1988-04-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that this question be now put.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues wish to speak on this Bill. This was a type of underhanded manoeuvre of the Government, on a Friday, of all days-never on a Friday used to be the rule around here.
I hope that the Government will reconsider. We are down to 10 minute speeches, and obviously at some time today we will be forcing a vote on the Bill. It is not necessary to do it now. Today is a short day, and if there are four or five people who wish to speak at 10 minutes each, it is no handicap or hazard to the Government.
I would hope, Sir, that we could avoid this type of manoeuvring, if the Government wishes to have lots of co-operation from the opposition Parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on debate.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to speak on this Bill, and I am glad to have the chance today. This is a Bill to privatize Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a small firm renamed and taken over by the Government in 1942. Since then it has been the recipient of a vast amount of government subsidies. The Government has pumped taxpayers' money into this firm. In spite of that, the firm still has debts which the Government is willing to pay off as a favour to any prospective buyer.
It is a bad deal, financially, but there is another aspect that is even worse that I will address shortly. First, I wish to review the generally bad aspects of the deal. This deal is arranged in such a manner that the public sector will be taking the debts, while the private sector takes the profits. This is what is traditionally known as socialism for the rich. Many corporations that will indirectly benefit from this, and many individuals who will directly benefit from this, pay no tax. We do not know exactly who until the time comes, but we do know that they will be among those rich people in Canada who pay no tax, and they will be subsidized by the working people, small business people, and farmers of Canada who pay taxes. As I said, large multimillion dollar debts of this company will be taken over by the Government after the agreement to sell this company to private owners for their private profit. That is one problem.
Another problem is that the safety regulations, which have not been enforced as well as they ought to be in the case of a public corporation, will be much less enforced in the case of a private corporation. I am speaking of safety to the workers, safety to the neighbouring public, and safety to the environment. The sale of this company into private hands will put the industry in the position of becoming a much greater physical risk to those who work there, to those who live nearby, and to the air, water, and soil of our country. Those are the general problems.
What I want to speak of particularly is that this company, Eldorado, has been from the outset part of a scam. I am not referring only to the cartel for price fixing, of which it was part and on which the evidence was gathered by the Department of Justice; 75,000 documents of evidence gathered and kept secret until this day. Nevertheless, clearly there is no question that Eldorado and other companies in the cartel, Canadian and international, were guilty of price fixing. The matter was never brought to court, because Eldorado during this time has been a Crown corporation and was therefore able to misuse or to abuse the royal prerogative to avoid being sued for its violation

April 15, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
of the laws of Canada. I am speaking of a still more serious scam, and that is a scam in the relationship between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
I refer partly to an address recorded in The Gazette for April 14, 1988 by Helen Caldicott who says to us through the audience she addressed in Montreal:
You are the root of half the arsenal of nuclear bombs in the world.
This is what she told her audience of about 900 people at St. Patrick's Church in Montreal. She goes on to say that if we continue with the proposed nuclear powered subs, we will be extending our guilt for the proliferation of the threat of nuclear devastation either by accident or by war.
What happened was that in the 1940s Canada helped the United States to build the atomic bombs that were tested in the U.S., mostly on non-humans, not deliberately on humans though some American and some Canadian soldiers have suffered severely from the radiation to which they were exposed there, but they were tested cold-bloodedly on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Canada helped by providing uranium and by providing expertise. This was done primarily through Eldorado. Canada for many years, then, has sold uranium to the United States.
When the United States uranium industry became protectionist and objected to the importing of Canadian uranium, the Canadian Government under Lester Pearson became more peace loving and said: "We won't sell uranium except for peaceful purposes". They never explained from that date to this how you identify a uranium atom or a uranium molecule or a uranium shipment, for that matter, when it has been stockpiled with uranium from other mines, or how you tell which one was used for peaceful purposes only and which one was used to produce weapons grade plutonium for bombs.
At the time this scam was promoted by Eisenhower, the former General commanding U.S. Forces in Europe and later recycled as President of Columbia University and then as President of the United States. In 1953, when Eisenhower spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, he undertook to announce a new nuclear policy for the U.S. He proposed, and I quote, "to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers and put it into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace". He was going to establish a new international agency called "Atoms for Peace". They were going to provide abundant electrical power, growing roses in the Antarctic, and so on and so forth. It was quite a paradise that he described. He assured us that this Atoms for Peace would "diminish the potential destructive power of the world's atomic stockpiles", and a further quote that they would be "entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and promoting its use for industrial and humanitarian purposes".
Canada, through Eldorado, went along with this project disguised as a pipe-dream for Utopia with cheap, safe power. Canada helped to set up the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which facilitated the sale of uranium and overlooked the serious dangers of uranium from Canada and other uranium producing countries being used to produce nuclear weapons.
During these years Canada prided itself on not manufacturing or storing nuclear weapons, except for a few years when we had the Bomarc nuclear warhead here. Some Canadians were making plenty of money. Other Canadians were subsidizing the industry from the beginning, but the owners of uranium industries were making plenty of money by selling uranium to the United States and to other bomb-producing countries, including even the Soviet Union.
There was also the project of producing the CANDU reactor. The CANDU was a flop commercially. It has had to be constantly subsidized by the taxpayers; again the profits go mainly to the owners directly or indirectly, to the financiers, to the banks and others that lend the money to this money losing, weapons producing industry. I call it "weapons producing" because even though no Canadian agency has manufactured the bombs, we have been an important part of the American bomb manufacturing industry.
This has been well documented in a book called Canada and the Nuclear Arms Race, particularly a section by Gordon Edwards, a professor of mathematics, called "Canada's Nuclear Industry and the Myth of the Peaceful Atom". He points out that when, for example, there was concern about proliferation of nuclear weaponry into Argentina through the use of Canada's CANDU reactor and materials associated with it, there was a high level discussion and there was an inquiry, not a public inquiry but a judiciously private inquiry. Edwards says in the book, and I quote:
The nuclear review was carried out by an interdepartmental committee of
government officials, with assistance and advice from AECL-
That is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That is to say not the regulatory board but a corporation interested in producing and selling atomic energy. He went on to say:
-Eldorado Nuclear Limited, the Atomic Energy Control Board, and the
Canadian Nuclear Association-all organizations which are dedicated to the
promotion of nuclear technology. However-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate because I feel that from now until June, the Government will use delaying tactics of this kind to put an end to debates in the House, to shorten them, and perhaps even to silence some opposition Members who would like to speak on certain subjects.
I will remind Hon. Members that yesterday in the House, I raised a series of issues that the Government must address, subjects as important as the privatization of Air Canada and
April 15, 1988

abortion. So the Government must present the legislation as soon as possible if we are to study these issues seriously in the House by the end of June.

In speaking to the motion before us, which motion is that the question be now put, I would like to state that the Liberal caucus does not like this tactic of the Government. Nevertheless, it has been done now. We hope that the Government will not make a habit of it and will allow for the exercise of free speech without having to go to such extremes.
Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, with reservations from the Liberal caucus, will receive our affirmative vote. That is the case basically because this Bill seems to be a step in the right direction, and we favour the move.
I must tell Hon. Members that for political reasons and from a political perspective I personally may have some difficulties with this merger. It is a gift to Premier Grant Devine and his Saskatchewan buddies. I am not very inclined at this time to be very nice to Mr. Devine because he is not being very nice to me. Therefore with that reservation, a personal one, and without putting that reservation before my vote, I will stand in my place to support the Bill. I hope that Premier Devine will do the same in his province, stand up and support some of the things for which we all fight, that is, basic fundamental rights in Canada, and give generously to his people.
The assets of Eldorado are valued at about $915.9 million while the assets of Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation, which is the company with which Eldorado will be merged, are $973.2 million. The Government of Canada will have a 38.5 per cent share of the new company while Saskatchewan will have a 61.5 per cent share.
The new company will issue promissory notes valued at 40 per cent of fixed assets to cover all the debt owed to the Saskatchewan Government, and $230 million of the $570 million owed to the Government of Canada.
It is indeed a gift to the Province of Saskatchewan. We are covering the debt by doing this and helping Saskatchewan balance its books. However, the price for which the Government of Canada is selling Eldorado nevertheless appears low to some of us.
Some stock brokerage companies, in particular Burns Fry, which is assisting the Government with this sale, has explained to us some of the difficulties of placing a value on the Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear, which is a federally owned company. The two companies were evaluated from a discounted cash flow basis rather than from an assets basis. SMDC had lower operating costs, partially as a result of lower royalties. Eldorado was also determined to be lower in value as a result of its less profitable refinery business.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
We know that the product that the Canadian uranium industry exports makes Canada one of the leading producers and exporters of uranium. I have statistics with which I will not bore the House but which state that in 1987 Canadian output and exports each exceeded 12,000 tonnes of uranium, surpassing the five year highs set in 1986. The value of Canadian uranium production exceeded $1 billion in 1987.
One of the points that I would like to touch upon in the few minutes available to me is that the head office of the new merged company will be moved to Saskatchewan. This means that there will be 50 employees who will be without jobs. However, if we are to believe some of the press reports, there will be some efforts made by the new merged privatized company to look very attentively at the possibility of offering to these people future employment if at all possible. I hope that they will be treated fairly and justly and that they will not suffer from this decision and from this transfer to Saskatchewan.
I hope that if among these employees there are francophones, they will be able to go to Saskatchewan, have their kids educated in Saskatchewan en franqais, s'il vous plait, and have access to their courts as well as access to the legislature, in French as well as in English because of course that is a fact of life in Saskatchewan.
Having made these few remarks I would like to say to the House once again that we indeed support Bill C-121. I do not think that we have any further speakers on it.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party oppose the sale of Eldorado Nuclear Limited because in our opinion it is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for Canadians. I have a whole number of concerns. I have listened to the speeches over the last several days on this Bill. I think anyone watching this debate will readily recognize that there are many facets to what the Government is attempting to do here. One of those with which I have a great deal of concern is the environmental implications of this deal.
Considering the environmental aspects of Bill C-121 I think a greater consideration should be given to the situation of Eldorado Nuclear now and the wider implications of uranium mining which the new merged company will encounter. Eldorado Nuclear has severe environmental problems with which to deal, especially at its Port Hope, Ontario, refinery, and at its northern Saskatchewan mine sites. Essentially the Eldorado Port Hope dump site is full.
The situation has been summarized this way by research staff from the Library of Parliament. The researchers have pointed out that the effluent treatment process at the Port Hope refinery produces approximately 600 tonnes per year of solid waste which is mainly calcium oxide containing calcium fluoride and uranium at 500 to 1000 parts per thousand.
This material and much smaller quantities of other smaller wastes that contain metallic impurities, including arsenic, are dumped at a licensed site near Port Hope, the Granby dump

April 15, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
site. This depository is close to being full and yet no alternate site or plan has been selected. Eldorado has been waiting for the federal Government to decide what should be done with this dump, and presumably the new company will also wait for direction.
Any plan that requires the removal of the material to a new site will be very expensive, mainly in terms of transportation, and according to the details released with the merger plans, the costs, possibly up to as much as $100 million, will be borne mainly by the federal Government.
That is according to the research staff of the Parliamentary Library, and I think all Hon. Members have a great respect for the integrity of the research done by the staff in the research branch.
The resolution of Port Hope is mainly to dump the responsibility onto the federal Government which will pay the bulk of the costs. In our estimation, the first $2 million will be borne by the company and the next $98 million or 23.5 per cent will be borne by the company, with 76.5 per cent of the cost being borne by the federal Government. Any cost above $100 million will be borne entirely by the federal Government. I defy anyone to say that that is a good deal for the taxpayers of Canada who will end up absorbing these costs.
Why is there such a sweetheart deal for a company being purchased as it is? Companies are normally purchased with assets and liabilities, but some of the key liabilities in this transaction have been taken over by the federal Government. We must ask why this is so. The answer is simply that the Government is desperately anxious for a good share price on the flotation of the new company's stock. What better way to achieve that than for the federal Government to assume the liability of environmental responsibilities and Eldorado's enormous debt?
Eldorado's environmental difficulties do not end with the dump sites. There are further problems in Port Hope and in Saskatchewan's mine mills. Again, according to the researchers from the Library of Parliament, the continued operation of the Port Hope facility, especially at present high rates of production, will generate considerable levels of solid and liquid waste. With the proximity of the plant to both Lake Ontario and the town site, the new company would do its image a great deal of good by committing itself to efforts to recycle or clean up and sell all such wastes. No mention has been made of such an approach, according to the researchers.
Clean-up problems exist at the mills in Saskatchewan as well. The tailings that are produced contain small amounts of uranium, radium and other elements. Very good effluent treatment is required on an ongoing basis, and a thorough understanding of the principles involved have to be taught to the personnel involved. Historically, such understanding has been suspect at best.
The two areas I have just pointed out have been identified as problems which the Government has yet to acknowledge. This leads to the suspicion that the Government feels that the less said about environmental aspects of uranium production, the better. This is unfortunate for a Government that assumed office with some expectations that it would examine the inherent difficulties of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Although there is considerable public support for such an inquiry, there has not been one. We in the New Democratic Party have formed our own inquiry headed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
At this time when the Government is backing away from involvement with uranium, it would be an appropriate time to review the issues involved with uranium mining, particularly in light of recent experience in Canada where new high-grade ore mines have developed in recent years and are likely to require both novel and sophisticated technologies. Similarly, Atomic Energy control regulations have been under review for a number of years. A public inquiry could reveal the problems of mining uranium at this time.
I think this issue begs that I ask some of the environmental questions associated with uranium mining which are grouped around three themes: occupational safety for miners, public health hazards from mine waste and disposal and the propriety of producing material for possible use in nuclear weapons.
As I pointed out earlier, the New Democratic Party opposes this deal because it is a bad deal. It is a bad deal on environmental grounds and it is certainly a bad deal for the taxpayers of Canada. I say that because the deal is structured so that the public sector takes the risks and obligations and the private sector gets the profits, profits not only from the commercial activities of the company merged from Eldorado and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation but also from the heavy public subsidies which are given the uranium mining industry in the form of favourable taxation, marketing arrangements and sweetheart contracts.
The House has been given no assurances from the Government that it recognizes the sacrifice of the public sector and the public interest in this deal. It is clear that this deal has been structured so that the Government can say that privatization works, just look at the share price. However, of all sectors of industry, I cannot think of another that is less appropriate for privatization than the nuclear industry. In my opinion, it displays an ideological approach that defies any kind of logic or responsibility to the public which is supposed to be represented by the Government.
In order for this stock flotation deal to succeed, and that is all it really is, the public sector will underwrite the risks by assuming the debt of Eldorado Nuclear and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and the federal Government will assume the further liability of Eldorado's nuclear waste problems at Port Hope at a cost of perhaps some $75 million. This take-back of debt has been described by the financial
April 15, 1988

advisers to the Government, Burns Fry, another respected organization, as being necessary for the flotation. Eldorado's debts are substantial. They are in the range of $550 million.
The federal Government will receive from the newly merged company about $250 million, leaving $300 million that must be made up in the sale of shares in the new company before the Government breaks even on its debt obligations alone. This is to say nothing of the cumulative investment which has been made in Eldorado in the form of government equity.
The Government needs a high share price or else it will wind up with a brick in its hands, or something like a BCRIC, the B.C. resource privatization under the Bennett Government which issued shares at $5, shares which now trade for about 80 cents or 90 cents.
There are a whole number of concerns to which the Government has not responded in the House in its defence of this Bill. I am rather disappointed that more Members from the government side have not spoken out on behalf of their own constituents' interest in this matter. I am sure the concerns I have expressed are shared by many Canadians, regardless of where they live in Canada.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this very important piece of legislation. My colleague from Beaches has set out in his usual eloquent manner a number of reasons, both environmental and financial, for our opposition to this legislation. He has noted that government Members seem somewhat reluctant to defend this provision, and I am saddened as well to note that the Official Opposition seems to be supporting this legislation. Indeed, I suppose that this is not terribly surprising because too often we have seen that the initial suggestion for other privatization ventures by this Government came from the Liberal Party of Canada.
We know that the Conservative Government, in its obsession with the private sector and its contempt for a strong and vibrant public sector accountable to the people of Canada, is now in the process of selling off, in a sense, Canada's heritage as a nation. I speak of Crown corporations such as Air Canada where we had the announcement earlier this week that the Conservative Government intends to sell it off. We have put the Government on notice that we will do everything in our power to block this sale, which is not only wrong in principle but which is opposed by the great majority of Canadians from coast to coast.
I would point out that among those who oppose the sale of Air Canada are federal Progressive Conservative supporters. A majority of them are saying to their Government: Back off. Air Canada is running well. We are concerned that smaller communities should not be denied effective transportation and if it is privatized, then there is a real risk that both service and safety will deteriorate.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
I mentioned the fact that, sadly, it was the Liberal Party that started this trend towards privatization. Indeed, it was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), then Minister of Transport, who suggested, I believe in March of 1984, that the time had come to privatize Air Canada. However, not only will we in the NDP do everything in our power to block the sale of this vital Crown corporation, we have also said that following the next federal election an NDP Government will take Air Canada back into public hands. That is our commitment to the people of Canada.
We approached this legislation with deep concern from a number of perspectives, including environmental and sound financial management, from the perspective of those who work in the industry, and certainly from the perspective of a movement which has historically argued for a strong public sector, particularly in essential areas of the economy. Let us not forget that it was in the 1940s that the federal Government recognized the importance of nuclear energy by first expropriating the assets of Eldorado Mines and then using the declaratory power in the then British North America Act to take jurisdiction over this resource. It was precisely that action which underlined the seriousness with which nuclear energy was regarded and certainly should still be regarded.
We as New Democrats also believe we must break the cycle of nuclear proliferation. The risks inherent in continued nuclear proliferation at all stages are very great. My colleague from Beaches spoke of the concern over nuclear wastes and the fact that the Port Hope facility is almost full. As a society we still have not come up with a method for safely disposing of nuclear wastes.
As well, we are concerned about the health of those who work in the industry. There are serious occupational health and safety concerns that arise. That is partly why two of the major unions who represent workers at Eldorado and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation are fundamentally opposed to this legislation. I am speaking of the Energy and Chemical Workers Union that represents employees at the Cluff Lake Mine in northern Saskatchewan in which SMDC holds a majority share, and the United Steelworkers, who represent employees at the Key Lake Mine, the Rabbit Lake Mine, and three locals of the Eldorado uranium refinery at Port Hope. Those people who work in the field are asking the Government to back off on its ideological obsession with privatization, with paying off its friends in the private sector.
We say that this matter is of concern on environmental grounds also. We say it is a concern to the workers. We also say it is a bad deal economically. Why? Because the deal is structured in such a way that the public sector takes all of the real risks and obligations, and the private sector gets the profits. It is the same old story that Tommy Douglas used to tell so effectively, and we are seeing it again in this legislation. For example, we have just learned, I believe it was in this morning's Globe and Mail, that the profits of SMDC have doubled. The company recorded a $60.3 million profit in 1987, almost double what it made the previous year. What is

April 15, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
happening to that company? It is being sold off to the private sector.
I am a Member of Parliament from British Columbia and I remember a similar sale of public assets by the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. I remember the Premier of British Columbia telling us that this was an example of private enterprise at work, of the market system at its finest. If that is an example of the market system at its finest, God help us, because it was a disaster for the ordinary people of British Columbia who, after all, owned all of the assets in those corporations in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP support a large public sector in Canada. For example, we called for the nationalization of a Canadian bank. This would allow us some influence on the banks' policies throughout Canada. It would also allow us to exert greater influence on financial policies in Canada. This is not a very radical policy. All, or almost all, countries in the western world, including France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium and many others, have a public stake in the financial sector.
And I take this opportunity to correct the suggestion made in an article in today's La Presse by Mario Fontaine, who suggests that the NDP's policy is to nationalize all the banks in Canada. That is not at all the case, Mr. Speaker, but we are in favor of nationalizing one bank, as many other countries in the world have already done.

My time, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Has expired.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -has expired. Thank you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity that the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) gave me to speak again. I appreciate that very much. I hope he continues to use that kind of strategy and tactic in the conduct of the business of the House.
We in the NDP have no problem with the merging of two Crown corporations, Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. Eldorado is mainly in the refining end of the business with some mining, and SMDC is in the mining business in the main. However, the Government then says it will privatize that merged company and turn it over to private investors via the stock market. With the shape which the stockmarket is in, this is perhaps a stupid time to be making share offerings for Eldorado and Air Canada which would amount to something in the order of $400 million to $500 million. The offering will either fail or the shares will go for a pittance, which means that the taxpayers are again taken to the cleaners.
I would like to point out another example of the poor treatment which the taxpayers get at the hands of the Government. The people of Canada invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Eldorado. The people of Saskatchewan probably invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation.
We all know that over the last number of years the uranium market has been soft, to put it mildly. In fact, prices were down so badly that we could hardly give the stuff away. However, things have improved. As was reported in today's Globe and Mail, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation had a net profit last year of $60.3 million, double the profit of the year before, and it reduced its long-term debt from $600 million to around $315 million over the last three or four years. However, it still has long-term debts in excess of $300 million. Eldorado Nuclear has debts of about $300 million.
The pattern is the same in the case of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. Every time the taxpayers get a chance to get a return on their investment, or to get their money back, the free enterprise nonsense comes out from under the rocks, the Tories come out of the woodwork and say that because it is making a profit it should be sold to their private enterprise friends.
You cannot win with the Tories. If a Crown corporation loses money, ergo Crown corporations are bad in principle and in general. They are terrible, they do not work, they are inefficient, et cetera. If a Crown corporation makes a profit, it is equally bad, according to the Tories. The Government and the taxpayers have no business being in an enterprise which should be in the hands of the private sector. You cannot win with these birds.
That kind of convoluted thinking and double standard set out by the Government over nearly the last four years cause many people to believe that the Government does not know what it is doing, that it does not know what it wants to do or how it wants to do it. The only thing the Government has been consistent about is the narrow ideological binge that it is on in this case, the case of Air Canada, and a number of other matters.
In addition to being taken again by the privatization of a company which will be making a profit and being denied a chance to get a return on their investment or to get their money back, this Bill saddles the taxpayers with $300 million of the debt of Eldorado Nuclear. That is not the first time the Government has done that. You and I, Mr. Speaker, could be good capitalists and free enterprisers too if someone would offer us a company on the cheap without any of the debts and all of the assets.
Why should the taxpayer be victimized by the Government's headlong plunge into turning an industry over to the private sector when the long-term future of the investment is good and
April 15, 1988

the opportunity exists for the taxpayers to get their money back and maybe even make a profit on it? The Conservatives want the taxpayer to pay both ways.
If you were in the private sector and went to the stock exchange in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or New York and announced a share offering in a private company, announcing as well that you were going to keep a majority interest in the company and instruct your members of the board of directors to vote with the minority private shareholders, they would laugh you out of the place. You would not be able to give a share away.
However, that is the methodology of the Tories in their announcement about Air Canada. If the Government sells 45 per cent of the shares of the company to the private sector it still retains, on behalf of the taxpayers, 55 per cent of the ownership of Air Canada. The Minister says that the Government will instruct the government members on the board of directors to vote the majority stock with the minority stockholders. If you were to do that in a private company you would be fired the next day. No group of a majority of shareholders would hold still for that kind of nonsense.
However, that is the way the Government is treating the taxpayers. We think that the deal itself and the way the public is being treated by the Government is so fundamentally bad that the Bill should be withdrawn. The Bill should go back to the drawing board. Those two Crown corporations should simply be merged into one and the taxpayers should be given an opportunity to get their money back.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I should think not. I know that you yourself have quite enjoyed the debate that has been entered into with particular vigour over the last couple of days on a matter of increasingly obvious importance. I am sure that you enjoyed our examination yesterday of the ideological basis of this legislation which would merge the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear. I am sorry to see that the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is not here to continue the exploration of the faults underlying this Bill.
Yesterday we said that this Bill was a very nice example of the triumphs of ideology in that Eldorado Nuclear dramatized many of the difficulties and the failures of the Government to consider all of the ramifications of actions that it takes under the umbrella of ideology.


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



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 after this Government was elected, Benoit Bouchard, as Minister of State (Transport), asked me to identify my region's transportation needs. I organized a meeting with him for the mayors of Buckingham, Gatineau and the Chairman of Societe d'Amen-agement de l'Outaouais, in order to explain to the Minister the needs of my riding and the issue of bridges, a matter that had been neglected for over fifty years.
The NCC, which is responsible for the National Capital Region which includes my riding, was asked to do a feasibility study. Subsequently, the NCC decided to consider the bridge requirements of Aylmer and Hull as well. This week, the consulting firm hired by the NCC caused considerable concern and anger among our Quebec communities as result of its cavalier approach to this study. We demand that the people in our respective communities be formally consulted as soon as possible. They may be afraid of the truth, Mr. Speaker, but there is no escaping hard facts. Taxpayers want to have their say. We cannot tolerate development in our area unless the people, through their elected representatives, are allowed to establish their priorities in this respect.

OO)



RADIO-CANADA IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING ANIMATION BRANCH

M. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: While senior Radio-Canada executives are dancing around Frederic Back and the Department of Communications is celebrating because of the Oscar, in the wings we can get a glimpse of how Radio-Canada is dismantling its animation department.
I may remind Hon. Members that the network sold one of the two cameras used to make animated Films, and that the Department will no longer be authorized to make fiction films.
We must not forget that most of the international recognition received by Radio-Canada in the past was based on the quality of the productions of its animation department. We see here one of the disastrous results of the Government's budget cuts in cultural affairs.

Frederic Back and his colleagues in the animation department at Radio-Canada have won two Oscars in six years. I call on the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to start funding the CBC in such a way that future generations of

April 15, 1988
Canadian artists will have the opportunity to match Mr. Back's achievement.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming more and more convinced that the present Government is providing good government.
Canadians have sifted through the rhetoric of the NDP and have found it lacking in substance. Canadians see an Official Opposition devoid of policies and direction, and we are watching a Liberal Government in Ontario increase spending by 10 per cent per year while in good economic times. It has even threatened higher taxes in its upcoming budget.
This Government's record of job creation is unprecedented. The unemployment rate in Ontario is at its lowest in 14 years. Canadians are saying that they do not want to return to double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, a double digit unemployment rate, and runaway deficits. Canadians want good government and they are getting it.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, how can Premier Bourassa of Quebec condone Saskatchewan Bill 2 when every language minority group in the country says that this Bill is a step backward for language justice? Is it because Premier Bourassa wants to hand out similar treatment to the anglophone minority in Quebec once the Supreme Court renders its judgment on bilingual signs under Quebec Bill 101?
Saskatchewan Bill 2 cuts back on francophone rights which the Supreme Court of Canada said existed in Saskatchewan prior to 1905, and the sign provisions of Bill 101 cut back on rights held by Quebec Anglophones for over 100 years. Both measures are contrary to the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, the Meech Accord, and federal Bill C-72.
In these circumstances, I urge Premier Bourassa and Devine to adopt a spirit of tolerance, generosity, and fairness with respect to their language minorities and to amend their language Bills accordingly.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concerning the establishment of review committees for federal judicial appointments is another step in the right direction toward an open and public appointments process. As you know, appointments to federal boards and agencies have been subject to a parliamentary review for almost three years now.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Province of Ontario where Premier David Peterson has rejected a recommendation signed by some of his own Liberal members of the Legislature calling for the establishment of a similar review process for appointments to provincial boards and agencies. Instead, Premier Peterson has opted to consult opposition Party Leaders in private in connection with only a few appointments.
What we need at all levels of government is not a secret process but an open one; a process in which all positions are publicly advertised and applied for, and where all positions are subject to a parliamentary review.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out on a grave injustice which has been done to the son of a couple who live in my constituency in Burnaby. His name is Sonny McLaren. He is a man who has served over 12 years on a sentence of 61-1/2 years for breaking into a Masonic lodge in the United States, with no injury involved, and stealing less than $100.
As I say, he served over 12 years. Recently, though, he has had solid support from correction officials and parole officers and from his family to move into a halfway house in Vancouver, operated by the Salvation Army. Yesterday, the National Parole Board dashed Sonny McLaren's hopes. He has been treated in an appalling fashion by the National Parole Board. It ignored all of the recommendations of those who have been working with him.
This is the same National Parole Board that lets out a Foster but keeps in a Sonny McLaren. I say shame on the National Parole Board for its treatment of Sonny McLaren in these circumstances.
I call on Ole Ingstrup, Chairman of the National Parole Board, to review this cruel decision very quickly and to grant Sonny McLaren's appeal in order to allow him to get on with his life.
April 15, 1988



AIR SAFETY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Civil Aviation Tribunal established June 1, 1986, pursuant to the recommendations of the Dubin inquiry into aviation safety in Canada, is to provide the aviation community with an independent appeal system with regard to enforcement decisions and penalties assessed by the Ministry of Transport under the Aeronautics Act.
The Tribunal is now bringing natural justice to aviation matters. Under the chairmanship of Mr. J. W. Snow, the Tribunal has done an excellent job disposing of some 127 cases in 1987, its first full year of operation. Both the aviation fraternity and the Ministry of Transport are served well by this independent tribunal.
* *
*



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend a group of Guatemalan nationals will be returning to their country for the first time. These are a group of individuals who have valiantly fought for the cause of human rights in their own country. In the last several years they have been forced into exile and have been speaking and trying to interest other countries in the plight of their colleagues and friends in their own country.
This weekend they will be returning for the first time to give test to the new Guatemalan Government's commitment to open up human rights and provide for a more beneficial environment. They will be accompanied by a group of international observers, including a clergyman from Canada. 1 think it is essential that other countries take note of this very important action both as a way of providing protection and also giving testimony to their valiant and courageous act.
I call upon our Department of External Affairs to ensure that the observation monitoring of our own Department will be carefully directed toward Guatemala this weekend, and it may want to contact the Guatemalan Government. Most important, I hope Members of this House will not only recognize the importance of this act of courage but also lend their support to this very initiative.



JUSTICE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, for many years the Liberals appointed judges on a strictly partisan basis, almost like the Senate. Yesterday, our Government and our Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) put an end to this system of partisan appointments.
This Government is not only cleaning up patronage but also changing the system, so that once and for all on Parliament Hill, procedures will be open and crystal clear, so that competence will be the only basis for selection.
Under the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, integrity is gaining ground on Parliament Hill.
* *
*



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, last night on the evening shift at Canada Post's Alta Vista Terminal in Ottawa, 50 to 75 unionized workers were suspended. According to some reports, more than 90 per cent of the women on the shift were suspended. For the most part these women were suspended for having their purses in the work area.
Canada Post says it is doing this to protect the security of the mail. It already had the right to search purses of people entering or leaving the workplace. It already had the right to search lockers. The difference is that in the Marchment report that looked at the Post Office, Judge Marchment said people should only be searched if there were reasonable grounds to believe something was wrong.
The Post Office has gone much further. One woman was suspended because she wanted to keep her purse with medication in it. One man was suspended because he had a sports paper in his back pocket. One man was suspended for not putting his jacket in his locker even though, according to witnesses, the man had not been issued a locker.
The Post Office is being stupid and provocative. It already has the tools to deal with security. What it is trying to do is pick a fight with the union and abuse the workers. This is not the way to build a better Post Office.

April 15, 1988



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, for the past few days the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association has been hosting a delegation from the Western European Union which consists of members of the national Parliaments of Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. The members of this very important group of European countries are most interested in our mutual defence, arms limitation, and other similar topics which impinge on the NATO alliance and on our countries individually.
These are our colleagues. These are our friends. These are our allies. In fact, most members of this House can trace their heritage to one of these countries.
I want to emphasize the policy of our Government that we will remain in NATO, that we will continue to enhance our presence in the alliance in Europe with men and material. To do less, to weaken our resolve in any way, would be to betray our friends, our colleagues, our allies, our forefathers. This we will not do.



WELFARE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I read with absolute shock and dismay the latest in the series of actions taken by the Premier of British Columbia who claims to be in support of the family. With his latest decision to cut off welfare for single mothers who have one child over the age of three and one-half months, or have two children under the age of 12 years, he is penalizing the children of this country.
The federal Government, through its CAP funding, does much to support welfare programs in various provinces. I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to show some leadership in this area, to contact the Premier of British Columbia and tell him that this latest action is completely unacceptable. It is going to hurt the children of British Columbia and, what is more, if the Minister stands by silently and lets this happen, it is going to be hurtful to the children and the families of Canada.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on January 1 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon)
issued four new offshore lobster licences giving access to the lobster grounds on Georges Bank. This decision has been widely criticized by the provincial Legislature, the inshore lobster fishermen, the community in general, and by this Member of Parliament.
The Minister must realize that the fishing industry is serious business in western Nova Scotia and my constituents do not take lightly to having decisions imposed upon them. The message from my constituents is very clear. The issuing of new offshore lobster licences was unacceptable in the past, and nothing has changed to make the decision acceptable. On this issue, I stand with my fishermen.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in recent days there have been reports that Israeli forces may be using highly toxic gases in their efforts to control Palestinian demonstrations in the occupied territories. These gases are reported to cause severe abdominal pain and impaired muscle control, to cause miscarriages and even death. If these reports are accurate, the use of toxic gases represents a frightening development in the ongoing violence in the occupied territories and should be condemned by all Members of this House and, indeed, the entire world community.
Just as Canadians are outraged at the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, so should we be outraged if these most recent reports are true. The use of chemical weapons by any nation is morally abhorrent and has absolutely no place in a civilized world.
I urge the Government to endeavour vigorously to determine the accuracy of the recent reports and, if they are true, to speak out forcefully against the use of chemical weapons against Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted with the announcement of the Government that Revenue Canada will carry into effect administrative measures and amendments to the Income Tax Act to expedite tax credit refunds for qualified Canadian controlled private corporations engaged in scientific research. The R and D tax credit provides assistance for corporations in those years in which they do not have any tax liability. This program has already stimulated over $1 billion of research activity in Canada.
April 15, 1988

The Government will issue refunds or partial refunds for R and D claims made by Canadian controlled private corporations, with established track records as research and development performers, within two months of their filing complete claims with the Department, in other words, prior to an audit of those companies. This will ensure that companies with a proven track record in R and D do not experience administrative delays in the processing of tax refunds.
These tax improvements will assist the cash flow of small firms and enable them to plan their long-term activities better. The announced tax amendments will mean a more stable research and development sector, more jobs for highly qualified Canadians, and a more competitive economy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this question would have been directed to the Minister for International Trade, but in his absence I will put the question to the Deputy Prime Minister. On April 3, 1987, the Prime Minister of Canada told the Wall Street Journal. "Trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada. You can't have a free trade arrangement and expect the traditional laws of countervail to apply". But the omnibus trade legislation currently before the U.S. Congress contains 15 new protectionist moves by the United States which are harmful to Canada.
The Prime Minister said that the American countervail and anti-dumping laws could not apply. This new Bill applies 15 separate new measures. These new measures did not even exist when the Prime Minister signed his trade deal with the President. These measures include a redefinition of subsidy which is unfavourable to Canada, and a provision for monitoring our products which is unfavourable to Canada.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how his Minister for International Trade could say yesterday that the American Bill is, to use the Minister's words, "likely a Bill we can live with", when there are now rules in that Bill which are worse than when the Prime Minister signed his deal with the United States?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for International Trade I can say that I think he dealt with that question quite completely yesterday. I refer my hon. friend to page 14469 of Hansard. I think he did say that there have been continuing discussions going on between the administration and Congress with respect to the omnibus Trade Bill. Representations are certainly being made from Canadian
Oral Questions
authorities in an attempt to modify some of the areas of concern to us.
Obviously, the Government will conduct a detailed examination of the final version of the Bill to identify those provisions we consider to be inconsistent with the free trade agreement. That work is going on and I think the comments made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition are to some extent premature because the discussions are continuing.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: The
document reintroduced in the House yesterday is a discussion consensus of the two Houses of the United States Congress. Mr. Yeutter, the United States trade representative, told the Minister for International Trade yesterday that the administration would accept that Bill. So we have a very serious situation on our hands.

Mr. Speaker, the argument made by the present Minister of International Trade that we need the trade agreement to protect us from the omnibus bill before the United States Congress is dishonest and false because this very bad U.S. law is included in the trade agreement under Section 1904. The Prime Minister therefore agreed that this bad law would be automatically included in his trade agreement. How can the Deputy Prime Minister continue to maintain, together with his minister, that Canada is sheltered from the American law and that the Prime Minister's agreement improves the situation when he knows very well that this argument is completely misleading? We are not protected. The Deputy Prime Minister knows this and so does his minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies between the omnibus Trade Bill and the free trade agreement, certainly the Government of Canada will pursue those issues with vigour. It is our expectation that the United States of America will live up to the spirit of the free trade agreement, and that is what we will be working toward.
Whether or not we have an omnibus Trade Bill, there is clearly no doubt that Canadians will be much better off under a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as is proposed, to settle disputes by a neutral body on a binational basis, plus all the other inherent benefits that will accrue to Canadians.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition has consistently tried to discredit the agreement. I know that it is still his desire to rip it up. There are many millions of Canadians who hold a different view, and perhaps one of these days the Hon. Leader of the Opposition may have to reconsider his position.

April 15, 1988
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that we ought to give those millions of Canadians an opportunity to express their views at a very early opportunity in a general election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES TRADE REMEDY LAWS
John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister said that U.S. trade remedy law should not apply to Canada, period. The unanimous view of the trade committee of the House of Commons, including Conservative Members, was that there should have been an exemption from this omnibus trade legislation. There is not. Yesterday the Minister retreated and outside the House stated that the Government could live with that Trade Bill.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand the argument that the only purpose of any bilateral agreement was secure access to the American market? That meant an exemption from American trade remedy law. We didn't get it. Articles 1902 and 1904 of the agreement show that we didn't get it. The legislation currently before Congress does not give us an exemption, and by virtue of the agreement it is incorporated into that trade agreement.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that we have a very dangerous and difficult situation before the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is a Premier in this country who asked for a vote to determine, among other things, what position Canadians are taking on the free trade agreement. It will be very interesting to see how Premier Pawley and his Party fare in the case of Manitoba, they being vigorously opposed to the free trade agreement. That will be a very good test.


John Napier Turner: How about David Peterson?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about David Peterson. I think he knows that Mr. Peterson lost a very important by-election right in his own home town.


Lloyd Axworthy: That was just an act of charity.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If that's charity, we will take it.


John Napier Turner: Any time, Don. Think about it over the weekend.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have every expectation that the omnibus Trade Bill will be consistent with the spirit of the free trade agreement.
I might also indicate to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as he is obviously aware, that both countries have
committed themselves to developing a substitute system for the rules and regulations with regard to countervail, duties, and tariffs. That process will take place over the next five-year period.
Within the ambit of the free trade agreement, the provision to deal with many of the issues referred to by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is precisely incorporated, so that we can move forward to establish-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a fascinating discussion, but I think we will have to move on. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean  Robert-Gauthier@Ottawa-Vanier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On Monday, April 11, the Prime Minister said in the House that his Government was disappointed with the solution proposed by Saskatchewan to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision. Page 14325, the Government Leader in the Senate quotes on the Government's position, expressing his disappointment with this legislation and hoping that the Government of Saskatchewan would go much further in protecting minority rights. Again on Monday, the Prime Minister announced to us that three ministers were to negotiate with Saskatchewan, that they had visited Saskatchewan on the weekend. On Tuesday morning, Grant Devine said, "No way, I'm not going to change a thing." On Wednesday, the Prime Minister told me that fundamental rights are not negotiable.
What have the ministers been doing since April 8? Are they negotiating Canadians' fundamental rights with Mr. Devine or do these rights really exist today in the Constitution?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I find the question a little puzzling from the Hon. Member who is normally quite up to date with respect to these important minority language rights.
If the Hon. Member wants to be correct with respect to the record, the fact is that indeed there are ongoing discussions between senior Ministers of the Saskatchewan Government, senior Ministers of the federal Government, the Prime Minister, and the Premier. This is for the very purpose of dealing with a situation which has intruded itself by virtue of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. It requires leadership on the part of not only the Premier of Saskatchewan but also the federal Government.
April 15, 1988

The Prime Minister had a very full discussion with the Premier yesterday for some two hours, looking at the implications of the Mercure decision. There are areas with which we are not au courant. But the fact is that we are working together in a constructive and positive way.
I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that Premier Devine has made a very important statement with respect to the position he sees for Saskatchewan, and he is moving toward Saskatchewan becoming a part of a bilingual Canada, for which he should be given full credit. We are now trying to give the assistance of the federal Government in any way we can to move the process along so that equity for minorities across the country will in fact be recognized.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that fuzzy statement begs another question.
On April 13, as reported at page 14420 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister:
I trust the Prime Minister will agree with me that basic and vested rights
are not negotiable.
The Prime Minister replied in part:
In fact, I have already indicated to my hon. friend that I fully share his
views. There are no differences between the Hon. Member and myself.
Today the Prime Minister is quoted in the press as "M. Mulroney appuie M. Devine". Would the Minister please tell us what is the position of the Prime Minister? Does he support Mr. Devine fully, or does he support fundamental basic rights in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question put forward by the Hon. Member was that we were somehow negotiating with Saskatchewan. I attempted to point out that that is not the case. We are having discussions with respect to a position of principle which the Prime Minister has laid out clearly. There is, in fact, no question about the position that we have put forward.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister's letter set it out. If the Hon. Member wishes me to read the letter into the record, that is fine.
The fact is that we are making progress. There are encouraging discussions going on. The statement made by the Premier of Saskatchewan is encouraging. I would hope that the Liberal Party would work in a constructive way to ensure that the legitimate rights of the minority in Saskatchewan are properly protected, and not take a confrontational attitude with respect to the people of Saskatchewan at a time when they are trying to do the best they can.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


CANADA-FRANCE DISPUTE-BOARDING OF FRENCH VESSEL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries, and it has to do with the boarding yesterday by Canadian authorities of a French vessel. I wonder if the Minister could bring the House up to date as to what the Government's intentions are with respect to the event yesterday and with respect to the people who were apprehended.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the Hon. Member that we made a statement at 10.30 this morning on this issue indicating that the vessel, the Croix de Lorraine, has been successfully apprehended after suspicion of fishing contrary to Canadian law. It has been brought to the Port of St. John's, and at the present moment charges are being brought against members of the crew on that vessel.
There is a full examination under way of the circumstances, and collaboration between officials of the Department of Justice and of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the nature of the charges, and that is the extent of my ability to report at the moment.


POSITION OF FRENCH GOVERNMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell us what the Government has heard from the Government of France in respect of this issue? Has the Government of France officially disowned this provocative action? If it has not, will the Government be seeking that kind of statement from the Government of France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: do not intend to comment on the position or otherwise of the Government of France in this matter, Mr. Speaker. However, I would indicate that, as is our usual practice in these kinds of apprehensions and suspected violations of our fishing laws, the Ambassador for France in Canada was notified the moment the vessel was boarded that it was a factual report, that the vessel had been suspected of fishing contrary to our law and was being brought to port.


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the point is that if the Government of France is not prepared to disown this provocative action, obviously the suspicion remains that this is part of an over-all strategy by France in its ongoing negotiations with Canada in respect fishing rights.
Is the Government prepared to seek that kind of message from the Government of France? What effect does the Government foresee it having on negotiations between Canada and France, if France is not prepared to disown this action and

April 15, 1988
Oral Questions
is prepared to see it as part of the way in which it hopes to succeed in its negotiations with Canada?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member wishes to engage in speculation. Perhaps he should ask his question of the Government of France.
We have in fact notified the French Embassy that this action was undertaken. We continue to seek a return to the discussion table with France on the matter of the referral of this important boundary question, the boundary around St. Pierre and Miquelon, to some form of international arbitration and discussion on fish quotas.
Since France suspended those discussions last October 9, we continue to seek its early co-operation to get that process back on track.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to indicate to the Minister the concern of Members on this side of the House regarding CN's rationalization plan, which would concentrate control over all railway traffic in Eastern Canada in the Toronto area and in the process shift 100 jobs from Montreal to Toronto. We raised the issue earlier in March, when the oddball Minister from Newfoundland who was then Minister of Transport gave us the following answer, no more: "I was not consulted by CN on this proposal which would involve the loss of 100 jobs in Montreal".
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether CN management is keeping him informed of plans as sinister as the one I just described, and whether he has expressed his firm disagreement with a project that would threaten hundreds of jobs in the Montreal area.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not assume CN's plans are sinister. I will wait and see exactly what is going to happen. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well, in this connection, that following an accident, the Canadian Transport Commission had advised Canadian National that it should tighten up its safety regulations. CN is now assessing a number of options, including centralizing security operations. However, I think it is premature to say that Canadian National wants to proceed with an operation of this kind and would do so at the earliest opportunity. I repeat that this is certainly not the case, although I certainly intend to keep informed and keep a close watch on developments. If a decision of this kind is taken by
CN, we intend to consider the various options with the Corporation.


DEMAND THAT MINISTER GIVE COMMITMENT
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would like to make it clear to the Minister that we feel it is imperative that part of railway traffic control operations continue to be based in Montreal and take place in French.
I would like to ask the Minister to commit himself to opposing any plan that would export these specialized jobs, where French is spoken, from Montreal to any other part of the country.
Could the Minister at least give us a commitment that he will not approve a plan of this kind?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, by giving this kind of commitment, I would be making assumptions about decisions the Corporation has yet to make, and I would be assuming that given the proposed options, Canadian National would not consider the concerns you mentioned.
Railway security and the use of French in security services are issues we feel are very important. But once again, the Hon. Member must recognize the fact that we will have to let Canadian National look at the various options, and we will monitor developments and bear in mind the Hon. Member's concerns.


EXTERNAL AID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: As you
know, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister for External Relations indicated that the Canadian Government was seeking means by which a ship laden with food could in fact be sent to relieve the starvation in northern Ethiopia.
I guess my question must be directed to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, and it is simply this. In view of the fact that NGOs operating in the north have indicated that they are ready, willing, and able to deliver this food, would the Government not find it in the interests of the people to deliver that food now to the Port of Sudan to allow the NGOs to deliver the food to starving people in Ethiopia?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I regret that I am not able to respond in any detailed way on the progress being made. I simply want to take the question as notice and will try to get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I can.
April 15, 1988


CONTINUATION OF WAR-EFFECT ON STARVING PEOPLES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is another question which I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to explore with his colleagues. As he knows, Resolution 390 passed by the United Nations some years ago, recognized the autonomy of Eritrea and Tygre in confederation with Ethiopia. The war occurring there now is in contradiction to that resolution and underlies the starvation and deprivation occurring in that country.
Will the Government take initiatives in the United Nations to seek a solution to that war based on the contents of Resolution 390 and, in addition, in bringing this before the United Nations, to address the culpability of the Ethiopian Government in taking aid deliverers out of Ethiopia who are trying desperately to feed the Ethiopian people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Government of Canada and all Canadians can be very proud of the work we have done and the support we have given, particularly under the leadership of David MacDonald. Outstanding work has been ongoing on behalf of the Government and of all Canadians.
I simply want to assure the Hon. Member that that commitment on the part of the Government of Canada has not diminished. However, I most certainly will take his point into consideration and, as I said earlier, I will try to get back to him as early as possible at the beginning of the week.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ANGOLAN VICE-MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery today of Venancio Da Silva Moura, Angolan Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
Will the Minister take that process one step further and agree to a parliamentary review of those appointments once they are made? Does the Minister agree with the Premier of Ontario who has actually rejected the concept of a parliamentary review even for provincial appointments to boards and agencies?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his very important question. I am very pleased with the response that I received to my announcement on behalf of the Government. By way of example, the President of the Canadian Bar Association said that this is without a doubt the most important development in the judicial appointment process of Canada since Confederation.


John Napier Turner: What's his name?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is hard for the Leader of the Opposition. He is used to Senators criticizing his policies. I believe that such support by Senators of our policy is a very helpful and hopeful sign.
With respect to the question that was posed, I want to remind the Hon. Member that I had the honour as Government House Leader to bring in a number of reforms to the process and procedures of the House of Commons, including the scrutiny of all Governor in Council appointments. At that time in its wisdom the House decided, with the co-operation of opposition Parties in this process, to exclude judicial appointments as such. However, we have moved to consult widely. This process is an important step.
In terms of Meech Lake, we are now involved with consulting the provincial levels of government as well with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are expanding accountability. It is very important in this age of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have widespread input with respect to appointments made to the bench.


DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister's announcement yesterday about the establishment of review committees for federal judicial appointments is, in my opinion, a major step forward in the process of creating a fully open and public appointments process.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board into the cause of the 1985 air disaster in Gander, Newfoundland, which killed 248 U.S. servicemen and eight crew members, has been sent to interested parties in Gander, Newfoundland, and in the United States. It excludes key evidence that cyanide was found in the blood of many of the 248 who were killed.
I ask the Minister of Transport this. Will he order that this report be withdrawn by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, and order that another report be drawn up which would include all the evidence found during the autopsies that were

April 15, 1988
Oral Questions
done, including the fact that most likely many of the servicemen had breathed in deadly gas prior to the crash?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is normally well informed about transport matters. He knows full well that the report to which he refers is a draft report tabled in December for all parties. Those parties have requested to be heard again by the board, which is what is being done at the present time.
When an official report is issued in due course I believe the Minister will have to ask some questions or make some comments. It would be imprudent at this period of time for the Minister of Transport to comment on anything concerning what we call the draft report.


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, half the members of the Aviation Safety Board disagree with the findings of the report that has been sent out. How can the Minister be satisfied with the draft report that has been sent out? Does he not agree that those people who live around airports in Canada have a right to know all the facts surrounding air disasters? If that is the way that investigations are to be carried out by the Government then perhaps we should investigate the Aviation Safety Board.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question bothers me somewhat. I believe that the Hon. Member would not want me to comment on a leaked report. If there is anything which has to be said about what happened in Gander it must be said in an official way. That official way will be the report that is to be tabled. I will have to see what I can do. I will consider very seriously the recommendations made by the board.
At the present time, once again, I believe it would be very imprudent to make any serious comment about what happened in Gander that day.


CONTENT OF REPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same subject to the Minister of Transport. This is my first chance to ask him a question since his appointment. I want to congratulate him on it. I wish him well. He will need all the help he can get. I will be glad to help if he will accept some of my policies.
I am assuming that the Minister has received a copy of this report, whether it is draft, preliminary, or whatever. Will he confirm whether it is true or not true that key evidence, as my hon. friend pointed out earlier, has been excluded from the report, and that other matters such as the likelihood that the aircraft was on fire, experienced a loss of power, had problems with reverse thrust of an outer starboard engine and elevator trimmer flaps, were excluded from the report as well?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his best wishes. I would have more respect for the Hon. Member than I have for his policies.
The answer has to be the same as the one I gave to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. Once again, it is a draft report. The Government is one of the parties which could be heard again by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. I think that any comment by the Minister could prejudice the quality of the report itself when it is issued by the board.
I think it would be better to await the official report, not the draft report which we received in December.


ACTIVITIES OF BOARD
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board have the utmost of credibility and confidence of the public. It has been riven with internal wrangling, bickering, and other allegations. How a board could have a meeting and make a decision on a draft, or whatever kind of report, with half the board members absent looks to me as it it is not conducting its affairs properly.
Will the Minister get hold of the Aviation Safety Board, see to it that its operations are improved and straightened out, get us a new chairman who has the confidence of all concerned, and have it again go over its investigation concerning the Gander crash?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I said before is still true. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board has a very good record. In 1987 there were 500 reports for the Minister of Transport. They were all considered very carefully and very seriously.
I believe that the Hon. Member will agree that I never have and I will not start to comment about a leak. If we have to make any comment, it has to be done in the regular way. In the meantime, this is a serious issue. I think we all agree that this is the worst air disaster which has happened in the country. We have to give time to the board to make an official report and at the same time ensure that what will be recommended to the Minister of Transport will be the best. For that reason I think my friend will agree that we have to give some time and await what I call the official report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.


TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, the French CBC program Le
April 15, 1988

Point reported the sad story of Telefilm Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister's friend Jean Sirois. I would like to put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Communications. Since less than two years after Jean Sirois took over as president of Telefilm Canada, this first-class agency has lost 25 per cent of its managers, the executive director has resigned, the president's expenses have increased fivefold and a consultant was even required to pick up the pieces at Telefilm Canada, why has Mr. Jean Sirois been kept in his position until Wednesday of this week? Is it because he is the Prime Minister's friend or is there another even lousier reason?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked in the House before and the Minister of Communications has responded fully.


RETENTION OF PRESIDENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have asked questions on that before but we never did receive answers. I want to ask the question of the Deputy Prime Minister here and now.
We now know what happened at Telefilm Canada. We have had numerous reports about the activities there and we know that perhaps irreparable-though hopefully not-but certainly considerable damage was done to that corporation under the leadership of Mr. Jean Sirois. Why was he kept as the president when we knew that everything was going wrong? What is the answer to that very simple question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that it is a repetition of the Hon. Member's earlier question and other questions he has posed to the Minister of Communications, questions which are not founded and to which the Minister has responded fully.


RADIO-CANADA USE OF CANADIAN BROADCAST MATERIAL BY SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the Deputy Prime Minister on a new topic. Is the Government aware that Radio-Canada International has been sending tapes and disks of Canadian programs and commentaries to the South African Broadcasting Corporation which has sometimes been using them out of context? An example of this is that Michel Valpy's comments on the one-Party state in Zimbabwe were used for propaganda purposes by South African Broadcasting Corporation against
Oral Questions
the interests of front-line states and against Canada. Is that the Canadian Government's policy? If it is not, why is Radio-Canada International doing that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of the allegations the Hon. Member makes. I will certainly make inquiries and report back to him.


Mr. Beatty:: Are you proposing censorship?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I am not proposing censorship, as someone has said.


GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA'S PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, if Radio-Canada International and the Government are permitting this, are they not being incredibly naive about the motives of South Africa? Is it not a fact that the Government of South Africa has been mounting a propaganda campaign not only against the front-line states-one of whose members is represented today in the gallery-but against Canada as well, the friend of the front-line states? Why are we naively sending these tapes to South Africa so that South Africa can use them for propaganda purposes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first I would want to check out the veracity of the statement the Hon. Member makes, and I think I should state very clearly here and now that the position of the federal Government is very clear with respect to its policy on South Africa. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that this is part of a government policy, I think he is somewhat wrong.
I said that I will check out the allegation he has made here, find out if there is any validity to it, and report back to him as soon as I possibly can.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, whom I congratulate on her recent appointment.
According to the report of the Economic Council tabled Wednesday, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will result in a major realignment of jobs in Canada, with job losses in 17 manufacturing industries including electrical products, metals, plastics, textiles, machinery and chemicals, while job increases will take place principally in clerical, sales, service and administrative positions, very different fields.
[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1988
Oral Questions
On Tuesday of this week, the Standing Committee on Labour said that special retraining and adjustment programs were necessary to deal with the U.S. trade agreement. In December, the Standing Committee on International Trade said the same thing.
In these circumstances, when will the Government announce special adjustment and retraining programs in anticipation of the U.S. trade agreement? When will the Government do something about this very important matter?
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his congratulations, and I appreciate them. However, I do have to correct the impression he has given to the House about what will happen after free trade.
That same report says that calculations suggest an estimated net gain of 251,000 jobs, resulting from about 439,000 being created. It says that set against the number of jobs that appear and disappear each year under the impetus of competitive realities, technological shifts, changes in consumer tastes and so on, or against the three million new jobs that will be filled during the same period as the labour force grows, these are not large numbers.
We have also made it clear that we have in place a labour adjustment board from the private sector which will help workers take advantage of new opportunities in more sophisticated industries as a result of free trade. That is good for Canadians. Those are better jobs and we are standing by Canadian workers to fill them.


RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the report says that the dislocation and adjustment set in train by the trade agreement will certainly be important for the people involved. In fact, jobs will be lost in 17 manufacturing areas and the new jobs will be in service sectors, very different types of jobs.
Two committees of the House made up of a majority of Conservative members prepared unanimous reports indicating that new training and adjustment programs were necessary. Will the Minister not read those reports and listen to the Standing Committees of the House instead of rejecting them outright?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Standing Committee for its work on labour adjustment and on the Canadian Jobs Strategy. As the Hon. Member knows, we have already met many of its recommendations.
All the reports say that compared with the normal economic adjustments that are to be made, we expect minimal adjustment. Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have the correct mechanism to help people adjust, as we do on an ongoing basis.
I agree with the Hon. Member. Of course this is important to the people who are affected. It is very important to them. However, other job adjustment is important to people who are affected as well. Separating out the factors that go into job adjustment every year is part of our job. We do that all the time, as the Hon. Member knows, and will continue to do it under free trade, and make sure that the people affected do have an opportunity to take advantage of the new opportunities created by free trade.


FINANCE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and it relates to our proposed reform of legislation concerning financial institutions. Will Caisses populaires and the Mouvement Desjardins be affected by this reform; more specifically, is it true that the Mouvement Desjardins will have to dispose of all of its nonfinancial sector?


Mr. Tom Hockin (Minister of State for Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Mouvement Desjardins is made up of several institutions, of which only two have a federal charter. All the others are chartered by the Province of Quebec. Those are the facts. But our policy, the federal policy, will in no way oblige the Mouvement Desjardins to dispose of what is called its non-financial sector.


HATE LITERATURE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On November 8, 1984, the then Conservative Minister of Justice promised the House the following:
The area of hate propaganda will be dealt with and those amendments will
come after Christmas as well.
Given the serious weakness of the existing Criminal Code hate literature provisions, a weakness demonstrated most recently in the case of the virulently anti-Semitic books and articles written by Moncton teacher Malcom Ross and also demonstrated by the offensive writings of R. L. Smith in British Columbia, inciting violence against Slocan Valley environmentalists, does the Government remain committed to strengthening hate literature laws as promised over three years


April 15, 1988

ago? If so, when will the Minister finally bring forward this long overdue legislation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I should point out that I will have an opportunity of discussing this matter with my provincial counterparts at the next meeting of federal-provincial Ministers to be held in Quebec City at the end of May.
We are looking at this particular section of the Criminal Code, and the Hon. Member will be the first one to understand that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms one has to consider Criminal Code amendments in light of the balance which has to be demonstrated between, on the one hand, the type of statements which cause harm and damage and, on the other, the right of freedom of speech.
I appreciate the representation. I hope that if the Hon. Member has any specific suggestions he will bring them to my attention and we will be glad to give them the consideration they deserve.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is suggesting that he is just looking at these possibilities. He is backing away from the commitment made by his predecessor.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of New Brunswick recently said that while Malcolm Ross' writings, which speak of a global Jewish conspiracy and deny the Holocaust, almost certainly constitute hate literature, he says the existing law is effectively useless. His Conservative predecessor said the same thing.
I am asking this Minister of Justice if he is prepared to make the same commitment made by his predecessor to amend these laws which are simply not enforceable right now? Will he take that important step?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we often have with the NDP is that they find it very easy to get up and suggest we take all sorts of legislative action. I would ask the NDP to help my House Leader to deal with the legislation we now have before us. There was a concerted effort with respect to this matter and if we had some co-operation we could work together in the better interests of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity and ask that there be one question in view of the time.
Oral Questions FINANCE


MANUFACTURERS SALES TAX
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance and it concerns the manufacturers sales tax which the Minister of Finance describes as a silent killer of jobs even though he goes on using it more and more. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce pointed out, the last Budget increase in the rate of sales tax creates a bias in that Canadian produced capital goods will attract a tax of up to 14 per cent, while imports are taxed 2 1/2 per cent less.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government plans to correct this inequity, particularly since, as the Chamber points out, the bias will become more marked as a result of the Canada-U.S. trade deal?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question should be looked at in context. We now have a manufacturers sales tax which is flawed. The Minister of Finance made it clear that his interim approach to that tax is just that, an interim measure, and has to be improved. This the Minister is doing. In the process he hopes to bring in a national sales tax at a level which is not only fair for Canadians but will also make us competitive with the U.S.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question by the Hon. Member for Beaches.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the summit meeting later this month between the Prime Minister and the U.S. President.
Can he advise the House whether or not he can ensure that the matter of Great Lakes water pollution is on the agenda for that meeting, and can he secure an agreement from the U.S. President that there will be a clean-up of the Great Lakes water system, say, over the next 10-year period?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I cannot confirm that precisely, Mr. Speaker. However, I would be very surprised if environmental issues in general were not discussed at the meeting. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's question as a representation and take it up with the Prime Minister. I am sure it is of interest to the Hon. Member and I appreciate him raising the matter at this time.

April 15, 1988
Tabling of Documents


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic on the last question.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Refundable investment tax credits for research and development are of considerable benefit, especially to small Canadian controlled firms. However, there have been numerous complaints about slow payment of refunds. What is being done to solve this problem?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, this research tax credit was made refundable in 1985 and has since triggered over $1 billion worth of industrial research. Experience shows that unless these kinds of programs are properly audited and managed they could invite abuse. Therefore, the regime put in place did create some delays in the process. I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member that these delays have been reduced if not eliminated, and I am very pleased with the reaction we are receiving from the research community which endorses this program and also with the fact we still have the best and most generous treatment of research tax credits in the world.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the 13 petitions with the following Nos.: 332-3972, 332-3996, 332-4005, 332-4106 to and including 332-4112, 332-4139, 332-4156 and 332-4177.



Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty in accordance with Standing Order 106 to present a petition from a number of residents of Spadina and Trinity and other ridings in Toronto. They are very concerned that, as
they see it, Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed trade deal between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the U.S., which the Prime Minister had absolutely no mandate to negotiate given his approach to the people in the last election. They point out that this deal will reduce Canada's ability to plan economic, social and cultural programs that we need and will integrate Canada still further into the North American defence-industrial base.
For those reasons they ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that it result in a national general election before the agreement is finalized.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in February, 1985, the Government ordered the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights in Canada. In March of 1986 the Government accepted this report and its recommendation, saying it would take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. As the Government has yet to introduce significant legislation acting upon these recommendations supported by the Government, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament act to implement all the recommendations contained in this report as specified above with all due haste and speed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Oshawa and Toronto, Ontario; from Edmonton; and from various other cities in Canada who note that the Canadian Government funded unethical brainwashing experiments of the late psychiatrist, D. Ewen Cameron, which were conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal in the 1950s and early 1960s.
They note that many Canadians were permanently damaged, both psychologically and neurologically, by these experiments which were inflicted on them without their knowledge or consent. A number of these individuals are suing the CIA in the United States for its complicity. They note, finally, that the Canadian Government has refused to admit its legal or moral responsibility for these Canadians or to offer them any reparations for their permanent damage, pain, and suffering.
They therefore call upon Parliament to release all incriminating evidence to assist them, to acknowledge the legal and moral responsibility of the Government of Canada to these Canadians, and to offer reparations to these Canadians who were victims of such unethical experiments.
April 15, 1988


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed primarily by residents of Ontario, mais, il y a aussi beaucoup de residants de Montreal et de la Ville de Quebec. These petitioners note that over two years ago the Government of Canada accepted the unanimous report of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights and its recommendations and said that it would take whatever measures were necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
They note that the Government has not yet acted on this important promise and therefore urge the Government to implement the recommendations contained in that report with all due haste and speed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a large number of residents of Burnaby, my own constituency, who express their deep concern about the implications of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal for Canada.
They note that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to negotiate this trade deal. In fact, they note that during the course of these negotiations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They note that this deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine our own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They therefore call upon the Government to dissolve Parliament and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject this profoundly dangerous agreement during a national general election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member rising on petitions? Members will have to rise so that I will know. When Hon. Members are running in and out of the House it makes it difficult for the Chair to know whether they are rising on petitions or on something else.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to submit a petition to the House from citizens of Victoria, Nanaimo, and Calgary. They say that the Government commissioned the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights in Canada and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament act to implement the recommendations contained in that report with all due haste and speed.
Petitions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I remember that a senior fellow from the Edmonton area once told me to do only one thing at a time and I might get something accomplished. I have been trying to do four or five things and I take that to heart.
I have two petitions, Mr. Speaker, which I will introduce at the same time. One is with regard to the trade agreement. The petitioners are asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to dissolve Parliament and call an election in order that we can have a national debate on the issue and a determination.
These people from my own riding of Vancouver-Kingsway are concerned about the loss of economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the other petition I have is signed by a number of people from the Toronto and Mississauga areas. In 1986 the Government accepted a report of an all-Party committee of the House on sexual orientation. It said that it would "take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination" in order that there would be no discrimination on that basis. These petitioners would like the Government to act on that.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured, on behalf of some 200 members of my constituency, to submit a petition which has been properly certified under Standing Order 106.
The petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised, in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations, that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
They say that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between regions.
They say that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. They state that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. markets that was the key objective of

April 15, 1988
Order Paper Questions
these negotiations but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 203, 271, and 272. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Since September, 1984, how many jobs, per year, have been created in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton as a direct result of the programs of the government?
2.	How many of the jobs are full-time new positions and in what way does this compare to the record of the previous government between 1980 and 1984?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board):: I am informed by the Departments of Employment and Immigration and Regional Industrial Expansion as follows: In so far as the Department of Employment and Immigration is concerned:
1.	Between September 1, 1984, and September 30, 1987 ( a period of 37 months), 1,111 people received training and work experience under the Canadian Jobs Strategy (EIC). This represents a monthly average of 30 jobs and a yearly average of 360 jobs.
Between April 1, 1980, and August 31, 1984 (a period of 53 months), 1,210 jobs were created by the programs of Employment and Immigration Canada. This represents a monthly average of 23 jobs and a yearly average of 276 jobs.
2.	As jobs in both periods have a wide combination of training and work experience sometimes becoming permanent jobs, sometimes qualifying the participant for another permanent job and sometimes providing a limited period only of employment, it is not possible to compile data on the number of "full-time new positions" involved.
In so far as the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is concerned:
1. During the period of September 1, 1984, to September 30, 1987, a total of nine projects were approved under programs administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, generating an estimated 492 full-time jobs, 477 of
which would be considered new jobs, between 1985 and 1993. The number of jobs actually created in a given year is not estimated pending the completion and final review of each project. Therefore, an accurate annual tabulation of the jobs created is not readily available.
2. During the period of October 1, 1980, to August 31, 1984, a total of ten projects were approved, two of which were subsequently cancelled by the applicant, under programs of the Departments of Regional Industrial Expansion and predecessors, the Depatments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce. These eight projects generated an estimated 97 full-time jobs, 87 which would be considered new jobs.


Ms. McLaughlin: Will consultations be held concerning the three major projects announced February 4, 1988, which will increase Canadian Forces in the Arctic, specifically the northern training centre at Nanisivik, N.W.T. and, if so (a) what groups and individuals will be consulted (b) at what (/) time (ii) place will the consultations be held (c) at what time will the consultation process be completed (d) will there be guarantees that permanent skilled positions will be created and that training for northerners will be a priority?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, consultation on the concept began well before the Minister's announcement.
(a)	Other federal departments, Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, the Baffin Region Council, the Baffin Region Inuit Association, the Arctic Bay Community, the Management of Nanisivik Mines.
(b)	(i) (ii) All of the foregoing groups have been contacted again by letter and there is a standing offer for follow-on briefings. To date no specific dates, times or places have been suggested by the above groups.
(c)	There is no cut-off date for consultation at this time, sufficient to say that the target occupancy date of 1992-93 will allow adequate time for full and thorough consultation and discussion.
(d)	It is too early to give details. Certainly the Government will follow all in place guidelines with respect to the development in the North of those skills required to support emerging infrastructures.


Mr. Frith: 1.	During the period 1970 to 1987 (a) were Canadian naval ships involved in RIMPAC exercises off Hawaii and, if so, how often (b) did they use the Kaho'olawe firing range and, if so (/) how often (ii) for how long (c) have there been Canadian naval ships off California and, if so, how often (d) was the San Clemente firing range used and, if so (/) how often (ii) for how long?
2.	What is the rental or usage fee (a) per day (b) per usage for the (/) Kaho'olawe (ii) San Clemente range?
April 15, 1988

3.	Has the government investigated specific options for setting up a Canadian test firing range and, if so, what are they and, in each case (a) when were they investigated (6) what is the estimated cost?
4.	What is the minimum annual need for actual bombardment training to maintain operational capability?
5.	What are the dates for (a) RIMPAC'88 exercises (b) Canada's use of the Kaho'olawe firing range?


T.A. Bud Bradley: 1. (a) Yes in 1973, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84 and 86. (b) Yes. (i) Each time, (ii) Three Canadian naval vessels have utilized the range during each exercise since 1980. Record of usage prior to 1980 is not readily available but would approximate that reported after 1980. The exact length of time has varied with each exercise and the naval ships involved, but is normally about four hours per ship.
(c)	Yes, an average of four times per year.
(d)	Yes. (i) Since 1980, the San Clemente range has been utilized by Squadrons of three Canadian naval ships, twice per year.
(ii) Record of usage prior to 1980 is not readily available but would approximate that reported after 1980. The time of the range varies but is normally about four hours per ship.
2.	(a) (i) $3,600 (U.S.) per four hours, (ii) $3,600 (U.S.) per four hours.
3.	The concept has been researched frequently and rejected due to the high capital costs involved. Further, the time required on the range by west coast would not justify this large expendituree.
4.	Canadian naval ships utilizing the San Clemente and Kaho'olawe ranges at every possible opportunity only permit us to achieve minimum Combat Readiness requirements.
5.	(a) Early summer 1988. (b) As scheduled by the USN authorities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, through you, of the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to question No. 219 which has been on the Order Paper since November 16, 1987. A response to this question was requested within 45 days. Over two months ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary when the answer to this important question would be forthcoming and he assured me that it would be within a matter of days.
National Parks Act
Since that time there has been no answer whatsoever, as is the case with question No. 243 which has been on the Order Paper since January 18 of this year to which a response was again requested within 45 days. Both of these questions relate to contracting within the Correctional Service of Canada.
Given the earlier assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that these answers would be forthcoming very soon, why the delay? Why has it taken so long? When can I finally expect a response to these important questions?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member opposite has been personally in correspondence with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) asking for the reasons for the delay. I can give him no more detailed information in this Chamber than he is likely to get on his own. I will make further inquiries into this. There seems to be some problem in finalizing the answer to the question, but I do not know what it is.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to see Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act, brought forward for second reading. Bill C-30 represents the first major overhaul of this Act since it was proclaimed more than half a century ago. The 37 proposed amendments are a measure of the Government's commitment to national parks and of the extent to which the current Act is outdated. The amendments proposed in the House of Commons will provide this country with an integrated, contemporary and forward-looking conservation framework for our national parks.
Reform is long overdue. For example, when the first poaching provisions for national parks were set in 1919, a $500 maximum fine may have been sufficiently onerous to deter violators. Now, however, that fine really represents a licence to kill.

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
Modern poachers of park wildlife are part of a highly organized, lucrative, international criminal network. The stakes are very high. A trophy head of Dali's sheep can command $50,000, a live falcon $20,000. Taking rare and endangered species anywhere on this planet is indeed a crime, not just against the animal or that species, but a crime against humanity. The taking of such animals from within the boundaries of wilderness areas protected by our most stringent conservation law is an outrage.
Meaningful sanctions must be put in place and enforced. The amendments before us today will create maximum penalties of $150,000 or six months in jail. These penalties will be matched by a tough new enforcement regime, with the help of the RCMP.
For poachers of non-threatened species for meat or fur, the Bill proposes a fine of $2,000. However, we have concluded that that will not be enough. Therefore, the Government will seek an additional amendment to increase fines to $10,000 or six months in jail.
Let me highlight some of the main provisions of Bill C-30. Fines will be increased for destructive activities in our parks, such as use of all terrain vehicles in ecologically sensitive areas. A new provision will allow for traditional subsistence activities in new parks, such as hunting and fishing, by native communities. An enabling section will allow self- government for the towns of Jasper and Banff if and when and residents so elect. The Bill will also allow the setting of legislative boundaries for the two towns, will limit the development of new commercial ski areas, and restrict any further transportation and energy supply corridors through our parks.
Provisions will also be made for a citizens' heritage fund to allow Canadians to contribute directly to our national parks system. Amendments will regulate the use of pesticides in parks.
The Bill provides for the establishment of Ellesmere Island National Park in the far North and Grasslands National Park, which we hope will soon be a reality in Saskatchewan.
The Government will also ask the legislative committee to propose the necessary amendments to create our first national marine park, combined with the terrestrial park at Bruce Peninsula in the great Province of Ontario.
I want to go into some detail on the poaching provisions of the amendment. Under the proposed amendments, poaching on certain species of endangered and trophy animals indeed would be subject to a maximum fine of $150,000 on summary conviction, or in the case of a conviction and indictment, a maximum fine of $150,000 or up to six months in prison, or both.
Poaching of all other wildlife would be subject to a maximum fine of $2,000 on summary conviction. The inadequacy of the penalties for poaching in national parks has been cited repeatedly by judges annoyed by the reliance on multiple
charges and forfeiture of vehicles and equipment to create at least some deterrent to poaching.
The current maximum fine of $500 has been in effect since 1919 and is inadequate as a deterrent to poaching.
Combatting organized poaching activities is of particular concern. Provisions to proceed by indictment should serve as a deterrent both to the organizers and their clients who are often wealthy individuals.
How serious is this problem of poaching in national parks? Since many poaching incidents go undetected, it is difficult to provide accurate statistics on the problem. However, in the mountain parks it is estimated that at least 50 animals are poached each year, many of which are trophy animals.
The poaching of trophy animals is not a problem of large numbers being taken but rather the significance of losing any of these animals. Not only is the public deprived of the opportunity to view them in the wild, the loss of even a few prime animals each year can affect the long-term health of their populations.
These animals are still relatively abundant in the national parks, and as they become scarce in areas where they can be hunted legally, the parks are becoming more and more attractive to poachers. Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the problem has been the development of the sophisticated organized poaching rings.
In parks where animals are poached primarily for meat, the incidents of poaching are much higher. Estimates of up to 100 or 200 incidents of poaching a year are not uncommon in some parks.
The actual number of incidents of poaching vary from park to park, depending on local factors such as access to game close to park boundaries and along highway corridors, park size, and the actual types of species within the park. Recent studies in several U.S. states show that only about 5 per cent of poaching incidents are ever detected.
Based on a more conservative estimate that 20 per cent of poaching incidents are detected, it is suspected that about 50 big game animals are poached in the mountain parks each year. This would include many that are on the schedule that is available to those persons interested.
On the same basis, it is estimated that on average a total of 800 big game animals are poached each year in all national parks.
Poaching of trophy animals is particularly of concern in mountain parks and Kluane National Park in the Yukon Territory.
Poaching in the parks is very serious and is very much a part of the amendments we are discussing today. Wildlife that is not covered under Section 8(1.1) are poached primarily for their meat. The $2,000 maximum fine exceeds the highest prices paid for big game carcasses in the black market for
April 15, 1988

wildlife meat. This fine is in the mid-range of similar penalties in the provinces and territories.
Across the country, the array of penalties for poaching is complex. Penalties vary depending on several factors, such as the species involved, the poaching methods used, and whether or not the case involved is the first or second offence.
Some jurisdictions include provisions for imprisonment. On balance, the $2,000 maximum fine is already falling below comparable penalties in the provinces and territories, and several jurisdictions have recently increased their levels. Therefore, the Government will propose an additional amendment to increase fines to $10,000 or six months in jail on indictment, which would put the penalty back in the top range. Another species schedule relating to wildlife which are poached primarily for meat or fur would trigger this penalty.
We are very pleased that in relation to penalties for poaching in national parks, a special budget has been established to fund the activities of warden enforcement support teams. These teams will be deployed to parks where poaching is a problem in order to boost enforcement capabilities at key times of the year. A number of special surveillance operations have been initiated this year to coincide with the fall season. Park officials are in the process of renewing their law enforcement procedures and training programs to identify areas where improvements will be made.
The feasibility of an awards program for information leading to the conviction of poachers is under investigation also. An agreement with the RCMP for greater co-operation in law enforcement in national parks has been drafted and signed. That part of the amendment is very important.
I would just like to refer to another section of the Act, which is the traditional subsistence activities. There are two groups implicated by these provisions, the traditional subsistence use by local people, and the traditional subsistence use by native groups. The former are, in some cases, dependent on resources in a park area for their subsistence needs. The latter have both subsistence and cultural associations with the land and its resources. These activities are generally fishing, trapping, woodcutting and other limited use of renewable resources.
Subsistence resource use has been an issue since the early 1970s, both in public consultations and in federal-provincial negotiations. The rights of native people to hunt and fish for domestic purposes must be respected and integrated into park planning and management in the context of claims and establishment negotiations. Similarly, concessions have been made to certain resource uses by non-native local people in order to avoid detrimental impact on the livelihood of such residents. Non-native resource uses would only apply for one or more generations where no alternatives exist outside the park.
National Parks Act
Controls will allow natives or local users to continue to exercise their traditional practices while allowing parks to fulfil their mandate to protect natural heritage resources. All such activities are subject to the requirement to protect natural resources of the park. Providing the continuation of subsistence level activities will permit the creation of new parks for the benefit of all Canadians while at the same time not penalizing local people who have traditionally relied on the area for the necessities of life.
For natives, such activities as hunting and fishing have been an essential part of their culture for thousands of years. Such subsistence activities would be closely monitored and regulated where necessary to ensure the maintenance of viable populations of fish and wildlife.
The amendment is intended to provide a greater degree of protection for the wilderness areas of national parks. Over the last few years, conservation groups and northern native groups have expressed concern that wilderness areas could in the future be subjected to increased pressure for development of visitor facilities, and they should, therefore, be given added protection in the law. This amendment will ensure that wilderness areas remain essentially undeveloped lands and that any proposed change to the boundaries of a wilderness area will be open for public review, not only during the park planning process but also through the regulatory process.
As new national park plans are completed, or existing park plan management plans are reviewed with the public, it is the Government's intention to recommend designation of its wilderness areas to the Governor in Council.
I would like to go to another section of this Act which concerns pollution. We have recently passed the Environmental Protection Act. We are very pleased it has passed committee stage and has come back into the House for third reading. It deals with toxic chemicals. I would like to mention here pollution in national parks as related to these amendments. Section 8(1.3) reads:
... recognizes the special status of national park lands as areas set aside for the benefit of all Canadians. Its effect, and that of (1.4), (1.5), and (1.6) which follow it, is to provide the necessary level of protection to the environment and ensure public health and safety in parks. These amendments will limit the deleterious effects of potentially harmful substances by giving the Minister the ability to take action forthwith if compliance does not occur, and to recover costs for any such mitigating activities. It is important to note that existing and proposed legislation can be used where an incident is of such great proportions that a much higher penalty is called for.
Modern society produces or uses many substances that can adversely affect natural processes or threaten human health. Parks are not exempt from these consequences of industrialization. Recognizing that this danger exists, it is imperative to minimize any negative impact as quickly and effectively as possible. When the person discharging or depositing an undesirable substance will not take responsibility, significant measures would be allowed both to force action and to exact payment when Her Majesty must undertake the appropriate action.

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on May 14 of last year, this House made history by unanimously endorsing a resolution for the protection of the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia as a national park reserve. In the last three and a half years, more new parks have been created than in the previous decade and a half. Indeed none were established in that desolate period. This Government is a parks Government. We intend not only to save individual wilderness areas as parks but to lay the groundwork for the completion of our national parks' system.
Over 100 years ago Sir John A. Macdonald established Canada's first national park in what is now Banff. Since then Canada's parks system has become the best in the world encompassing over 140,000 square kilometres and attracting some 25 million visitors every year. We are proud of that as Canadians.
The environmental commitment made by Sir John A. Macdonald to protect and preserve Canada's unique natural beauty is being continued by this Government. In addition to creating three new parks and introducing these amendments, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) commissioned a national task force on new park establishment chaired by Professor John Theberge of the University of Waterloo. The mandate of the commission was to propose new ideas for expanding our national parks system.
One of the key recommendations of the task force was to urge all levels of government to work together and to develop new ways of preserving unique natural areas. A new designation called Heritage Lands was also proposed by the task force. It could act as a mechanism for protecting more unique wilderness areas. An example of how this designation could be used can be found in the City of Scarborough, that part of Canada that 1 have the honour and privilege of representing.
The Rouge River Valley which winds its way through 5,000 acres of wilderness in northeast Scarborough represents the last wildlife area in Metropolitan Toronto. The valley is home to white-tailed deer, coyotes, red fox, and a host of nationally rare birds and plant life. The valley also serves as a huge outdoor classroom for thousands of school children who visit the area to learn about nature and conservation.
Unfortunately, the Ontario Government, which owns virtually all of the land, is considering using this precious natural area for luxury housing, or indeed it even talked about a garbage dump. The people of Scarborough and the people of Canada cannot let that happen. Once we lose an area like the Rouge, we can never get it back.
Earlier this week I invited representatives of Save the Rouge Valley Citizens' Group in Scarborough to come to Ottawa and bring this important issue to the attention of Members of Parliament. I was especially honoured that you, Mr. Speaker, took the time to meet with the group and you expressed your support for saving the Rouge Valley.
Mir. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Save the Rouge.


Pauline Browes: Members of Parliament are saying that saving the Rouge is very important to the House of Commons.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: It is extremely important to Canada.


Pauline Browes: Also this week the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) joined me in a tour of the Rouge. He offered his support for preserving the valley. In fact, the federal Government has provided nearly $80,000 to date to the Save the Rouge Valley organization to help them direct public attention to this issue and persuade the Province of Ontario to listen to the people.
The recommendations of this task force report, together with the outstanding parks record of the Minister of the Environment, should be enough to convince the Ontario Government to work with Environment Canada to protect this environmentally significant area.
In conclusion, when the House stood together to save South Moresby, we accomplished a dream. We now have an opportunity to realize another dream in Scarborough, and in all the special wildlife areas across Canada.
As Wildlife Week draws to a close, it is appropriate that we are discussing Bill C-30. It is only fitting that we give speedy passage to Bill C-30, because, as the task force noted, national parks do not impede our future, they anchor it.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to her Minister I would like to say that this day could well be described as a red letter day for Canada's national parks. It is a red letter day that has taken a little while to get here. By my calculations, it has been 487 days since the Bill was first introduced. However, we now have the Bill, and we want to see it move quickly through all stages and become the law of the land.
The amendments to the National Parks Act which are contained in Bill C-30 are amendments that we in the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, in principle welcome. It should be noted that these amendments have not come about suddenly. They were developed through a long process of evolution that goes back for quite a number of years in the recent history of our country.
It was in the 1970s that there began some extensive national public consultations regarding a new parks policy. These consultations led to the 1978 statement on a new national parks policy. The House ought to know that most of the amendments that are found in Bill C-30 that we are debating today were actually introduced into Cabinet and approved in the Liberal administration in the month of March, 1984. They did not reach the House in the form of a Bill prior to the dissolution of that Parliament.
The Bill that we are dealing with today, Bill C-30, could really be called Liberal legislation. But even putting that aside,
April 15, 1988

we could certainly describe it as liberal in spirit. The amendments find support on this side of the House.
I want to point out again that it did take a long while for these amendments to be debated at second reading stage. In fact, it took the Government two full years from when it first took office to even recognize that national parks were needed. I say that because there was no mention of national parks in the Government's program until the Throne Speech of October, 1986. In the Throne Speech it states:
Canada's National Parks represent a heritage of great importance to the
present and future generations. My government will ask Parliament to approve
major reforms to the National Parks Act...
That can be found at page 12 of Hansard on October 1, 1986.
Shortly thereafter, in the same month, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) told the House:
The Parks amendments will be ready for first reading in Parliament soon,
and I urge the Opposition to give them expeditious passage.
That can be found at page 290 of Hansard on October 10, 1986.
Finally, on December 11, 1986 the Minister tabled Bill C-30 for first reading and now it is back in the House for the first time for expeditious passage.
Ever since Bill C-30 was given that first reading in 1986 we in this Party, parks and conservation groups, and the general public have been asking the Government when the second reading debate is going to take place. They have asked: "Why is second reading debate being postponed for such a long period of time? Why is the Minister's desire for expeditious passage being frustrated?"
I think we have a few clues about why there has been such a long delay in what I am describing as a red letter day for Canada's national parks. We know, for example, that in Banff National Park the operators of the Sunshine Village ski area want to expand their boundaries and move into some ecologically sensitive areas, those that are known as the Sunshine Meadows. With the passage of Bill C-30 they will not be able to do that. One of the most important aspects of Bill C-30 is that it clearly sets out the boundaries of ski areas in three parks-Banff, Jasper, and Riding Mountain. If one were interested, one could look at the Bill and find the boundaries in Schedule III on page 41 of the Bill. Incidentally, those were the same boundaries that were agreed to in 1978.
It is this boundary question for developers which has made the Bill controversial, not among the Parties in the House but within the ranks of the governing Party itself. The so-called developers have some very strong allies. They certainly have behind them the Government of Alberta, and they have certainly had with them many, if not all, Alberta Conservative caucus federal Members of Parliament. These two powerful groups-the Alberta caucus of the Government and the
National Parks Act
Alberta Government-have applied some enormous pressure on the Minister of the Environment regarding the boundaries contained in Bill C-30.
I believe and I hope that the fact we are now debating Bill C-30 at second reading today is testimony to the fact that the Minister of the Environment has withstood those pressures. It still has to go to the legislative committee and come back to the House at report stage. However, if the Bill survives without major amendments, particularly to the section dealing with the boundaries for development, I will credit the Minister with having scored a very major victory in the name of parks.
I want to return to the kind of opposition the Minister of the Environment has had to face. On December 15, 1987, The Edmonton Journal featured an article entitled "Parks plan 'held hostage' by Alta. MPs". The writer of this piece, Mr. Ed Struzik of the Ottawa Bureau of The Edmonton Journal, wrote as follows:
The future of Canada's national parks is being "held hostage" by the Alberta Conservative caucus, say federal officials and national environment leaders.
At issue are persistent attempts by the caucus to change Bill C-30, a National Parks Act amendment.
The MPs want to allow more tourism and resource development, taking a stand that's almost a carbon copy of a confidential Alberta government paper presented to Environment Minister Tom McMillan.
In referring to that Alberta government paper, the article indicates:
It calls for expansion of ski hills and townsites in the mountain parks.
The matter has become so critical that McMillan, who rejects the Alberta position, is considering calling in the country's conservation leaders to gather support for the Bill, sources say.
The Minister said last week that "if we suburbanize national parks, we'll kill them".
A senior Environment official confirmed McMillan is becoming frustrated by the "stubbornness" of the Alberta MPs.
"They are a powerful force and if they continue, they could kill the bill altogether," the official said.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The power of ignorance.


B. Keith Penner: I thank my Hon. friend for his useful contribution to the debate with that interjection.
The article continues:
John Theberge, chairman of a ministerial task force on national parks, said if Alberta had its way it will mean the end of the national park system in Canada.
"It seems that a lot of people, particularly the Alberta caucus and the Alberta government, have lost sight of the fact that parks were not established to promote tourism opportunities."
The bill was introduced in Parliament a year ago and still hasn't received second reading.
The article is dated December 15, 1987 and goes on to indicate:
Keven MacNamee, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, said: "What really bothers me is that cabinet has

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
approved these amendments. This Bill could die and it will be completely the fault of the Alberta caucus."
Alberta has "no right holding the rest of the country hostage" because of its "greedy desire" for more economic opportunities, he said.
If the bill dies, he said new national parks like Gros Morne, Northern Ellesmere, Bruce Peninsula and South Moresby may never be given full park status because of legal obstacles only the proposed amendments can clear.
I have taken a little time to read from the article to set the debate in some kind of context because it is a major piece of legislation. What we are doing today is extremely important for the future of our parks.
I suppose it is never fair when one deals with an article not to allow the other side to give its point of view. The same article tells us the position of the chairman of the Alberta caucus of the federal Government. He said that the Bill currently before us "is good, but it's just too airtight". The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) went on to say:
It won't allow for the enhancement of the tourism industry.
The article continues:
-he sees room for some "limited to moderate lumber developments" in national parks and the possibility of angle-drilling for oil and gas from outside the park boundaries".
Wilderness and development can go hand-in-hand in the big national parks, he said.
Although apparently this is the position of the Alberta caucus on the government side, and it is the position of the Alberta Government in a paper which it has given to the Minister, happily it is not the position taken by the people of the Province of Alberta. Some polls have been taken and reported upon, testing the views of the people of Alberta regarding national parks. They show that most Albertans support Bill C-30 and feel that the four mountain parks should be protected against further development.
I am sure that it will surprise you, Mr. Speaker, that the Alberta Government and the Alberta caucus on the government side could be out of touch with the people of Alberta. I found that to be astounding. I thought that there was great sensitivity within the Alberta caucus on the government side and in the Alberta Government on issues of this kind.
The Edmonton Journal certainly seems to be a great supporter of parks. In an April 7, 1987 editorial it took the Government of Alberta to task and asked the following question:
Will the Alberta Government ever learn that the natural resources found in Banff, Jasper, and Waterton Lakes are too important to sacrifice for the sake of convenience?
The Economic Development Minister wants Jasper National Park to become a provincial park. The Tourism Minister told an Alberta Tory convention that he strongly supports a proposal to build a six-storey hotel at the Sunshine Village ski development at Banff National Park.
The editorial concludes:
For the sake of convenience and money, they would jeopardize priceless natural resources to build condominiums on the shores of pristine mountain lakes or huge hotels on the side of a mountain.


Mr. Thacker:: That is absolute nonsense.


B. Keith Penner: It is. My friend says to do that would be absolute nonsense. I agree with him. The editorial agrees with the Hon. Member as well.
The editorial concludes in this way:
Tourism certainly offers great potential to diversify the province's economy. But there must be a balance between development and preservation of national parks for future generations.
I want it to be understood that the Liberal Party is committed to the passage of Bill C-30. We want those Sunshine Village boundaries to be intact. We will strongly resist and oppose any move that may be taken in the legislative committee or by the Government at report stage or whenever, either to have those boundaries removed or to have any future changes left in the hands of the Governor in Council. On this side of the House we believe that the Governor in Council would be less able to withstand the strengths of powerful lobbyists to adjust those boundaries than if we had those boundaries established in law and approved by Parliament.
The House and the country ought to know that national parks are revenue generating. They provide more than 34,000 person years of employment and over $145 million in taxes, duties and royalties for local, provincial and federal governments. That is a 300 per cent return on investment, according to the National Parks Task Force of 1986. Additionally, there is evidence that limiting development in parks is the key factor to stimulating growth in surrounding communities, in the case of Alberta such communities as Canmore and Pincher Creek, and Golden, B.C.
I have said repeatedly that we support Bill C-30, but there is in the Bill one clause that does give us some concern. It is not necessarily that we would seek to have that clause removed, but it does give us a little bit of concern. It is the clause that deals with the citizens heritage fund.
At the moment we are not in a clause-by-clause study of the Bill so I will stay away from excessive detail and deal only with the principle in this particular clause. The so-called citizens heritage fund has raised a number of questions. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, for example, has written to the Minister asking some pointed questions about this fund. I will refer to just two paragraphs of the letter to the Minister which state:
During the past months, the Society has consulted with many individuals on Bill C-30. While reaction has been favourable, many expressed concern over the Citizens Heritage Fund. The proposed Fund raises three main questions: (1) Why is it being established? (2) Will it compete with existing voluntary organizations? (3) How will the Fund operate? The total lack of information on this major proposal has prompted this concern.
The letter goes on to state:
We believe the concerns expressed about the Fund are justified. A government administered Fund aimed at raising private monies to supplement

April 15, 1988

a tax based program is a fundamental shift in how government will fund the national parks program. While the Society supports in principle private initiatives to further the national parks program, clearly such involvement must evolve in an informed manner.
That is the difficulty with the citizens heritage fund. It is not evolving in an informed manner. For example, it is my understanding that this fund is to be dispensed at the discretion of the Minister. Whoever is the Minister of the Environment in charge of Parks Canada will be able to use this fund presumably as he sees fit. 1 am worried about that because it has at least the potential of being just another one of those infamous slush funds that governments like to have available. They like to have them available because at the appropriate moment in time, that is, the closer to an election it is, the more useful these funds become. They can be doled out on a regional basis with a political connotation.
We do not want that at all. After all, Parliament has been reformed. Government is being reformed. We want to be a part of that new wave. I believe that I probably have the support of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and probably have at least a modest degree of support from the government benches in this regard.
Before winding down my contribution to this debate I want to talk about a couple of the other aspects of the Bill that I consider to be important. The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the traditional subsistence activities that are contained in the Bill. This particular aspect of the Bill recognizes that new national parks must not inhibit traditional activities that are carried on by local people. The range of activities is broad. It goes from hunting, fishing and trapping by aboriginal peoples, to rabbit hunting and domestic wood cutting in the Atlantic region. It must be made clear that this provision does not apply retroactively to existing parks such as Banff and Jasper but that it will allow the settlement of aboriginal land claims outstanding in national park reserves, such as, for example, the claim of the Haida to South Moresby.
When a new national park was established quite a number of years ago in the constituency which I represent, the Government of Canada entered into extensive negotiations with the Robinson- Superior Treaty as to the extinguishment of their rights. These negotiations were very protracted in nature. The desire of the Government was to find an accommodation. It believed at the time that the best accommodation was to have these aboriginal rights relinquished in return for a cash compensation.
After a long period of discussion, it soon became apparent that we really cannot put a dollar value on aboriginal rights. The Government of the day had enough wisdom to drop the negotiations and say to the Robinson-Superior Treaty with reference to Pukaskwa National Park that they may retain their rights of hunting, fishing and trapping.
National Parks Act
Happily, I can report to the House that since the Government of the day made that decision, there have been no serious problems in Pukaskwa National Park. There have been no abuses by the aboriginal people. In fact, it has been proven, as I have said on other occasions, that the aboriginal people are among this nation's finest conservationists.
I would also point out that Bill C-30 provides for wilderness zones and the activities allowed therein. This gives legislative authority to a policy that is already in practice. Environment and conservation groups were hoping for something stronger, but nevertheless, these wilderness zones are now in the Bill. The policy that is in effect has been made law, and that is a welcome development.
As well, something ought to be said about the powers of expropriation. This has been described as a particular fingerprint of this particular Minister and Government. The previous Government had wanted the powers of expropriation to remain in the National Parks Act. This legislation takes away those expropriation powers. In so doing, I believe that the future negotiating position of the Government of Canada in the establishment of new national parks is weakened.
I recognize that in the past, the power of expropriation has created serious difficulties, and perhaps in some instances it could even be described as having been abused. There ought legitimately among Members of Parliament to be concern about expropriation powers. However, I would want to point out that when dealing with national parks, it is very difficult to say that there exists something that could be described as federal greed. That is hardly the case because national parks and national park reserves total only 1.5 per cent of the Canadian landscape. Who among us would say that that is too much?
The Parliamentary Secretary spent a good part of her time dealing with the question of poaching. I am pleased that she did, and there is no need for me to go over all of that ground again, except to say that it is correct and right, in our view, that poaching will now carry significantly heavier fines under the new legislation. This, I believe, well reflects the priority the public is giving today to wildlife protection. There are to be fines of up to $150,000 for poaching any one of the nine endangered species: bighorn sheep, Dali's sheep, grizzly bear, gyrfalcon, mountain goat, peregrine falcon, piping plover, polar bear and whooping crane.
I believe Hon. Members ought to know, however, that the poaching of other game animals such as caribou, elk and deer in national parks carries a much lower fine, a fine of only $2,000. We in the Official Opposition think that the poaching of game animals should carry a higher penalty. We urge the Minister to reassess that particular aspect of the poaching provisions in the Bill.
I am convinced that Canada has far too little in the way of lands that fall under the aegis of national parks. It is certainly not my view that all wilderness in Canada should be protected,

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
but there are special places that ought to be protected like South Moresby, Jasper, Banff and other national parks.
If Bill C-30 passes unaltered, if it is not radically adjusted along the way, then I think it will strike a very positive note for the protection of what others in Canada, on many occasions, have described as a priceless national heritage, the national parks of Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was wondering when the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) would rise on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have had a brief conversation with the critic for the Official Opposition who informed me that it was his understanding that there would be one speaker per Party and then we might be able to dispose of the Bill. I have not had a chance to talk to a representative of the New Democratic Party since there was some confusion today about to whom to speak. I wonder if the Members of the New Democratic Party have the same understanding or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is the designated speaker today, so I imagine he would be the one who could answer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any discussions. I am aware that this Bill was sprung on us without any notice this afternoon and that the environment critic for the NDP is not present. I can only assume that she and perhaps others would want to speak on this Bill. I am afraid that I could not agree to any such proposition, given the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I then recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill on debate.


John Barry Turner: Your environment critic supports the Bill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) says that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) supports the Bill. Of course she supports it. We support the Bill. That is not the question. The question is, is this any way to run a Parliament.
At 12.30 in the afternoon on a Friday, the Government decides it will call a Bill without any notice. The environment critics for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are not able to be here to comment. Fortunately for both the Liberal Party and for the NDP, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and I happened to be around.
I was around 15 months ago when this Bill was introduced. In fact, I was the NDP environment critic at that time. It was only because I was the critic at that time and because I happened to be here this afternoon that we are able to comment on this Bill in a prepared way.
There is no way that this can be considered fair play by the Government. The Government sat on this Bill for 15 months and then on a Friday afternoon in April, without any warning, it brings it forward and hopes that it can slip it into committee. It is not our intention to delay this Bill at all, but it certainly is our intention to make some comments on the principles of the Bill at second reading stage, and that is just what I intend to do and what I expect other NDP Members to be able to do as well.
I began by saying that we support the Bill. We would have liked to have seen it go through a long time ago, but because the Government itself has delayed it for 15 months, there is no reason for us now to be pressured into dealing with it in an hour and a half.
I want to take this opportunity to go over some of the shortcomings of the Bill. First, why do we support it? We support it because it does provide the legislative housekeeping needed for the smooth operation of national parks. It puts into legislation current parks policies, particularly in the limitation of future resort development in the parks system. It provides stiff fines for poaching of rare game and birds, and, as has already been mentioned, many of the parks and wilderness associations are eager to see this Bill pass. Indeed, they are eager to see it go to committee, and that is why it will go to committee after an appropriate time has been allowed for debate at second reading stage.
If this Bill was introduced 15 months ago, one might ask what has taken it so long. With all due respect to you and your province of origin, Mr. Speaker, the cause of the delay has been what we in this House sometimes call the goon squad from Alberta. This goon squad regularly stands in the way of any kind of progressive legislation the Government might be considering. It is rare enough that the Government considers progressive legislation, but when it does you always have the goon squad from Alberta trying to retard the process.
The only national park, I suppose, that would be appropriate for Alberta as far as those people are concerned would be some kind of human dinosaur park where the goon squad from Alberta could be stuffed and mounted so people could see just what political dinosaurs look like.


Mr. Daubney:: The NDP in Manitoba will be in a museum after the next election.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Alberta caucus might go for that if you could convince them there was a buck to be made. That is the way they see the world. It is just a place out there waiting for a buck to be made.


John Barry Turner: We could put Howard Pawley in a museum.
April 15, 1988


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The goon squad has the most morally primitive view of the world you could imagine. Any Bill that would suggest there should be areas of the planet that are left alone, where no money is made out of them, is a travesty for them of Progressive Conservative doctrine. That is the reason for the delay, the goon squad from Alberta. Enough about them; history will deal with them appropriately.
Some of the points we would like to raise and elaborate upon have to do with the requirement for the Government to be more frank with Parliament in this Bill and this debate about its intentions for various parks, particularly those which have been the object of some controversy. We need to see proposed boundaries for Banff and Jasper. We need to see any agreement with the Alberta Government that might have been arrived at prior to the Bill finally being brought forward for second reading. We need to see actual proposals for what would constitute a wilderness area, and planned use, and the details of the administration of the citizens heritage fund. These are all things we are debating in the dark because the Government refuses to give us any details.
We need to know that the Government is willing to support parks as natural preserves and not as tourist sites. We need to know that the Government is willing to allocate resources to park development without having to develop quasi-private fund-raising programs like the citizens heritage fund. What is the Government's commitment to these kinds of parks separate and apart from these private fund-raising schemes it has in mind?
In short, we need to know whether the Government has a clear and unequivocal commitment to national parks. We need to know whether there will be amendments to the Park Act which give clearly articulated principles by which the parks will be administered. Parks have suffered from too much ad hoc and discretionary decision-making already.
We need to know about amendments to the Park Act which will legislate current policy against resource development. It is not enough just to have a policy. We want to see that policy enshrined in legislation. We remember that it is not so long ago that a former unlamented Minister of the Environment, 1 cannot remember the name of her riding, spoke about logging and mining in national parks. We need legislation which prevents any Minister from suddenly getting a whim about logging and mining in national parks and permitting that sort of atrocity to go on.
What does Bill C-30 do? It expands the National Parks system. We all should regard that positively. It entrenches in legislation the establishment of Ellesmere Island National Park and provides for the future establishment of Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan. I got some mail on that park the other day. It has been dragging on and on. Some agreement was reached with respect to I believe water rights but other negotiations are still going on.
When we think about areas that need to be preserved we quite rightly think about South Moresby or places which, by
National Parks Act
their nature, command the attention of the media and others in such a way that a grasslands national park does not. However, there is very little natural grassland left in western Canada and that in and of itself is a feature of what naturally occurs and what there was a great deal of in Canada at one point. Just as much effort should go into preserving natural prairie habitat as goes into preserving natural habitat in British Columbia, Ontario or the Atlantic provinces. I make the plea on behalf of the Grasslands National Park that it might be completed very soon.
We wonder why the Bill makes no mention of the establishment of national marine parks. The federal Cabinet approved a national marine parks policy in September, 1986, well before Bill C-30 was introduced. At the moment there are no marine parks in Canada, although there are proposals for five potential parks. One of the reasons no such park exists is that the Government has no statutory authority to establish marine parks. In its marine park policy the Government decided to create this authority with an amendment to the National Parks Act. What do we have here? Amendments to the National Parks Act but nothing with respect to marine parks, the very kind of amendments that the Government said it ought to bring in before this Bill was drafted. Perhaps there will be some explanation for the absence of those kinds of amendments.
Bill C-30 also works to eliminate poaching. Under the 1930 Parks Act the maximum fine for any transgression against a park is a $500 fine. That $500 is certainly not what it used to be, certainly not what it was in 1930. The penalty is too paltry to dissuade poachers from taking the valuable game which can be found in the parks. The Parliamentary Secretary went on at some length about that.
The Bill lists nine species deserving of protection in particular, including bighorn sheep, Dali's sheep, grizzly bear, gyrfalcon, mountain goat, peregrine falcon, piping plover, polar bear and whooping crane. It creates a penalty for poaching those animals of a maximum of $150,000 or six months in jail. It also raises to $2,000 the maximum fine for other offences under the Act. We are delighted to see that and we await the day when those kinds of penalties will be available to the Government. However, the one thing it could have done, and this is very timely given the program on The Journal a couple of weeks ago about the poaching not of these rare animals-


John Barry Turner: The Silent Slaughter.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, that is what it was called, about the poaching not of animals considered to be rare but animals that are normally hunted.


John Barry Turner: Like elk.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, like elk, moose or bear. The Government has not moved on that in this Bill and I hope it will. It will have an opportunity in committee to move amendments to

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
provide stiffer penalties for the poaching of animals like black bear, moose, elk, caribou and others. Strange as it may seem, there is an incredible black market for various animal parts. I will not go into the details, Mr. Speaker, for fear of offending your great sensitivity and innocence in these things. Bear gall bladder is an example of one part for which there is great demand in Asia. With all due respect to Asian aspirations to greater virility, the people in Asia who need these products and the people who are providing them with these products should stay out of Canada, leave our wildlife alone, and sort out their assorted problems in some other way.
I hope that we will see amendments to this Act which take into account that which we have come to know since this Bill was introduced about the silent slaughter of many ordinary game animals here in Canada because once they are gone, there is no way of getting them back.
I would like to say a word about the National Parks citizens' heritage fund. The Government wishes to establish a fund to which Canadians could make tax deductible donations to expand or enhance the parks site system. Since this fund was first discussed Canadians have been trying to find out exactly what the Government has in mind. All we have learned is that the Minister says that any money raised via the fund will not diminish the allocation to the department through Parliament. That should be "will not diminish an already diminished allocation" because we all know of the cut-backs which have already occurred in the Department of the Environment. There is, however, no assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or Treasury officials that we will see no further diminishing of the Parks Canada budget. That is not much of a guarantee at all.
The Minister says that the money will be used for special projects and not regular operations. The Bill itself is ambiguous on that point and offers no definition of "enhancing the park and site system". Furthermore, there will not be an arm's length agency to administer the fund. It will be at the Minister's discretion.
Where I come from and where the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior comes from this is called a slush fund and is suspect. I appreciate that the Member for Cochrane- Superior brought his vast experience with slush funds to bear on this debate and that he has now repented of his association with slush funds through his membership in the Liberal Party and a new day has dawned in the Liberal Party.
In any event, being enshrined in this Bill is a ministerial slush fund of which we are critical. We feel that it is an irresponsible and dangerous measure. It is irresponsible because there is already a mechanism for Canadians to make gifts to the Crown. The Minister says he wants to make it easier for Canadians to give lands and estates for parks. In effect, what he wants is a way to circumvent the Financial Administration Act.
Such a fund is dangerous because it is government encroachment on private fund-raising which already exists or may exist in the future. It would increase the moneys which are spent at the Minister's discretion, and it would consequently increase the leverage the Minister has over non-governmental organizations and other organizations which would be in line for grants flowing from this fund.
It is sad to note that some environmental groups have supported the notion of this fund. They are entitled to their view, but we feel that they have perhaps been influenced by the Minister's officials who have told them that this is the only way in which money can be made available for park projects. It is a sad commentary that this Minister sees more hope in getting money to enhance and expand his department's operations through voluntary taxation than through Treasury Board.
We in the New Democratic Party are not prepared to accept that we are at the limit of what Canadians are willing to spend on the preservation of their natural heritage. Obviously the Minister feels that we have reached that limit and that he must arrange a fund through which he can raid the moneys that might be available to other voluntary groups which are concerned about the environment.
Bill C-30 permits the Government to set boundaries for Banff and Jasper. The Government offers two reasons why it wants these boundaries to be legislated. It says that boundaries are needed before local self-government can be negotiated and that it wants to limit the development of town sites. Yet, we are not offered any idea of what these boundaries will be. By passing Bill C-30 Parliament may be agreeing to boundaries far wider than it would desire. We are basically asked to sign a blank cheque, to turn over the question of what boundaries may be established for Banff and Jasper to the Government. That is something we are not willing to do.
By the way, I understand that the citizens of Jasper have already indicated that they do not wish to pursue selfgovernment at this time. Residents of Banff, however, will be voting later this year on whether they wish to negotiate selfgovernment. I know that there are people in Alberta, who are looking to a different kind of self-government. They would like self-government for Alberta and I understand that some of them will be running against the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and other incumbents in Alberta.
I take it that the movement for self-government has really got off the ground in Alberta. That which is happening in the town site of Banff is only a manifestation of a larger phenomenon. We hope that this will not develop into a political movement which will sweep away the goon squad because we value them so highly. Besides, what would be the point of replacing the current goon squad with a separatist goon squad? We intend to sweep away the Alberta goon squad and replace them with New Democrats. That is the solution which we see to that problem.
April 15, 1988

Another issue in Bill C-30 is the definition and limitation of a ski area. Bill C-30 very explicitly states the exact boundaries of permitted ski resorts and places a moratorium on future ski development in the parks. There are currently five ski areas in national parks and a sixth is provided for by the federal-provincial arrangement which established Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland.
It has been government policy for some years to limit the development of ski areas. This policy has not, unfortunately, been rigorously implemented and ski resorts have continued to expand, particularly in Banff National Park. There is a clear need to legislate boundaries for ski development and we welcome this provision of the Bill.
However, the Minister has already expressed his willingness to entertain changes to this section of Bill C-30. We know why. We know that it is because of the pressure applied on the Minister by the goon squad in Alberta with respect to a particular development in one of the national parks, the Sunshine ski hill. The Minister has said that it is okay with him if the committee studying the Bill decides to defer a decision on the Sunshine ski hill to some future date. Sunshine is remarkably successful, it seems, at getting Parks Canada to bend its policies and, although I really hope I am wrong in this, it seems to have won another round with the Minister.
I see that the Member for Ottawa-Carleton is shaking his head. I hope he is right. Time will tell. I know that the commitment of the Member for Ottawa-Carleton to this and to holding the line against the goon squad is beyond question and I wish him very well. He knows that he will have our support in this. We hope that the Minister has not been weakening on this matter of defining and living in ski areas.
Bill C-30 permits the Government to establish wilderness areas. It then requires the Minister not to authorize any activities which are likely to impair the wilderness character of the area. Notwithstanding this prohibition, Parks Canada can build rudimentary camp sites and permit aircraft to fly in.
One of the more striking deficiencies of Bill C-30 is a missing definition of wilderness. I admit that there might be some difficulty in defining wilderness, but no attempt is even made. We can infer from the activities which will be permitted that to Parks Canada wilderness is an area in which humans can camp, walk, travel by aircraft, and carry on other activities. Many Canadians would disagree with this definition. Many Canadians would say that there ought to be some wilderness which is in fact wilderness and left completely alone.
They would see wilderness as an area to be protected from human activity. Nowhere does Bill C-30 make any legislative provision for true wilderness sanctuaries. We see this as a serious shortcoming. For example, some members of the Alberta caucus-the same group to which I have been referring all along-are concerned that this Bill will stop the
National Parks Act
proposed condominium development at Maligne Lake. This is because Maligne Lake is apparently slated to be a wilderness area. However, Maligne Lake already has a small group of buildings at one end and motorboats, including tourist boats, on the lake. That is not my definition of wilderness. I hope it is not a definition which anyone else accepts.
One end of the lake is zoned for development and a corridor down the lake is zoned for commercial activities so that a diesel boat can travel back and forth on the lake. The sides of the lake are wilderness zones. I suggest we need a better zoning program for wilderness areas than is currently offered. It is as ridiculous as suggesting that if there is no housing in the bush at the edge of an airport, the area is a wilderness zone.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Maybe the bottom of the lake is wilderness.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Indeed. I would suggest that the wilderness might exist in the minds of the Alberta Tory caucus, but that would be an insult to wilderness. Before this Bill goes to committee the Minister should provide all interested Members with his plans for the zoning and preservation of a wilderness area.
Bill C-30 permits certain subsistence activities. For example, it permits the Minister to allow certain subsistence hunting and fishing and other activities in national parks when these are part of a federal-provincial agreement. We are in favour of this in principle, especially because we wish to see future parks developed in areas which are traditional hunting grounds for local peoples, particularly aboriginal peoples. The fact is that some of the new parks which we want to create are also the traditional lands of various aboriginal peoples. Some accommodation will have to be made between their rights and the desire of Canadians to establish national parks in these areas.
Those kinds of arrangements are being worked out, as in the case of South Moresby, and those kinds of arrangements will have to be worked out in future parks development where there is legitimate conflict between aboriginal rights and the desire of Canadians to establish national parks. The Government has given very little indication of its intentions in this area, and we want to see more detail.
To its credit, Bill C-30 accomplishes much housekeeping. Most of the amendments are to the regulatory power for parks administration and, generally speaking, we favour good housekeeping. Some of the proposed changes are disconcerting. For instance, the Government wishes to continue to be able to kill "dangerous or superabundant animals". The parks mandate is to permit natural processes to prevail. Therefore, is not the killing of superabundant animals against this philosophy? Likewise, permitting the destruction of dangerous animals denies what is often the reality of humans encroaching on the wildlife habitat of a park and putting these animals under the kind of pressure that results in attacks from time to time. This accepts the premise that it is appropriate to destroy

April 15, 1988
National Parks Act
animals which are disturbed in this way. We question that rationale.
The Bill expands the activities which may exist outside of town sites in national parks to include those for accommodation, recreation or entertainment of visitors to the parks. Courtesy of Bill C-30, the Government could permit a casino or amusement park to be built anywhere in the national parks system.
Bill C-30 authorizes regulated use of pesticides and other toxic substances in the parks. We believe that is something which should have been dealt with much more stringently.
In closing, I believe I have dealt with most of the NDP views on this Bill. We have no desire to delay it, but we want to have an adequate debate at second reading. I know that the environment critic for the New Democratic Party, the Elon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood will regret that she was not here. No notice was given that this Bill might be debated, and if the Government thinks it will play these kinds of games with important legislation like this and slip it through by surprise, it has another thought coming. We have others who are willing to speak to this Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments about Bill C-30. First, I think I must deal with the closing comments of my hon. friend. He said that they have no desire to delay the legislation because it is important.
Four minutes prior to that he said it was his Party's position that the Bill could not even go forward to committee, where democracy could take place, until the Minister provided him with detailed zoning regulations for every national park in Canada. That is blackmail. It is the kind of blackmail that we have seen consistently with each piece of legislation that has come to this House this week. For five days we debated the joining of two Crown corporations into a stronger entity to enable it to compete better and provide more jobs. There were $3 million or $4 million in public funds expended on a piece of legislation so that those Members would be able to stand up in the future to say the Government cannot manage to get legislation through the House and we do not have time to deal with important issues. This deliberate filibustering began some three months ago. They stand up to say they are willing to cooperate, but if the Government acts in this way it will not get co-operation.
We have seen six-month hoist motions to kill two pieces of very important legislation earlier this week. One is a tax Bill to provide rebates to farmers, miners and fishermen so that there will be jobs. Every time we try to create a job the NDP fights us because they want to campaign in the next election as the champions of job creation. In spite of that we have created one and a quarter million jobs in three and one-half years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: How many in national parks?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: One must really listen to what they say in order to contrast it with what they do.
Canadians have a lot of common sense. It is what that Party will do that will count on voting day. That Party has embarked on a very dangerous course of obstructing this House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What does this have to do with national parks?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They are trying to subject this House to the tyranny of a minority. Every time people see those poor people from Turkey who were scammed by a travel agent and brought to this country under false pretences-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just came into the House for what I understood was a debate on the National Parks Act. Unless the Order of the Day has been changed, I would respectfully ask that you urge the Member to stick to the subject before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member was getting to the Bill. The Hon. Member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I certainly was, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to move on a situation that has existed for many years, decades, in relation to our national parks. We are trying to do something in the public interest and this House and members of all parties should co-operate. But when the Opposition filibusters and delays things like the refugee legislation they cause heartache and disaster for Turks and people of one kind or another. When those Members delay something like this National Parks Bill even longer, they put wildlife population at risk.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member does have 20 minutes and then we can have questions and comments. I would hope Hon. Members would keep their questions and comments for the next time we have an opportunity to question him. It has been a wonderful Friday afternoon. Please do not tax the Chair.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Government was elected by the Canadian people. Three quarters of the Members of this House, members of my Party, were chosen by the Canadian people to come to this House. We were chosen because the country was in turmoil and we promised to consult and we promised to cooperate. We promised to end the era of confrontation. We have been working well for Canada in areas of language policy, in terms of job creation and with the development of sensible pieces of legislation. We have tried to produce legislation for this House in first reading stage in most instances months in advance of the debate.
This Bill was produced for this Chamber 15 months ago so that the consultation process with respect to its strengths and weaknesses could occur and we could get our act together, so
April 15, 1988

that if it needed some fine tuning at committee stage, we would know the witnesses who needed to be called and we could move it forward and put it into place.
I have sat here and listened to the New Democratic Party after getting the clear-cut support from the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party believes that national parks are important. The Liberals believe that we need to get this piece of legislation in place and the Conservatives also believe those two things. But the New Democratic Party stands up at the very first opportunity and tries to blackmail the whole House. Less than 35 Members try to blackmail this whole House. They say: "You produce a certain document, Mr. Minister, or we will not let it go to committee". That is blackmail and this House cannot allow itself to be subjected to that kind of blackmail. This Bill should go to committee now. The Bill we debated earlier today should have gone to committee a week ago. The Bill we were debating on Thursday should have gone to committee on that day. It is time to get the job done, to clear the decks, so we can have an election. Those Members holler for an election and then obstruct the House which stops us from going to the Canadian people until we get our legislation through.
For those reasons, and to stop the kind of dilatory motions we have experienced every time we have brought significant work forward this week-they moved a six-months hoist and tried to get a second round of speakers-I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Shellenberg):
That the question be now put.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Questions and comments, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to speak on the motion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be farther from the truth when the Member says that the New Democratic Party is trying to stop this Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You are trying to blackmail us. You tell us to give you this document or you will not go to committee. That is blackmail.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Those Hon. Members can scream all they like. They have 211 Members of Parliament. They have control over the agenda of the House. They have had the management of this House for almost four years. They are plugged up with all their Bills and then the Hon. Member has the audacity to blame us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You deserve the blame, so take it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then he suggests we are stopping the calling of the election. Let me suggest to the Member, if he wants to
National Parks Act
call an election, to get the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mulroney), to go to the Governor General this afternoon and call an election. We are ready for an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will take you on in an election. We are not afraid.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let us have an election right now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We want to talk about the honesty and promises of the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan. We want to talk about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon, Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are prepared to talk about free trade in the election campaign, the so-called free trade deal, and how it is going to end Canadian sovereignty if it goes through. We are prepared to talk about the environment. We are prepared to say exactly what the Conservatives have done about the environment and what can be done. We are also prepared to talk about jobs, not just in one section of the country but in all parts of the country, like my part of the country in British Columbia, in Newfoundland, in the north of Canada and in northern Ontario and Quebec where we still have too many people unemployed.
We are prepared to talk about the sell-out of this country to the Americans with respect to culture and the sell-out of this country in the trade deal. We are prepared to talk about the fact that the Government is prepared, at the last minute, after four years, to privatize an airline that is working well for Canadians and how it is going to be run down to the standard of Texas Air or one of those airlines in the United States. We are prepared to talk about that.
We are not shying away in any way from dealing with the environment. On May 2, 1980, I introduced a Private Member's Bill in this House entitled "An Act Respecting a National Park on Moresby Island and its Adjacent Islands". That was a long time ago and I am happy to point out that after some struggles by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), in particular, and some help from the Chair and from the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and because of co-operation throughout the House, we were able to work together and indeed get a wilderness area for South Moresby.
The Government is taking an environment Bill which it has been sitting on for 16 months and bringing it into the House of Commons today without any notice. We were supposed to debate another Bill. We were supposed to debate Eldorado Nuclear. The Government drops it on us because it thinks it is

April 15, 1988
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
very smart, and then the Hon. Member brings in what amounts to a closure on this Bill.
Some other governments did that. The St. Laurent Government acted in that way in 1957. In 1958 the people showed what they thought of that Government. The Diefenbaker Government got too arrogant in 1962 and the people put that Government in a minority position and then got rid of it.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Neil Young: that Bill C-224, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Private Member's Bill that I put forward for the second time in this Parliament. The intention of the Bill is to attempt to address some of the serious concerns felt by Canadians about the quality of drinking water where they live. The Bill goes even further than that, and I will expand as I make my remarks this afternoon.
The explanation of the Bill itself is that it would protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada. It provides for opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximal permissible levels for contaminants and other substances in drinking water. The regulations would apply to both public and private water systems. The operator of a public water system would be required to monitor water quality regularly and supply the results to the users and to the Minister of the Environment. Any user of a private water system may have the water tested by the Minister of the Environment. Under this Bill, it would also be an offence for the operator of a public water system to provide water which contravenes the regulations or fails to comply with monitoring and notice requirements. It would also be an offence for anyone to pollute a public or private water system. The Bill also permits water users to sue or to recover damages for contraventions of the Act. It gives any person standing to seek judicial review against the Minister of the Environment. The Bill authorizes the Minister to commission research into matters related to drinking water quality and establish an advisory council to assist the Minister. That then is the explanation of the Bill.
During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised:
A P.C. Government will work with the provincial Governments to establish a set of regulations which will lead to standards for safe drinking water. This will be accomplished with due regard to the best practical technology and to economic constraints.
That promise was made by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. The last time that the House had an opportunity to debate this Bill on January 21, 1985, the government Members' argument against having the Bill referred to a legislative committee at that time was that the Government had indeed made a commitment to do something about bringing in a safe drinking water Act. That was in January, 1985, and we still have not seen any indication from the Government that we are about to be presented with a safe drinking water Act. Some time ago in a paper tabled in the House, the Minister of the Environment also indicated that he would support bringing in such an Act.
In the absence of the Government coming forward with a proposed Act as has been promised, and assurances given to Canadians, the House is now given the opportunity to deal with this important matter and, indeed, refer it to a legislative committee for public input, discussion, and to allow Members on all sides of the House to examine the importance of this question. Since January, 1985, the House has not had an opportunity to express its views on this question. That is one of the reasons why the House of Commons committee that makes recommendations on Private Members' Business did recommend that this Bill be given some priority for debate in the House. That is why it is here again today.
In terms of the debate it is useful to take a look at some of the information that we do have about the quality of drinking water, not only in Canada but elsewhere. While Canada has less than 1 per cent of the world's population, we possess an estimated 25 per cent of the earth's fresh water. The Great Lakes contain 18 per cent of the planet's surface fresh water. Canada's rivers have a combined flow of 68,000 cubic metres per second, enough to fill all of the country's bathtubs every 10 seconds. On a global scale, fresh water constitutes only 0.2 per cent of the total water supply.
Until the first decades of the 20th century, water-borne diseases such as typhoid fever claimed the lives of many Canadians. Although modern medicine has advanced to the point where this disease is no longer a serious threat, new forms of water-borne diseases are still emerging. The World Health Organization indicates that in the Third World diseases associated with dirty water kills 50,000 people every day, more than 80 million people per year. As long as bacterial contamination of Canadian water is allowed to continue, such as that generated by food processing plants, Canadians cannot assume that they are immune to water-borne diseases that currently plague the Third World.
Currently the greatest threat to Canada's drinking water is caused by chemical contaminants. It has been estimated by many environmental scientists, including those associated with
April 15, 1988

the federal Department of the Environment that, in the Great Lakes alone, there are anywhere between 400 and 800 known chemicals which have been identified in the Great Lakes waters. Among those existing pollutants are mercury, lead, copper, chromium, zinc, PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), phenols, asbestos fibres, arsenic, PCBs, DDT, chlorinated organics, dioxin, HCB (hevachlorobenzene), ammonia, mirex and selenium.
Most of those chemicals come from a variety of sources, but one of the worst areas of concern are those chemical plants located on the U.S. side of the Niagara River. Approximately four or five years ago I had an opportunity to go to the Niagara Peninsula and over to the New York side of the Niagara River and take a look at some of those chemical companies which operate there. Some of the most serious environmental problems are coming from these chemical plants and on dump sites which, when one takes a look at the map of the U.S. side of the Niagara River, enough to scare one half to death when one notices how close those chemical dump sites are located to the face of the Niagara gorge. I will return to that in a second.
Some of the best known sources of pollution over there are the infamous Love Canal, the Hyde Park dump site, the "S" area dump, the 102nd Street dump, and the Niagara Falls, New York, Waste Water Treatment Plant, among many others.
It is worth-while pointing out that I was the chairman of this particular group that went there to take a look at this. I received agreement from all Parties in the House to table the report that we had drawn up as a result of that investigation. Certainly, the Members who were in the House at that time and who gave agreement to the tabling of the report, recognized the seriousness of the situation. What happened and is still happening is that when those chemical companies wanted to get rid of waste, all they did was excavate large holes in the ground and dumped these waste chemicals in there willy-nilly. They were dumped in a raw state without any kind of pretreatment. They were put in containers which were bound to leak and leach in later years, and that is exactly what is happening. As the chemicals are freed from the containers, they are going into ground water supplies and through the ground water into the Niagara River.
In fact, when we visited the area, coincidentally the CTV Television Network also had a camera crew down there which took an aquarium tank and filled it with water from the Niagara River. Then they placed a live fish in the tank. I am sure it was just coincidence but the fish immediately jumped out of the tank, even though scientific data indicate that the Niagara River is so polluted now that scientists can hardly even measure how much fresh water is in that river.
It is a very serious matter. Much of the pollutants which have gone into the Niagara River have been in the form of
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
dioxin, the dioxin used in the Vietnam war to defoliate trees. That was the initial intention, but of course we know what it did to human beings.
I believe it was a scientist working for Environment Canada who estimated that one shovel full of dioxin thrown into the Great Lakes would kill anything that lived in the Great Lakes for the next 100 years. However, we have chemical dump sites on the U.S. side of the Niagara River containing tonnes of this stuff. It is leaching into the river and posing a very serious threat to the drinking water supply of some six million Canadians who live around Lake Ontario, not least of whom are those who happen to live in my constituency of Beaches located right on the edge of Lake Ontario.
The Government's response-and I am sure that we will hear it in this debate as well-to this kind of alarming report is that all it serves to do is to scare Canadians.
As a result of the last time that I spoke on the matter in the House, I received a number of telephone calls from people in my constituency who happened to be pregnant. They asked: "Should I be drinking water from Lake Ontario?" It is an extremely difficult question to answer. I drink the water myself, but it is absolutely clear that doctors and scientists recommend that pregnant women not eat any more than one fish per year caught in Lake Ontario. Just as a matter of interest, when I first heard that recommendation a number of years ago, I asked the then Minister of National Health and Welfare in the previous Liberal Government why the allowable dioxin contamination in fish happened to be 20 parts per trillion in Canada while in the United States the limit was 10 parts per trillion.
The response I received was that it was twice as much in Canada because Canadians ate half as much fish on a per capita basis as did Americans. In other words, the Government's response to that contamination in fish was that because we eat half as much fish as Americans supposedly do, our bodies can absorb twice as much dioxin. My answer to that was that if one eats more than the average amount of fish for a Canadian, one is out of luck; one is really out of luck.
This is the kind of response that we have been receiving from Governments. They indicate that all we are trying to do is scare people and that the trace amounts of all the contaminants I have mentioned, including dioxin, in the Great Lakes are in such minute quantities that it is inconceivable that they would present any kind of danger to anyone's health.
I should like to dispute that point, because it has been estimated that anywhere between 400 and 800 known, identifiable chemicals have been found in the Great Lakes. No one knows what effect each of these chemicals have on each other. Even although they may be in minute traces, by the time they combine with each other they may well be establishing some new kind of chemical. This was pointed out in an issue of Protect Yourself magazine on Canada's drinking water, wherein an environmental scientist indicated the following:

April 15, 1988
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
While it is true that the Great Lakes may contain up to 800 known chemicals, and any number of unknown substances, it is also true that chemical levels are extremely low. The development of sophisticated technology in the past two decades has enabled scientists to detect minute quantities of substances in our water supply.
Dioxin, for example, can be measured in parts per quadrillion. The current measurement standard is parts per billion ... We have almost reached the stage where we are measuring numbers of molecules. Yet as Dr. Ross Hall, a professor of biochemistry at McMaster University, has pointed out, to a human cell, "a part per trillion is not a minute amount... It represents a few hundred molecules. And we know in the case of dioxin that a few hundred molecules is sufficient to impact on a cell harmfully." So the fact that chemical levels in drinking water are very low should not induce complacency. Once again, it is important to keep in mind that there is a great deal we don't know about the effects of modern pollutants. Much more research is needed, for example, on the phenomenon of chemical synergism, or interaction.
Synergism is the process whereby two or more substances, acting together, have a combined effect that is greater than the sum of their individual effects. This process is well-illustrated by the medical histories of workers in asbestos industry. The incidence of cancer amongst asbestos workers is nine times higher than it is amongst the general population. Yet the risk of cancer is 92 times higher amongst asbestos workers who smoke, in comparison to the rate amongst men who neither smoke nor work with asbestos.
That is just a very simple example of some of the scientific concerns which have been expressed about the lack of government action in the whole area of water quality.
In that my time has practically expired, I want to wind up by saying very seriously that the only standards which exist in Canada for the safe drinking water supply have nothing to do with human beings. The only standards which exist at the present time concern fish. If one poisons a fish by contaminating water, one is liable to charges under existing regulations. However, there is nothing to say that one cannot pollute drinking water or any kind of water to endanger human beings; it is only if it endangers fish.
I have called time and time again to have the matter referred to a standing committee of the House to allow Hon. Members to examine the matter in a much closer way than we can examine it by considering a Private Member's Bill for one hour, to call expert testimony, and to listen to and give the public an opportunity to express its concerns about the quality of drinking water in Canadian communities. I think the House would serve those people very well if it were to give them that kind of opportunity.
I say seriously to Hon. Members on all sides of the House: "Don't talk this Bill out, refer it to a legislative committee, and allow for the kind of discussion this matter of serious consequence deserves".


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today about safe drinking water, an issue of vital importance to the health and well-being of all Canadians, and one that is particularly by important to the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am indeed much encouraged by the initiative taken by the Hon. Member for
Beaches (Mr. Young) in tabling Bill C-224 which concerns safe drinking water. This Bill is similar to Bills C-212, C-226 and C-276 that were tabled in the past three years.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has stressed many times how vital safe drinking water is to public health, and that is why, as was pointed out by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Department of National Health and Welfare is primarily responsible at the federal level for the quality of our drinking water.
When similar legislation, C-212, C-266 and C-276, was introduced previously, we indicated at the time that the Government intended to introduce legislation on safe drinking water in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that both levels of government, federal and provincial or territorial, have an important role to play in the distribution of safe drinking water. The Department of National Health and Welfare of course appreciates the fact that provincial governments have always taken responsibility for the treatment of water for the purposes of production and distribution of drinking water. While the provinces are primarily responsible for the protection and control of drinking water supplies, authority is generally delegated to municipalities and public utilities for the production and distribution of drinking water in their respective communities. The standards or guidelines to be met are defined by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the provincial goverments.
As a matter of fact, the Department has been actively involved in setting standards for the quality of drinking water since 1923, when an order in council was adopted to regulate the bacteriological content of drinking water on board ships using continental water supplies. In 1968, the Department published the first set of universal standards and objectives for drinking water in Canada, prescribing standards for a substantial number of toxic chemicals and also for radioactive substances and microorganisms. These standards were completely revised in 1978 by a joint federal-provincial committee, which produced recommendations for the quality of drinking water in Canada, including guidelines on fifty-one parameters, of which forty-two involved chemical substances.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, new scientific data have found that water contains a broad range of chemical products and that some of them enter the water as a result of the treatment process itself. Considering this new information, the Department has recognized the need for revising its recommendations for the quality of drinking water in Canada, and this document is now in the process of being published. As in the past, the review process took place with the full co-operation and participation of the provincial governments, under the auspices of the Joint Federal-Provincial Advisory Board on Environmental and Occupational Health. Considering the importance of the safety of our drinking water and the rapidly increasing body of knowledge in this respect, a standing sub-committee has been set up so that we can update the recommendations on
April 15, 1988

an on-going basis and also consider other important matters related to water supplies generally. In fact, the actual changes are already being made.
The next edition of the recommendations will include 41 pesticides, of which 31 were not previously considered. The recommendations will include 15 new organic parameters and the re-evaluation of nine inorganic and organic substances, including an evaluation of the need to set guidelines for PCBs and dioxins, which interest and concern many Canadians now.
Setting guidelines is not the only activity related to drinking water that the Department of National Health and Welfare carries out. The safety of drinking water supplies can only be assured with a much broader approach. Overall, the Department's long-term goals for drinking water are:
-Ensure that all Canadians are supplied with drinking water that satisfies the recommendations for drinking water quality in Canada;
-Ensure that the operational safety of point-of-use water treatment devices sold commercially is determined by laboratory tests under actual conditions, so that potentially dangerous devices are removed from the market;
-Ensure also that all chemicals and materials directly or indirectly involved in the production, distribution or conservation of drinking water be evaluated for their potential dangers in order to guarantee their safety.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the concerns expressed about the quality of some drinking water, it seems that some Canadians have lost confidence in their municipal drinking water to the extent that they turn to other sources of supply or feel obliged to further purify their own drinking water. It is estimated that the sales of bottled water made by the soft drink industry alone amount to some $15 million a year. Spring water and other types of water sold in containers can be seen on the shelves of grocery stores and pharmacies and sometimes even at roadside stands.
Over the last few years, we have also witnessed a proliferation of devices of every imaginable kind to treat water at the point of use and it seems that these devices are increasingly popular with the general public. Departmental surveys carried out in major Canadian cities indicate that about 3 per cent of all households are using some device to treat tap water and that half of these devices are equipped with activated charcoal filters. Beside their prices, most of the devices available in stores have one or several other use-related inconveniences, so that any improvement perceived in the water quality could in fact go hand in hand with a number of potential hazards.
It is important to remember that the treatment of drinking water to make it safe and its subsequent distribution to consumers could also contribute to the contamination process. Many products may be used to treat water, including disinfectants, coagulants, dechlorination agents, fluoridation and fluoride adjustment agents, as well as corrosion and scale prevention compounds, and water softeners. Among the
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
materials used in the building of water storage and distribution system pipes and liners, we could single out cement coated cast iron and steel, asbestos cement, plastics (for instance, polyvinyl chloride, polybutylene, chlorinated polyethylene), epoxy resins, enamels, as well as tar pitch and bituminous mastics.
As a rule, Mr. Speaker, when these products are prepared for a drinking water related application, they are of higher quality. Just the same, it would be appropriate to set up strict standards to assess the health acceptability of all products and chemical substances in contact with drinking water; the possibilities for implementation of appropriate measures are under active study by the Department of National Health and Welfare and some provincial organizations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that even though the principle underlying Bill C-224 is commendable, the Department believes that it fails to address the whole series of questions which must be considered so that we can continue to have a reliable supply of safe drinking water. In addition, it does not really take into full consideration the major role played by the provinces in this field. Any new legislation in this field simply must include provisions to harmonize the respective roles of the provinces and of the federal Government. Obviously a new and specific parliamentary mandate must be established if the quality and safety of Canada's drinking water supply are to be guaranteed. Legislation does exist, but it does not cover new issues, including the one to which I have just alluded. The only requirements pertaining to drinking water in the regulations adopted pursuant to the Department of National Health and Welfare Act concern public transport companies. The Food and Drugs Act does give specific powers but, except for bottled water, they are not exercised because the executory powers are quite inappropriate in the case of collective drinking water supplies.
In this respect, in recent months, representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been meeting with the interested parties, including spokesmen for the provinces, concerning the possibility of extending the powers of the federal government to monitor the quality of drinking water.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what I have just said clearly indicates that the Department of National Health and Welfare is committed to see to it that Canadians can indeed count on reliable water supplies and that, in co-operation with the other parties involved, we are seriously considering measures which will enable us to reach that goal.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to take part in this exhaustive debate on a subject that is very important to most, perhaps I should say all, Members of this House. I am of course referring to Bill C-224, introduced by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Gabriel Fontaine: Colleague?

April 15, 1988
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that all Members of this House are colleagues, and even that the Hon. Member opposite is a colleague of the socialist Members. We are all colleagues.
But seriously, and I say this because we are talking about a very serious subject which is the pollution of our water supply and our drinking water in this country.

The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) presented a Bill in the House some time ago. As a matter of fact, I believe it was first debated on January 21, 1985. I would like to bring to the attention of the Conservative Member who just spoke what the position of the Government on the Bill was at that time. The Conservative speaker who was designated to talk the Bill out that day was the Hon. Member for Matapedia- Matane (Mr. Joncas). He is the one who had been given notes to read in the House, and this is what the Hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane read on January 21, 1985:
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because in my view it is premature at this point to discuss legislation on the quality of drinking water in Canada within the framework of a Private Members' Bill. I am convinced that my colleague, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), will make good use of Bill C-212 and the results of the Pearse Committee investigation when preparing recommendations on the quality of drinking water.
The Government said on January 21, 1985, that the Bill was premature because at that time, the Government was waiting for the Pearse report on water quality. We have now had that report for a year, so I would now ask the Hon. Member across, and hope that another Conservative Member would answer, what is the reason now for not proceeding with this Bill. It is obviously not premature any longer. It is indeed quite timely.
I was only reading comments made by a Conservative Member in the House of Commons. I know that it is unfair to quote a Tory using his own words, but I have to do it from time to time.


John Barry Turner: This is private Members' hour.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) says that it is private Members' hour, and he is right. One would wish that we could all express private views, not written text prepared by government officials. This is an important topic. On January 21, 1985, that is what the government position was stated as being. I am only quoting what was said.
Since January 21, 1985, there was another report tabled in the House prepared by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). This report is complete with a nice picture of the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment always puts his picture on everything. The report is entitled Federal Water Policy, and it talks about the management of toxic chemicals and about all kinds of topics like that. It talks about safe drinking water, and says about safe drinking water the following:
To meet this commitment, the federal government will continue to:
consider legislation to ensure the safety of drinking water within federal
jurisdiction and to complement provincial and territorial programs;-
Again, that comes from the Minister's own report. It is unfair to quote his own words, but I will do it anyway. It goes on:
-establish national drinking water quality guidelines to help all jurisdictions in setting safe drinking water standards;-
That is exactly what the private Member's Bill of the Hon. Member for Beaches is proposing.
Who am I to disagree with the Minister of the Environment? I would not want to do that. I would want to adhere to the wishes he has expressed in the House to have such legislation pass. That is why I am supporting the Bill presented to us by the Hon. Member for Beaches. It is my usual objective support for the Minister of the Environment, and I will not tolerate this partisan rhetoric coming from Members across the way who disagree with the Minister of the Environment who wants to propose such good legislation.
The next promise of the Minister of the Environment in his report with his picture on it is to promote public awareness and understanding of critical issues respecting drinking water safety such as the prevention of contamination of drinking water sources from land area runoff. He will conduct research and support technological development and transfer in drinking-water treatment processes. There are pages and pages of promises and commitments from the Government of Canada regarding drinking water, some of which are practically identical to what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches, is proposing today.
That being the case, I have analysed the promises of the Minister of the Environment very carefully and have listened to the eloquent remarks made to us today by all Hon. Members of the House. I have seen that there have been a number of reports on the quality of drinking water. These reports that I have in hand now deal only with the Ottawa River and were prepared between 1978 and 1982. This is how much study has been done on one river alone, the Ottawa River, which of course flows on the boundary of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And Ottawa-Vanier.


Don Boudria: And of course, the boundary of the great riding of Ottawa-Vanier which is so well represented in the House by my very distinguished colleague here.
Why should we not be able to inform our constituents of the quality of their drinking water on a frequent basis, the way our distinguished colleague from Beaches has suggested to us today, and the way the Minister of the Environment has suggested in that book with his picture in it? That is what we should be doing. That is what all Hon. Members should want.
Another body of water that flows through my riding is the St. Lawrence River. From Cornwall, Ontario, it goes east
April 15, 1988

through Lancaster, Bainsville and all those other nice communities I have described to you in the past, Mr. Speaker, and that I am sure all Hon. Members will want to visit during their summer holidays.
The St. Lawrence River and Lake St. Francis is also in that area, and we know, of course, that the Akwesasne Indian reserve is right there on the edge of my constituency. It is being polluted right now because of the discharge of certain chemicals in New York, on the American side. We know those toxic chemicals are in the water there. It is unfortunate to see what we are doing to so many of our first citizens by allowing that contamination. I say "we", we collectively as citizens are allowing that water to be contaminated and that is affecting the life and health of so many of our first citizens, and so many citizens in general, of course.
What we should be doing is taking a tangible step today and saying yes to Bill C-224.

We should therefore support this Bill. Mr. Speaker, this legislation alone will not solve all the problems we have with our drinking water. However, I think it is a step in the right direction. The purpose of this Bill is to protect and enhance drinking water quality in Canada, and it provides opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations, for instance, and requires operators of a public water system to supply the results of water quality tests made on a weekly or monthly basis. Mr. Speaker, I think this kind of Bill should be supported on all sides of the House, or at least by those Members who want to support the initiative taken by the Minister of Environment, in his document tabled in the House some time ago, in fact in 1987. I think we should all do our share so that we can at least make some tangible progress today towards finding out what our drinking water contains.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to put forward some comments on Bill C-224 proposed by my friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).
Safe drinking water is one of the basic requirements for good health and is therefore of great importance not only to all Canadians but also to the Department of National Health and Welfare. The department is pleased to observe the widespread interest and concern over the issue of safe drinking water, particularly with the introduction of this Bill and Bill C-266 and Bill C-276.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has noted that primary responsibility for drinking water quality at the federal level lies with the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is for a number of reasons. Water is, first, a basic necessity of life. Our bodies cannot function without it. It is also the basis of good personal and domestic hygiene which is essential to prevent the spread of many diseases. Water may
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
also have a beneficial effect in preventing or reducing the incidence of disease. For example, the association between water hardness and a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease, and a highly significant reduction in dental decay owing to the presence of fluoride in drinking water.
However, water can also have an adverse effect on health and this is our concern today. It can carry micro-organisms that cause diseases such as typhoid and cholera. Human beings can also be exposed to many types of toxic substances which find their way into water, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and pesticides, heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, and inorganic chemicals such as nitrates and radionuclides. I should mention here that the department was at the forefront in providing advice on the increased levels of radioactive chemicals in water which resulted from the radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has specific powers relating to drinking water under the Food and Drugs Act. Although regulations have been established for bottled water and pre-packaged ice, the department has so far chosen not to use the powers conferred by this legislation to control public community water supplies. This decision was made because of the traditional arrangements whereby provinces have the primary responsibility to protect and control drinking water resources from which potable water supplies are produced.
Notwithstanding this, however, the department developed guidelines to protect against adverse effects of contaminants in drinking water and to minimize unpleasant aesthetic characteristics of water. This was accomplished with the full cooperation and participation of the provincial and territorial Governments, under the federal-provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. The department's first comprehensive drinking water standards and objectives were developed in 1968, and later revised in 1978 by a joint federal-provincial mechanism.
The 1978 guidelines have served us well, but the scientific data base from which they are derived is constantly changing. The department recognized the need to revise the Canadian drinking water guidelines, and the 1987 edition of the revised guidelines is now in publication. Once again, the revisions were accomplished through a federal-provincial mechanism.
Because of the importance of safe drinking water and the rapid advances in scientific data, a permanent subcommittee has been established to update guidelines and deal with important issues related to drinking water supply.
The department plays an active role in many areas pertaining to drinking water quality. It has initiated biannual national conferences on drinking water, the first of which was held in Ottawa in 1984. These conferences are co-sponsored by a number of agencies or organizations which have an interest in water quality. The second conference held in Edmonton in 1986 focused on an issue of concern to scientists and lay people alike. The topic was "Treatment for Organic Contaminants".

April 15, 1988
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
The next conference is scheduled for St. John's, Newfoundland, on the topic of "Small System Alternatives".
Health and Welfare Canada is also involved in a wide range of research projects such as conducting studies to ascertain whether asbestos ingested from drinking water can cause cancer, and collaboration with the Province of New Brunswick in a study to determine if there is any association between nitrate in drinking water and birth defects. Here in Ontario the Ministry of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare have jointly funded a study carried out by the Canadian Public Health Association on the impact of chemicals in the Great Lakes on drinking water quality.
Another area of interest is the effect acid rain may have on drinking water quality. Departmental officials have already conducted a survey on water quality in rural areas and cottages around Muskoka. Model studies are being conducted at present at La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Sioux Lookout, Ontario, in the Canadian Shield, and in Shelburne, Nova Scotia. The aim is to develop an index that will help identify drinking water supplies being affected by acid rain. In addition, the department has ongoing research programs to control disease-causing micro-organisms in drinking water more effectively. It is collaborating with research centres conducting studies on the intestinal parasite Giardia Lamblia, which is the organism responsible for most water-borne diseases in Canada.
The Canadian public is increasingly concerned about the adequacy of conventional water treatment processes and some have purchased their own treatment devices to address the problem. A recent survey conducted by the department in metropolitan centres in Canada found that some kind of device is used in about 3 per cent of homes to treat municipal water supplies. Activated carbon filters are the most common devices on the market. Although they are relatively effective in removing chlorine, organic chemicals, taste and odour, one disadvantage is the growth of bacteria on the filter medium. Most devices have one or more drawbacks associated with their use. The department evaluates and, in some cases, tests devices and provides advice to consumers, other federal departments, provincial Governments and some agencies.
No Bill regarding safe water would be complete without addressing the piping and lining materials used in water storage and distribution systems since these materials can also add contaminants to the water. It is imperative that any new legislation include mechanisms to evaluate, from a health point of view, the acceptability of all products and chemicals used in contact with potable water.
Bill C-224 has many positive elements but does not recognize the vital role of the Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding drinking water and does not acknowledge the function of the provinces in this
area. It is very clear that new legislation is needed to assure the quality and safety of drinking water supplies in Canada. However, such legislation must address all the issues. Consultation with the provinces will continue and efforts will be made to provide all Canadians with drinking water of the highest possible quality.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a committed environmentalist to speak on what I consider to be one of the most important environmental questions in Canada, perhaps in the world, that is, the issue of plentiful, clean, fresh drinking water.
In 1745 Benjamin Franklin, a noted American said: "When the well is dry we know the worth of water". Most Canadians feel that we in Canada are awash with water and that the well will never be dry. After all, Canada has less than 1 per cent of the world's population yet possesses an estimated 25 per cent of the earth's fresh water. The Great Lakes contain 18 per cent of the planet's surface fresh water and Canada's rivers have a combined flow of 68,000 cubic metres per second, enough to fill all the country's bathtubs every 10 seconds. Yet, on a global scale fresh water constitutes only 0.2 per cent of the total water supply. That reminds me of the line in Coleridge's Ancient Mariner.
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.
Water, water, everywhere,
And still the ship did sink.
The ship may be analagous to the world in which we have a tremendous need for fresh water. We have the fresh water in Canada and the question is whether we are going to preserve it. That is why this Bill before us is very important.
This Bill provides opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants in drinking water. It calls for the establishment of a water review board which would be empowered to hold hearings on the safety of our drinking water. The Bill also calls for a water advisory council which would advise the Minister of the Environment as to the results of current research related to drinking water quality.
The operator of a public water system would be required to monitor water quality regularly and notify the users of the system as well as the Minister of the Environment of the results in order that people would know about their systems. Any use of a private water system could have the water tested by the Minister of the Environment.
Under the proposed Act it would be an offence for the operator of a public water system to provide water which contravenes the regulations or fails to comply with monitoring and notice requirements. It would be an offence for anyone to pollute a public or private water system as is happening in many places in Canada now.
April 15, 1988

The Bill would permit water users to sue to recover damages for contraventions of the Act which would give it some teeth. Any person could seek judicial review against the Minister of the Environment under this proposed legislation in order that he or she would be forced to do his job. This is a good Bill.
In the new riding which I hope to represent in the next Parliament, Port Moody-Coquitlam, the municipalities of Belcarra, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, and Coquitlam are located on the other side of Simon Fraser University where there are rolling hills and a view to the North Shore mountains which is unsurpassed. When you look at those North Shore mountains and see the beauty, the trees, and the snow at the top, you think that we have water forever. However, the fact is that we do not necessarily have water forever. We must ensure that that water is protected.
I started out as an environmentalist because I was counsel to the Berger inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline about 15 years ago. That was a great inquiry because it studied the environmental impact of a large project in northern Canada. We blazed new ground in studying that project and I became a very committed environmentalist.
Justice Tom Berger said an interesting thing when addressing an audience in Toronto. He said that Canadians are northerners, that Canadians are environmentalists, and that every part of the country belongs to everyone in the country. People in Toronto have an interest in the North and in the clean water and beautiful environment of British Columbia. We in British Columbia and those people in the North have an interest in helping the people of Toronto to make their drinking water pure as well.
We are a northern country, we are a northern people. We are a people very attuned to the environment. Canadians love their environment and are committed environmentalists. It is not good enough in this debate today to hear from two spokespersons for the government departments. Ordinary Members of Parliament should be pushing for this Bill as well.
On May 2, 1980,1 stood in this House and introduced a Bill entitled an Act respecting a national park on Moresby Island and its adjacent islands. There were a lot of people pressing for this. I had help from the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and the present Minister of the Environment. Many people worked together. The Government in my province had to be brought aboard kicking and screaming. It would prefer to mine in provincial parks. However, together we achieved a national park in South Moresby.
Like South Moresby, the time for this Bill on clean drinking water will come too. The Government and Canadians will realize that although we have an abundance of water resources
Canada Safe Drinking Water Act
in this country we will want to preserve those resources through a clean water Act.
There are other water issues. There are a couple of schemes now to export water from Canada. There is a scheme to damn up the Rocky Mountain trench and send water to the United States via that route. There is another scheme to damn up James Bay and make it a fresh water lake. The people involved in that scheme are not unknown, this is not science fiction. They include Simon Reisman, Robert Bourassa, and others.
There is an issue of water exports, an issue of safe water, and an issue of clean water. That is why I am very proud to support this Bill today. Its time I hope will soon come to be enacted into legislation.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sort of batting clean-up today. I do not mean that as a pun. The Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has brought before the House a very important piece of legislation.
You live in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. What do you want to have after climbing the mountains in Banff National Park? When you have worked up a sweat going up through the valleys and the beautiful Douglas fir trees you want to sit down and take a sip of fresh, crystal clean Canadian water. We all want to do that, whether in Banff National Park or in the Niagara River.
We saw in the paper this morning that there are fish full of tumours in the Niagara River. This is unbelievable. The Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) cited: "Water, water everywhere, And all the boards did shrink". The only thing that is shrinking in this country is our access to good fresh water. One of the areas in which that is happening is right here in the national capital region in the Rideau River and Mooney's Bay.
I see the Member for Beaches. When I hear the word "beaches" I think of sand, of beaches, and of Mooney's Bay. The fact is that if you fall out of your boat into that piece of water in August they will rush you to the Riverside Hospital for a tetanus shot because it is so polluted that if you swallow any of it you will die. The Government must act to clean up our water.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers