressing rapidly over the whole Quebec territory. According to the Quebec Agricultural Producers Union, Quebec maple syrup producers have already lost at least two million taps because of acid rains, and such losses are increasing at an alarming rate. APU spokesmen also estimate that the loss is already worth $87 million and, should degradation continue, it will threaten the livelihood of 10,000 Quebec maple syrup producers. Worse still, these figures do not take into account the acid rain impact on the other forest industries, nor on tourism or fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, air pollutants, especially acid rain, are the cause of major social and environmental losses in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. This Government should take decisive action. First and foremost, this Government, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), should adopt a more aggressive attitude toward the Reagan administration. Faced with an ecological and economic disaster it is time, for the Prime Minister to explain to Mr. Reagan the bitter resentment felt by all Canadians toward the American's lack of action in the fight against acid rain, and to emphasize the need for the Americans to take concrete action to reduce air pollution affecting Canada.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member about the acid rain situation. I know his own deep feelings and those of the New Democratic Party about this problem. I was pleased as well to hear his acknowledgement that he felt the Government was committed to bringing an end to acid rain and to doing so as quickly as possible. What bothered me, however, were his comments after relating the problem. I think he knows, as all of us know, what the problem is and, although all of us may not be 100 per cent aware of the magnitude of each and every part of the problem, we certainly know that it is an enormous problem.
The real issue facing us, as the Hon. Member said, is how to solve the problem. I did not hear what the Hon. Member or his Party would do, that is not being done at the present time, to solve this problem. I believe he indicated that one of the steps that should be taken is to put our own house in order. He also said that we do not necessarily have to wait until our hands are completely clean. I suppose he is implying that they could be a little dirty at the same time as we are talking to the United States about the question. I think he agrees that we have to put our own house in order at some stage of the game.
He then went on to say, as I understand it, that we should talk to the Americans, that we should try to negotiate with them. If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he says that we have come to the stage at which it is time to stop talking
3822

March 4, 1987
Supply
nicely to the Americans because, in effect, their attitude is not that of a good neighbour or friend. He said that it is time to go back to the method that was used by the previous Liberal Government which kicked and screamed and shouted. In this fashion, he seems to suggest, the next time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meets with the President of the United States he should tell him that Canadians are outraged about the acid rain situation in the United States and that he has to do something about it. Perhaps we should do that. Does the Hon. Member truly believe that we will get any further by shouting and screaming and by perhaps calling out our Armed Forces and invading the United States? Does he really think that this is the sort of action that will achieve something? If he does, I would like to hear him tell us what he thinks it will achieve. If he does not, I would like to hear what he and his Party would really do that is any different from what the Government is doing with respect to the acid rain situation in the United States right now.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have always had a great deal of respect for the interventions of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) except when it comes to his most recent comment in which he so caricatured the position of whoever it was he was talking about with respect to calling in the Canadian Army et cetera, that what started out to be not a bad question turned out to be something about which he will be ashamed when he reads it in Hansard tomorrow.
The fact of the matter is that part of the problem with the debate has been the caricaturing of the two approaches taken by the Liberal Government prior to 1984 and the Conservative Government after 1984. It is not the case that the Liberal Government was kicking, screaming, yelling and throwing verbal hand-grenades at Washington. It is not the case that the current Government has done nothing but be obsequious, create false expectations or be totally gullible. There are elements of truth in both those caricatures. But, in the final analysis, they are caricatures.
What we have not considered when we debate what approach will be most successful is whether or not we can be successful. We have not considered whether or not there is not some point at which the Canadian people would appreciate the honest admission of failure and acknowledgement that there may be some things that neither approach will accomplish. Maybe it is in the nature of the United States of America that whether one kicks the Americans in the shins or whether one slaps them on the back they will not do anything that is not in their self-interest. Perhaps that is the conclusion we have to draw first before we can begin to have a real debate about the matter, as opposed to the phoney debate to which the Hon. Member just contributed with respect to whether or not the approach of the present Government or the last Government will work. All of this is based on the assumption that there is some sort of magical button that neither Government has yet found and pushed that will bring the United States into line on these types of issues.
I am sorry to say that the history of the United States is not that there are magical buttons which one can push, either rhetorically, at summits, or on stages singing When Irish Eyes Are Smiling. Nor is there any other measure that might have been taken by the previous Liberal Government. Perhaps what we need to do is to get down to business instead of playing the game that if somebody would only do what the other guy advises them to do we would be so much more successful.
And if the Prime Minister does not come up with some significant advance with respect to acid rain at the summit it is my best political advice to him that he come out and say so. He should say that he did his best for the people of Canada but that he is up against a nation which is known for its selfcentredness and for the fact that it is one of the most powerful nations in the world. Powerful nations in the world do not have a history of doing these types of things just because someone asks them to.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) with a great deal of interest. The Hon. Member normally takes a tack that is credible and sincere. In his opening statements he attacked the sincerity of the Province of New Brunswick-and I will only deal with that province because I am not in a position to comment on the policies of the Province of Nova Scotia. The Acid Rain Committee, as Your Honour may be aware, had the opportunity of listening to a presentation by the Minister of Environment for New Brunswick, the Hon. Robert Jackson, in which he made some points emphatically clear. Unfortunately, because the Hon. Member who just spoke took a tack that is contrary to the facts that are on the record, I am afraid that his entire approach to the issue loses a substantial amount of credibility.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member how he can couple his comments that the New Brunswick Government, along with, the Nova Scotia Government, failed to take seriously acid rain agreements when in fact he is fully aware, since he was a member of the committee, that the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, New Brunswick has been a forerunner in acid rain abatement. Emission controls in New Brunswick with respect to the basic case in tonnes in 1980 were set at 215,000 tonnes. The province agreed that it would reduce those emissions to 185,000 tonnes by 1994. The Hon. Member is well aware that that goal was reached by 1983-11 years in advance of the date set in the initial agreement. Yet the Hon. Member says that the Province of New Brunswick has failed to meet its commitments. He says that it is pulling out at the last minute. There has been no indication from the Province of New Brunswick that it intends to pull out at the last minute. What it has done is to signal that there could be some concerns that should be addressed in the future to deal with the problems that we are all faced with in terms of regional disparities and merging parts of the country that we would try to assist economically. I would ask the Hon. Member how he expects his speech here today to stand up and be credible in view of the flagrant points of view that he has signalled being absolutely

March 4, 1987
contrary to the fact that, indeed, New Brunswick has not only led the way but has met its commitment to those emission controls well in advance of its target date.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that what I said in contrary to the facts. I think that there is a well recognized national concern that what the Government of New Brunswick and the New Brunswick Power Commission said before the Special Committee on Acid Rain constitutes a real danger that agreements will not be signed between New Brunswick and the federal Government, for instance, and that that is a concern that is shared by the federal Government and all who are observing the acid rain situation.
I should point out that the Hon. Member who asks me the question is a Member of Parliament from New Brunswick. He feels constrained to defend the position of the Progressive Conservative Government of that province. I suppose that that is an understandable political reality. However, it has nothing to do with the fact that there can be any certainty that the New Brunswick Government will live up to the agreement that it made in 1985-not steps it took before 1985 but the agreement it made in 1985-with the federal Government to do certain things by certain times.
The other day when I listened to the New Brunswick Power Commission, I certainly had the impression that it felt it was no longer willing and, in its judgment, able-which is of course what is at debate-to live up to the agreement that it made, because of changes in the policy of Quebec Hydro. It made a rather elaborate argument about why it could not do what it had said it was going to do. Why the Hon. Member would now stand here and say that it will do it, when the New Brunswick Power Commission came before the committee and made an elaborate argument about why it could not, is something that I will leave to your wisdom, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by saying to the mover of the motion that I genuinely welcome the motion itself, while expressing some regret about its negative tone. Given the fact that the Hon. Member has an obvious commitment to the issue, and given his efforts as a Minister of the Crown in the previous Government to make progress on it, I am sure that he would be the last to want to leave any impression that his Party is playing politics with an issue that has traditionally transcended partisanship.
I remind the Hon. Member and the House of the two landmark reports of the parliamentary Subcommittee on Acid Rain, the one to which I was a contributor entitled Still Waters, and the later document, Time Lost. They received the unanimous support of all Parties in the House.
This motion today could not come at a more delicate time. The Government is at a crucial point in negotiations with the seven eastern provinces from Manitoba to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and with the United States. In the
Supply
case of the provinces, the Government is in the throes of negotiating individual agreements to implement the commitments they made as separate provinces, and collectively, in February, 1985. With the United States we are working to achieve not only full implementation of the celebrated Special Envoy's recommendations, but also action to substantially reduce the transboundary flow of pollution into Canada from the United States.
Notwithstanding the critical flavour of the motion, and the fact that Members of the House may differ on details as to how to cope with acid rain-causing emissions, I think it can be said there are no differences among us on the over-all objective. There can be no doubt about the supreme importance that the federal Government attaches to finding long-term lasting solutions to acid raid. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made acid rain not only his number one environmental priority, but also his primary agenda item with the United States among the myriad of bilateral issues with which we as a Government are wrestling. The Prime Minister is the first Canadian head of Government to make acid rain a personal, individual priority. In doing so he has elevated the profile of the issue at home and abroad, including the United States, where public awareness has soared in recent months. I must say that I am a little discouraged that the Prime Minister has not been given more credit, or more encouragement, within the House and the country at large for at least trying.
The mover of the motion may recall a different situation before the Government took office. I do not draw the attention of the House to this point in order to paint caricatures of us as good guys over here, and them the bad guys over there. I am putting today's debate in an historical context. In August, 1980, the Minister of the Environment prior to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), for whom I had great respect, signed a Memorandum of Intent with the United States. He had the good grace to do it when I was in Lahaina. For all the high hopes at that time little real progress was made on the Memorandum of Intent signed in August, 1980. I am not critical of the Government for its lack of progress with the United States, because the conditions that then made progress difficult continue to prevail now, making it difficult for this Government to move the American elephant even one step on the issue. In June, 1982, only months after the Memorandum of Intent was signed, committing the two Governments to solid action on acid rain, the previous Government broke off formal negotiations with the United States out of sheer frustration. No progress can be made on any issue by any Government when the principals are not present at the negotiating table.
The now Prime Minister assessed the situation while Opposition Leader. He arrived at two conclusions as Prime Minister prior to the March 1985 Shamrock Summit in Quebec with the President of the United States. The Prime Minister stated that if Canada is to make any progress with the United States, it must have the moral authority based on a "clean-hands" approach to acid rain within our own borders.

March 4, 1987
Supply
Literally speaking, we had to put our money where our commitment was. Second, the Prime Minister stated that we needed a process that would bring the United States back to the bargaining table. The process had to recognize existing positions, especially the one taken by the United States at that time namely, that acid rain is not a problem, let alone something that should be elevated to the top of the agenda of the two countries. Needed too was a mechanism for moving the issue forward. With no small amount of effort in the space of two and a half years, the Prime Minister, the Government, and the country, because it is a non-partisan issue, have achieved some real progress on those two objectives.
I wish to deal with what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and indeed the Prime Minister, has called our "clean hands" policy. Almost six months after the new Government took office in February, 1985, my predecessor reached what I think we can all agree was an important accord with our colleagues from the seven eastern provinces from Manitoba through to Newfoundland. The eight Governments, including the federal Government itself, agreed to reduce total Canadian sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada to 2.3 million tonnes, which was a 50 per cent reduction based on 1980 figures. Each province agreed to a specific reduction program within its borders as a contribution to the total national emission reduction effort. They agreed to enforce their respective programs through legislation or other fiats, and to do so by 1994 at the latest.
The provincial emission limits were not developed by the federal Government and imposed by it on the participating provinces. The control program was not shoved down their throats. The provincial limits were volunteered by individual provinces as their contribution to a great national cause. I stress the fact that commitments were made by each province as much to one another as to the federal Government.
It was not an agreement between the seven provinces on the one hand and the federal Government on the other. It was an agreement among eight Governments to one another and to the people of Canada. The federal Government was acting as the glue holding together a compact among different Governments and different jurisdictions.
The federal role in the February 1985 accord was clear. We agreed that if financial assistance was deemed necessary for the actions required at non-ferrous smelters, we would take the lead as the federal Government in arranging it.
Why was this commitment limited to smelters? I think that is an important question in the context of the motion we are debating today, especially vis-a-vis Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It was for two good reasons. First, smelters are responsible for most of the sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada. Second, the provinces clearly indicated themselves that they wanted the lead in dealing with their own utilities. The coal question, the thermal power coal question, revolves
around provincial utilities in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, and in Ontario, for that matter.
In any event, why should federal tax dollars be used to subsidize profitable provincial utilities, no matter how noble the cause might be? That question was asked by the provinces themselves when the agreement was reached in February, 1985. As the federal Government's part of the bargain, Cabinet agreed to provide up to $150 million to share the costs of smelter modernization-pollution abatement initiatives required to achieve provincial emission limits, as well as a further $150 million for research and development and demonstration projects.
All eight parties to the February 1985 accord knew exactly what they were doing at the time. There was no hidden agenda, no fact concealed, no possible eventuality raised, and no condition attached to the agreement. It would be reprehensible now, 24 months later, for any party or any Government, provincial or federal, to renege on its commitment. There can be no ransom, no changing of terms, no procrastination based upon limp-wristed concerns about what might happen in future if this or that were to happen and specific control measures were thereby made more difficult to achieve.
The eight Governments must all stay the course. If some unforeseen circumstance should make it difficult for one or other of the partners to do so between now and 1994, I am sure the others will want to help it so as to keep the pact intact.
What sense does it make now, in the late winter of 1987, to be worrying about some possible circumstance in 1992 or 1994 which would cause us to rethink what we agreed to in February 1985? For my part, I intend to begin soon signing on behalf of this jurisdiction the formal federal-provincial acid rain abatement agreements necessary to ratify the original February 1985 compact among the different Governments.
Cabinet has authorized allocation of funds for the smelter modernization-pollution abatement program. The cash is there. It has been set aside. It has been committed. Manitoba will have up to $20 million; Ontario, up to $85 million; and Quebec, up to something like $42 million.
Some observers claim that the Atlantic provinces are being denied assistance for the acid rain clean-up. They see the millions of dollars for Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec and no money for New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and ask; Aren't we as federal and provincial Governments discriminating against eastern Canada?
I am an Atlantic Canadian. I come from Prince Edward Island. My mother was a British Columbian. I derive no pleasure, no pride, and no satisfaction from the fact that at the eleventh hour we are making some efforts to unravel the ball of yarn.
The truth is that there is no discrimination. Under the Energy, Mines and Resources coal utilization program, about $70 million in federal assistance has already been provided in Atlantic Canada to bring new clean coal technologies to the
March 4, 1987_______________COMMONS DEBATES__________________ 3825
point where they can be considered for commercial use. Moreover, in New Brunswick the federal Government provided a $100 million grant and a $350 million loan for the construction of the Point Lepreau nuclear station. That has profound implications for the acid rain effort in the country, because nuclear energy is relatively clean in respect of acid rain.
Other examples of federal Government subventions to the Atlantic provinces for programs and projects in this general area could be cited, including a multi-million dollar electricity subsidy program in my own Province of Prince Edward Island.
I now want to turn to the Canada-U.S. situation. As I mentioned earlier, little progress was made by Canada prior to September, 1984 when the current Government was elected. Some well informed commentators have argued that by the summer of 1984, on the eve of the election of the new Government, the acid rain issue had actually slipped backward to about where it was in 1979 before the Memorandum of Intent was signed by the Governments of Canada and the U.S. Such was the situation that we faced when we took office. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Davenport, the official spokesman on the environment for the Official Opposition, despite his contentions, we have made progress since September, 1984.
When President Reagan endorsed the report of the Special Envoys, the Prime Minister interpreted his support as a commitment by the U.S. administration to seek from Congress the funds necessary to implement the recommendations. Indeed, the President gave a specific commitment to that effect, I think it was at the news conference when the President endorsed the report.
The President's 1988 budget proposals provided the first opportunity for the United States to honour its commitment to Canada concerning the Special Envoys' report. The initiatives outlined, however, fell substantially short of meeting even the minimum requirements.
The Prime Minister and I gave a clear and unequivocal message to Vice-President Bush at our January 21 meeting in Ottawa. We also made clear to the Vice-President what Canada expects from the United States. I want to conclude on this note. To eliminate acid rain damage and to prevent it from happening in future, Canada is seeking a reduction in the transboundary air pollution flow from the United States to two million metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year or about 50 per cent of the 1980 level. We want such a reduction on a targeted and scheduled basis.
As a step toward the objective, we are pressing for full implementation of the Special Envoys' recommendations in a way that achieves early reductions in U.S. emissions affecting Canada. Our objective is based both upon sound scientific information and upon existing principles and obligations under international law that nation states must ensure that activities within their jurisdictions do not damage the environment of other states.
Supply
Finally, our objective also extends naturally from the Special Envoys' report itself, which contemplated reductions in "the flow of airborne pollutants across our common border". Our commitment to our objective is strong and unwavering. We will do everything we can to make progress in the time leading up to the next summit between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada and thereafter. The U.S. administration is having in its words "a fresh look" at its response to the President's commitment in light of the vigorous representations made by the Prime Minister and myself and other Cabinet Ministers to the Vice-President during his visit to Ottawa. Our goal cannot be clearer nor our resolve stronger. We want action, and we want it now.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I have some brief questions to put to the Minister so as to provide as much time for questions by others. First, I wish to inquire why the Hon. Member for Funday-Royal (Mr. Corbett) does not seem to be supporting the Minister. Second, will the policy which the Minister has just announced, namely the cutting of transboundary emissions, be the new policy of the Government of Canada at the next summit? Third, flowing from the debate that has taken place this afternoon, will the Minister provide the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for April 5 at the summit with a study on the economic damage to the U.S. economy, forests, agriculture, building structure and human health so as to strengthen his hand in demonstrating that inaction on the part of the United States is hurting the U.S. economy?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Member has asked three questions. I will try to deal with them as expeditiously as I can. On the first question, I am not aware of any lack of support from any colleague within my caucus, let alone from the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), although obviously we may differ on details, he from the perspective of his province and I from a national perspective.
Second, I do not think the position that I outlined in my remarks today, which echo ones that I have expressed publicly before this occasion, constitute a new position of the Government of Canada. The envoys' report, from memory I think it is on page 4, contemplates a bilateral accord between Canada and the United States, building, more or less in the words of the report, on the spirit of the Memorandum of Intent signed in August, 1980. We have always seen the envoys' process, the report and the recommendations themselves, not as the last step in a long journey but rather as one of the first steps. The scientific evidence is clear. If we are to minimize damage to our ecosystem, to our aquatic life, to our terrestrial features, to our built environment, to our statuary and human health, we have to keep acid rain loadings down to a maximum of 20 kilograms per hectare. If we were to eliminate all sources within Canada of acid rain causing emissions, we still could not achieve that objective because 50 per cent of the emissions affecting Canada cross the border from the United States. In places like the neighborhood of the Hon. Member for Parry

March 4, 1987
Supply
Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) the figure may well be higher. Certainly it is higher in the Haliburton areas in Ontario. We are simply taking the science and translating it into policy. We have to have at least a 50 per cent reduction in U.S. flows into Canada to complement those reductions that we are planning within our own country in order to achieve the maximum acceptable acid rain loadings.
Third, I think the suggestion of the Hon. Member that a certain report be made available to the President during his visit with the Prime Minister in April is a good one. I do believe that that report has already been brought to the attention of the senior people in the United States Government. In case it has escaped the attention of the President, I will ensure personally through the Prime Minister that it does not do so in future.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have two things. I would urge upon the Minister to pay a great deal of attention in the Government's negotiations or discussions with the Americans to the economic approach. Maybe it is a case, as I said before, that the United States of America will not do anything that is not in its self-interest. Because this is probably true, we need to demonstrate just how much it is, not only not in the long term, but in the medium term and even in the short term economic interest of the United States to act with respect to acid rain emissions in its own backyard, both in the Canadian sense and in the American sense of that.
I made the joke earlier about the President at one point thinking that acid rain came from ducks. Just recently we learned, thanks to the Isaac Walton League and a study done by it, that acid rain is actually decimating the population of waterfowl on the East Coast. It is that kind of reality that should be brought home to the Americans.
I have a question for the Minister about the federal-provincial agreements. I must say that I am only now- perhaps I should have seen it earlier-seeing how loose, in a sense, the agreement of 1985 was that was signed at that time.
I have a question about those agreements. Were the amounts of money, which the Minister talked about going to provinces, having to do with acid rain abatement of programs for smelters and what not, for instance, the $20 million for Manitoba, outlined in the agreement of 1985, or are these amounts that have been arrived at subsequently? In other words, what are provinces, which were a party to that agreement in 1985, bound to with respect to actual dollars and cents? What were the expectations or details announced at that time?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member recognizes that I was not the Minister of the Environment at the time the agreement was forged. I can, nevertheless, answer his questions as best I can. There was a general agreement among the federal Government and the seven participating provinces, first, that they would slash their total acid rain emissions by 50 per cent by 1994 based on 1980 figures; second, that each participating province would contribute to
the total effort by slashing its emissions according to a specific schedule agreed upon; third, there was an understanding that the $150 million dollar fund at the federal level to assist the provinces, and through the provinces industry, to achieve the respective provincial control programs, would be used for smelter modernization-pollution abatement, not for thermal power plants, let alone ones operated by the utilities. There were no specific dollar figures attached in February, 1985 on a province by province basis. It was understood, however, that the $150 million would be spent by a rough rule of thumb commensurate with the contribution each province made to the problem. In other words, it was clear, because Quebec and Ontario together accounted for about 80 per cent of the total acid rain-causing emissions in the country, their subvention from the $150 million would be in the neighborhood of 80 per cent of the $150 million fund. In the case of Ontario, because its contribution to the problem was greater than that of Quebec, obviously it would be drawing more heavily from the fund. It was that kind of rough rule of thumb.
When I became Minister, the Minister for the Environment in Ontario almost within days of my appointment came to me and said "We, as a Government, are totally committed to honouring our arrangement within the total deal, but before we can forge a specific control program, especially concerning the four major sources of acid rain pollution within Ontario, we need to have some indication from you, that is from the federal Government, as to our share of the $ 150 million". I, for my part, said, "I cannot very well answer your question until I see your control program and assess what the funding requirement is". It was a chicken and egg kind of thing, a vicious circle, but we agreed on a trade off. Instead of either one of us imposing a requirement on the other, we said, fine, Ontario will rough out its general approach, and for our part we will give Ontario some general idea of how much we think its program would cost and on the basis of an estimated cost what the federal contribution might be toward it from the $150 million. It engaged in that kind of exercise with each of the other provinces. We arrived at the figures I cited, but keep in mind that those are rough figures and in some cases max-imums.
In the case of Ontario, the Government is rightly insisting that the prospective recipient industries demonstrate before the fact that they need a subvention either from the province or from the federal Government because neither of us is in the business of lining the pockets of industry.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate my colleague for raising this subject which I believe is of great importance to all Canadians. However, it is of particular importance to residents of the Province of Nova Scotia, a part of which I happen to represent.
While listening to the remarks of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), I was somewhat disappointed that he would not be more specific with regard to what he
March 4, 1987

intends to do to ensure that the provincial Governments abide by the agreements and understandings both in terms of the letter of the law and in terms of its spirit. Perhaps we might spend a few moments on why the federal Minister of the Environment is so reluctant to ask his provincial colleagues in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to mention just two provinces, to proceed.
Many reasons for this could be offered. I do not think any of them are political, but perhaps they may be. Is it because the present administration in the Province of New Brunswick is due to end its term and that the Minister of the Environment sits by, not so much saying nothing but doing nothing? Is he operating on the instructions of the federal Minister representing New Brunswick in the federal Cabinet to cool it so that the Premier of the province may be able to muscle out a few more votes in the next provincial election?
I think the course that will be followed in New Brunswick is rather evident. That administration will come to an end very soon. Perhaps what is more disturbing is that the federal Minister of the Environment has allowed a very serious situation to become even more serious. He has not taken his responsibilities seriously by trying to enforce the agreements made in those two provinces.
One theory has been advanced by others, but not by me because I would not want to be partisan. It is not my nature. One might say, however, that the people of the Province of Nova Scotia, like our good brothers and sisters in the Province of New Brunswick, are in election mode in a preliminary way. Again, the provincial Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Laird Stirling, is travelling to Ottawa, appearing before the committee and crying great tears of concern. He is telling everyone that he is very concerned, that the Premier is concerned, that the caucus is concerned, that the Conservative executive of his association is concerned, that his mother is concerned and that his sister-in-law is concerned, but he does not take any action.
What does the federal Minister of the Environment do when in Nova Scotia? He just nods his head, continues onward and says nothing. Again, and I say this sincerely, not only does he not say anything but he does not do anything to rectify the serious problem we are now facing as a result of acid rain.
We would have hoped that the Province of Nova Scotia, for example, would have been utilizing funds under the coal technology program. That is not being done. We have heard the great platitudes of the Premier of Nova Scotia who, I might add, has on several occasions changed the entire thrust of the energy policy of Nova Scotia, depending upon where he was speaking. When he is down by the Bay of Fundy, he talks about tidal power. When he is in the Halifax-Dartmouth area, he changes his speech and energy thrust to talk about the offshore oil and gas. When he goes to eastern Nova Scotia, he talks about the utilization of coal from Cape Breton.
We all know that the provincial Crown corporation, the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, utilizes a great deal of coal
Supply
produced by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The emission standards used in the burning of the coal ought to be enforced by the province. We all hope that the Power Corporation will continue to burn that coal, but there are technologies available that are workable and feasible and are in the longterm interests of the people of Nova Scotia, whether they happen to reside in eastern Nova Scotia, Metropolitan Dartmouth-Halifax or indeed Lunenburg, Yarmouth and areas west. The problem is that the Premier of Nova Scotia has abdicated his responsibilities toward the environment and he is being aided and abetted by the federal Minister of the Environment.
In the Legislature which has just recently opened in Nova Scotia, the provincial Leader of the Liberal Party outlined very clearly where he and his Party stood on the issue of acid rain. I think it would do Hon. Members well, and particularly Hon. Members opposite who represent ridings in the Province of Nova Scotia, to examine very clearly what the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Province of Nova Scotia has said. He has said that acid rain poses an immediate and serious threat to the quality of life and economic well-being of the entire Atlantic region. In Nova Scotia, the effects of acid rain are already being severely felt. Eighteen-not one, not two, not three but 18-former salmon streams in the Province of Nova Scotia are no longer able to sustain Fish. That is an appalling number of streams in view of the small size of the Province of Nova Scotia. Another 13 rivers are listed as being endangered. Those rivers are the spawning grounds of the Atlantic salmon and once destroyed, the extinction of the salmon species will not be far behind. Surely as Canadians, whether we reside in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec or the West, we would want to protect and enhance the salmon stocks wherever they may be.
Acid rain which falls in the Maritimes does not originate there but, in my view, in the industrial heartland of the eastern and central regions of North America. The only viable longterm solution to the problem is a major reduction in the industrial emissions which cause acid rain. For this we need international co-operation. Before you seek international cooperation you have to show leadership at home. Leadership is not going to the Canadian Club to amuse different organizations. Leadership is not speaking to different groups across the country. Leadership is taking bold, significant and concrete action which, from time to time, may mean exerting pressure and demanding that the provincial Governments live up to their responsibility as equal partners on this most important issue of acid rain.
The Government is afraid to exercise leadership on this issue both internationally and domestically. Why does the Government refuse to show leadership and demand that the provinces live up to their responsibilities? The conclusion is obvious. The Government does not mean what it said. This is another example of a national Government trying to set national policy with mere platitudes, as it has done, as an analogy, with

March 4, 1987
Supply
regional economic development in eradicating inequalities in this country.
The Government says it is very concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to Newfoundland in August of last year and said that our economic development programs are not working. We read that in the Throne Speech, and now we have a new Budget which provides not one new cent or one new innovative program to eradicate the problem of regional economic development. The same is true with regard to the environment and acid rain. The Government has done absolutely nothing to effectuate the positive changes which all Canadians want to see.
Our clean lakes, rivers and streams are one of our greatest natural resources. To sit idly by, as the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is doing, while they are poisoned by industrial contamination would be a criminal act in any jurisdiction in the western world. In Nova Scotia our power plants are almost exclusively generated by coal and oil-fired plants. Our present provincial Government's commitment to reduction of emissions from these plants has been wanting.
For the benefit of members opposite I want to indicate what the official Leader of the Liberal Party in the Province of Nova Scotia said. He said that Nova Scotia has been living up to the letter of agreements concerning reduction of emissions, but has refused to take the lead. He said that a Liberal Government in Nova Scotia would be prepared to show leadership on this issue and serve as an example to other jurisdictions. The technology exists to keep emissions from coal and oil-fired generations to a bare minimum, but that technology costs money. In his opinion the expenditure must be made because the alternative may well be ecologically devastating.
I am glad that my colleague from the New Democratic Party agrees. I am glad once again to see the New Democratic Party following the lead of the Liberal Party in this most important endeavour of trying to control and eradicate the effects of acid rain in this country.
Let us not lose sight of what presently exists. The Government of the Province of Nova Scotia is not doing enough. The federal Government is not helping. It is rewarding the irresponsible behaviour in my Province of Nova Scotia. Economically it is also essential that the acid rain problem be addressed immediately.
Without our inland salmon fishery, the tourist industry in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would suffer a major set-back. Acid rain also poses a distinct threat to various agricultural sectors and to the long-term health of forest related industries.
Due to the federal Minister's failure to exercise his responsibility, we will not only see an exacerbation of the acid rain problem, but direct and consequential effects of the failure to act on behalf of Canadians. Due to his failure to put pressure on the provincial Governments, a very important sector of our economy, namely the tourism sector, will lose great jobproducing potential. The failure of the federal Government to show leadership and make the provincial Governments respond accordingly is telegraphing to all Canadians the message that the Government is not overly concerned about that sector of our economy.
We have heard from numerous sources which have come before different committees of the House of Commons about the effects that acid rain is having on our agricultural sector. In fact, we will hear it again from the Maritime Farmers Council which is meeting tonight. The forest industry is another potential blockbuster employer in the country. If action is not taken immediately by our Governments, that sector, too, will be in great jeopardy.
The Liberal Party, both federally and in the Province of Nova Scotia, advocates immediate remedial action to save our endangered rivers and streams. This can be accomplished through a program of river-bed liming, which has been proven effective in Sweden and in a pilot project on Nova Scotia's south shore. It is not being tried elsewhere in the province as it should be because the province does not want to exercise its responsibility. If that is the case, why does the federal Minister not intervene? The answer is obvious: pending elections. River-bed liming will save the salmon. Admittedly, it is not the long-term solution. However, if we do not save the salmon today, there will not be any left to save in 20 years or more when we finally solve the problem at the source by reducing emissions.
It is very obvious what is taking place. Our tourism, agricultural, forestry and fishery sectors are in danger due to the lack of action by the provincial Government in the Province of Nova Scotia, aided and abetted by the cooperation it is receiving from its federal counterparts in the federal Ministry of the Environment.
The argument about this issue which has been eloquently made by others has not been challenged by the Government, the media or indeed any of the environmentalists. The reason for the lack of action by the provincial Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the reason for the irresponsible behaviour by the Minister of the Environment, who is known throughout the Atlantic region as Mr. Clean, is that provincial elections are to take place. If that is not the case, the Premier of New Brunswick and the Premier of Nova Scotia should say so very clearly. However, when this issue is raised, they are never to be found.
It is sad that the provincial Governments have been allowed to abdicate their responsibilities for the serious issue of acid rain and the problems it causes to the sectors of our economy. I hope the Department of the Environment will take concrete steps to ensure that we as Canadians, provincially and federally, exercise our responsibility and live up to our commitments so that we may co-operatively deal with the international situation.
March 4, 1987

The Minister of the Environment must stop acting like a dutiful sheep to the provincial Governments and accept his clear and concrete responsibility as I am sure the former Minister would have done.


Mrs. Browes:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the Hon. Member's speech. I was disappointed by the tone of his speech and would have expected him to applaud the leadership and sense of responsibility shown at the federal level. The leadership shown by the Government since its election has resulted in the envoys' report and its enforcement, and has resulted in the Department of the Environment and the Minister receiving those commitments from the provincial Governments. It is tragic to hear the Hon. Member talk about lack of leadership and sense of responsibility at the federal level, when our progress in the past two and one-half years has been truly remarkable. There is a political will to clean up acid rain in this country, and it is unacceptable for the Hon. Member to turn this into a partisan issue when all of us should be committed to doing whatever we can.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the eloquent comment made by the Hon. Member. She is obviously as concerned as I am about this matter.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to inform her of the facts. It is a political issue in the Province of Nova Scotia. It is clear that there is an irresponsible Premier there who refuses to exercise the authority that has been given to him by the people of Nova Scotia to try to eradicate acid rain. Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of acid rain in Nova Scotia, the federal Government should be ashamed and embarrassed to set a foot in that province. It has been grossly negligent with regard to that issue.
Let me give two examples. The Minister has told the Board of Trade in Halifax that the provincial Governments must do more. He speaks about emissions from the Nova Scotia Power Corporation as a result of its burning coal. Yet there are two projects before the federal Ministers responsible for regional industrial expansion and the environment that could greatly assist in lessening the emission of acid rain from the burning of coal.
One project is the synfuel project. However, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has taken an idiotic partisan attitude toward that synfuel research and development project. With a small amount of money that could be taken from funds already existing in the Governments of Nova Scotia and Canada a pilot project could be initiated dealing with the burning of coal and the lessening of acid rain emissions.
The second example of irresponsibility by the federal Government and the Minister of the Environment concerns the carbogel project that is waiting to be funded by the federal and provincial Governments. Yet the irresponsible Premier of Nova Scotia travels to eastern Nova Scotia to say that his Government has changed its energy policy and will now utilize coal. Everyone in Nova Scotia realizes that the days of
Supply
transporting coal by ship to burn at a power plant are over because of the acid rain problems.
The federal Government must live up to its responsibility and make its provincial counterpart live up to its responsibility to fund the carbogel and synfuel projects jointly because the power generated by the Nova Scotia Power Corporation is derived from coal. Yet the Government, the Minister and the Prime Minister have done nothing other than talk about their concern for acid rain and their concern about coal.
I thank the Hon. Member for her eloquent comment, which gave me an opportunity to explain the irresponsible behaviour and gross negligence of the Minister and the Premier with regard to a very important problem that could be resolved if there was some political will. The only political will in the House of Commons being exercised by the Minister of the Environment is to maintain Richard Hatfield in New Brunswick and maintain John Buchanan in Nova Scotia. I can assure the Hon. Member on both counts that they will be gone.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the Hon. Member's contribution to this debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are the only one. You are the first one I heard admit that.


Iain Francis Angus: It is a change, anyway. The Hon. Member responded to an interjection I made about his Party taking the lead on this issue. If his Party did such a good job, why do we still have the problem?


David Charles Dingwall: I thank the Hon. Member for acknowledging the contribution I have made to this debate. The answer to the question is obvious. I do not know of a Government, provincially, federally or municipally, which would say that an acid rain problem could be resolved overnight. I did not even suggest it in debate. What I am suggesting is that there are levers of power in this country, both provincially and federally, which have to be exercised in order to eradicate the problem. Unfortunately, the present administration does not see fit to accept those responsibilities.
In Nova Scotia, with which I am very familiar, we did fund the synfuels project, as one example, so that the emissions from coal would be reduced and reduced substantially. The Tories cut it off. We did fund the carbogel project at the Nova Scotia Power Corporation so that the emissions from coal, again, would be reduced. What have the Tories done? They have cut it off. We did have pilot projects in all the Atlantic regions with regard to the utilization of coal, because it was noted time and time again by the federal Ministry of the Environment that the emissions from coal were a problem. There were pilot projects in New Brunswick in the Colson Cove. There were pilot projects in other parts of Nova Scotia. In fact, even federal and provincial institutions in the Atlantic region did carry out trial projects as well. So there were very

March 4, 1987
Supply
concrete and specific initiatives taken by the previous administration. However, that is not the problem. The problem today is that there is no political will being exercised by the federal Government, nor the provincial Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to address this very serious problem.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, let me start my contribution to the debate today with some bad news. We have already received the answer from some American representatives to the motion today. The motion reads in part:
That this House also deplores the fact that, two years after the Quebec summit meeting, no benefits to Canada in the form of S02 emission reductions in the United States have materialized; and
That, therefore, this House urges the government to:
(2) request at the April, 1987 summit meeting that the United States reduce
S02 emissions over the Canadian border in a significant manner.
This afternoon CBC Radio at five o'clock ran a story which indicates that the majority leader in the Senate of the United States, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, said that the United States should slow down on its plans for legislation to deal with acid rain. He basically indicated, and I am paraphrasing him, that the case had not been yet proven that S02 emissions were the cause of acid rain and that acid rain, in turn, was causing the problems created both in Canada and in the United States. Lo and behold, he said we have to put more money into research. That is a response from the man whose Party controls the Senate of the United States, and which he leads. He is now parroting the line taken by the President of the United States that more money is needed for research, as opposed to what we believe in this House that more action is needed to do something about the problem.
I would like to focus on a couple of areas during my participation in this debate today. From time to time I have made reference to my previous incarnation as a provincial Member in the Ontario House. Once again I find myself dealing with a topic I dealt with back in 1975-76. That, of course, is the question of the impact of American S02 emissions on Canada and particularly on northwestern Ontario. One of the elements I raised at that time, and I was a voice in the wilderness, was the impact of S02 emissions on the health of human beings.
The District Health Council in my community of Thunder Bay did a study around 1975 and discovered that we had a higher than normal incidence of respiratory disease, not necessarily deaths but diseases of the respiratory system including the lungs. There were those of us who believed at the time that part of the reason for that difference was the apparently high levels of S02 emissions from a couple of our pulp and paper mills and later from an Ontario hydro coal-fired generating station. I did some research in terms of followup and discovered back then, thanks, quite frankly, to the environmental protection agency office out of Duluth, Minnesota, a study conducted in Allegheny County. That is part of the Pittsburgh area. Although I do not have the document handy and I cannot quote the exact figures, the
result of that study was to show the direct relationship between S02 emissions and the health cost in that particular county in the United States. What the study found was that for every 1 per cent reduction in S02 emissions, there was a corresponding savings in terms of American dollars spent on medical aid. The study proved that the benefits of reducing S02 and other airborne contaminants went far beyond the question of saving lakes from acidification and saving our forests, whether it be the maple sugar forests in Quebec or the softwood and hardwood forests in Ontario and elsewhere, from reduced growth. It showed that there was clearly an impact on the health of human beings. I would suggest, and I do not have the specifics to use as verification, that the people who would be affected would be our seniors, our young children and those in other age groups who are more susceptible than others to environmental airborne contaminants.
What we are asking the American Government to do, while clearly of benefit to us here in Canada, is probably of even greater benefit to its own citizens. If by reducing those S02 emissions, the Americans can improve the health of their citizens and reduce the financial burden on their health care system, it is in their best interests. Of course it is in our best interests as well.
I think in a lot of ways Canada as a whole, and I am thinking about the federal as well as the provincial context, has taken those first important steps. We in this country have said to our industries that we have to start cleaning up. We may feel strongly that we have to push them harder, further and faster but, compared to the United States, we have done a fantastic job. Once again in our negotiations, whether by the current federal Government or the previous federal Government, or the provincial Governments, we have not done our job in terms of getting the same deal out of the United States. We have not gone the extra step to not only demand but ensure that promises are actually followed through with dollars and cents. It is clear that the President of the United States has not lived up to his commitment to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). He has not ensured that Congress has been provided with the amounts of money necessary to pay for the reductions.
The Americans are still listening to the coal lobby. They are still focusing on one part of their country at the expense of another large part of it, and at the expense of the Canadian environment. That has to change. They have to understand that this is not just a Canada-U.S. fight. They must understand that this is a fight between one part of America and another part of America. They have to move quickly, on the one hand, to put in place the necessary reductions and, on the other, to ensure that for those industries directly affected replacement mechanisms are available for those workers who may be displaced. Appropriate assistance must be given to keep these industries intact in order that economies of communities do not suffer. We must do the same in Canada. We can no longer approach the situation in a black and white
March 4, 1987

fashion. We can no longer say that because it is a job we have to keep it regardless of the expense. I think we can have it both ways. We have shown that in Canada, and it is time that the United States agreed to it.
I would like to come back to the health problem. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, my interest in the health issue goes back to 1975, which is 12 years ago. A recent report in the United States brought down by the Environmental Protection Agency was covered in an article in The New York Times of February 19, 1987. The report was requested by Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in an effort to review its priorities. It was prepared by 75 of the agency's senior professional staff members. I would now like to quote part of the article which states:
The report found that the problems posing the greatest overall risk to human health and the environment in the United States included such conventional air pollutants as sulfur and lead, the destruction of ozone in the atmosphere by manmade chemicals and the risk from pesticides, especially pesticide residues on foods.
Clearly, this report confirms what the Allegheny County study stated back in the 1970s. It also confirms the studies done with respect to the great fogs of London in terms of the impact on the human population. I say to Hon. Members regardless of what Canada and the United States may want to talk about, the United States now has a document which very clearly states that the health of the people of the United States is at risk. Quite clearly it confirms that the health of Canadians is also at risk because of continuing acid rain emissions in this country. They too will have an impact on our health care delivery system.
We hear provincial Governments these days talking about the need to reduce the demand on health care services, and some have imposed user fees. Others try to curtail access. But we could do so much to ease the burden on our health care delivery system in Canada if we would just make a bigger dent in acid rain emissions on both sides of the border. This is clearly an important focus. It is one on which Canadians are in agreement with us.
Results of recent polls indicate that the vast majority of the Canadian public-I believe it is well over two-thirds, if not higher-believe that the environment is the major issue before us today. It is the one about which they are the most concerned. They believe it is important not only to protect our own health, but they want to see our lakes and rivers protected. They do not want to see them killed. They do not want to see fish populations killed off. They do not want to see our forests slowed down in growth. Quite frankly, we cannot afford it. We have not been reforesting as we should have been. In some places there is a danger that we will run out. We are doing research to try to accelerate growth so that the sustainable yield can be improved upon and so that the turn-around time between planting and harvesting can be improved to keep some of our communities viable. The last thing we want to hear is that acid rain is slowing down this growth.
Supply
Acid rain also has an impact on our wildlife in that it gets into the food-chain. Canadians are concerned about this. It is not as if Parliament is going against the grain of the Canadian people by holding back. The people of Canada want us to move forward. They want us to move forward on our own soil. They want us to push the American Government to move forward in the United States. We are of one continent and, yes, we have the longest undefended border in the world. However, acid rain keeps blowing north. The only way we can deal with it is through political pressure from this side of the border and by pressure brought to bear by the people of the United States on their own administration. They must stand up and be counted. They must ensure that their legislators listen to them in the same way that we should be doing here in Canada.
This is an appropriate moment for me to sit down and perhaps respond to any questions that Hon. Members may have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), for questions or comments.


Mr. Desjardins:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the Hon. Member opposite who spoke to the motion before the House today. His speech focussed mainly on the second part of the motion referring to the failure of the United States to take action on acid rain.
I can assure the Hon. Member that like him, I am very much aware of the health concerns of people living in areas where the effects of acid rain are being felt. I represent the region of Abitibi-Temiscamingue where we have the Noranda mine, and people in their fifties and sixties often have to leave the area because of respiratory diseases. I represent a region that used to be a hunting and fishing paradise, but today, hundreds of lakes are contaminated and our forests are deteriorating. When we realize how important our forests are to the economy of this area, the situation is far from reassuring.
Mr. Speaker, I went into politics for the reasons mentioned by the Hon. Member. I felt that as a citizen, I had certain responsibilities. I wanted things to change, and I felt that the quality of life of my fellow citizens and the quality of our lakes, forests and soils should be one of the responsibilities of our governments. In fact, I welcome this opportunity today to mention that the federal Government has made commitments that will result in $120 million being invested in my riding so that Noranda Mines can install pollution control devices. For future generations, this is a very important step.
My question to the Hon. Member is this: Since his comments dealt with the second part of the motion, would he now have the honesty, as many others have had today, to recognize that, since September 1984, this Government has done more in the fight against acid rain than the previous Liberal Governments, that this Government has set target dates, budgets and S02 emission reduction figures of 50 per cent, and that the provinces will have to do what they are asked? Will he

March 4, 1987
Supply
recognize that the internal measures taken by this Government to fight acid rain are among the most innovative in industrialized countries and certainly much more progressive than what the previous Liberal Government had done?


Iain Francis Angus: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and his question. I am sorry to hear that seniors have been forced to leave his area because of the environment that has been created through industrial development. I know of many people from northwestern Ontario who ended up in Arizona because a doctor told them to go to a place where they can breathe.
There is a situation in one part of my riding called Westport where there is a cold inversion. On extremely cold days when the temperature is minus 30 or 35, a plume from one of the paper mills blankets a residential area. That is the type of thing I am concerned about. I know that the Hon. Member sees the same situation in his own riding.
In response to the Hon. Member's question, I will not use the excuse that I was not here during the previous administration. I was watching it, and some would say that I was a perennial candidate. I would say that there is a difference, and that there has been an improvement. Quite frankly, I have not followed this issue with the same interest as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), although it is one of those issues that I keep my eye on from a distance. I do not believe that enough has been done, although I will admit that there has been some improvement. We must do more, for example like what the Government has done with Noranda in terms of making sure that it can clean up its act. It is one thing to say "thou must", but if the tools are not provided at an acceptable price to the Canadian people, we cannot do our own job within Canada.


Alan Redway: I listened with interest to the Hon. Member and his comments relating to the acid rain situation. His comments were illustrated with an oral picture that indicated the problems. All of us share his concerns, and these concerns are common throughout the House and the country. What all of us have a problem with is what can be done that is not presently being done to try to come to grips with this problem?
In his remarks, the Hon. Member said that what had to be done in both the United States and here was the application of political pressure. I am sure that the Hon. Member will agree that there has been a great deal of political pressure exerted on the United States from Canada in one form or another, sometimes by trying to be friendly and negotiate, and sometimes by raising our voice or shaking our fist. I wish to know if the Hon. Member has some other suggestions as to what can be done in the way of political pressure. It is all right to stand in the House and talk about it, use generalities and say that we need more political pressure. But specifically what would the Hon. Member suggest to move us along in this process closer
to the ultimate solution, rather than just talking in terms of generalities, of which all of us are guilty?


Iain Francis Angus: I wish to respond to the Hon. Member's intervention by making two comments. First, the Government must stop pretending that there is progress when there is not. Our position will be undermined with that type of information. More specifically, the Government of Canada could bypass the American administration and go directly to the people of the United States. The Government could pinpoint those crucial areas that are under the acid rain cloud, and talk to the people directly through a media campaign on the radio, in the newspaper, on television, or advertisements, and point out its own studies relating to the health impact, and the impact on the environment of the United States. We could have our embassy staff in Washington arrange to go to those crucial areas and have the American people start lobbying their Representatives and Senators. There is an American election coming up. The primary trail has now started. We should have our people priming Americans who are concerned with the issue to ask those potential presidential candidates where they stand and push them in a direction that will mean better things for both Canada and the United States. We can do that. We have the ability, and it is not against the law. I think we have the responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) for a question or comment.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member is this: Does he agree that, in the case of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, where the polluters are public corporations, the federal Government should not have to finance the clean-up and that the provinces themselves should ensure that their polluting corporations pay for their own clean-up?


Iain Francis Angus: Clearly we should start with the premise that the responsibility starts with the owner of a company, whether it is a power company, a steel company, or any company that has emissions. On the other hand, it is people in other areas who are on the receiving end of what comes out of those stacks. Is there not a rationale for the cost of that clean-up being spread? This has been part of the debate in the United States as to who should pay. Should it be only the coal-producing states or the coal-producing areas that pay? Should it be those taxpayers who live within the area that is being hit by acid rain, or should it be the country as a whole? The same debate must occur here. I will give this example. In Ontario we have an opportunity to replace high sulphur American coal with low sulphur western Canadian coal which is mined in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. It could be railed through those provinces, plus Manitoba, into Ontario. It could be handled in Thunder Bay, loaded on to a ship, and floated down the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway to hydro plants in southern Ontario.
March 4, 1987_______________COMMONS
That would allow Ontario Hydro to reduce its emissions, assuming it decides to go for it. Should it only be the consumers of Ontario Hydro who pay for it, or should the citizens of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, because they will receive a benefit from it through reduced acid rain emissions, share the load? That is the fundamental question with which the Government must deal in terms of the committee struck by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), along with some of the provinces and some of the industry. They will have to come to grips with it.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today concerning acid rain and in response to the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). It is an important issue of public interest.
It was interesting to hear a previous speaker mention going directly to the American people on the issue. We have had excellent leadership at the federal level from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), from the Minister, from the Department, and from the Acid Rain Special Committee. The acid rain committee met today with about 14 journalists from the United States. It was an excellent thing to do. The issue is important in our own press, but it seems that it is not sufficiently stated in the American press to stimulate interest and a political will for the American Government to do something. Most of us have friends or relatives living in the United States. In speaking with my sister who lives in Michigan a week or so ago, I told her about our interest, our work, and our commitment to the issue. I also told her how disappointed we were with the administration of the United States. She said: "If you are that concerned, I will phone my Congressman and my Senator". I hope thousands and thousands of American citizens will phone their Congressmen and Senators so that the American Government will keep the commitment it made some two years ago.
The federal Government has established a clear objective for resolving the acid rain problem. Acid deposition must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year in all vulnerable areas. This objective is derived from extensive scientific observation of the effects of acid rain in Canada and is supported by scientific information from other countries.
To achieve the objective, total Canadian sulphur dioxide emissions from the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border eastward must be reduced to 2.3 million tonnes per year or 50 per cent of the 1980 level. Also, the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the United States into eastern Canada must be reduced to about two million tonnes or about 50 per cent of the 1980 level.
The Canadian acid rain abatement program is well under way. Quebec and Ontario have already introduced regulatory programs. Quebec will achieve emission reductions of 45 per cent by 1990. Ontario will achieve its emission reduction of 60
DEBATES	______3833
Supply
per cent, or 10 per cent more than it was originally committed to, by 1994. Manitoba recently issued draft regulations to achieve its 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 1994.
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have air pollution control initiatives which will achieve the 25 per cent and 16 per cent reductions required respectively by 1994. Regulatory and program measures to achieve more than 90 per cent of the emission reductions under the Canadian acid rain abatement program are now in place.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is now in the process of negotiating formal federal-provincial acid rain abatement agreements to ratify and make binding this part among Governments. There can be no backsliding from the commitments which have been made. All eight Governments must show their clear determination to deliver.
The federal Government has done so. Let me cite a few examples. Through the Industrial and Regional Development Program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the federal Government has assisted Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Manitoba to demonstrate commercially a new process which would reduce emissions from the plant by about 35 per cent. Under the same program, Inco and Falconbridge in Ontario are being assisted in the commercial demonstration of technologies in time for the December 1988 decisions called for in Ontario's regulations. To date, only Noranda has submitted a request for financial assistance for smelter modernization-pollution abatement. A cost sharing agreement with Quebec and Noranda is expected to be concluded shortly.
Substantial progress has also been made under the coal utilization demonstration program of Energy, Mines and Resources. Alternative coal combustion systems, including fluid bed combustion, coal-water mixtures, coal preparation and improved burner systems, have advanced to the point where they can be considered for commercial use.
The federal Government's research and monitoring program has also produced some significant findings. Studies in Nova Scotia have shown that the emission reductions, which have taken place over the past 15 years or so, have cut the acid deposition in some areas to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year-the level required under the abatement program. The rivers in those areas are starting to show signs of chemical recovery. Not only is this good news, but it clearly demonstrates Canada is on the right track with its abatement program and objectives.
Since the western coal task force released its report in August 1986, there has been considerable discussion in a variety of forums on the subject of using more western Canadian coal to reduce Ontario Hydro's acid gas emissions.
Environment Canada recognizes that low sulphur western coal has the potential to reduce emissions substantially. Because there would be considerable benefits to the country, we are encouraged to see that Ontario Hydro is committed to full consideration of the role western coal could play in its emission reduction plans.

March 4, 1987
Supply
We are encouraged that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) met just this week with Premier Peterson. They have agreed to establish a committee involving themselves and the western Premiers. The purpose will be to explore opportunities for improving the economic competitiveness of western coal in Ontario. I applaud the initiative of the Deputy Prime Minister in this particular regard.
Not only will the Canadian acid rain abatement program reduce the damage Canada is doing to itself, it will also reduce the transboundary flow of air pollution from Canada into the eastern United States. In 1980 the transboundary flow from Canada to the United States was about 1.5 million tonnes. By 1994 this will be reduced to about 0.8 million tonnes. This should help alleviate some of the damage being caused in the northeastern United States. In the Adirondacks, for instance, as much as 25 per cent of the acid rain which falls is of Canadian origin. By significantly reducing our contribution to acid rain damage in these areas, Canada is honouring its international obligation not to pollute other countries to the extent of injury to human health or property.
More than half of the acid deposition in eastern Canada comes from U.S. emissions. Areas such as Muskoka-Halibur-ton through to Quebec City receive about three-quarters of their acid deposition from the United States. In 1980, about four million tonnes of sulphur dioxide flowed across the border into eastern Canada. In order that acid rain damage be eliminated, Canada is seeking a reduction in the transboundary air pollution flow to about 2 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year and implementation of a U.S. program to reduce the transboundary flows to this level on a targeted and scheduled basis.
What the United States does to honour its commitment and how it does it are its own legitimate domestic decisions. Whether the transboundary flows are reduced to the level required is Canada's business. With this in mind, we should judge the extent of our satisfaction with U.S. actions not by dollars spent or technology used, however important that is,
but rather by what really matters, reductions in transboundary flows of air pollution.
Canada and the United States have a long and outstanding history of resolving transboundary environmental problems. The special envoys on acid raid put what needed to be done rather well in their report, and I quote:
The foundations of that response-the joint statement and the memorandum of intent-are already in place. A precedent for that response already exists in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
What remains is to borrow from that precedent and build upon those foundations a bilateral accord which will jointly address a common problem in the best tradition of U.S.-Canadian environmental relations. We know exactly what should be in that accord and we are prepared to meet our obligations to the United States. We want the Americans to do likewise.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary in indicating progress being made with the provinces and the cuts implemented by each of them did not include any reference to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Did I miss something or did she omit those two provinces and, if so, why?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to that particular issue because the commitments that have been made with the federal Government are ones that we believe the provinces should maintain. As the federal Minister of the Environment said just a few moments ago in this House, we believe the provinces should keep those commitments and we will do everything in our power to make sure that happens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.34 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on this motion have expired.
The House adjourns until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, March 5, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers