1988-05-04

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, during the past weeks, there have been reports in the media on deaths caused by the freon contained in food products packaged in aerosol containers, and also about babies born with congenital defects attributed to Accutane and anti-psoriasis drugs, prescribed by dermatologists and general practitioners.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. Their fears are justified because they wonder whether they should trust their doctors when they prescribe their medication, and they also wonder whether they should trust their supermarkets to sell them food that is safe to eat, and they wonder whether they should trust the Government that is supposed to protect them with its legislation and thus prevent food poisoning or serious illnesses as a result of ingesting medication or food products.
Mr. Speaker, how long will Canadians have to wait for the Government to react with stricter directives on food and drugs? Do we need a higher rate of birth defects before the Government decides to react?


MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS-VOLUNTEERS' WORK TO ASSIST RESEARCH
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, this week thousands of Canadians are banding together to fight multiple sclerosis, a potentially crippling disease of the central nervous system. At least 50,000 Canadians have MS, a disease which, as yet, has no known cause, no cure, and no effective treatment.
Some have called MS "Canada's disease" since our prevalence rate is among the highest in the world. Recognizing this, Canadians, through the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, are working to conquer MS. All across the country this month volunteers are joining forces to raise $2.3 million for MS research and services for those who have MS.
MS research is making progress and Canadian researchers are among the world leaders. Researchers at the University of British Columbia, under the direction of Dr. Donald Paty, are pace-setters in using a device called MRI to diagnose and follow the progress of MS. In Toronto, Drs. Roder and Dunn have cloned the gene for a substance that may be extremely important in understanding how the nervous system works.
The contributions that Canadians make during this monthlong campaign will be vital to continuing this very necessary research. I urge the Government and all Canadians to support the MS carnation campaign generously.


CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq conflict has once again focused world attention on the horrific consequences of their use. Canadians will not soon forget the terrible images of men, women, and children lying dead, of mothers and fathers huddled over the frozen bodies of their children, all victims of a silent and unseen weapon.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) recognized the true nature of these weapons when he told this House last Friday, "There are hideous weapons in the chemical weapons field on which we are trying to make progress". In light of the Minister's remarks I urge the Government to reconsider its misguided and unqualified support of the United States' production of a new regime of chemical weapons, namely, binary agents.
Real progress toward an international convention banning chemical weapons will be encouraged if the Government of Canada now takes a strong stand against these new agents of death.

May 4, 1988


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Forest Week in Canada. When people think of Alberta they think of oil, cattle, agriculture, and now forestry. For two years the forestry sector of Alberta has attracted over $ 1 billion in projects being considered.
In 1985 there were 59 large firms employing 18,200 people. The Alberta Government plans to double the output of the forestry industry by 1991.
Western diversification is working. It has funded several forestry projects in the West.
We now have the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program for resource industries, an incentive of 30 per cent, up to $10 million a year per company, for exploration expenses by issuing flow-through shares. Mr. Speaker, the Government does care.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I had a chance to meet a number of community organizations involved in sports, social, cultural and recreational activities. These groups have been accustomed to submit job creation projects for the Jobs Strategy, Section 38 and the new program that was announced recently.
All were unanimous, Mr. Speaker, in condemning the federal Government's attitude.
Mr. Speaker, the federal Government provides, in its criteria, that a person receiving welfare benefits will be allowed to work only once in these Jobs Strategy programs. After six months, that person is not entitled to be hired a second time under these programs and is put back on welfare.
Mr. Speaker, everybody condemned this injustice and lack of sensitivity to the needs of the poorest and neediest in this country.


FINANCE
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my pleasure with the
announcement of the establishment of a commission looking into the problem of border communities seeking the northern or isolated deduction. For most of the people in border communities it is very important that whatever changes are recommended be retroactive. For people in areas most affected it is very important that any eventual benefit be applicable to the 1987 taxation year.
Given that the essence of this problem of northern deductions has been the perceived absence of equity, it is important that every effort be made to restore equity. As a critical step I urge the commission to look favourable upon retroactivity so that no one feels they have lost.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week. Unfortunately, however, it is also a week in which forest fires are tearing through regions of Manitoba and northwestern Ontario.
With respect to northwestern Ontario, the fire known as Kenora 14 proceeded through an area where many people in my riding have camps, Malachi, Ontario and Ottermere, Ontario. I want to say how pleased I believe they were with the way the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources handled the fire, and the way CNR co-operated in evacuating people from Malachi and Ottermere.
I might also mention that CN used a caboose to evacuate these people. I have been asked by those who would like the railways to keep the caboose to let the House take note of the fact that in this instance, and some others where people have been injured, cabooses have made possible the evacuation of people from these areas and from difficult situations. It is one more reason to keep the caboose.


SOCIALISTS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the socialist party how he can reconcile statements by Phil Edmonston, the defender of car owners' interests in Quebec, who is upset about the position taken by the big labour unions who are against foreign car imports. Bob White, vice-president of the socialist party, is also against foreign car imports. On the other hand, Mr. Edmonston who is
May 4, 1988

also a member of the socialist party, is in favour of foreign imports because it is better for the consumer.
Is the leader of the socialist party going to ask Mr. Edmon-ston to keep quiet? That is what we would like to know. Who is the socialist leader going to smother with the smoke from the Cuban cigars he smokes when the blinds are drawn: Bob White or Phil Edmonston?


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 1988, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) introduced in the House Bill C-l 14, the conflict of interest Bill.
I know it is extremely unfair to quote the Prime Minister by using his own words, but I will do it anyway. In a press release he sent that day, he said:
The Bill, which represents the Government's proposals in respect of conflict of interest, affects the rights and privileges of all Parliamentarians. It is a landmark piece of legislation ...
He further added in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner):
I believe it is in the public interest that consideration of these proposals should proceed expeditiously so that the Bill may be enacted and proclaimed as soon as is prudently possible,
Two months later, the Bill has yet to be debated in the House. So much for expeditious, so much for the Prime Minister's words.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the right to own property is fundamental to millions of Canadians who were disappointed when the former Liberal Government ignored property rights during the 1981 constitutional debate.
Now the House of Commons has passed a Private Member's Motion which calls for the inclusion of property rights. This is a victory for those of us who have supported this proposal. It is also encouraging for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) parliamentary reform proposals that new status and importance can be given to Private Members' Motions. I hope this resolution will now hasten the constitutional reform process.
However, one fact must be observed by all Canadians. Because the New Democratic Party favours nationalization, state farms, and intervention in the economy, the NDP is opposed to the right to own private property.
This week, every NDP member in the House rose to vote against property rights. Is this in the best interest of farm families, small businesses, and of ordinary Canadians? No, it is not. For the NDP, common sense appears to have taken a back seat to philosophic socialism. Now we see the NDP for what they really are, pathetic-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a byelection has just been called in the electoral district of Lac Saint-Jean. I would like to announce that the New Democrats are ready. Our candidate was chosen on March 13-Mr. Jean Paradis-and I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to his presence in our gallery today.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative candidate has announced ... [English]


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the Hon. Member, although swift, is nonetheless out of order.


NORTHWESTEL
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, computer dealers in my constituency are concerned about what they consider to be unfair competition in the Field of micro computer sales from the Crown corporation NorthwesTel which is really in the telephone and telecommunications business.
They feel particularly vulnerable when sales to other Government Departments or Crown agencies are involved.
It is interesting to note that in Alberta the provincial Crown corporation Alberta Government Telephones, following similar complaints, has stopped selling "stand-alone" computers and peripherals.
Perhaps NorthwesTel ought to take the lead from AGT in this matter.

May 4, 1988
Oral Questions


AIRPORTS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Elouse a matter which concerns the Sydney Airport in Nova Scotia. The Department of Transport has reduced the CFR level of service at the Sydney Airport from a category 6 level to a category 5 level. The Department believes there is not enough air traffic to justify a category 6 level.
The downscaling of the airport will mean there will be a downscale of employees at this airport. These employees include firefighters and safety personnel. I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to assure the House that this downscaling will not result in the loss of any jobs to those workers at the Sydney Airport, as well as to ensure that safety standards at this airport will not be affected in any way.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Minister of Communications is prepared to sacrifice Canada's film industry and cave in to the demands of U.S. movie mogul, Jack Valenti, in order to save the Prime Minister's trade deal.
As this legislation is pointless without the regulations, and as the Americans say they have a secret deal with the Minister, can the Prime Minister remove the cloak of secrecy around this entire film legislation deal? Will he insist that his Minister, to save his face, table not only the legislation but all the regulations that will attend that legislation, and indicate that we intend to capture part of our Canadian market?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if this Minister was less facetious and a little bit more honest, and would stop trying to rewrite history-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question. Mrs. Finestone: My Tory colleagues agree in this instance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN FILMS' SHARE OF MARKET
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that Australian films take up 20 per cent of its market, British films take up 26 per cent of the British market, Italian films, take up 44 per cent of the Italian market and French films take up 46 per cent of the French market. Canadian films take up only 3 per cent of our market. Historically, this is a sad situation.
1 wonder if the Minister, who is responding to the question, will ensure on behalf of the Minister of Communications that there is the potential and that he will ensure the potential for recapture of 15 per cent of the market for Canadian film distribution.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, certainly the Canadian film industry is an industry that needs assistance and we have established a $165 million fund to assist the Canadian feature film industry. Prize winning films are being produced with those funds. It is quite possible they might get the scenario for another film from last week's activities, which certainly would permit another epic, something like Gone With the Wind, which is what the Hon. Member and her colleagues seem to want to have happen with respect to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the Minister of-what are you, international funny?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications fully responded to this question, and others like it, yesterday. She is going to be discussing the new film distribution policy with representatives of the Canadian film industry, I think it is tomorrow. An announcement is going to be made at that time.
There is no secrecy involved. The secrecy was that during the last 40 years the Liberal Governments of those days did absolutely nothing-


Mr. Gauthier:: Sit down!


John Carnell Crosbie: -in connection with the motion picture industry in Canada, absolutely nothing, whether it was secret or was not secret. That is the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: International clown.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just brought to our attention the importance of the development of the film industry. He forgot to add that the Minister of Finance just cut the wings out from under it with the cutting of the capital cost allowance.
The Minister said that she plans a tailored in and made for Canada film distribution policy, just like she said she planned a made in Canada protection for the cultural industries, which she did not do-she broke her promise.
May 4, 1988

What is the Minister doing today-not tomorrow, Mr. Minister-selling out the Canadian film distribution industry like she sold out the Canadian cultural industry before? She is meeting them today. What is she selling them out on?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should reconsider. The Minister has said that she is meeting with the Canadian film industry tomorrow-


Sheila Finestone: Today.


John Carnell Crosbie: -today or tomorrow, whichever-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You don't know, John, sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is tomorrow; once again I am right. She is meeting with the industry. She is making an announcement then. If the Hon. Member then has any questions, surely she can put them about the policy.
I can give the same details that were given yesterday with respect to the $165 million fund; in publishing we increased assistance by $65 million. We established a public lending rights program. There is a $25 million sound recording development program, and copyright legislation which has been stopped by Liberal Senators in the Senate, and interfered with.
Our record is a good one. We are not afraid to defend it. In fact, we are delighted to have the opportunity.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I direct my question to the Minister of Labour who, I believe, will respond on his behalf.
The Minister will know that three Ottawa area teenagers have died in the past four months after inhaling cooking sprays from the product Pam which contains freon. Yesterday an expert in the field of medical toxicology, Dr. Robert Peterson, Director of the Provincial Poison Information Centre at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, stated that this oil spray is too dangerous to be sold to the public.
Will the Minister now act to have this product removed from the shelves, thereby lessening the hazard for Canadian consumers?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, these deaths were caused by the abuse of the product which, if it had been used according
Oral Questions
to the usual practice, would not have caused any harm to the consumers.
That being said, I have met with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have been informed that they have communicated with the manufacturer in order to see what can be done about the problem caused by the misuse of this product. I am informed that discussions are being planned in order to accelerate the reformulation to exclude freon.


REQUEST THAT MANUFACTURER STOP INCLUDING FREON IN PRODUCT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister who will know that the issue here is not one of use but one of abuse. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada is allowing a highly toxic substance to be sold on the market and that children looking for a cheap high have easy access to it.
Will the Minister do one of two things? Will he either remove this product from the market in its entirety? Or will he now do what is done in the United States, which is to order the manufacturer of this particular product to stop using the ingredient freon? Will the Minister give us an undertaking to do that forthwith on behalf of Canadian consumers?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, there are some technical discussions that are being planned with the manufacturer in order to accelerate the reformulation of the product to exclude freon. On top of that, the manufacturer has a pamphlet which indicates the dangers of misuse of such products as Pam. As the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members in the House know, there are a variety of other products that, if misused, can also cause death.
In this case the unfortunate incident was caused by misuse by teenagers, and differently from what was indicated yesterday, they could read the warning on the label of the can that indicated that if it was misused it could cause death.
V *	*


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday on a CBC news report an official from the Minister of Communication's Department was alleged to have said that the proposed compromise Bill on film legislation was a necessary compromise that had to be brought in as the price to pay for the trade deal.

May 4, 1988
Oral Questions
In the memo that the U.S. lobby sent out that I referred to yesterday, and the Minister acknowledged yesterday in the House that she had read, in talking about the legislation and in collaborating with the Government, this group of American lobbyists in Canada say: "This would assist the Prime Minister with respect to the sovereignty issue in the free trade debate, the Canada-U.S. relationship issue, and the over-all question of his leadership".
Does the Prime Minister think that his Government ought to be so intimately connected to a U.S. pressure group that sees itself as aiding in his re-election?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the weakness of the position of my hon. friend was in the preface to his question where he quoted an unidentified official who, he says, was "alleged to have said". That is the preface or the premise of the hon. gentleman's question. The preface is, of course, fragile and misleading, and the conclusion is false.
We will see who needs whom in an election campaign. We will stand on our policies and with our candidates, as I am sure my hon. friend will. But I think my hon. friend has more to do than raise unsubstantiated allegations from anonymous and unidentified people. If he has a complaint or a statement to make, let him make it to an attributed spokesman, and then we will deal with it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish the Prime Minister would listen to the whole question and not just the preamble.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It may be funny to the Prime Minister, but in my question I was quoting from a document that the Minister has. I will quote the words again, and I ask the Prime Minister to respond. This is a document prepared by a U.S. film lobby in Canada. They say they are supporting the proposed legislation because it will aid the Prime Minister in his leadership, and it will further their interests in getting the trade deal accepted.
My question to the Prime Minister is the following. Forget the alleged official, deal with the issue that the Minister has, which is a document. Does the Prime Minister of Canada believe the Conservative Party ought to be actively collaborating with the U.S. pressure group that is working against the Canadian film industry for its own political gain? That is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a document that comes from a third party or a lobby somewhere for which I am not responsible. I believe that that document was the one that was brought to the attention of the Minister yesterday, and the
Minister indicated that it was inaccurate and misleading. That is my information.
Perhaps more important than that, the Hon. Member asks me to forget the preamble to his question, to pay no attention to the preambles. The preambles are argumentative, vexatious, and misleading, and I can understand why he would not want Canadians to pay any attention to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED PRESENCE OF AMERICAN LOBBYISTS IN CANADA-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is very straightforward. According to this document-it isn't my document, it is a document the Minister has in his possession-there is a group of lobbyists here in Canada, a U.S. group, that wants to work directly on this legislation to help the present Government, and this against the interests of the Canadian film industry. The question is very simple: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present Government should co-operate with a group of U.S. lobbyists?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a frivolous question! I am asked whether I approve of the present Government co-operating with a U.S. lobby group, while there is no proof of any link between this lobby group and the Government. I said so in English and I repeat it in French: Such statements are false, vexatious and designed not to obtain information in the House but to get you your 30 seconds in English and French on the networks this evening. 1 say those 30 seconds are equally false in English and in French!


PRESENCE OF FREON IN PAM-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it concerns the news that over the past four months, three young people died after inhaling the fumes of the oil contained in the product Pam. The Department of National Health and Welfare has revealed that six more youths had died previously. Let me tell you their families are not very pleased with the Minister's reply.
Considering the fact that the Government is now aware of the problem, and in order to prevent the disaster we had when the Government reacted to the mussel affair, and before any more people die, could the Minister promise the House that he will ask the manufacturers to remove the freon from this
May 4, 1988

product, since it is a health hazard and may be fatal? Will you make a decision to protect the lives of our children?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said yesterday that the deaths of these teenagers are something we cannot tolerate. However, we must still look at the facts of the matter, even if those facts are not necessarily pleasant. What we have here is improper use of a product that, if it is used for the purpose for which it was intended, does not constitute a hazard for the consumer. However, Mr. Speaker, because we realize this is a dangerous situation, I met officials from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I was informed that discussions are already taking place with the manufacturers to accelerate the removal of freon from the product in question.


REQUEST THAT PRODUCTS BE PLACED OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. We are trying to get the Minister to be a little more aggressive in his approach to this question. Before we get reports tomorrow or the day after, that more children have made improper use of this product- and we know the problem exists-could the Minister make a formal request so that, in a matter of weeks, these products are shelved in such a way that children cannot get at them? Other hazardous products are strategically placed so that children cannot reach them. Could the Minister take action and immediately ask to have these hazardous products, which are now on the shelves, put away where children cannot get at them?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is unfortunate that the incident occurred. The fact remains that it happened as a result of improper use of a product by three teenagers. I agree that we cannot tolerate this kind of thing happening, as I said before, and discussions are already under way with the manufacturer to accelerate the removal of freon from the product in question.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns the fact that not only are the Americans rewriting Canadian film distribution policy but also the fact that there have been sell-outs throughout the trade deal in terms of our cultural sovereignty, namely, Articles 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2012, as well as Articles 401 and 1607.


An Hon. Member:: Is this the preamble?
Oral Questions


Lynn McDonald: Throughout the free trade negotiations our cultural industries have been on the bargaining table, despite everything that the Prime Minister has said to the contrary. Perhaps the worst of the many features I have in mind in making that assertion is that contained in Article 2005, paragraph 2, which states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take
measures of equivalent commercial effect...
In other words, retaliation.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to refrain from quoting extensively, and to put her question.


Lynn McDonald: My question is the following. Does this retaliation feature in Article 2005 not make it possible for the Americans to retaliate against any film distribution policy that is going to establish an independent film industry in Canada, as well as make it possible for retaliation in other cultural industries?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the connection between the question the Hon. Member is asking and the situation. There are a number of clauses in the agreement. She quotes Article 2004, Article 2006, and Article 2010, none of which have any relevance to the question she is asking. The free trade agreement has not yet been adopted by either country, with the result that any U.S. interests wishing to secure a change to the agreement, or wishing to block the agreement in its entirety, bring to bear on the U.S. Congress whatever lobbying pressures they can.
That is the way the system works in the U.S. It has been working that way since 1789.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it is one that concerns the general position this Government has taken in respect of our cultural industries, that being that they were not on the bargaining table.
My question, which I would ask the Prime Minister to answer, is this. Would he not agree that the articles I have cited show very clearly that all kinds of cultural industries were bargained away; that it was not just film, but included the print media? As well, the tariff elimination in this sector will also affect sound recordings.
Will the Prime Minister not come clean with Canadians and admit that we will suffer a serious loss of our cultural sovereignty through this trade deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, these ridiculous fabrications and misconceptions are touted around the country by the Hon. Member and members of her Party, and the labour movement, and repeated

May 4, 1988
Oral Questions
time and time again. But that does not make them true. The answer is categorically "no": N-O.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Would the Minister advise the House why, when there is a severe and growing affordable housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, CMHC would actually reduce the number of cooperative housing units allocated to Metropolitan Toronto, from a modest 458 in 1986, down to only 126 in 1987?
What is going on at CMHC? Will the Minister go back to his Department and read the Riot Act to his officials?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, when this Government took office it undertook the most massive consultation in the housing industry since CMHC began business, and the direction we unequivocally received, from all groups, including co-ops, social groups, bankers, and builders, was to direct our funds toward those most in need. At this time, 99 per cent of our budget goes to those most in need. Compare that to only 40 per cent under the previous Government. That resulted in 2,400 social housing units in Toronto last year, including co-op units.


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Two months ago amidst much pomp and fanfare the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-114, the new conflict of interest Bill for cabinet Ministers, MPs, and Senators. Since then not one minute in this House has been spent on the Bill which the Prime Minister called landmark legislation.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House why the Government is stalling on this Bill? Is it because the PC Spouses' Association has been lobbying against it? Who is in charge over there, the Back Bench Committee, the PC Spouses' Association, or the Government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very inviting question.
One of the reasons we have not been able to deal with the conflict of interest legislation and other pieces of legislation, such as the lobbying Bill, which I understand has been reported out of committee, is simply because the Opposition has been filibustering important Bills, for example, the Environmental Protection Act, the Western Diversification and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities legislation. These are the kinds of things that are holding the House up. They are very important pieces of legislation and should be dealt with.
The Deputy House Leader will be meeting later today, I believe, with representatives of the other two Parties to deal with the priority pieces of legislation that we must deal with before the summer. I can assure the Hon. Member that the legislation to which he has referred will be in that priority list.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has just admitted that he does not control the agenda of the Government in the House. He can bring the Bill in this afternoon if he likes.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE ADOPTED QUICKLY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, since he has chosen to answer. In a letter sent to the Leader of the Opposition on February 24, the Prime Minister said, "I believe that it is in the public interest for Members of Parliament to act quickly so that the bill can be passed and enacted as soon as possible." What has become of this bill? Why have the Prime Minister and the Government changed their mind? Do we need to act quickly or don't we?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Senate has been holding up very important legislation for over a year. I can assure the Hon. Member that if he has any influence with the House leadership of his Party, and if there is an agreement to put some limitation on the time that we can debate this issue in the House and get it on to committee for full study, we will be very happy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Bring it in.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Deputy House Leader will be meeting this afternoon with the House Leaders to work out a program whereby all this important legislation can be dealt with before we break for the summer.


May 4, 1988


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NOVA SCOTIA MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ken Streatch, Minister of Mines and Energy, of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice with whom I spoke briefly last night on the matter of Bill C-72.
The Minister is aware that the legislative committee dealing with the multiculturalism Bill is being forced by the Government to conclude its deliberations on that Bill at a much earlier stage and to conclude its hearing of witnesses in order to begin clause by clause consideration. Does the Minister plan to express the Government's support, indeed, the support of all three Parties for the official languages Bill, by taking similarly decisive action in the legislative committee dealing with this Bill?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the premise of the Hon. Member's question. Is he suggesting that we use the oppressive power of Cabinet to force our Members with respect to matters within committee? Is that what the Member wants us to do? If that is the case, then he should check with his Leader because he is always complaining or alleging that something like that has happened, which never does.
If the Member is asking us whether we are going to pass Bill C-72, you are darn right we are, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE GIVE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION TO BILL
Abram Ernest Epp: Is the Minister prepared to have the Official Languages Bill considered by the House as soon as the Committee has finished its deliberations?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Government intends to adopt this Bill as quickly as possible.
Oral Questions


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology, and it concerns a French company's bid for CDC Life Sciences.
CDC owns Connaught Laboratories which has about 700 employees in Canada and is a world leader in developing vaccines. CDC also owns Bio-Research and Nordic in the Montreal region.
Could the Minister give the House the assurance today that the Government intends to keep in this country the research and development, technology, production and jobs that are part of the CDC Life Sciences group?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expension and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I informed one of my hon. colleagues last week that the Government is very concerned about the attempted acquisition by Merieux of shares in CDC Life Sciences. As the Hon. Member is no doubt aware, an injunction was granted, at the request of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to delay any transactions on the stock market to acquire these shares.
Following the injunction, I personally met the president of Merieux to explain in detail the Canadian Government's position on foreign investment and the Canadian Government's concerns with respect to the developments mentioned by the Hon. Member.


EFFECT OF TAX REFORM ON MEDICAL RESEARCH
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, if I may. A Connaught official revealed last week at a conference on university research in Edmonton that, as a result of the Minister's tax reform measures, it had to abandon plans to raise $60 million in Canada through an R and D limited partnership. Research to develop an innovative therapy to control diabetes, done at the University of Toronto, has been transferred to a large offshore multinational.
Will the Minister review his tax reform measures which are damaging the ability of companies like Connaught to do research and keep jobs in Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that we have done a study on tax treatment of research and development in this country in relation to all the other industrialized countries. There is no question that the tax treatment by Canada is better than other countries, and by quite a margin. What the Hon. Member is suggesting that we do here is to recreate a tax shelter. Out of one side of their mouths the Liberals say we should be doing away with

May 4, 1988
Oral Questions
tax shelters, while out of the other side they say we should be recreating them.
The Prime Minister just announced in January SI.3 billion of additional spending on science and technology.


Mr. Foster:: That is recycled.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says that it recycled. That is not recycled, Mr. Speaker. It is new money to be spent on research and development. We have a good record here in direct spending by the Government of Canada where $4.2 billion, plus the SI.3 billion, is being spent. In addition to that there is a fine tax treatment for research and development.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. The Government supported Lapp Industries purchase of Canadian Porcelain Industries in 1985 over a workers' coop. The Minister knows that company has not met its commitment to the Government. He said the Government will establish an inquiry into the whole business of the company not meeting its commitment, closing the plant and leaving people without work. I would like to know when the investigation is going to take place and when he will report to the House.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, I asked for an inquiry into this matter. It concerns me very much. The inquiry is under way and I expect to have the results very soon. It is very difficult at the moment to give the Hon. Member a specific date, but I can assure her that the review by Investment Canada is under way at my request and should be completed in a very short time.


ASKING PRICE FOR PLANT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, "a very short time" is very innocuous. I would like the Minister to tell the House if he looked at the outrageous price of $11 million that Lapp asked for the plant, which means the plant will not be operating, and has he included this in his investigation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says "a very short time" is a very innocuous answer. As I indicated very
clearly, the review is under way. I told my officials in Investment Canada that I wanted the report as soon as possible. They assured me I would get it in the very near future, and I will be very happy to report to the Hon. Member and this House as soon as I do.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the continuing reports of discussions between Goodyear Canada and the federal Government about financial assistance for a new tire plant in Napanee.
Given the fact Goodyear just got a remission order from the Government worth up to $50 million over four years, and a $32 million interest-free loan from the Ontario Government, and then got instructions from head office in the U.S. to send an additional $25 million to $30 million a year to the American parent, will the Minister confirm that not a single cent more of Canadian taxpayers' money will be paid to Goodyear Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been working very closely with the tire industry since 1986 to encourage it to restructure and modernize. Duty remission obviously is available to all tire companies in Canada that are taking steps to meet the objective the Government set. Goodyear is planning to restructure its operations in Canada and that would make it eligible for duty remission if it does the restructuring.
I recognize that it is unfortunate that some people may remain unemployed as a result of the Lakeshore plant closure. I believe there are some 40 people involved. However, on the other hand the new plant investment which Goodyear is contemplating involves the creation of 800 new jobs. It is in that spirit that we are trying to help the industry and Canada, and create new jobs.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows the drought situation in western Canada is worsening every day with topsoil blowing away and dug-outs dry which have never been

May 4, 1988

dry in history. Earlier this week the Minister indicated he was going to take funds from the long-term conservation and degradation soil program to deal with emergency water supplies for wells, dug-outs, pipelines and so forth.
Can the Minister indicate whether he is willing to provide the full $75 million if that is necessary this year, and can he also explain why he is not bringing in new money rather than taking funds from a long-term three-year program, I understand, for soil conservation and degradation?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member is assuming a little too much. As usual, he is getting a bit ahead of himself. He said the other day that funding for soil and water conservation had been slashed. That is false and misleading. In fact it has not been reduced or slashed but has increased from about $42 million in 1983-84 to $55.6 million in 1989. If we take into consideration other activities during that same period of time we have an increase from $44.7 million to some $64 million. That is not a decrease, it is an increase in that general area.
I said in response to the Hon. Member on Monday that we are working hand-in-hand with provincial Governments and providing assistance in the form of technical and engineering advice, making available equipment we have in western Canada through PFRA, and providing assistance with respect to moving water to locations where there is none. We will continue to work over the next 10 days in the same manner.


REQUEST FOR HELP IN MOVING LIVESTOCK FROM AFFECTED AREA
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I will debate the Estimates with the Minister in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but he knows one of the most urgent matters is the fact there is not adequate water for herds of cattle. There is no feed in many areas. Is the Government prepared to provide funding for moving livestock herds out of the drought area or bringing supplies of feed into the area? As he knows, many community pastures are not accepting cattle herds because there is no feed or grass for them.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, common sense dictates that, if the situation continues, those would be options. We are receiving the advice and information on a day-to-day basis, and these are, at this point in time at least, options. Again, I hope Mother Nature looks favourably upon us and these options do not become reality. However, common sense would dictate, and because of the priority this Government places on agriculture, that if those options become reality, then naturally we will, as in the past, be quite prepared to do what we have to do to assist in any way possible.
Oral Questions FINANCE


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS-SITUATION IN NELSON, B.C.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance regarding tax fairness. The question involves those areas designated as eligible for northern benefits. The Minister is likely aware of the situation in Nelson, British Columbia, where a suburb was designated to receive northern benefits but not the city itself.
Will the Minister explain the fairness of this approach where someone on one side of a road is eligible but on the other side is not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason we appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Rene Brunelle to review and study the conditions which have led to this kind of inequity. We recognize there is a problem, but it must be dealt with in a global way. We cannot just deal with one community or another, or a group of communities; we have to review the whole matter on a nation-wide basis. That is the mandate of the commission and we hope they will be able to report quickly. However, we recognize it is a complex issue which we have asked them to deal with.


DESIGNATION OF SUBURB AS QUALIFYING AREA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain, since the community of Nelson is only a 25-minute drive from the U.S. border, how the situation developed? It was his Government which approved this designation in the first place, and why would it approve a suburb receiving northern benefits but not the city itself?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is incorrect in what he just said. The designations for these isolated communities have been built up over the years by Treasury Board, going back well before we took office. We adopted the designations they had in place and have since found there have been difficulties, to which he alluded. That is what we are trying to deal with through the commission.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the much discussed plans of Air Canada to make a substantial procurement of aircraft, in the order of $1.5 billion according to reports. We know that Airbus, with the assistance of Frank Moores, and Mcdonnell Douglas and Boeing are all bidding for this major purchase. Has the Government made any effort to ensure that this big order by Air Canada will result in

May 4, 1988
Tabling of Documents
industrial benefits and the creation of new jobs in the aerospace industry in Canada?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have always said, and repeat today, that this decision belongs to Air Canada and not to the Government. The company has to take into consideration what will benefit the company. That is why we are waiting for the decision. Once again, I do not want to interfere in Air Canada's decision in any way whatsoever.


BOEING CORPORATION-PRODUCTION OF DASH 8-400
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, de Havil-land, which is now owned by Boeing of Seattle, has indicated that it is on the verge of making a decision about whether to proceed with a very important development, the Dash 8-400.
Has the Government taken steps to ensure that the decision to proceed with this aircraft, which is very important for jobs in my riding, will not be tied to whether or not Air Canada buys planes from Boeing?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if I remember well, the Hon. Member was against the privatization of de Havilland. I am sure that with the lesson he has learned today he will be in favour of the privatization of Air Canada.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for CMHC. The average house in Metro Toronto is now selling for $200,000 which is well above the means of the average person. Part of the problem is the excess of demand over supply. The fact is that there is some federal land in Metro on which housing could be constructed.
What progress is being made toward using some of that federal land for housing?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, last year in Metro Toronto there was a 57 per cent increase in housing starts, a record for the previous 10 years. There is a problem in Toronto. We are trying to determine whether there are any federal or provincial Crown lands available which might be utilized to respond to this situation. I have previously given undertakings to my friend who has insistently inquired about what progress is being made. I congratulate him for that, and I hope we can respond reasonably soon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 67(2) I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, copies of an amendment to the Softwood Lumber Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the U.S. signed in December, 1986.


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 17 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4327, 3324328, 332-4330, 332-4355 to 332-4360 inclusive, 332-4377, 332-4378, 332-4451, 332-4467 to 332-4469 inclusive, 3324475 and 332-4486.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth and fifth reports of the Standing Committee on Transport.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-PRESENTATION OF TWELFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In the spirit of parliamentary reform, a new budget committee is proposed to examine departmental Estimates. The Public Accounts Committee further recommends that reducing Estimates should not be considered a non-confidence matter. Standing Committees now tend to concentrate on policy questions when considering the Estimates. While the Public Accounts Committee reviews audit findings after the fact, effective management does not depend on audit alone.
May 4, 1988

We consider that the establishment of a special budget committee with powers to change or reduce Estimates and to do a more careful examination of expenditures before the fact would add significantly to parliamentary accountability.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PROPOSED ADDRESS BY QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS- BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['As I indicated a few minutes ago, the Chair takes this particular matter with some deep concern. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for his contribution. I especially wish to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who, despite the fact that there may be differences of opinion politically among the different Parties here, on a matter of this importance it is interesting to note that all Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognize what the issue is, and that is the absolute right of Hon. Members to proceed without fear and to be able to speak freely in this place.\nThe Chair will look carefully at the documentation that the Hon. Member for Athabasca has indicated he will bring to my attention. Assuming that the facts are as related, I will of course return as expeditiously as I can to the Chamber. If there is any need for any further assistance from Hon. Members, I will be in touch with them. I think I have the situation as it has been presented, and again I thank Hon. Members for their intervention. I will return to the Chamber as soon as it is possible.']
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the visit of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix next week. I think you would find unanimous consent to pass the following motion:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 3(1), on Tuesday, May 10, 1988, the House shall meet at two o'clock p.m.;
That, for the purpose of the operation of the Standing Orders, such sitting shall be deemed to be a Wednesday, except that Private Members' Business shall be taken up between five o'clock p.m. and six o'clock p.m.;
That, the address of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to be delivered in the House Chamber on Tuesday, May 10, 1988, at eleven o'clock a.m., before the Members of the Senate and House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That, Her Majesty's address, together with all introductory and related remarks, be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcasting system.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that there have been consultations and that there is a disposition on the part of the Official Opposition, both to give leave to have this motion presented and to agree to it.
However, I do want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader whether he can confirm that the Government is aware of Standing Order 22(2) which says:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
I ask that question because during Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) seemed to suggest that the Government could not call certain pieces of legislation until certain other pieces were completed by this House. As far as I know, the Standing Orders make clear that the Government has complete control over what measures it calls and when it calls them during government time.
If necessary, Mr. Speaker, I will raise a point of order to ask you to confirm that this Standing Order is still part of our Standing Orders and is as much a part of them as any other
Motions
portion, so that any argument by the Government that it is being held up by the Opposition and prevented from calling something on the Order Paper which it wants to call, is completely inaccurate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if it would help my hon. friend, we could start each day by confirming that the Standing Orders are still in effect. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that we have consistently followed a practice of trying to move legislation through the House. We are now being stymied by the Opposition and have had to bring in time allocation on a very important initiative for the Western Diversification Fund.
In view of the depleted number of Members in the Opposition, we have tried not to jam up too many things in one area. My hon. friend knows very well that the same people who considered the lobbying Bill will probably consider the Bill to which he refers. We have simply tried to manage the business of the House and the committees. He will find that it very soon goes to committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members could assist the Chair. If there is a need to proceed with this, which is really a point of order, I will see Members in a few minutes.
I think it is probably procedurally more tidy to deal with one thing at a time. There is a motion before the House. I understand from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that there is agreement with respect to that motion which was put by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) could assist the Chair with respect to whether or not there is agreement to the motion.
If it is necessary to continue with a point of order, I will hear Members a little later.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, let me say that there have been complete and thorough consultations. In an effort to expedite the business of the House, we are prepared to enthusiastically lend our support to this order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West. Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1988
Petitions
['Agreed.']
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the House that the Government has the obligation and even the duty to deal with this matter of the order of business and to determine what the Members will consider in the House. Standing Order 22(2), which my House leader is referring to, reads as follows:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the
government determines.
Mr. Speaker, based on our experience of the last two or even three weeks, the Government does not trust the Members of this House. It prints an agenda, a Projected Order of Business, regularly changes it at the last minute and expects that Members of the House of Commons can react to the way the Government wants the debate to go. Mr. Speaker, if the House is to function in a correct, orderly fashion, we must know what plans the Government intends to present to us under Routine Proceedings.
So if the Government cannot decide before the day itself on the order in which it will bring forward bills, be they on abortion, capital punishment or anything else, on official languages-God knows we could talk about that!-the Government is the only one responsible for the disorder. It sets the order of business and decides what the House will discuss. We in the Opposition can only deal with what the Government presents.
We deal with it democratically, after debate, and we hope that the Government will not stifle the debate with delaying tactics such as those used regularly in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary, who always has a petty point of order to find out whether the House could not sit during lunch hour. Of course we can sit during lunch hour! That happens regularly. We want to work! But the Government knows very well that in doing so, it prevents the Opposition from preparing for question period and Members from attending committee meetings. It knows that it disturbs the Opposition and that is why it does it, Mr. Speaker, because it wants to have the country believe that there is a crisis in the House, but that is wrong! The Government has been going through a crisis for a long time-we know that! It is in a crisis because it does not know where it is going. It has no direction.
Take official languages for example: I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Justice Minister behind; he is there looking at us attentively. . . Where is he on the committee to give direction to the back-benchers, the gang of dinosaurs who have fun by always delaying Bill C-72? Where is he to stop them?


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member. I think that the argument may be very interesting. I well understand that it is most important, but we have a point of order here and I think that the speech by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is perhaps ... He has made a point. I understand the problem exactly and I am sure that the Hon. Minister of State can perhaps answer and after
that, I think that it will be necessary to continue with other business.

Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) wish to respond?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention on the same point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) suggested during Question Period that somehow he was unable to introduce legislation because of something the Opposition Parties were doing. Let me make it clear that the Government has a right to introduce legislation whenever it wants. It can introduce any legislation it wishes.
In an effort to make the House of Commons work more effectively, would the Deputy House Leader be more consistent? When the Deputy House Leader states what will be the business of the House at one hour, and we are prepared to make our thoughtful contribution, but then changes the order of business, it makes it very difficult for us Members in the House and makes it very difficult to conduct the business of the House in a proper way.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of constituents from western Canada who are very concerned about the way the Government is handling the designation for northern benefits for tax purposes. Some communities are designated and others are not.
As I indicated earlier, there are situations where half a community is designated and the other half across the street is not. It is a complete boondoggle and makes a mockery out of our tax system. It certainly flies in the face of any just, fair, non-discriminatory tax system.
The petitioners are asking the Government to consider declaring all communities in Tier 3 ridings as eligible for the northern residents deduction.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from some 70 residents of Spadina and other parts of Toronto nearby. They point out that a goal of the Canadian immigration law is to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad.
May 4, 1988

Nevertheless, they are concerned that many Canadians from Vietnam find that it takes months, often years, to bring relatives from Vietnam to Canada as immigrants, partly because of the delays caused by the Vietnamese Government.
Therefore, the undersigned call on the House of Commons to ensure that the Canadian Government negotiates actively with Vietnam to secure an agreement providing for closer cooperation on immigration, including quicker action on Canadian sponsorships.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from some 50 residents of Spadina who point out that Canada has established standards of refugee status determination but the existing procedures have broken down under unexpected strains. Therefore, with the support of many Canadian groups, including the Canadian Council of Churches, the Bar Association, Jewish Congress and other individuals, they ask Parliament to ensure that the Government will enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board that is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to these hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from about 200 residents of Canada and Toronto. They point out that the Government of Canada, that is to say, the Prime Minister of Canada, has been negotiating a trade treaty with the United States for which he had no mandate from the Canadian people in the last election. It is a treaty which will reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs we need. Furthermore, contrary to what many people apparently wish, it would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
For these reasons, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before an agreement is signed.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition signed by some 3,200 constituents from my riding, and from people outside of my riding. It states that wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation to protect unborn Canadian children from conception onward, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Beit):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege to present a petition signed by many residents of Quesnel, British Columbia, and the following communities in New Brunswick, Fredericton, Macnaquac, Temperancevale, Melville, Canterbury, and Truro, Nova Scotia and in Ontario, Thorold, Hamilton, Toronto, Brampton, Sudbury, Willowdale, Guelph, White Fish, and Stratford.
The petitioners claim that this Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the so-called bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They claim, in fact, that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic and cultural future and would indeed undermine its ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has great respect for the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in presenting this petition, but I have been listening carefully and I think we are to be reminded that the statement given at the time of presentation is to be brief and not to be necessarily argumentative. I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks.


John R. Rodriguez: The petitioners call upon this Government, since it does not have a mandate to implement this agreement, to dissolve Parliament and call upon the people of Canada, giving them the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement with the United States in a general election.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition prepared and sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. C. A. Wyndham of Acme, Alberta. The petitioners, mostly from Acme, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that unilingual speaking people will have a chance for a position in Government. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 706 constituents in Hull-Aylmer who humbly ask Parliament to pass a bill granting all unborn children full legal protection from the moment of conception.

May 4, 1988
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 297 and 298.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, are Alaskan whalers killing bowhead whales travelling to their calving areas in Canadian territorial waters?
2.	Has the Government received requests from Canadian Inuit for similar bowhead quotas and, if so, what has been the response?
3.	During 1986, did the Government receive a request from the Eskimo Whaling Commission to conduct joint research with the United States into the number and habits of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea and, if so, what has been the response?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.
Alaskan Inupiat hunters take bowhead whales during migration to and from Canadian waters. However, Canadian territorial waters of the Beaufort Sea are a primary feeding area, not a primary calving area.
2.	The Inuvialuit of the western Arctic and Inuit in the east have requested permits to take bowhead whales in Canadian waters. These requests have been refused on the grounds of conservation.
3.	The Department has received informal requests from the Eskimo Whaling Commission to conduct joint research on bowhead whales with the U.S. We have assisted U.S. research in U.S. and Canadian waters through issuance of permits for tagging studies, aerial surveys and associated feeding studies, and provision of scientific advice. Large scale studies contracted by LGL Consultants of Toronto have been supported by funding from the U.S., DIAND, and bridge funding through DSS.


Mr. Nickerson: Has Canada withdrawn from the International Whaling Commission and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) is any consideration being given to rejoining?


Thomas Edward Siddon: (a) Canada withdrew from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1982 following an intensive review of our whaling policy that concluded that we no longer had any direct interest in the whaling industry or in the activities of the IWC related to the whaling industry since the Canadian Government banned commercial whaling in 1972. The 1946 Whaling Convention, which Canada signed in 1946 as a whaling nation, was intended to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."
(b) Although we are not considering rejoining the IWC, Canada continues close co-operation with the Commission's Scientific committee and support international co-operation for the conservation of the world's whale stocks.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege which I believe goes to the very heart of a Member's privilege in this House to ask questions in a free and unfettered way either by way of Question Period or by way of tabling of questions on the Order Paper.
If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, on October 14, 1987, I placed the following question on the Order Paper:
Question No. 207
Since April 1968, have (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts
been provided by the Government to Hurtig Publishers of Edmonton or other
Hurtig enterprises and if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (ii)
in what amount (iii) for what purpose?
The answer was tabled in the House of Commons on January 27, 1988.
So that you have a full understanding of the implications of my breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly go over the answers with you.
Several Departments and agencies reported that government records for these fiscal years are not retained by the Public Archives in Canada in accordance with the General Records
May 4, 1988

Disposal Schedule of the Government of Canada directive. However, in some instances the Department was able to provide information. The following Departments provided information: Canadian International Development Agency indicated that there was $1,625 for expertise in connection with the Country Program Director Training Program. The Department of Communications listed the grants or contributions from the Department's Book Publishing Industry Development Program. In 1979-80, $131,793 for sales and marketing assistance, 1980-81, $169,555, sales and marketing assistance, $2,760 for a feasibility study, $4,837 for a feasibility study, for a total of $177,152.
In 1981-82, $146,613 was granted for sales and marketing assistance, $4,797 for computerization study, $49,947 for computer purchase, for a total of $201,357. In 1982-83, $94,659 for sales and marketing assistance, $10,233 for computerization implementation, for a total of $104,892. In 1983-84, $96,440 for sales and marketing assistance, for a total of $96,440. In 1984-85, $110,527 for sales and marketing assistance, $33,939, company analysis for a total of $144,466.
I just have a couple more, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me. In 1985-86, $227,324 sales and marketing assistance, $1,307 international marketing assistance for a total of $228,631-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has probably been anticipating some concern on the part of the Speaker. This information is, of course, available and may very well be very pertinent to the question of privilege the Hon. Member brings to the Chair, but I am having a little difficulty in seeing exactly where the point of privilege comes and I would ask, in the interests of brevity in argument, that the Hon. Member conclude whatever it is the Chair needs to know and then argue the point of privilege. I have tried to be very patient here.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am trying to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Athabasca could just be patient for a moment and I will come back to him. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively for the last four or five minutes and I too have difficulties. If the Hon. Member actually has a grievance with the quality of the answer, he should state so at the beginning of his remarks. I would like to know what the question of privilege is. I would like to know what the question of privilege is. According to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition an answer to a question cannot be the object of a question of privilege.
If the Government has not given the Hon. Member a definitive or satisfactory answer, I refer him to Citation 19 of
Privilege-Mr. Shields
Beauchesne's which states that a dispute arising between two Members, or the failure of a Minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege. I do not mind sitting here and listening to the Hon. Member's question, but I would appreciate it if he would come to the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member would like to get to the point. Clearly, what the Hon. Member has advised the House and the Chair is that over a period of time certain government grants or other forms of government assistance have gone to either the gentleman mentioned or the gentleman's firm. However, I am not clear yet as to whether or not the Hon. Member's complaint, which may or may not be privilege, is in the adequacy of the answers, the fact that a government Department may or may not still have the records, or just exactly where the argument is leading. I would ask the Hon. Member to assist the Chair.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member and yourself for the guidance that has just been given to me.
In late February, as a result of the answer tabled in the House, I received a letter from a Mr. A. H. Lefever of the law firm of Reynolds, Mirth, Richards and Farmer of Edmonton stating that he was acting for Mel Hurtig and intended to proceed with a defamation action and would be issuing a statement of claim in seven to ten days.
I ignored the letter because I felt that it was rather silly and vexatious and an attempt, basically, to silence me. We know that Mr. Hurtig had led the charge against free trade. As a former Liberal candidate in Edmonton, he was leading the charge. He became very political.
I then received a second letter in late March which was double registered. It was from a Frans F. Slatter of the law firm of McCuaig, Desrochers of Edmonton in which it was stated that they were acting for Hurtig Publishers Ltd. They indicated that, pursuant to Section 13 of the Defamation Act, their client's intention to bring an action against me for information that I received in reply to my question on the Order Paper of October 15, 1987.
The letter further indicated that the information that I received was inaccurate and misleading as to the amount, nature, source and circumstances of government funding obtained for The Canadian Encyclopedia and related projects. Again, I felt that this was an obvious attempt in that the first law firm had dropped the case because, in my view, it felt it did not have one. Mr. Hurtig then approached another law firm and it proceeded with an action.
It is my belief that these two letters were a deliberate attempt to intimidate me from seeking further information with regard to grants given by the Government to Mel Hurtig or Hurtig Publishers.
I then had a phone call a couple of days ago from a Mr. Keith Davidson of Edmonton who is a process server. He indicated that he would like to meet with me for a brief

May 4, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Shields
moment the next time I was in Edmonton. I asked him what it was for. Ele said: "Well, I might as well tell you. It is to serve you with a statement of claim". 1 asked him where the statement of claim was from and he said it was from the solicitors for Hurtig Publishers and that I was now being served with a statement of claim and going to be sued.
I am truly surprised that Mr. Hurtig has decided to proceed in this fashion. However, the action by Mr. Hurtig and Hurtig Publishers goes to the very heart of a Member's obligation, a Member's right, a Member's privilege to ask questions in a free and unfettered way in the House of Commons. If we lose that-


Mr. Speaker:: I only interrupt the Hon. Member to ask if it is possible to have copies of these letters and the notice of intention. Also, does the Hon. Member have a copy of the statement of claim to which I think he referred? If so, I would like to have those copies as soon as possible.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I do have copies of the two letters. I do not have them with me but I will make sure that Your Honour receives them. I phoned my solicitor in Edmonton and asked him to receive the statement of claim on my behalf, which he said he would do.
If a Member of the House cannot place questions on the Order Paper or indeed ask questions in the House without the fear of legal action being taken against him, then the very heart of this institution in my view will be cut out. Individual Members' effectiveness will be destroyed because it is their privilege to speak freely without fear.
I believe that my privilege as a Member of Parliament has been violated by the actions of Mr. Hurtig and Hurtig Publishers. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that if you feel that I do have a prima facie case of privilege that the case be referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Elections, Privilege and Procedure.
I have had assistance in putting my privilege together by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who will discuss some of the technical matters.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), especially for his co-operation brought about by not only my own intervention but by the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, along with perhaps other Members and the Chair, were a little concerned about just exactly what was the point. The Chair has no doubt at the moment as to what the point is.
I might indicate to the Hon. Member that on the basis of what he has said thus far that it is a matter that is giving the Chair some concern. I will hear the Hon. Member for Peace River and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in a moment, and other Hon. Members if it is necessary.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to intervene on the question of privilege
put forward by my colleague, the Hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). From the information that I have received and from looking at the case very briefly, there appears to be no doubt that the case does apply to the guidelines of a prima facie case of privilege.
I would like to put before the Speaker a couple of arguments that I think will demonstrate why we have a prima facie case of privilege here. The first valid point is that it is a well known rule and recognized fact in the House that the absolute fundamental of any case of privilege is the freedom of speech. 1 do not need to refer to the various quotations that would apply to that from either Beauchesne's, Erskine May or any other documents.
In addition to that, we know that Hon. Members are also to be free from intimidation or threats that would try in some way to direct their actions. If we look at Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 67, we see that it states:
It is generally accepted that any threat to a Member, attempting to influence his vote or his actions as a Member, is a breach of privilege.
After the evidence that I have heard from the Hon. Member for Athabasca, I do not see any doubt that what we are dealing with here is a clear threat or an intimidation, an action that is designed to silence or influence the actions of the Hon. Member for Athabasca.
If we also look at some other references, for example, page 17 of the Precis of Procedure, the second edition that has been put out and which has been very useful to Members, we see that it states:
Every Member may state "whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action or libel, as well as from any question or molestation."
It is very clear that we as Members are free to ask questions, whether they be written or oral, in the House of Commons, no matter what information comes out of them, and no matter how injurious that may be to the character of an individual or corporation. We are then as individual Members protected from libelous action.
If we look further and return to Beauchesne's, Citation 56 very clearly states that any statements made in the House are not to be subjects of court actions, and they are absolutely within the privilege of the House of Commons.
What we are dealing with here is a question put on the Order Paper by the Hon. Member for Athabasca. That question was responded to in the House. That information has then become the basis of this lawsuit. I think it is very clear that the Member for Athabasca should not in any way be involved in this particular lawsuit. The fact that he is involved in one is clearly a breach of his privileges.
May 4, 1988

I wish to refer to two other citations that are very pointed on this particular subject. In Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, Twentieth Edition, at page 159 it states:
Sending a letter to a Member threatening him with the possibility of a trial at some future time for asking a question in the House ...
-is described or listed as being a clear case of privilege.
In this particular example there are two such letters which have been followed up by a third action between the lawyers for the Hon. Member for Athabasca and Mr. Hurtig.
There is a further citation in the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May which is applicable to this situation, found at page 162, which states:
To commence proceedings in a court of law against any person for his conduct in obedience to the orders of either House or in conformity with its practice, or to be concerned in commencing or conducting such proceedings, is a breach of privilege.
On the basis of those citations from Beauchesne's and Erskine May, based on the information put forward by the Hon. Member for Athabasca, I believe it is very clear that there is a prima facie case of privilege.
I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to check the references, and give this all serious thought, as I know you do and will do in this particular case. Not only are the concerns of the Hon. Member for Athabasca affected by this particular lawsuit, but also the concerns of all Members of Parliament. We have to function in an air of freedom where we are not concerned about threats of lawsuits or threats of violence, or any of those things that would very much infringe on our rights, actions, and statements in the House.
I believe from the evidence that has been put forward and from the arguments that can be made out of either Beauchesne's or Erskine May, our respected journals on procedure, there is no doubt that we have a prima facie case of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wish to make a few comments. No doubt the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) has had time to research the question, and I think that he has covered the territory very well. Indeed, I endorse his position, if the facts are as they were related to us by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). I believe, as do other Hon. Members, that nothing can impede the privilege of a Member to ask questions in the House, either by written deposition or orally during Question Period.
I do not have anything to add in terms of citations from Beauchesne's quoted by the Hon. Member for Peace River. Perhaps the most important one is Citation 56, which the Hon. Member quoted. Citation 55 is also important. It states:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee. It is primarily guaranteed in the British Bill of Rights...
It goes on to explain that no one should be impeached or otherwise impeded in his work in asking questions of the Government.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I would like to ask the Speaker to take this matter under deliberation. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, there is a question of privilege, I take it the Hon. Member would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) indicated that he would be prepared to move the appropriate motion. In case there is any doubt, his colleague from the other side of the Chamber, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), wants to assure that that is indeed on the record, and I ask the Hon. Member for Athabasca to do so.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a few minutes ago, the Chair takes this particular matter with some deep concern. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for his contribution. I especially wish to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who, despite the fact that there may be differences of opinion politically among the different Parties here, on a matter of this importance it is interesting to note that all Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognize what the issue is, and that is the absolute right of Hon. Members to proceed without fear and to be able to speak freely in this place.
The Chair will look carefully at the documentation that the Hon. Member for Athabasca has indicated he will bring to my attention. Assuming that the facts are as related, I will of course return as expeditiously as I can to the Chamber. If there is any need for any further assistance from Hon. Members, I will be in touch with them. I think I have the situation as it has been presented, and again I thank Hon. Members for their intervention. I will return to the Chamber as soon as it is possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the third time and passed, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That this question be now put.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. Unfortunately, the Bill is not as important as the issue. The Bill is a very weak and timid step in the direction of some type of environmental protection, although it has the very pretentious title "Canadian Environmental

May 4, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Protection Act". An unsuspecting or politically unsophisticated person looking at the title of that Bill might suspect or be led to think that it was going to provide a regulatory framework that was going to give some type of total protection for the environment. When we look at the Bill we see that this is very far from being the case.
The only real emphasis of the Bill is to regulate the introduction of toxic substances into the environment. This is important, but it is far from being the total comprehensive protection of the environment that Canadians need and want the Government to provide through legislation.
For example, the Bill does nothing to deal with the destruction of the environment through logging practices, or the deforestation that occurs, or the soil erosion, and the erosion that pollutes our streams and lakes as a result. It does nothing to protect the environment from the loss of farmland through salinization, over use of pesticides, or urbanization. It does nothing about the clean-up of toxic waste sites. It does nothing about acid rain. The Government has made a lot of noise about acid rain, but it has done very little about it.
This Bill has no power to deal with questions such as pesticides, because they are regulated by the Department of Agriculture and where one Department has regulations that are already in place, Bill C-74 is not effective. It does nothing about polluting forms of energy use. It does nothing about the nuclear industry. There is a whole constellation of problems relating to the environment that are not dealt with by this Bill.
Perhaps I could give one example on Vancouver Island that is very important, that is, the introduction of a new chemical called TCMTB as a replacement for the old PCP type anti-sap stain that was used in treating lumber. Since this new chemical TCMTB was introduced on December 7-Pearl Harbour Day-there have been more than 75 first-aid or medical cases reported to the end of April at Harmac Mill near Nanaimo.
Workers at that mill have complained about nausea, about sore throats, about nose bleeds, sinus problems, and headaches. In some cases, they have suffered from nose bleeds lasting for as long as two weeks. As a result, the workers themselves have asked that a study be carried out on this chemical.
The Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia uses as a guide the level set by Agriculture Canada, that being .5 parts of TCMTB per millogram per cubic metre, and at a level of less than half of that amount, the workers at the pulp mill in question are suffering from severe health problems.
It has become obvious that the Department of Agriculture passed the regulations in respect of the use of this chemical without having had any long term studies in place and completed.
It saw the need to replace the old PCP anti-sap stain type of chemical, given the obvious detrimental effects of that chemical on the environment and on human health, and it
rushed through regulations in respect of the use of TCMTB without having conducted adequate studies as to its effects.
When questions regarding the use of this chemical were released in the B.C. Legislature by Dale Lovick, the NDP member for Nanaimo, he was told that there was to be a study conducted by the University of British Columbia on its short term health effects. However, when Mr. Lovick called UBC, he was told that the study was not scheduled to begin until the summer, the reason being that there were not a sufficient number of mills using TCMTB.
Here we have a chemical which is widely suspected, on Vancouver Island, as causing severe health problems for workers, a chemical which needs to be studied, and the entity which is to conduct the study saying that it cannot begin the study until it is in wider use. That is the kind of perverted logic that we face. Here we have a situation where we cannot begin to study the harmful effects on human beings flowing from the use of a given chemical because that chemical is not in wide enough use.
Once the study begins, it will take three to four months to collect the data, and another three to four months for analysis of the data, which means that the results of the study will not be available before the end of the year. In the context of the health of Canadian workers, this is simply not good enough. In raising the example that I do, I simply want to make the point that Bill C-74, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, would have absolutely no jurisdiction over this particular chemical, given that it is a chemical that is already regulated by the Department of Agriculture. In fact, Bill C-74 is not much more than an updated version of the Environmental Contaminants Act.
When one looks at the pretentious title, the "Canadian Environmental Protection Act", one suspects that it must have been named and baptized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself. It smacks of his typical exaggeration. He is not able to talk of a light bulb without speaking of it as a huge hydroelectric project. He is not able to talk of a minor Bill that does something that is important and significant without giving it this great pretentious title. Of course, the Minister himself, in speaking of this Bill as being one of the "toughest environmental Bills introduced anywhere in the world", suffers from the same kind of pretention.
Bill C-74 has a declaration and a preamble, most of which is acceptable. But, a declaration and a preamble setting out general goals and desirable objectives is not what Canadians want and need; what the Canadian people want is an environmental bill of rights, a bill of rights which will recognize the right of Canadians to a clean and safe environment, and one which will have sufficient teeth that they can insist that the environment be clean and be safe.
The preamble talks about objectives and guidelines. Yet, the Bill itself does not give the Minister the power to either set standards or to enforce standards. When we talk about the environment, what we want is not simply a recitation of
May 4, 1988

objectives and guidelines, but standards. What we want is something that will assure Canadians that the environment is going to be protected. It is their environment. The environment is not something that is simply "out there". The environment is the space in which we live, and we need to protect it. It is not good enough to simply have guidelines. This Government brought down conflict of interest guidelines, and we had example after example of Ministers violating those guidelines and then simply shrugging their shoulders and saying: "It is only a guideline".
We are afraid that the same sort of thing is going to happen if all we have are environmental guidelines. What we want are standards, and standards that can be enforced, and this very weak-kneed Bill does not provide us with such standards.
The proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act would give the Government some desirable powers, including the power to identify toxic substances, and the power to regulate such toxic substances as it identifies. As well, it gives the Government the ability to screen new substances before they are used in the environment. It gives to Canadians the right to complain to the Government when substances have not been identified or regulated to their satisfaction; it allows the Government to ban the export of toxic substances whose use is banned in Canada, and to restrict the export of toxic substances whose use is restricted in Canada. It gives the Government the right to regulate, on the basis of environmental quality, the use of fuels; it gives the Government the regulatory authority over nutrients in water conditioners; it legislates federal authority over environmental matters with respect to federal lands and undertakings. It legislates governmental authority to bring down environmental regulations with respect to federal Departments and Crown agencies.
One very important provision of Bill C-74 is that it would protect "whistleblowers" who report on breaches of Government environmental regulations. As well, it gives the federal Government the authority to protect citizens of foreign countries from air pollution of Canadian origin. In addition, it would establish boards of review, to be created on petition of individuals who are unhappy with the enforcement of the regulations under the Act. In addition to all of the foregoing, it provides for fines up to $1 million for environmental offences, which is more significant than fines have been in the past.
While the powers to be given to the Government under this legislation are desirable, the Bill itself, when one looks at what it does not do with respect to the environment, falls far short of its pretentious title, and falls far short of what is needed to protect the Canadian environment. For example, it does not deal with pesticides. No matter how toxic, pesticides will be regulated by the Department of Agriculture. Bill C-74 specifically excludes substances which are regulated under other Acts of Parliament.
Bill C-74 does not set down any standards for environmental quality. Rather, it has guidelines; it has objectives. It does not have standards. In short, Bill C-74 does not change the kind of
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
perverted logic we have been operating under in terms of the protection of the environment, that being that a substance has to be proved harmful before it can be regulated. Again, we have the example of the pulp mill workers, who are, in effect, human guinea pigs in terms of the harmful effects of TCMTB. Until that substance can be proved to be harmful to human health, it will continue to be used in pulp mill operations. Its use will continue to be acceptable under both the federal regulations and the applicable regulations of the Province of British Columbia.
Before new chemicals are introduced into the environment, there should be some assurance that they are safe. Bill C-74 does not have incorporated in it an environmental bill of rights, a bill of rights that would give Canadians the right, by law, to a healthy environment. It does not do anything for the major issues that I mentioned earlier, such as acid rain and the overuse of pesticides. Finally, when we look at what the Bill is attempting to do, regulating the introduction of toxic substances into the environment, it still uses an outdated and outmoded method of regulation. It still uses a substance-bysubstance approach. It is still based on trying to manage toxic chemicals rather than seeking to reduce them.
It has been estimated that there are some 60,000 industrial chemicals in use in North America today. Ross Hume Hall in an essay in Probe Post in the spring of last year pointed out:
According to a report of the National Academy of Sciences, in the U.S., the number of chemicals in industrial use today for which there is a complete spectrum of toxic effects is zero.
In other words, we do not know how any of these really affect us in a toxic way. He goes on to say:
Of the 60,000 industrial chemicals, 50,000 have never been tested for any toxicological effects whatsoever. For the other 10,000 chemicals, information is scanty.
Of course when we are talking about chemicals such as this, we are not talking about chemicals in isolation from one another, we are talking about chemicals that enter into all kinds of weird and strange combinations that are completely uncontrolled by the people who sometimes release them into the environment and completely unforeseen by the people who claim to be regulating these releases in the interests of a clean and protected environment. Mr. Hall points out that Bill C-74 continues to use the old approach of substance by substance identification rather than taking a more sweeping and comprehensive approach. He points out from 1976 to 1986, a period of 10 years:
-the Contaminants Control Branch had completed regulations for five chemicals-three of them (including PCBs) no longer manufactured. Five chemicals assessed in 10 years.
We are talking about a total of 60,000 industrial chemicals in use. We have continued that substance by substance approach in the legislation we are dealing with today. In fact, the procedure is dragged out even more. A chemical that is determined to be a toxic threat is now put on a Schedule 4 list

May 4, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
and only after it has been placed on that list are the regulations written. In order to get on that list, there are all kinds of hurdles. Manufacturers of chemicals will be putting all kinds of obstacles in the way of the Government in trying to determine that certain chemicals are toxic and wanting to have them listed. Once a chemical is listed and the writing of regulations starts, the Bill allows the raising of more objections and the convening of a second review board to review the proposed regulations.
How can such a cumbersome process operating on a substance by substance basis deal with the 60,000 chemicals that we are operating with in modern industry? We are dealing here with the problem that Environment Canada is a weak member of the federal bureaucracy. Instead of being a lead agency and instead of being central to all the Government's planning, it is way off on the edge. Instead of requiring that everything the Government does and everything that industry does be environmentally acceptable-we have that kind of an approach when it comes to dealing with money matters which have to go through Treasury Board-the Department of the Environment tends to be a weak member of the federal bureaucracy. It is like the Baltimore Orioles in baseball. I see they won one game last week, but they are still on a major losing streak. Unfortunately that is the way the Department of the Environment is.
When will we have a Government that takes seriously the threats to the environment and that the environment is the space in which we have to live and breathe? When will we have a Government that takes seriously that any threat to the environment is a threat to individual human health, as I showed it was to the workers at the Harmac pulp mill and to other pulp mills? It is a threat to our quality of life when we destroy the environment. One of the things we have going for us in Canada, which they do not have in some large cities of the more built up parts of the world, is a decent environment that we can protect. It adds a great deal to our quality of life. We need legislation that will protect it much more than this legislation does. When will we have a Government which recognizes that destruction of the environment leads to a destruction of our long-term economic welfare? We can take shortcuts with the environment and think that we are saving money, but in the long term it is destructive economically. We need a Government to recognize that. Finally, we need a Government which recognizes that ultimately the total fate of our earth depends upon the protection of our environment. We need a Government that will act.
We will support this Bill when it comes to a vote. It is a step forward but it is a very small step. It does not take the comprehensive view of the environment and the need for regulation that we would have wished our Government to have taken and which the rhetoric of the Government would lead us to expect.


Ms. McLaughlin:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very comprehensive review of this Bill. As he says, in principle,
it is an improvement. However, it is a misnomer because it is basically a recycling Bill taking into account the old Ocean Dumping Act, the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act. It is not the kind of comprehensive environmental Bill that I think many Canadians have been calling for over a long time.
I would like to focus on one point to which my colleague referred and I will ask for his comments on it. He referred to an article by Mr. Hall in Probe Post and the issue of the single chemical approach to environmental pollution. This is a very serious question for consideration. Let us think back to DDT. We recognized the concern for that. We enacted laws to control it but found that it was not controlled internationally- of course, we cannot do anything about that-but there were other equally serious and important pollutants. We have seen other examples of this single chemical approach. There are something like 60,000 chemicals that could be considered industrial chemicals. To try to identify, as my colleague pointed out, and to regulate those chemicals is an almost incomprehensible prodigious task. Mr. Hall in his article gives a good analogy of how feasible the single chemical approach is. He gives the analogy of the Health and Welfare Department where he notes that it is responsible for testing additives and drugs and the quality of those additives and drugs. They number somewhere in the hundreds. It is very difficult for that Department to do that. We are talking, and I reiterate, about tens of thousands. We have neither the resources to test those chemicals in a really credible way that people will feel is a forceful method of addressing the environmental pollution.
Mr. Hall suggests that this approach is simply untenable and unrealistic. The approach should be to simply keep chemicals out of the environment, because testing takes considerable time and the toxicity is often a long-term situation which may not appear in the first test. 1 would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about this single chemical approach. Certainly it is better than nothing, but is it really the answer?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Obviously the single substance approach is not going to work. It has not worked over the 10 years since it was introduced. Mr. Hall points out that it is like being surrounded by 60,000 bees and trying to decide which one is going to sting you and where.
Mr. Hall points out that the 19-member team of Contaminants Control Branch took 10 years to assess five chemicals. That adds up to 190 bureaucrat years to write five regulations, or 38 years per chemical. If Environment Canada took all of its 10,000 employees, everyone from the janitors up to the Deputy Minister, and put them to work writing regulations, at 38 bureaucratic years per substance they would be able to write regulations for 260 substances a year when the industry is introducing 1,000 new substances every year.
May 4, 1988

We are simply falling further and further behind no matter how many people we put into this substance by substance approach. It is not a workable solution. We have to find another approach and I think it has to be that people who are going to be using chemicals have to demonstrate that they are not harmful to the environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my Party and discuss Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act. I believe that the environment issue will crop up in any public opinion poll which tries to determine what is of fundamental concern to Canadians across the country. Concern for preserving and promoting what is essentially a great national jewel is very much a centre-piece of their thoughts. It crosses all lines, be it age, region or cultural background. It strikes a chord in the public's sensitivity to the environment. It is viewed quite correctly as a national heritage which ought to be protected and preserved, not only for our well-being today but for the enjoyment and well-being of those who follow us.
A clean environment is also of great concern because many Canadians perceive pollution as perhaps being irreversible. If it can be corrected, obviously it is going to be at a tremendous cost. Therefore, Canadians think of the environment in a proactive rather than reactive sense. If we react too lightly, not only will it be a great drain on our resources at all three levels of Government, but by the time you develop the political will to combat an environmental problem or hazard, it might be too late. Therefore, the feeling is that now is the best time to do something to protect our environment and correct the problems.
People feel that now is the time to protect the soil which grows our food. Now is the time to protect our rivers and lakes before the damage caused by acid rain, for example, is irreversible. Now is the time to protect our water supply and treat it as a national resource. That is what it is when you compare our water supply with that in other parts of the world.
When they look at our mountains, lakes and forests, Canadians want us as legislators to put in place legislation which will provide effective leadership at the federal level through national standards. Whether you live in British Columbia, northern Ontario, or Atlantic Canada, we must have one standard and one philosophy guiding this great country with respect to the environment. We cannot have environmental legislation which allows the provinces or municipalities to opt out so that you have an environment which is actively protected and enhanced in British Columbia, let us say, and less so in Ontario.
If you accept the premise of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I believe you and most Members of this House would, we have to ask ourselves how Bill C-74 fits in with those values and principles which we attach to the protection and enhancement
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
of our environmental backyard. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), in presenting Bill C-74, suggested to Canadians that this is the toughest environmental legislation ever introduced in the western hemisphere. Those were his very words, yet over the last number of months he withdrew some of his own amendments and allowed other amendments by government Members which weakened the legislation. In that respect, his words melt like snow on a hot summer's day. If they were ever true, they are no longer true. This legislation should not be heralded as the premier legislation of the western world. That is empty boasting at best. Because of those changes I mentioned it is a weakened, battered and tired piece of legislation. It certainly does not do justice to the press releases being put out by the Government and Minister.
There are a number of different aspects to this situation which give rise to the fragility of this legislation. The first is that this legislation does not-


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. gentleman for interrupting him. However, of 282 Members I count seven in the House. I ask that you please take a quorum count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not see a quorum. Please ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do now see a
quorum.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for inviting more Members to participate in this debate and to listen to my remarks on Bill C-74.
I was just getting to what I think is the first fallacy of Bill C-74, namely, that there is no commitment by the Government or the Minister to try to clean up the current environmental mess. They were prepared to try to regulate toxic materials through industry, but there was no concerted effort or political will to deal with regulatory bodies which in the past have contributed to a number of serious pollution indicators. They are willing to let that go by and try to prevent it in the future.
Our environmental spokesperson, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), has been an advocate and champion of environmental concerns. His position and that of the Liberal Party is to try to prevent environmental pollution from occurring in the future while recognizing that we must determine now to clean up many parts of our community rather than trying to pass the political buck to future Governments. It is a very serious fallacy for the Government to try to prevent future pollution without acting on existing problems.
The second disturbing aspect of Bill C-74 is that the public was only partially consulted. The provinces closed themselves behind locked doors with the federal Government and the

May 4, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Minister and worked out a compromise which is not in agreement with the position of all the major witnesses who came before the legislative committee studying Bill C-74.
When the Minister tabled the Bill and made amendments on behalf of the Government, he recognized that in the discharge of its environmental responsibilities the federal Government must not be clouded by any mandatory consulting with the provinces. Tie recognized the need for unfettered federal leadership in cleaning up the environment and being the leading edge of that reform. It is very disturbing that the federal Government, and eventually the Minister, backed away from that commitment.
The provincial Governments maintained that the federal Government could initiate changes only after they had received provincial approval. That is a very serious step backward. We are not suggesting that the federal Government run roughshod over provincial concerns. That was not the complaint of the witnesses. The witnesses legitimately complained that the federal Government is in essence undermining its moral and legal authority, given to it by the Constitution, to act quickly and decisively when there are environmental issues at stake. It is alarming that the federal Government is prepared to inflict such wounds upon itself. Moreover, the Government did not permit the witnesses an opportunity to discuss that.
In essence, the federal Government was closeted with a number of provincial interests in whose interest it was to push forward this mandatory provincial decision-making in order that they can buy time if a matter arises involving provincial or regional interests. The provinces were, in essence, allowed to write this important clause of the legislation. Those working toward furthering principles of environmental protection, whether in a paid or a voluntary capacity, were left out in the cold.
The Government has essentially retreated from its responsibility toward the environment and the need to act nationally.
This brings me to the third area of concern. The federal Government has given up the right to regulate toxic chemicals federally. There can be no national standard concerning the environment when provinces can either opt in or opt out. That is indeed serious because there will be a checkerboard of standards when it comes to the environment, in which some provinces will be seen to be more progressive than others. That weakens the national fabric in terms of the resolve of Canadians to come to grips with the very serious hazards facing our environment today.
The fourth area of concern to which 1 want to bring the attention of the House is that the federal Conservative Government gave in to the pressure to change the regulations concerning federal Departments or agencies that pollute. Contrary to the amendments put forward by my colleague, the Member for Davenport, this Bill will require the Minister of
the Environment to obtain the concurrence of the Minister whose Department is responsible for the pollution before making regulations to protect health and the environment. That is a very serious concern because it essentially prevents the Minister of the Environment from taking action within his own jurisdiction until he consults with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for example, who must regulate some of the firms that are polluting.
The first priority of the Minister of the Environment is to defend and protect his environmental portfolio in Cabinet. The Minister should not have to waste time consulting with another Minister when a firm in another part of the country is contributing to acid rain.
The responsibility of the Minister of the Environment is to stress continually the need to create and maintain a clean environment. A progressive Minister cannot falter in putting the environment first by not only requiring a firm to clean up its act, but by sending a strong signal to his ministerial and government colleagues that there can be no stronger argument than trying to clean up the environment to ensure an environment of which future generations of Canadians will be proud.
I am shocked that the Minister would include in his own legislation a requirement to consult other Ministers from other jurisdictions before attempting to charge a polluter with an environmental crime against our country.
When Bill C-74 was introduced in the House in June, it included a provision to give the Minister of the Environment the power to direct the polluter to pay for the cost of the investigation of the offence. This was a very good provision, in light of the great expense of investigating crimes against the environment. /^Jl of the witnesses pointed to this clause as one of the successes of the Bill.
However, the Government caved in to one of its own backbenchers, the Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), who moved to delete this clause. I am sorry that the Minister capitulated because it was a good clause that would have required the polluter to pay the price of the investigation into that environmental crime. It would send a strong signal to other firms and industries that while it is important to create and protect jobs, it is equally important to make the commitment now to protect our environment.
In summary, the Minister withdrew a number of positive clauses from Bill C-74. As well, a number of important elements to the legislation that were offered by our environmental critic were not incorporated into the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to accept some of the amendments put forward by my colleague, the Member for Davenport, in an attempt to strengthen what is an increasingly weaker Bill.
Second, I ask him to reinstate some of his own clauses, rather than distil this legislation by giving more power to the provinces to prevent environmental clean ups. He should ensure that there is a national standard and should reinstate
May 4, 1988

the clause that would put the onus on the polluters to pay for what they did to the environment.
At least he should try to reinstate clauses that he recognizes are important. I suggest that if he allows this Bill to pass in its present form his credibility as a Minister and his Government's record are clearly on the line.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my comment particularly concerns the question of a national standard. That is an extremely important concern that has not been at all strengthened in the legislation, even after the committee review process.
Originally, Clause 37(4) included consultation with provinces and territories. Certainly as one who has spoken often on the need for consultation with the territories and provinces, I do not now speak against that. However, I support my hon. friend in his assertion that there is a need for a national standard because pollutants and pollution do not know provincial and territorial boundaries. There must be at least a minimum national standard in which Canadians can feel confidence if they happen to live in an area where pollution may be occurring.
The Brundtland Commission report, Our Common Future, certainly had a great impact on Canadian thinking. It received great support from the Government and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). I want to quote the following brief sentence from that report: "National governments should establish clear environmental goals and enforce environmental laws, regulations, incentives and standards on industrial enterprises. This should normally be done at the national level with local governments being empowered to exceed but not to lower national norms".
That is what we are saying about this Bill. The new Clause 33, which addressed this issue of consultation, and the inclusion of Clause 6 concerning the federal-provincial advisory committee not only do not enact a national standard, but even more strongly turn it over to the advisory committee. I would like to ask my colleague what his comments are, since the Minister gave such favourable responses in this House to the Brundtland Commission report, which did just what my colleague has suggested by stating there must be national standards which at least advocate a minimum standard.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and comments of the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) who, obviously, because of the region she has the honour of representing, is perhaps as sensitive, if not more sensitive, to environmental concerns, than other Members of Parliament. She is quite correct when she says environmental hazards, pollution and acid rain know no political provincial boundaries. In fact, they know no national boundaries. That is why the opposition Parties, both the New Democratic Party and the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Liberal Party, were obviously pushing for more from this administration vis-a-vis its good friend the President of the United States. We have to try to clean up our environment from our own perspective, but we also have to begin to educate President Reagan that 50 per cent of the pollution, if not more, and the sulphur emissions with respect to acid rain, come across our borders from the United States of America. Therefore, the Hon. Member's comment about knowing no boundaries is very apropos.
On the question of the Brundtland Commission, I completely concur with my hon. friend that the Brundtland Commission report enjoyed a very positive and enthusiastic reception. Indeed, I had the opportunity of being in the forum of the United Nations when Madam Brundtland tabled her report before the United Nations and, in fact, before the world. There was a tremendously spontaneous and enthusiastic support and reception from various Ministers who were in attendance on this very auspicious day in New York. Perhaps that day heralded a new era vis-a-vis the concern about our environment by the international community.
On the question of national standards, I am saddened by the equivalency provisions adopted by the Minister, for example, the ability of the provincial Government to be consulted as a mandatory step before the federal Government can take action. I believe we have weakened the spirit of the Brundtland Commission report, which is to try to have an international code of environmental ethics. When we talk about our own backyard, that is what we are talking about. We are saying we should have a national standard, an ethical definition of what it means to protect our environment.
I believe we cannot simply have a part of the region, or one province, more progressive on environmental concerns than another province. I have a stake in this country. I own the Rockies just as British Columbians own the Rockies. British Columbians own Algonquin Park, just as much as Ontarians do. Therefore, if we accept that we are 25 million shareholders in this one beautiful country, you can see it is in the interests of all of us to have one standard that protects the environment in all regions of the country.
It should be our duty not only as legislators, but as citizens, to protect the environment wherever we live. It is simply unconscionable that I would say I am glad I live in the Province of Ontario where we protect our environment and I really do not care about the Provinces of British Columbia or Saskatchewan. We cannot take that attitude. We have to believe there is one environment, that it is our country, and there should be one law that guides our environmental standards. This Bill does not provide that mechanism. I would hope that the Minister recognizes that because even though the Bill is at third reading, it is still not too late to change it for the better in a way that will protect and nurture environmental protection laws for years to come.

May 4, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


DISPOSITION OF PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next speaker, may I say that I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour of Private Members' Business on Thursday, May 5, 1988. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled, and pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.