1988-04-19

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
I would like to thank the members of the committee who attended very faithfully to their duties, particularly the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton), the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence the Hon. Member Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley); the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) and the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). We had over 100 amendments to this Bill and accepted 88 of them.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-FOURTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 96(2), I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in both official languages.
This report addresses itself to the issue of taxation of the artists and the arts. The key recommendation of our report aims to give force of law to a definition of the professional status of artists which, along with six other recommendations, would allow the artists and related organizations to receive more equitable treatment under Canada's tax laws. While the committee members accept that the principle of tax fairness was adopted in the White Paper on tax reform, we as committee members also accept that there are special circumstances to which different groups of taxpayers may be subject. In this case we believe that the arts should be considered, given the special nature of artists and the arts in Canada today.
Our seven recommendations are fair suggestions and represent long expressed needs of Canadian artists. It is our hope that the Government will consider these recommendations for implementation.

The Committee therefore requests that the government produce a reply to this report in accordance with Standing Order 99(2).
I take this opportunity to thank the representatives of all three parties for their care in writing this unanimous report with a really parliamentary spirit.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and the privilege to present a number of petitions signed by residents of Atikokan and the surrounding area. The signatures number over 200 in this case. The petition is about the northern residents' tax deduction. The residents of Atikokan believe that in its present form it is discriminatory because many communities not on the list are adjacent to listed communities. The Township of Atikokan in particular and its surrounding area was excluded from the designated area only because it is located too close to Thunder Bay.
The petitioners argue that the listed communities and many of those communities left off the list share identical environments in that they are northern, isolated communities paying increased costs for food, fuel and housing, and that the tax deduction was designed to assist in alleviating the added costs involved with living in northern, isolated communities.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to declare the Township of Atikokan and the surrounding area to be eligible for the northern residents' deduction.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present some petitions signed by

April 19, 1988
Order Paper Question
over 100 residents of southern Alberta, living in such communities as Acme, Irricana, Beiseker, Carstairs, Cochrane, Crossfield and North Calgary and South Calgary. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that the unilingual-speaking people of Canada have a chance for positions in Government.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour of presenting a petition from constituents of mine in the City of Thunder Bay and the small community of Murillo. These petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the U.S. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but they assert that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions. Since the agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, the petitioners call upon the House to dissolve and to give them and other Canadians the opportunity to accept or to reject this Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present this petition on behalf of constituents throughout the riding of Fraser Valley West. The nature of this petition is to express concern over the total lack of legal control over abortions in Canada today. The purpose of this petition is to call on Parliament to implement laws to protect the unborn child.
The petitioners state that all human beings are deserving of legal protection and that the unborn child is a human being and in need of preservation from the moment of origin; namely, the time of conception. Furthermore, the people who have signed this document are particularly concerned that at the present time, there is no law to defend the unborn from being destroyed in the womb. These constituents pray that the Members of this House will implement legislation to protect the unborn.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from a group of university students. This petition refers mainly to those university students who alternate between academic and practical training each semester. These students are known as co-op students. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to allow all full-time students to claim the tax deduction for the cost of moving to their educational institutions, irrespective of
the amount of financial aid received through scholarships, fellowships, bursaries, prizes or research grants. The students come from the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario and a few are from my riding.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 279 will be answered today.


Mr. Howie: During the past year, have studies been undertaken by the government concerning the depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and remedial measures in respect thereof and, if so, in each case (a) by what organization or individual (b) under what terms of reference?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes. The following studies are being undertaken by Environment Canada under the terms of reference outlined by the Montreal Protocol (signed in September 1987) on substances that deplete the ozone layer:
-a control options report which will identify the choices available to meet the obligations set out in the Montreal Protocol;
-development of a comprehensive information base to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with each identified control option; and
-in-house studies to identify the 1986 Canadian consumption of controlled substances in order to establish Canadian reduction targets.
Environment Canada is also involved in:
-studies concerning the chemical composition of the stratosphere with particular emphasis on implications for the Canadian Arctic; and
-global studies aimed at determining levels of ozone layer depletion from ground based and satellite borne instruments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 19, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That the question be now put.
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the country is anxious to have this legislation passed, and I certainly do not want to delay its passage, but as the Member for Bow River, a riding which includes Lake Louise and Banff, I feel that there is some responsibility on my part to say a few words in connection with this very important legislation.
First, I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister, who has been willing to discuss various aspects of the Act with the people of Banff National Park and with Members who are concerned about preserving the beauty of our national parks. The Minister has been very tolerant and very free to discuss these many items, and I look forward to further discussions when the Bill goes to committee.
I would like to say a word about two or three items that are of very great concern to the people I represent. The first deals with the Banff air strip. When it comes to development, certainly no one to whom I have spoken in the Banff area or in the Alberta caucus has any notion of putting in place something like a Coney Island in our national parks. That would be the furthest thing from our thoughts. We want to preserve this beauty, but we want to make the beauty available to as many Canadians and as many people of the world as possible. I believe that that is in keeping with the spirit of the National Parks Act.
Certainly there is no thought of having a Coney Island, but an air strip would not destroy any property. It is already there. The air strip has been there for about 20 years. To my knowledge, there has never been one accident in connection with this air strip during that entire time.
Banff, as everyone knows, is the mid-way point between Springbank and Golden. It is critical that pilots have the option to land in Banff if there is a sudden change in weather. The weather changes very rapidly in this area and many times, as a matter of fact on an average of four times a month, airplanes have to land in order to avoid terrible accidents. This is because the Bow Corridor is the main VFR route through the Rockies, and I must emphasize that: the Bow Corridor is the main VFR route through the Rockies. An average of 10 transmitting aircraft go through there every day.
I mentioned before that this air strip would not interfere with the environment or with the animals. As a matter of fact,
National Parks Act
the elk have prospered and thrived in this very area throughout the years. If we want to deal with animals that are not quite so desirable, the gophers have even done well on the air strip. There is no thought of interfering with the environment, but we are living in the 20th century and air strips are necessary in these places. Certainly the air strip in this area aids the cause of safety.
Many times, those who live in Banff have used their aircraft for searches for those who have been lost, particularly in the winter time. This area in the winter-time is inhabited by elk and these elk have done well. There has never been an accident and they have thrived in this area.
I would like to urge the Hon. Minister to consider the retention of this air strip in the Banff National Park. I believe it is essential not only for the aircraft but for safety as well.
I would like to deal now with one or two points in connection with development in the area. I do not know how many Hon. Members have had to drive all night to find a place to sleep in Banff National Park, but I have. In the summer-time particularly it is very difficult to find accommodation. When you consider that more than a million people, Canadians and others from around the world, go to the park every year, it would leave a very sour taste in the mouths of those who cannot find a place to sleep. There is also a need for good eating places. These I think add lustre to the park and our enjoyment of it. Without a place to sleep or eat no one is going to enjoy a holiday in Banff or anywhere else. So when we talk about reasonable development in the area, we are certainly not talking about Coney Island type development. We are simply asking that we have development so that Canadians are able to enjoy the beauties of the Banff National Park setting.
The same thing applies to the two ski areas, Sunshine and Lake Louise. They have to compete with ski areas in other parts of Canada and the U.S. If their equipment and facilities are not up to date, then we lose those people who would like to enjoy the beauties of the park and do their skiing. After all, enjoyment is not just in standing on Banff Avenue and gazing at Sulphur Mountain. Enjoyment is doing things in the national park in keeping with the park. Certainly skiing is one of those. Hundreds of people enjoy skiing, and development at Sunshine will simply make its facilities somewhat equal to those found in other ski areas. I have seen signs in the outskirts of Calgary urging skiers to go down to Montana and other parts of the U.S. This not only costs the people of Canada revenue, it makes it difficult for those operating the ski areas.
Lake Louise also wants to improve its facilities, which are not equal to what can be found elsewhere, and they want to put in a quad chair. This is not going to hurt the environment because it is being carried out between the main lodge and the top of the mountain. It will simply take people from one of the lower places to a higher location in order that they can enjoy the beauty and the skiing. The existing lift is certainly not

RCMP and public servants in Banff are dedicated people and should not be taxed on the amount of reduction they receive in their rents.
The other point I wish to mention briefly is that for over 20 years there have been trailers in the townsite of Lake Louise. People were required to buy a trailer in order to work for Parks Canada. There is now a move to have these people give up their homes, which are trailers, and become renters. I do not think that is sound. The trailers have been there for 20 years and are not hurting anyone. We should leave those trailers there for a few more years and the problem will solve itself. Let us not make these Canadian homeowners into renters. It is the philosophy of the Government that people should own their own homes. Here is a chance to put our words into practice.
In conclusion, Banff National Park is one of the beauty spots of the world. We want it to be there forever for Canadians to enjoy. However, we want it to be available to all types of Canadians- the old, the crippled, and the young-to come and enjoy the grandeur and the majesty of that beautiful place. I support the passage of this Bill and look forward to discussions on it in committee.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today and of course to support Bill C-30 and to congratulate the Minister for bringing in some measures required to conserve the national parks.
At the same time, the need to amend this bill and to add the measures required for the proper and true protection of the great outdoors must be pointed out. This bill does not provide a clear definition of the areas of wilderness that must be protected for citizens of the future, native people and outdoor activities. This is a shortcoming of the bill under consideration today. In talking about the measures proposed by some Conservative Members and the Conservative Government, the need to properly protect the wilderness areas becomes quite obvious.

I am pleased to see this Bill before us. I hope that the Minister himself will speak on the Bill and will answer questions in the House about some of the measures which are not adequate. Perhaps he will put to rest some of the rumours about pressure in the Conservative caucus, especially in Alberta, to weaken the measures before us. The Bill before us is not a strong Bill. It is a very necessary Bill but has been weakened. We understand that a better Bill came out of the Ministry of the Environment but it has been weakened in the course.
One of the major deficiencies which I want to cite is the failure to include a clear definition of a wilderness area. The Bill will permit the Minister to establish wilderness areas but it does not say what they are. Aircraft are allowed to fly in
National Parks Act
wilderness areas, there can be rudimentary campsites and some kind of tourism will be permitted in them. There is pressure by Alberta Conservatives to see that there is more development in the parks.
It is very important when only 1.5 per cent of the land mass of Canada is consecrated to national parks, when the land that is protected is as small a part of our natural heritage as it is, that there be some substantial protection. This Bill does not go far enough toward doing that.
Alberta Conservatives want to see more development. They are afraid that condos cannot go up in a wilderness area. There is a corridor in the middle of Maligne Lake, supposedly a wilderness area, where boats can ply. There are houses and cottages at one end. What kind of a wilderness area is this?
The previous speaker spoke about the need to have tourism and to allow everyone to see a wilderness area. That is a contradiction. There is a place for tourism and a place for people to enjoy our national parks, but we must be very clear that it is fundamental for the survival of Canada that we have some real wilderness areas. This is part of our heritage and is for the protection of species. We do not have enough of that at present and there is a real risk that there will be further encroachments.
I think of the comments which have already been made about the ski areas. We do have some ski areas allowed in national parks and the proposal from some Conservative Members is that there ought to be more of them, that they ought to be expanded. We currently have five ski areas in national parks and a sixth is provided for by federal-provincial agreement in Newfoundland. The government policy is to limit development of ski areas but it has not been rigorously enforced.
The Minister has expressed his willingness to entertain changes to this section of Bill C-30. He says that it is all right if the committee studying the Bill decides to defer a decision on the Sunshine ski hill to some future date. Sunshine has been very adept at getting further developments permitted. It has people lobbying for it to have the policies bent. I am very leery of this and hope that the Minister will have a firm backbone on this issue.
Given that we only have a small area of Canada devoted to national parks, it is absolutely vital that there not be further encroachments. There is a place for commercial tourism but there is a place for Canada to stand firm about the protection of nature. That has to be a priority, and, as environment critic, I will certainly be firm about speaking strongly for those kinds of measures.
Bill C-30 will allow for boundaries to be established for municipal areas for Banff and Jasper. Two reasons that the Government has offered are to permit local self-government and to limit the development of town sites. However, we are

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
not offered any idea of what these boundaries will be. They may go wider than what we would like and essentially be another way of reducing the areas that are really set aside for the survival of species in Canada.
Citizens of Jasper have already indicated that they do not want to pursue self-government at this time. Residents of Banff will vote later on whether or not they want to negotiate it. Before the committee begins its study of the Bill, the Government should bring forward its draft boundaries. We should know what we are passing. There should not be surprises later.
I have mentioned the role of the Alberta Government in lobbying on this measure. I want to refer specifically to some of the comments it has made. They show that the Alberta Government does not really understand what protection of the environment is all about.
On the question of ski areas, the document stating the views of the Alberta Government on the amendments to the National Parks Act states: "We cannot support the amendments which which seek to limit expansion of existing ski facilities and preclude new developments."
To continue: "Foreclosing the option of future ski development in Banff and Jasper National Parks would be a serious obstacle to expanding the tourism sector".
Yes, it would be. However, there are other places where there can be expansion of commercial skiing. That is a very legitimate activity and we support it, but the very raison d'etre of national parks is to preserve our natural heritage. Some things simply do not go together and the purpose of having national parks is to give a high priority to conservation and to ensure that at some point we say that making a buck is not the most important. We must show some responsibility for the future.
The Alberta Government points out that the boundaries for Banff and Jasper town sites, once fixed by act of Parliament, would require an act of Parliament to change the boundaries. It considers that unnecessary and cumbersome and wants flexibility. Why? It wants to allow for more commercial developments. In short, the Alberta Government wants to weaken the national parks system and take some of this out of the land bank for the future and devote it to making money commercially, something to which 99 per cent of Canada is already devoted. In short, it wants to weaken the whole idea of having a national parks system.
Let me continue to quote the brief of the Alberta Government: "There is a fundamental difference between Alberta's approach to land and resource management on public lands and the approach adopted by Parks Canada with the national parks".
Yes, there certainly is a difference. The approach taken by Parks Canada is the proper one. While I may argue that it is not strong enough in terms of conservation, and there are areas where I have some worries about it being the thin edge of the
wedge in terms of how it describes pollution and the kinds of developments that would be allowed, it is certainly far better than the approach proposed by the Alberta Government.
Let me turn to wilderness areas. The Alberta brief states: "We are concerned that the amendment might restrict present tourism related activities and exclude future development of appropriate tourism related facilities and activities which recognize the wilderness attributes of these areas".
One cannot have it both ways. If you really want to recognize the wilderness aspects, you cannot be having entertainment and recreation, more hotels and casinos with slot machines, dancing, parties and more fish and chip shops.


Mr. McDermid:: There go the NDP Members exaggerating again. What nonsense.


Lynn McDonald: It is quite clear in the part to which they want to add that recreation and entertainment areas would be permitted. Is this recreation and entertainment for the gophers, elk and caribou?


John Horton McDermid: Ask Ian about skiing.


Lynn McDonald: Skiing enterprises are quite appropriate, but not in national parks. There must be limitations on that. Some of the positive measures in the Bill include expanding national parks and incorporating in the legislation some decisions that have already been made and announced. Bill C-30 entrenches the establishment of Ellesmere Island National Park and makes provision for the establishment of the Grasslands National Park. Naturally, we support this.
The Minister also proposed that we could establish the first marine national park in the Bruce area through an amendment at committee. We certainly would support that, but wonder why it was not provided for in the original Bill since it is something the department has been considering for some time. The need to establish marine parks has certainly been agreed upon by environmentalists for a long time. In any event, we certainly support that principle.
Another measure I do not like in the Bill is a proposal to establish a citizens heritage fund. Even the Government of Alberta makes some wise proposals and points out that there will be competition for fund raising to get people to donate to this citizens heritage fund.
What is wrong with this idea? The Minister states that the money would not go toward usual activities and become a substitute for expenses that taxpayers would otherwise bear, but would be used for expansion purposes. Some environmental groups have been basically told that it is the only way our national parks will be expanded.
I point out, however, that any citizen who wants to make a donation to the Crown can do so through other current provisions. We do not need a special measure, and I believe some people would get upset, as people in the arts world were upset when there was a proposal that the National Gallery do
April 19, 1988

fund-raising in the private sector. All the small museums became worried that they would have trouble raising funds for their operations with such a big organization hustling funds from the same people.
Environmentalists should be concerned that this may happen with a citizens' heritage fund. We have a responsibility as citizens to have a public presence in the parks system. There should be no need for private fund raising in order to fulfil these obligations. Private citizens who have ample opportunity to make donations to smaller parks and other environmental causes should not be crowded out.
Further, the proposal would increase the leverage the Minister has over non-governmental organizations who would then have to apply for funding from this citizens' heritage fund. There is no proposal that it even be an arm's length agency, and this would be a very unhealthy development. I hope the Minister will reconsider that and drop this proposal. It has not been well accepted by the people most involved with national parks.
The Bill would permit certain subsistence activities. This is an important matter in the case of native people who have been using national park areas. As we hopefully expand the system in the future, this would be a very important measure. As well, non-native people in local areas have used parks for subsistence purposes. The idea is that they not be cut off from this source of livelihood. I would certainly agree with that, especially if this is a measure in the case of non native people, to include those people already involved but not necessarily to expand this practice.
It makes a great deal of sense in the case of native people in areas where we may want to see further park development and some kind of integrated way of carrying on traditional hunting and gathering activities. Native people are extremely good conservationists. This kind of combination of activity would be very desirable and suitable.
Another measure in this Bill about which we heartily approve is the increased penalties for poaching. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary spent a great deal of time talking about this section. I suppose this is the real motherhood section of the Bill. No one can object to it. We might even want some stronger measures. I understand the Government is going to entertain amendments for stronger measures in parts of the penalty section where the penalties are not quite strong enough for species of animals that are not rare. Everyone is on board in this one. This is something that environmentalists have been talking about for a long time. The penalties in place right now are, in effect, a licence to poach. They certainly do not discourage poaching. They do not adequately punish for such activities.
Members of the Liberal Party have spoken on this Bill. They have joined in condemning the Government for its inactivity with respect to national parks. I simply want to state that I
National Parks Act
think the Liberal Party does not have a leg to stand on. This is an area where the present Government has at least taken a few steps forward, although I do not think it has done enough in this area. We know of its record in slashing funds at the beginning of its mandate in the environmental area. We do not want to suggest that the Conservative Government is a model to follow. We would like things done very much differently. However, the Liberal criticism of the Conservative record is really far-fetched indeed.
There was a long, blank period on national parks under the Liberal Government when nothing was done. It was only because of considerable agitation from voluntary organizations and the non-governmental sector that we got some action. Of course, my Party was very active in fighting to get a national park on Ellesmere Island. Finally, we had a three-Party consensus and pressure was put on the Social Credit Government of British Columbia to get that deal negotiated, and we see the fruits of that consensus in Bill C-30 today. But it was tough going and we certainly did not see leadership from either the present Government or the previous Liberal Government with respect to those issues.
There are a number of housekeeping measures in Bill C-30. The present National Parks Act has been out of date for some time. We are in favour of good housekeeping. There are many minor measures that simply bring Bill C-30 up to date. However, some of these minor measures are perhaps not worded as carefully as they might be. We see the authorized use, regulated use-but how prudently regulated, we wonder- of pesticides and other toxic substances in the parks. I find even the contemplation of this a rather daunting prospect. There is certainly provision for spills in transportation. I suppose that has to be there if that kind of transportation is going to be permitted. But it is certainly a rather dismal prospect that there would be toxic substances used in the parks.
We have had pressure from the Government of Alberta and Conservatives from that province who would want to make greater use of pesticides, and who believe that we have to protect the human commercial areas adjacent to national parks. Not only do they want to encroach into the national parks but they want to reduce the naturalness of our national parks by allowing the use of these toxic substances, supposedly to protect commercial activities next to the parks. It is a very short-sighted approach, that profits in the short term are all we should be considering. We have thousands of toxic substances in use and we do not know what the impact will be on the environment. We would like to think there are some areas where there would be an absolutely total ban. I would like to think there are some areas where the use of chemical pesticides simply would not be contemplated.
National parks themselves would be threatened enough by the waters and by air coming into them from some other areas. The idea that we would permit or in any way encourage the use of chemical pesticides in national parks seems to me to be very unfortunate. Therefore, when we talk about regulation,

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
does it mean zero regulation or some regulation? We have too many people in the pesticide business who think that as long as we do not have too much of it at any one time, it is all right. They completely forget the cumulative effect of chemical pesticides. The stuff does not go away. It is there in the soil, in the ground water and it continues to have its effect year after year after year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the Hon. Member's attention that her time has expired. However, I will give her another minute or so to wind up.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be a disposition of the House to grant my colleague the traditional 40 minutes? As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Bill was brought forward without notice on Friday and a number of other Members had to participate. I see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is here today as well and perhaps he would like 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) will have an extra 60 seconds.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will just take one minute to wrap up by saying that we certainly support this Bill. We think it is important. We want to see some further clarification and we are looking for certain amendments. I hope the Minister will address these questions very promptly. I hope this will be put into the context that we need stronger environmental protection. A Ministry which has slashed its budget in the environment, I think, has to answer these questions and not simply ask us to be confident that everything will be done properly. I think we need very precise assurances. Is the Minister going to give way on the ski areas? Is he going to give way on development? Is he going to put commercial interests ahead of conservation? I think he has to answer those questions. I hope he will answer them favourably.
We will support him in taking a very strong stand for the environment. This Bill goes some of the way but it does not go quite far enough. We would like to be very sure that mistakes are not made, that we get a very clear definition of wilderness areas so that we will have a National Parks Act of which we as Canadians can be proud, an Act which will ensure some protection for future generations.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I was extremely surprised to hear the Hon. Member say that Liberal Governments did nothing for national parks. I know she has a reputation for telling the truth and I do not think that she would want to mislead the House. Any objective person who looks at our record will see that during the 1970s, the number of national parks was more than doubled. In fact, they were substantially
increased. I can recall when the Hon. Jean Chretien was appointed Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At that time national parks was under that Ministry. The number of national parks in Canada was relatively small and were doubled, if not tripled. I can go through the list of national parks. I do not know the exact number but there was a substantial increase of national parks at that time. I was also the Minister responsible.
I challenge anyone in this House to look at the great increase in national parks under the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. There was a substantial increase not only in national parks but in historic places, in canals and waterways. There was a fantastic increase. I think to suggest otherwise to the House is simply to mislead the House and the country.
I might say as well that in the period when I was the Minister responsible for national parks, we did not always get the co-operation we wanted in establishing new parks from New Democratic and Conservative provincial Governments. As a matter of fact, very often they took a very dog in the manager approach to the creation of national parks in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. I challenge anyone to look at the record and to stand by that kind of statement.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked only in generalities. He did not name one park. He did not name one square mile. He just talked about his wonderful record. I do not have the dates or the square miles with me either. I would be a little bit skeptical about these kinds of claims. Let him put on the record exactly what the Liberal achievement was. I do not think that it was very good. The result is that we have a relatively small part of our national heritage devoted to national parks after a very long period of Liberal Government. Let the Hon. Member be specific if he really wants to make that case.


William Warren Allmand: I would be glad to.


Lynn McDonald: I would be very glad to listen to him, but I am not impressed.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the presentation of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I happen to enjoy one of the national parks in Saskatchewan. It is called Prince Albert National Park. Of course we go through the same kind of discussion there as to commercial activities versus environmental concerns.
The point I want to make is that we have to keep in mind that national parks are for people and, I suppose, for wildlife as well, but primarily for the enjoyment of people. I certainly want to protect these parks for centuries to come.
It seems to me that we tend to forget that we have to maintain a balance. I suggest that this is a rather imperfect
April 19, 1988

balance when we look at a figure of as little as 1 per cent or less. As a matter of fact, it would be a mere fraction of the total land surface of national parks devoted to some kind of town site with some commercial activity that is there to serve the needs of people. Of course, the thousands of square miles that are devoted to our heritage are there for conservation purposes.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member to expand a little and to try to demonstrate perhaps a little better understanding. In her presentation this morning I detected that she felt that the Act and that the Conservatives, particularly people from Alberta and western Canada, have no feeling for these concerns. I do not think that is accurate. I would like her to comment on that.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to comment on that very crucial question. The Hon. member talked about balance. My whole point is that the balance is too skewed the other way. If 98.5 per cent of land surface is devoted to commercial activity and 1.5 per cent is devoted to national parks, and then a lobby group of Alberta back-benchers is talking about reducing that 1.5 per cent to something smaller, then I think that the balance is entirely missing.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is not true.


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Member said that I did not think people in the West or Alberta understood. My point is that there are many environmentalists, many people who are concerned to preserve some of our heritage, our physical heritage, for future generations. There are people who are concerned. I do not think that the Alberta Conservative caucus represents those people.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: And you think you do?


Lynn McDonald: Let me quote from one Alberta Member who said, "They could not offend anyone to do some angle drilling for gas and oil from outside the parks' boundaries". He does not see any objection to limited to moderate lumber developments. Good grief, this is just saying that we will use the national parks for making a fast buck, the same as the rest of the country. That is against the whole idea. Some areas need to be preserved as wilderness areas. Some areas must provide for the preservation of some species. There must be some areas where we human beings will not be boss and kill off everything else with chemical pesticides or what have you. There must be some areas about which we will be thinking for the future and where there will be some conservation.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is thank goodness that the elks and the bears do not have television sets to watch and listen to this sort of nonsense. It is a prime example of a distortion of what in fact has happened. It makes me a little annoyed.
The point I am trying to make is that we have to strike a balance with respect to what the status quo is today, for
National Parks Act
example, when we take a look at a national park. I am all for including more national parks in the country. We have to take a look at setting aside town sites which represent probably less than 1 per cent of our national parks. Surely to goodness, as we do in our cities right now where we have such things as zoning by-laws, we have to be very careful as to what we will allow into parks. For goodness' sakes, let us separate the wilderness from the town sites. That is the point I am trying to make. I think that the Hon. Member has taken this to the extreme and has brought in all kinds of other issues which are totally unrelated.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that some Conservative Members, and I believe it is true of some Liberal Members as well, want to have it both ways. They talk about wanting wilderness areas and everyone to be there to enjoy it. They must have restaurants and motels so that they can enjoy these wilderness areas in comfort. But then one cannot have a wilderness area if one has all these amenities. Let us not kid ourselves. That is ordinary tourism, which is perfectly desirable. I am not objecting to that. But there has to be something separate from that. There needs to be some areas which are wilderness areas that protect nature, that say this is an area in which the human destructive urges are going to be limited and we are going to keep something from being wrecked by the normal processes of civilization for the future.


Ms. Jewett:: You would think that the dinosaur club would like that.


Lynn McDonald: Dinosaur club indeed. Let me quote another dinosaur who said that decisions regarding highway construction and maintenance should reflect the important role they play in Canada's economy and not be based solely on park land use criteria. This is saying that a park should not be a park, but a place where highways go and the normal economic criteria are the ones that would count. That is missing the whole point of having wilderness areas and having national parks.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). A few moments ago the Hon. Member made reference to a particular Alberta Member of Parliament. I hope that she had a particular one in mind since I am going to ask her to identify that Member of Parliament. As I understood the Hon. Member, a particular Alberta Member of Parliament said or recommended that angle drilling and lumbering in national parks was all right. I would appreciate if the Hon. Member would identify the Alberta Member of Parliament and the source that she is using.
By making the statement as she did she brings into question all Alberta Members of Parliament and their positions on this issue.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that intervention. I hope that the Hon. Member will rise and give a very strong

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
pro-conservation, pro-environment, pro-parks speech. I think that would be very important.
I cannot give the Hon. Member the source of the quote right now. I will give it to him later. The Member I am quoting is the Eton. Member for Crow's Nest. With respect to the highway construction it is another one from the Alberta Government. I can give him the exact quote on the spot.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am afraid that, again, we are dealing with NDP fear, fabrication and fantasy. In fact, there is no Member for Crow's Nest.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, first, I would ask the Hon. Member when she replies to my question to make any further comments.
We have been having an uproar in British Columbia because of the Government's attitude on Strathcona and the possible despoliation of Strathcona. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if she sees any possible replication in the Government's attitudes, the dinosaur club's attitudes in this Bill. Is there any potential replication of the Strathcona affair on Vancouver Island?


Lynn McDonald: I apologize for the mistake. It was the riding of Crowfoot, and it is contained in a newspaper interview.
In answer to the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) I think the Strathcona situation in British Columbia is one of the most flagrant examples of the misuse of provincial parks. This is an example of simply rezoning an area that is supposed to be wilderness, or it had limited development, and calling it a recreational area, then mining, lumbering, and other economic activities can be allowed. I would hate to think that the Government would be so unenlightened, but the legislation is not clear enough. It does not state precisely what wilderness areas will be. It gives the Minister the right to designate wilderness areas, and it talks about activities consistent with protecting wilderness areas. Since there is little understanding about what a wilderness area is in the caucus at large, and I do not know if that is true for the Minister and I hope that he will clear it up, we must be a little worried. That could be dealt with by having a clear amendment about what is a wilderness area, in order that people will not have to be worried about a repeat of the Strathcona Park affair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister is anxious to close the debate. We are not only on the motion of the Minister, but on the motion of another Member whereby there could be further speakers. I think that it would add to the total quality of this debate if the Minister had an
opportunity to answer some of the questions asked and dispelled certain fears, some may be legitimate and some may not be, and concluded with the full knowledge of the criticism put forward rather than being attacked from the back, so to speak, after he has spoken.
I am glad to take the floor at this point. In answer to the question put forward by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), I would like to give him additional information now that he knows it is the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) who was quoted on angle drilling in parks as a possibility for exploitation. As to the source, we can only go by one that is highly reputable, because it comes from the city of the Hon. Member, and it is The Edmonton Journal for Tuesday, December 15, 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: Not only did it contain the gem of angle drilling, which everyone found quite amusing, but it also contained another interesting notion attributed to the same Hon. Member for Crowfoot, namely, the possibility that he sees room for some "limited to moderate lumber developments". That was contained in the same article.
Evidently we are dealing here with quotations. We all know from past experience that they are not all reliable. We will be glad to give the Hon. Member for Crowfoot the benefit of the doubt of a misquote.
Where we cannot give him or other colleagues from Alberta the same benefit of the doubt, because the source is solid and irrefutable, is in a letter from the Chairman of the Edmonton chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society dated January 10, 1988. In that letter, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a couple of sentences in which Mr. Rasmussen writes: "I realize that the Alberta caucus is lobbying hard to alter or stall the Bill", namely Bill C-30. "Frankly, the Bill is not nearly strong enough in its protectionist stance. However, on behalf of the membership of my organization, I urge you", and this is a circular letter addressed to all Members of Parliament, "to move it in an unaltered form to a second reading in the very near future".
Mr. Rasmussen goes on to say, "The Alberta caucus is very much out of touch with Albertans on this issue". That is an interesting statement coming from someone in Edmonton, not from one of us here, or an unwashed Member of Parliament from Toronto. Mr. Rasmussen goes on to say: "The letters and editorials are unanimously against the development stance. In fact, there has not been a single letter", meaning letter to the editor, "supporting the stance of the Alberta caucus. The press in all other Alberta centres is running the same on this issue!"
The substance of this letter is that there is a national consensus to get this Bill going and through. The sentiments expressed by Mr. Rasmussen are such, coming from Alberta, that we have to take them into account and give them the credence and the weight that they deserve, unless Alberta
April 19, 1988

Members in the House would like to rise and debate the content of Mr. Rasmussen's letter dated January 10, 1988.
In detail the Bill contains a number of measures that we do support. Those measures are strangely reminiscent of a decision made in 1984 to amend the Bill. In other words, the Bill contains a set of measures, except for one or two, including the one that deals with the citizens' heritage fund, which have been available to the Government for action since it came into power in September, 1984, three and a half years ago.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior, did on Friday, we would like to express our support in general terms. On more than one occasion on Thursdays when the business of the House is called, the Liberal Party inquired with the House Leader of the Government as to when this Bill would be brought forward. That is something that does not happen very often.
Having analysed the Bill in depth, I have some reservations about the weakness of clauses 1.3 to 1.6 on pollution. It seems to me that those clauses need to be strengthened. Perhaps they were written in isolation from what we have been attempting to do on Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment. I would hope when the Minister will appear in committee he will find it possible to come forward with amendments that will strengthen the pollution clauses of the Bill. Perhaps today he has some comments to make to that effect.
In those particular clauses on the costs of clean-up, I would urge the Minister to review the Bill carefully as we are approving it on second reading. Since we will have an opportunity in committee to examine it clause by clause, I urge the Minister to come forward with an amendment to strengthen those clauses. If not, we in the Opposition will be prepared to do so, provided we receive the necessary support from Members on the government side.
The main controversy which has been raised by others is whether or not the Ministers can give us assurance, possibly today, on the question of boundaries in the ski area. That is definitely a source of great uncertainty, speculation, and unnecessary grief. In other words, we would like to be given the assurance that the Government will not come forward in committee with an amendment to the present Bill that will make the boundaries of Sunshine Village changeable by way of a cabinet decision. Therefore, the assurance today in the House that the boundaries of Sunshine Village will remain as they are proposed now at second reading would go a long way in removing fears on the part of all parties concerned, not only in the House, but those outside who follow the proceedings of this Bill very carefully.
I would love to engage, if time were to permit, but I will not, in putting on the record numerous national parks that were established in Liberal times just to straighten out the false
National Parks Act
impression which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has in relation to the Liberal record, which is a very fine and outstanding one. We are very glad to see that our record is being built upon at the present time in the life of this Parliament by Bill C-30, but there is no justification at all for the Member's statement made earlier.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) indicated that the number of national parks introduced when he was the Minister runs into a dozen or more. It would take too much time to cite them all, but they stretch from east to west and from south to north. They are there to be seen by every Canadian who wants to enjoy the beauty and recreation that such parks offer. The national parks system is an outstanding one and it is the envy of every visitor from outside of Canada. What puzzles me is that the Government in October, 1986, in the Speech from the Throne announced the following:
Canada's national parks represent a heritage of great importance to the
present and future generations.
We agree. "My government" said the representative of the Queen in the Senate:
-will ask Parliament to approve major reforms to the National Parks Act.
Where are the major reforms in this Bill? They are extremely difficult to find. Maybe one could make the case for a major reform, as the Minister no doubt will try to do about the proposed citizens' heritage fund, but that is not something that can go by uncriticized because it has a number of flaws. In my view it is not in that category of initiatives. Why was it necessary for almost four years to go by to introduce a piece of legislation which so closely reminds us of decisions which were ready for this Government to make when it took power in September, 1984? That is a puzzle very few can answer.
The Government has demonstrated by this enormous delay since September, 1984,-when there was also a hiatus between two administrations and a lack of legislation-that it cannot manage in a competent manner the flow of legislative measures to be introduced in this House. This very measure we are debating here today, I submit, could have been debated in 1985, at the latest in 1986, because it was all there to be brought forward. No wonder if Canadians in communities across the country, who cherish and place a high value, understandably and quite rightly so, on our national parks systems and ways to strengthen and improve them, have become so frustrated. To add to that particular frustration is this uncertainty created in Alberta, in your own province, Mr. Speaker, as reflected in the letter written by Mr. Rasmussen which I read a few moments ago.
We have within the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus two members, one is the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) whose tendency is to favour angle-drilling in national parks, and the other is the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who would like, if one reads between the lines in what he said, our national parks to be turned into tourist playgrounds. That would be the ultimate joy and accomplishment

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
for the Member from Bow River. On the one hand he finds that the taxation system on citizens of Banff and Jasper is too high, yet he had to admit that citizens do not want to switch to a municipal type of government as in any other part of the country. Evidently there are some advantages in the regime that Canadians in Banff and Jasper do enjoy, otherwise they would have already opted and decided in favour of introducing a municipal form of government in their own towns.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, the importance of spelling out the boundaries of the ski areas in the three parks, namely, Banff, Jasper and Riding Mountain, as this Bill does, and to obtain the assurance that these boundaries will remain entrenched in the Bill so that the assurance will be in a legislative form and changes will not be possible by way of an executive decision.
In moving on to the question of the citizens' heritage fund proposed by the Minister in Clause 8, the question is one that shifts the onus for the establishment of such a fund from the public to private initiative. The creation of a fund by way of a competitive effort with other efforts which take place every year and frequently in any community region and across the country is in itself a disadvantage. Second, the fund would be put at the disposal of the Minister and we would not know how that fund would be applied, how the decisions would be made on priorities, whether it would be a highly political fund or one whose utilization would be guided by principles having to do with the best interests of improving the quality and the extent of the national parks system. We do not think it will be a fund that will not be perceived as a slush fund by the public.
Therefore, we would much rather see an approach recommended by the task force on park establishment in November, 1986 of a 5 per cent minimum allocation yearly in Parks Canada's total annual budget to build up and develop over the next five years and more a capital acquisition fund. After a very few years that fund would be substantial, and it would allow acquisition with a degree of certainty. Money would be built up and everybody would know that by a certain date funds would be available. It would permit a gradual, constant, well planned expansion of the already fine system we have.
We are all trying to search for ways of establishing a capital acquisition fund for parks, and I do not want to knock down completely the proposal in Clause 8, but I can assure Hon. Members that it lends itself to a number of very legitimate criticisms which I am sure the Minister will take into account and deal with. I believe that out of general revenue which provides funds to the newly named Environment Canada Parks, the allocation ought to be established. Then there would be continuity and consistency so that in the long term these funds would be reliably built up.
When dealing with acquisitions of this size and with a program that is intergenerational, we want to provide for something that does not depend on the whims of economic
conditions as they exist from one year to the next or on the whims of the success or lack of success of fund-raising initiatives. This particular sector of public interest deserves stability and continuity of this nature.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), dealt on Friday with traditional subsistence activities and with Clause 4 in particular, and I would like to reinforce what he said. This is the measure that recognizes the fact that new national parks must not inhibit traditional activities carried on by local native people. We are glad to see that this measure is being introduced because it was part of a package that was ready for implementation in 1984. It commands the attention of all of us who are concerned about the stability of the economies of native people in national parks.
I will conclude by stressing the importance, as others have, of wilderness zones. If this Bill had been introduced in 1985, we would certainly be ahead with that particular activity. A policy was already in practice at that time. The removal of the powers of expropriation is a new feature which I do not support because I think those powers ought to be in the Bill. Expropriation ought to be used very carefully, of course, but there may be times, over a period of 20, 30 or 40 years, when we may want to use expropriation powers in a careful and thoughtful manner. Without those powers, our ability to establish new areas will be weakened.
I do welcome the poaching regulations contained in Clause 7, but I find that the fines for the poaching of game animals such as caribou, elk and deer are far too low. In light of a television program which appeared a couple of weeks ago, we see that poaching is now an activity which constitutes an emergency, and I hope that either today or in committee, the Minister will indicate that these fines will be strengthened in a manner that will make it prohibitive to conduct such activity. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing the next Hon. Member,


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the need to have a clear definition of wilderness areas. I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on that. I wonder as well if he would comment on how much wilderness area we need.
Such a very small proportion of Canada is devoted to national parks. Would he therefore be in agreement that it would be desirable for Canada to have a much larger proportion of land devoted to national parks, particularly to wilderness areas within parks? Would he want to put a percentage figure on that?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), I do not have instant answers. On a matter of such complexity as wilderness zones, I do not know if anyone could give an immediate response by way of percentages or direct numbers.
April 19, 1988

Of course, there is an enormous potential for wilderness zones. One would want to put aside the largest possible acreage one could put his or her hands on in areas that would qualify and would be suitable. The concept is a very good one, and as I said in my intervention, this policy has already been in practice for some time.
The creation of a wilderness national parks status is something that we should examine in committee in great depth. Perhaps we could also find the correct phraseology to use in introducing such an amendment. We might even conclude, after studying the Bill, that there are certain parks, though perhaps not all of them, that could be set aside as wilderness reserves. Thus we could enhance and elevate the status of existing national parks. Obviously, in order to be successful with that, we would have to be very firm on pollution-control measures. As the Hon. Member knows, wilderness is easily affected by certain chemical products, and therefore we must establish the linkages necessary for the protection of wildlife over-all.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, because certain Hon. Members are not very familiar with the national parks system in Canada, and in particular the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who said that under Liberal Governments nothing had been done, is the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) aware of the fact that under the Trudeau Government alone, the following national parks were created: Kejimkujik in Nova Scotia, Kouchibouguac in New Brunswick, La Mauricie in Quebec, Pacific Rim in British Columbia, Forillon in Quebec, Gros Morne in Newfoundland, Pukaskwa in Ontario, Kluane in the Yukon Territories, Nahanni in the Northwest Territories, Auyuitiuq in the Northwest Territories, Grasslands in Saskatchewan, Mingan in Quebec and the Northern Yukon Park in the Yukon Territory which came at the end of the regime and was followed through by the Government opposite?
That makes 13 national parks created under the Trudeau Government alone, out of a total of 32. I said that they were doubled, but 1 was wrong. They were close to doubled since 13 out of 32 were created since 1968 when Mr. Trudeau came to power. That does not include the national historic sites of which there are now 80 in Canada, many of which were created under the previous Liberal Government, not to mention the heritage rivers and canals.
Is the Hon. Member also aware of the fact that in Canada we now have 180,000 square kilometres set aside for national parks, one of the largest areas in the world, and that most of those parks were created under Liberal Governments which were in power during that time and gave a high priority to national parks?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is highly qualified to ask this question because he is a former Minister concerned with northern affairs and national parks. He was
National Parks Act
personally involved in the establishment of some of the parks that he just mentioned.
As I said, the record speaks for itself, and it is an outstanding record. The system is there to be seen by visitors. I would not be surprised if the St. Lawrence Island National Park was also established by a former Liberal Government. I would not be surprised if Point Pelee National Park were in that category as well. I am not quite sure about Mount Revelstoke National Park and Elk Island National Park, but the fact is that the whole system was given momentum and great impetus by successive Liberal administrations. That does not mean that negotiations at times, as the Hon. Member indicated, cannot go on so long that sometimes a park is announced and launched when the Progressive Conservative Party is in power. The Bruce Peninsula negotiations started a long time ago, even before my time here. I would like to add to that Ellesmere, an area over which negotiations go back over a decade or so.
This is a very tricky field in which to claim paternity or maternity, but nevertheless the basic point is that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood who unfortunately is not here to listen to us, made a statement that was a little bit off the mark, and that we in Canada have a fantastic network of parks of which we can collectively be very proud.


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


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-30. The Bill means a great deal to western Canada, if not to all of Canada.
First I would like to congratulate the Minister for introducing the Bill. It contains many excellent amendments to the Act and I want to commend him especially for the new poaching laws to protect wildlife. It is extremely important that our national parks be protected. The parks are there for everyone to enjoy, whether they be hikers, skiers, visitors, or even residents of one of the town sites such as Banff, Jasper, or indeed Waterton National Park.
Tourism and the environment can work together. We in the Conservative Party certainly do not want to promote a cement jungle or a Coney Island situation in any of our national parks. However, we feel that with open debate and meetings, with participation by the residents of the various parks, we can sit down and design a controlled-type of development that will be beneficial not only to those residents but to the provinces as well.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, coming from that great province, we in Alberta have more square kilometres of national park than any other province and are very pleased and proud to have them. Within Banff and Jasper National Parks we have skiing facilities which have been in place for many years. I am a skier and have been for about 30 or 35 years. Since about 1965 or 1966 I spent almost every weekend during the ski season skiing at Sunshine, Lake Louise or even Marmot

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
Basin up near your area. We are very proud of those skiing areas.
Our main problem today is that a lot of the facilities in those parks have to be replaced in order to make them competitive with other areas such as Whistler or indeed places like Aspen which have tremendous skiing facilities. I would like to see this Bill go to committee where the Minister can appear along with other witnesses to discuss how we can maintain some of these excellent skiing facilities in order to bring tourists and other visitors to our parks so they can enjoy the facilities.
Another area I wanted to discuss concerns the boundaries of the Towns of Banff and Jasper. It is noted in Bill C-30 that the Governor in Council may fix the boundaries of those two towns by an order adding a description of those boundaries as a schedule to the Act. I am very pleased to see that. The Minister has been very open and honest and feels he has to go to the residents of those areas and talk to them. He has to hear and see their concerns before carving the boundaries in stone. I must thank him for that move.
During the past two and a half years I have visited Jasper, Banff and Lake Louise and talked to their Chambers of Commerce as well as the residents about self-government. They also want self-sufficiency. They want to protect their areas. They do not want open development, they want controlled development so they can move towards selfsufficiency and reliability. I have to say that here again the Minister said he would have open meetings. He will listen to the people who live there, the people who are designing the future of those areas. Then, after close consultation with them and his officials, and indeed I hope the House, he will bring forward recommendations as to what the boundaries might be or indeed should be.
I think that is part of our efforts at national reconciliation, where the decisions are not made here in Ottawa without consultation. This Government is moving towards talking to the people in the provinces and the industry to decide what they need and what is best.
I have also had a lot of discussions with the Minister's department concerning land lease rates. The 1980 assessment value on properties in Banff, Jasper and Waterton National Parks proved to be perhaps too much of a hardship. Some of the rates increased by 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 per cent. This Government does not feel that we should make a decision here and enforce it on people somewhere else in Canada, and we are reviewing the land lease rates and the assessment value of the various properties in those areas. A special committee has been formed which will make recommendations to the Minister. I know he will review those recommendations with all due care and try to make things more fair and equitable for the people who live in those areas.
With regard to the wilderness areas, it is very difficult to put boundaries on them. Perhaps many people here in the House
today have never visited some of these huge parks in western Canada. It would be totally impossible to lay out specifically all the boundaries for wilderness areas. The mountain ranges are very vast and the Minister would have a great deal of difficulty if he tried to carve those boundaries in stone.
I am very interested in Bill C-30. It should really go to committee where we can hear the concerns of the people from the various parks and also hear from representatives of the tourism industry why they want to maintain and upgrade their equipment in order to attract people to the parks.
Therefore, I would like to move:
That this House sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing
consideration of Bill C-30, an Act to amend the National Parks Act and to
amend an Act to amend the National Parks Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is adopted.
Motion (Mrs. Sparrow) agreed to.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I feel decidedly of two minds about the continuation of the debate at the moment. It has been as badly handled as the parks system of Canada very often has been. This debate began Friday when the Minister was not here and other people, including our critic on the environment, were not here to take part in the debate. The debate blundered on this morning with one of the Members from Alberta speaking first.
The Minister has been sitting there quietly not saying a word. He has had several opportunities to speak to the matter. He is, I am sure, taking it all in, but we expect the Minister to make a statement on the Bill, to make a defence of it. Rather, he sits there quietly, wanders around behind the curtains, and pays some attention to the debate. When does he intend to get into it and give us a defence of what he has put forward? More significantly, when does he plan to deal with those shortcomings in the Bill which have not been provided for?
There has been a nice debate between members of the Official Opposition and the Government on who should get credit for the development of the parks system. Longevity always helps in these matters and the Liberals, having had the privilege of governing this country for so much of this century, can, of course, take credit for a good deal of parks creation. However, to ensure that the parks system is maintained and provided for through legislation is surely the responsibility of the present Minister.
The Bill has significant shortcomings. It fails in a number of very important areas to provide for what is already supposedly the policy of the Government. For a private Member of the governing caucus to pull this particular stunt, with the
April 19, 1988

connivance of the Ministry of course, while the Minister sits there quietly not having said anything in the debate so far, seems to me to be a contemptible use of this House by the Conservative Government.
It is truly contemptible to interfere with the proper order of the day, to attempt to conclude the matter today by speaking through the noon hour when the debate on something which is of enormous importance to Canadians has barely started. The Government House Leader smiles his sarcastic smile and serves up another piece of the arrogance of the Conservatives which we have seen all too often.
With those comments on the way in which this has been done, let me turn to Bill C-30, which is of such enormous importance to all Canadians who recognize the need for a well developed parks system. Canadians recognize that Canada, which covers such a large part of the earth's surface, has responsibility for its large natural resources and has all too often been preoccupied with the economic value of those resources. Canadians recognize the importance of the parks system in ensuring that some small part of Canada's territory will be set aside in preserves, in parks, to be enjoyed for decades and centuries to come in as close as possible to its pristine state.
I had intended to ask the Member who has just pulled this parliamentary trick on us whether she is in agreement with the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife in the Alberta Government who has suggested that we need more ski hills in the parks. A good part of the Member's quite short speech was a celebration of skiing in the mountains of Alberta and British Columbia. That certainly leaves me suspicious that she is not all that committed to the development and maintenance of our parks system.
The way in which this whole matter has been treated leaves me acutely suspicious, together with my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus, that the Conservatives have gone some distance toward doing what they had to do, that is, providing legislative amendments which the operation of the parks and the working responsibility of the officials absolutely required. However, they have neglected to put into this Bill those matters which have apparently already been established as government policy.
Given this particular manoeuver, I find it more difficult to say that we in our caucus are supportive of Bill C-30 as far as it goes. This Bill dates back to 1930 and was only amended significantly once, in 1974. As our sensitivity to the needs of the parks has developed and as the threat to the parks system has become more acute, there has been a very significant advance in our understanding of what is required. The failure of the Government to provide for that in this Bill leaves us with constrained support. To provide legislative housekeeping needed for the smooth operation of the national parks is a basic necessity for good administration. To put current parks policy into legislation is again taking a very small step.
National Parks Act
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), who does like to celebrate his own accomplishments and to put on a fine front before the environmentalists of the country, could do a lot better than he has in this Bill. He could have done a lot better by speaking to the Bill and possibly opening himself up to some questions and comments, although the rules of the House tend to constrain that in ways which are quite detrimental.
I find it particularly unfortunate that it seems to be the intention to have the entire second reading debate in as brief a time as possible. It was thrown into the House on Friday and they want to wrap it up on the following Tuesday and get it into legislative committee. Lord knows what sort of attacks on the parliamentary process will take place in the committee.
My friend, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), has already pointed out the need for far more frankness by the Government in dealing with the parks system of the country. That was a point made in a briefing note to my colleagues and myself.
The refusal of the Minister to rise to the occasion and speak on policy and his refusal to come to grips with the needs of the parks system and to ensure they are met, only underscores the Government's lack of frankness.
This country needs a government that will support parks as natural preserves, not as tourist sites to attract floods of people. Obviously, we want Canadians to have an opportunity to appreciate and enjoy natural preserves, but that calls for careful control of how we operate them. We want to ensure that the Government is committed to that kind of principle.
We need a government that will allocate resources to parks development with the funds of Canadians, without opening the kinds of possibilities that obtain with the citizens, heritage fund proposal of the Minister. There must be a clear commitment by the Government through taxpayers' funds to ensure that the parks system is maintained and expanded. Obviously this means that there must be clear evidence that the Government is really committed without equivocation to the development of the national parks system of Canada. There are very serious questions about whether that is really the case.
For example, the concept of wilderness is integral to the concern about natural preserves. Only when we know how those within the Government responsible for the parks system envisage wilderness will we be assured that the preserves will remain in perpetuity for the people of Canada to enjoy. The Bill does not provide for that because there is no definition. One is left guessing at the Government's intention as to what wilderness may be.
The fact that the suggestion for activities within these parks include aircraft and surface transportation rates is a real concern. We are particularly suspicious of Conservative caucus members from Alberta who want highways development in

April 19, 1988
National Parks Act
parks removed from the control of the department responsible for the parks. There is a very clear danger that in spite of our desire to maintain wilderness areas, roads will be built to cut through these parks and thereby violate the sense of wilderness and the entire ecology of the park system. The failure to define wilderness in the Bill leaves us with no assurance that this fundamental need within the parks system will be met by the Government.
Another concern is the lack of clear provision for certain subsistence activities that can be carried on in parks. This is a concern that arises as parks are established in northern areas and places where aboriginal peoples still subsist on the natural resources and wildlife. We must take into account the treaty rights and more recent land negotiation agreements with our aboriginal peoples when we are establishing these parks. We want to ensure that in allowing these activities to continue in some parks there is a clear definition of them within the legislation. The failure to do so properly in Bill C-30 arouses a great deal of concern.
We must be concerned that others may try to assume the rights being given to aboriginal peoples, which represents more than just the thin edge of the wedge. As the wedge opens the park more and more to these activities what assurances are there that the desire to maintain the preserves as much as possible will be respected in these circumstances?
The Government's failure to define these matters clearly are reasons for the constrained support and concern about the Minister's and the Government's policy on parks that I have been expressing.
These concerns find their greatest expression in two of our greatest and oldest national parks in the Rockies, in which the towns of Jasper and Banff are located. There has been a certain amount of skiing activity in these parks for some time. The Bill does not provide us with proper assurance with respect to the boundaries of the town sites within the parks, and that substantial commercial development along with ski development will be carefully controlled within the parks.
I wish to pursue some even greater concerns than those particular elements in the Bill I have discussed. There is the matter of the establishment of national marine parks. If anyone listening thinks that these remarks have been rhetoric brought up for the occasion, particularly as we speak into the lunch hour, let me say clearly and firmly that in the matter of national marine parks it is anything but rhetoric. Here we see one of the most significant indications of the failure of the Minister, which makes it no surprise to me that he sits there silent, ashamed to get up and speak to the Bill.
We have the opportunity to establish parks along shorelines in various places to add significantly to what already exists within our large land-based parks in the nation. The Government has declared its policy that there will be marine parks, but in this grab bag of amendments to the National Parks Act there is no clear provision for the establishment of these marine parks.
That is particularly unfortunate given the fact that the existing Act, in another of its shortcomings, does not provide clearly for the process by which territory is acquired. The Government of Canada gets the rights to territory and gradually works through the process of creating a national park. That process is not provided for in the existing National Parks Act, so difficulties arise. The Government of Canada has to use one Act and another Act, one form of authorization and another form of authorization, in dealing with provincial Governments, which generally have the rights of the Crown in ownership, if you will, of natural resources. In dealings with provincial Governments, the federal Government has great difficulties in carrying the process through.
The Minister walks out of the House, presumably off to his lunch, leaving behind a Bill which has not provided properly for a process for the acquisition of territory and the process of establishing a park. That seems to me a monstrous shortcoming in the Bill. He should have a declaration of policy for the establishment of national marine parks when the process is finally concluded, a process which has, by ministerial directive and under one pretext or another, to be carried forward. Not to have the final basis provided for the final destination of the process, if you will, and a national marine park provided, only underscores how limited Bill C-30 really is.
As a Member of Parliament from Northern Ontario, whose riding includes a vast chunk of northwestern Ontario land, small lakes, rivers and so on, my constituency has Lake Superior located on its southern border. Lake Superior is a great body of water. As we all know it is the largest lake of this kind on the face of the earth. It has one national park, a territory abutting on the north, but no necessity in our concern to provide natural preserves for the establishment of a marine park on Lake Superior.
I am not the only one who feels that lack. I am particularly critical of the failure to provide for national marine parks. We should have a basis for establishing such a park on Lake Superior, to draw this great lake to the attention of Canadians from coast to coast, and people from other countries as well, and encourage them to enjoy a part of it. It should be something as close to the pristine state as we can find.


Charles L. Caccia: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the government Party called for an extension of debate into the lunch hour. I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would wish to call a quorum.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do see a quorum now.
April 19, 1988

The Elon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has just completed his speech. His time has expired. Are there questions are comments? There are no questions or comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Hawkes) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.20 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.20 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada held its convention over the week-end and, on that occasion, several resolutions of great importance if women are to achieve social equality were passed because the Liberal Party is convinced that women must get the help they need to achieve equality in society. This means that work in the home must be considered as the responsibility of both parents and of society as a whole. This means that education and training circles must be made aware of the special needs of women. Job equality and equal pay for equal work programs must be carried out immediately and remain in force as long as women's wages are not equal to men's.
The labour market and the education system must recognize the needs of men and women, not only as employees but as parents. The system must evolve and consider workers and students, both men and women, as parents with family
responsibilities who want to have some time to spend with their children.
Job equality goes hand in hand with the establishment of family assistance services, and the Liberal Party considers that the government must act now. It is unacceptable and unreasonable to think that obstacles to the women employment will, given time, go away on their own. Job equality will become a reality only if we make it happen.
And the Liberal Party of Canada has decided to adopt these resolutions aimed at equality for women in the workplace.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to report on a meeting that I attended Sunday evening with two dozen very concerned residents in a fashionable new housing development on the Mountain in my riding.
The problem that my constituents raised with the Minister responsible for Canada Post is this. With no door-to-door mail delivery anywhere in the area there is only one tiny postal counter, and it is located in a variety store which is right next door to a strip joint: "Girls, Girls, Girls, Six Nights a Week", and a hard rock club, all of which suggests that this convenience store provides considerably more variety than usual.
My neighbours told me bluntly that what we do not need is our wives and children being molested because of a strip joint next door to a so-called convenience store.
I toured the area and was appalled at the proximity of a rack of pornographic magazines and tapes no more than six feet away from the postal counter. Surely this shabby situation is unacceptable.
I urge the Minister and Canada Post to take immediate action to provide this new, large and growing community with proper mail service, and preferably door-to-door delivery.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was an alert phoned to many Canadians about Guatemala. Rigoberta Mencher, an outspoken critic of the army in Guatemala, who has been living in Canada, and Orlando Castillo, were arrested at the airport returning to Guatemala,

April 19, 1988
along with others, including the Right Rev. Bob Smith, a former Moderator of the United Church of Canada.
Phone calls, telexes, and other communications from Canadians went to encourage their release. Today, Ambassador Federico Ulloa phoned to tell me that Mencher and Castillo were released for lack of evidence or lack of a sustainable charge, and were at all times during their arrest accompanied by a representative of the Human Rights Commission of Guatemala.
I congratulate the Government of Guatemala on making progress in respect for human rights. I congratulate Canadians and others who kept watch on human rights in Guatemala and sent the encouraging telexes.



ABORTION


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it must be costing the taxpayers of Canada a tremendous sum of money to process, feed and clothe, and accommodate the thousands of immigrants who are coming daily to our country. It is ironic that while we are populating our country with people from other lands we are permitting some 60,000 unborn babies in Canada every year to be murdered in the womb.
Abortion has been wrong since the beginning of life, and is still wrong because it defies God's moral law and the natural law governing all men and women. Is it not time we started spending some money to keep the family together and to help women and girls to keep their babies, along the lines presently being followed by the Government of British Columbia?
We are listening to everybody except the unborn baby. Mr. Speaker, can you not hear the silent cry from a baby in the womb, who is being torn apart, asking: "Why can't I live?"



PUBLISHING INDUSTRY


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's approval of the sale of New American Library to Penguin Books appears to have given the final death blow to the Baie Comeau book publishing policy. Over and over again the Government has stated that it is committed to building a Canadian publishing industry, but recent government actions demonstrate otherwise.
The 1985 Baie Comeau book publishing policy stipulated that in any takeover of a Canadian based publishing company or subsidiary, either directly or indirectly through an international merger, a foreign buyer must find a majority Canadian partner for the subsidiary within two years.
Last month the Government announced its offer to buy 51 per cent equity control of Ginn Canada from American entertainment conglomerate Gulf and Western. However, it appears to have allowed the retention of a veto power over significant operating decisions. This offer does not make good business sense for Canadian management, because it disallows and disavows Canadian control.
Now, with the NAL takeover, the Government has shown a total lack of commitment not only to its own policy but to the building of a Canadian publishing industry. It is time that the Government re-read Baie Comeau, this time the lines, not just between them.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, during this first term, we have tried to emphasize the importance of the individual by letting people live responsibly, with dignity, instead of holding them hostage and keeping them in a servile state.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is proud of this achievement and has no regrets about putting its trust in the people of this country who are the motor of the economy. Never before have Canadians been as confident about the stability and guarantees of their social policies. It took the Progressive Conservative Party to bring about this change and the resulting prosperity in this country. For a long time, the general attitude was to depend on the Government, which meant that people lacked self-confidence and failed to develop collective initiatives.
As Sartre said: "Responsibility is a necessary and logical consequence of freedom". The Conservative Government understands and implements this philosophy.



RAIL TRANSPORT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Government, he supported federal funding for commuter rail transit from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver to service those rapidly growing communities. Even the Vander Zalm Government promised $16 million for the project. The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody was quoted locally as saying that there have already been enough studies done.
What is his first act as junior Transport Minister? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, he and his provincial counterpart announced another study.
1 believe that the federal Government has the money and the clout with CP Rail to make commuter rail happen, and to make it happen soon.
Please, Mr. Speaker, we want a specific commitment of federal funds, and a deadline. No more studies!



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has again demonstrated its dedication to the advancement of biotechnology in Canada. This month the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council together with Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. allocated $6.4 million to the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization of Saskatoon. This is the largest grant ever awarded by NSERC under its university-industry program.
Over the next five years these funds will be dedicated to a major research project on animal disease. The greatest beneficiary of this particular venture will be the Canadian livestock industry, which still loses millions of dollars annually to disease.
The expertise in research at the University of Saskatchewan has attracted an international component through the involvement of Ciba-Geigy, and hopefully some of this research will carry on at its headquarters in Switzerland.
I know that all Canadians will join with me in congratulating the University of Saskatchewan, and those companies, for illustrating the potential to be found in academic, corporate, and government co-operation. This is an investment in research which will translate into improved competitiveness for our industries.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
FINANCIAL AID FOR RESTRUCTURING PfiCHEURS-UNIS COMPANY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my disappointment following the federal Government's refusal to assist Les pecheurs-Unis des Maritimes.
The company applied to DRIE for financial assistance to help rationalize its operations. However, the bad news came in a letter signed on March 25 this year by the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism). Yesterday, Judge Alfred Landry of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick rendered his judgment concerning the company's financial problems. He decided the company was not solvent and that the rationalization plan was not feasible, especially since the federal Government had refused to grant financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, by refusing to help the company, the federal Government has put over 800 jobs directly at risk and indirectly endangered hundreds of jobs in the Atlantic region. I urge the Government to work actively towards finding a solution to this very serious problem. Our region cannot afford a loss of this magnitude. The situation is strangely similar to the CN workshop case. Once again, the Government has refused to get involved.



INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian authors, creators, composers, poets, writers, artists, programmers and others who are affected by the issue of intellectual property have now reached the very limits of their patience. Today, they are protected by a law that basically goes back to 1924. Although the House of Commons decided to update the legislation on intellectual property, the Liberals in this House, the Liberal Caucus and the Liberal majority in our non-elected Senate are using all kinds of political tricks and strategies to hold up the legislation on intellectual property.
This is just one more instance that proves, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Leader has no leadership!

April 19, 1988



WELFARE


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia, whose Government has cut back on services to poor people, now has the hypocrisy to say:
If we can somehow help them to get to know Jesus Christ they'll be much happier and their problems will be resolved much easier.
Carl Sandburg, the American poet, didn't know Bill Vander Zalm, but he did know the kind of people who used this kind of pious cant. In 1915 he wrote:
You tell people living in shanties Jesus is going to fix it up all right with them by giving them mansions in the skies after they're dead and the worms have eaten 'em.
You tell $6 a week department store girls all they need is Jesus ...
You tell poor people they don't need any more money on pay day and even if it's fierce to be out of a job, Jesus'll fix that up all right, all right-all they gotta do is take Jesus the way you say.
I'm telling you Jesus wouldn't stand for the stuff you're handing out...



RAILWAYS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, if the Railway Safety Act, Bill C-105, is passed in its present form it will repeal the Railway Relocation Act and for the first time in living memory there will be no legislative authority for railway relocation in Canada.
This comes at a time when Metropolitan Toronto is specially asking for the relocation of rail lines carrying dangerous goods and commodities away from high density residential areas. Hopefully, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and my friends on the Transport Committee, which is currently studying Bill C-105, will reconsider the decision to repeal the Railway Relocation Act.



NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP W EEK


Mr. Claude Lanthier (La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, it being National Citizenship Week, I would like to express today, before my colleagues in the House of Commons and before the people of Canada, my great pride in being a citizen of this beautiful country. I am proud to be a Canadian because Canada, besides being a beautiful country, is also one of the most advanced countries with respect to the rights and freedoms enjoyed by its citizens.
I am proud to live in a wonderful country that encourages all its cultural communities to safeguard and enhance the language and traditions of their ancestors. I am proud to be a citizen of this marvelous country that has always been considered to be a country open to all. Its democratic tradition, its respect for individual freedoms, and the industrious, peace-loving and tolerant nature of its people are the envy of many nations on this earth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since our first Citizenship Act was adopted in 1947, more than 3 million people have elected to become citizens of this beautiful country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think Canadians are particularly lacking in national pride but they lack opportunities to express that pride loudly and clearly. I therefore urge my fellow citizens to take advantage of Citizenship Week to express and show their pride in being a Canadian.
I am proud to be a Canadian Mr. Speaker! Je suis fier d'etre Canadien, monsieur le President!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, all Parties expect to give and receive fair criticism in a legitimate debate on Canada's defence priorities. And I will debate any Conservative cold warrior on his or her bleak policy to fuel the international arm's race, but I cannot stomach duplicity. When the Minister of Defence (Mr. Beatty) has the nerve to call our proposals costly, dishonest, and cowardly, I must draw the line.
Didn't he read last week's newspapers? We found out that it was Conservative Defence Minister Erik Nielsen who first proposed to pull Canada's troops out of Europe.
Does the Minister not remember his own White Paper? It was his Government that abandoned our friend and ally,
April 19, 1988

Norway, without notice. Is he forgetting the cost of his own proposals? It is the Conservative Government that wants to drive up defence spending with its outrageously expensive scheme to buy nuclear submarines.
Before any other Conservative tries to score cheap political points in the defence debate, he or she should check the Government's record. They are in no position to criticize.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has asked Canada to consider participating in a multinational force to observe the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. As well, there would be a continuing role for the force in peace-keeping.
I cannot think of a more dangerous role for our armed forces to play than to be on site in Afghanistan before a complete ceasefire has been negotiated. Let us not even consider putting Canadian Forces personnel into a situation that holds out, at least at this moment, no promise for peace.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is for the Acting Prime Minister. There is a long tradition in Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Here he comes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Okay, will this be worth waiting for?


An Hon. Member:: You bet it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in Canada of independence of the judiciary from the political process and from the administration in Ottawa. The independence of the judiciary rests firmly on the tradition of security of tenure for judges. They cannot be removed by the Government.
In flagrant violation of this tradition, the Prime Minister, last fall, sent his Principal Secretary, Bernard Roy, to ask the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, Marcel Crete, to resign, so that a Conservative could be appointed, and
Oral Questions
offered the judge a favour in return for acceding to this demand. The judge refused.
I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain why this happened.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, because it never happened. The statement of my hon. friend is false from beginning to end.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY APPEAR BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, details of this scandal, the worst yet under this Government, were published in this month's Le monde juridique. This morning I spoke to a confidante of the judge, who confirmed the story. If the Prime Minister denies it is true, is he prepared to let his Principal Secretary appear before the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of the House of Commons and to let us question the confidante who confirmed the story?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said the Hon. Member's statement was false. It is calumny and a complete fabrication. The Hon. Member said in reply that this morning he spoke to a confidante of the Chief Justice, who confirmed this story. Let him name the confidante now before this House!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The confidante is Andre Gagnon, the editor of the magazine. The magazine's editorial staff include a judge and four lawyers, so it is a publication of some substance.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, finally I want to ask the Prime Minister, if the story is false as he says it is, has his Principal Secretary, Bernard Roy, taken the opportunity, having seen this article, of defending his reputation by beginning litigation against this magazine?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the condifante to whom he refers is the same person who wrote the article.

He has the temerity to rise and say that he got this from a confidante of the Chief Justice when the alleged confidante of the Chief Justice is the same person who wrote the calumny. What kind-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Are you starting an action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, indeed we have, because in response to the second part of my hon. friend's question, did Mr. Roy

April 19, 1988
Oral Questions
institute action in regard to this calumny and falsehood and fabrication, yes, he did.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER ASKED PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MEET JUDGE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Like the Prime Minister, we members of the Civil Bar receive Le monde juridique. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the whole story is false from start to finish, or did the Prime Minister actually ask his Principal Secretary to meet Judge Crete, and did a meeting take place, yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I informed the Hon. Member from Toronto in English, and I say it again in French to the Hon. Member for Shefford, that this libellous article, published by the so-called confidante of the Chief Justice now deceased, the late Chief Justice Marcel Crete, that this article was a complete falsehood. It is a fabrication from start to finish.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in other words, is the Prime Minister telling the House that there never was a meeting between his Principal Secretary and Chief Justice Marcel Crete?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I gave my answer to the Hon. Member from Toronto. He asked whether legal action had been taken, and the answer is yes. On April 5, Mr. Roy's lawyer sent a letter to Andre Gagnon, editor in chief of Le monde juridique, warning him that this was a falsehood and asking for appropriate action by Le monde juridique, otherwise the necessary legal action would be taken, and the falsehood and libel the Hon. Member just repeated would be exposed before the general public. And we have a member of the Civil Bar repeating libellous remarks of this kind about a colleague! Shame!

You should be ashamed of yourselves, both of you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
Environment and concerns the clean up of the St. Lawrence, where half the population of Quebec gets its drinking water. Could the Minister now react favourably to a request by the Quebec Minister of the Environment for the financing required to clean up the St. Lawrence River and, especially, to conduct a study of toxic substances and their sources prior to setting up a realistic clean-up program?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the way the question was posed implies that the role of the federal Government in this regard is merely one of responding to a request from the Quebec Government for federal funding of a Quebec project. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
What is happening here is that the Minister of the Environment, on behalf of the federal Government, is working hand in glove with his counterpart in Quebec on an action plan to clean up the St. Lawrence, a major international waterway for which the federal Government has some real responsibility. We are not responding to Quebec; we are working with Quebec on a matter of common concern.


SAGUENAY REGION-THREAT TO BELUGA WHALES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Government is working, but a very specific request has been made and I want to know if there is going to be a favourable answer. Is the answer going to be yes?
As well, there is the Saguenay region and the death of beluga whales in that area. Then there is the situation of the Aquasasne people who are subject to toxic substances coming from the U.S. What responsibility does the federal Minister have for clean up in those two particular areas?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be partisan about this issue, but I think the House would agree that for a quarter of a century, when the Liberal Party was in power, the federal Government it discriminated wildly against Quebec as far as the environment was concerned. It did do some valuable work in the Great Lakes but totally ignored the St. Lawrence as an integral part of the over-all St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes basin.
The Progressive Conservative Party is eager to redress a quarter-century-old imbalance. The action plan to which I made reference in my earlier response will contain some provisions earmarked for Saguenay and the better management of the beluga whales, which are very much threatened.


TOXIC WASTES IN GREAT LAKES-PRIME MINISTER'S SCHEDULED MEETING WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to
*
ft


April 19, 1988

the Prime Minister because it deals with the summit meeting coming up with Mr. Reagan.
We have an agreement with the United States on the removal of toxic wastes from the Great Lakes and particularly the hot sites identified earlier. Ninety per cent of those toxic substances come from the United States. We have an agreement about water quality, but there is no action on the American side.
Will the question of the actual cleanup of those hot spots, those toxic places around the Niagara region from which toxins are coming into the drinking water of Ontario and moving out into the St. Lawrence, be on the agenda with Mr. Reagan at the end of the month?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that important question. Indeed, that and other matters relating to the question of the environment will be on the agenda for the various meetings that I will be holding with President Reagan and the leadership of the Congress because I believe that all Parties in this House are very firmly of the view that, with regard to the Niagara situation and others, joint action on the environment is urgently required.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Before leaving for the West, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question I put to him on April 12, used a reference from the 1987 Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages to inform the House that there had been, and I quote: "Substan-cial progress in Saskatchewan with respect to use of French."
I read the Commissioner's report, and in fact it mentions on page 159: "Special difficulties, sharp debates, confrontations over the demands for French language schools, legal battles over the right of accused persons to trials in the official language of their choice and the controversy surrounding the status and use of French in the provincial legislatures". This is entirely different from what the Prime Minister told us in the House.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister, now that he is back from his trip out West, could inform the House whether the language situation he found there corresponds to the situation described by the Commissioner of Official Languages or to the one he described in the House last week, in rather optimistic and perhaps slightly exaggerated terms.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, at the time I was referring to ... 1 am trying to remember the context, but I think it was a direct reference to the number of English-speaking students who were studying French in Saskatchewan, numbers which were progressing substantially, and if I am not mistaken-and I speak here to the Hon. Member-it was a rather interesting and laudatory comment by reporter William Johnson, who has an abiding interest in language issues at the national level. And I think that was widely reported. Now I may be mistaken about the person, and I can go back a few weeks to look at the file.
As for the second part of the question, last week I had meetings with the Government of Saskatchewan and with the province's Francophone leaders and other intervenors, and we will continue our work, which is to try and improve the status of this language minority in Saskatchewan.


MANDATE OF FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I would like some clarification if possible. The federal Government presently has some negotiators or representatives, whatever it wants to call them, in Saskatchewan talking to the Government of Saskatchewan.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if these representatives of the federal Government, these high public servants, are indeed authorized to negotiate something in terms of monetary settlement or support? Are they talking specifically about a deal? Are they talking specifically about offering human resources, technical resources in translation? Are they indeed talking to the Government of Saskatchewan about the constitutional rights that exist in Saskatchewan today in terms of education?
Will he give the House the assurance that he will press Saskatchewan to respect at least that minimum in our present Constitution to give minorities access to their educational institutions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have stated in Saskatchewan that which I have stated here and elsewhere. In my judgment, and I believe in the view of my hon. friend, minority rights are indivisible. You either believe in the protection of minority rights or you do not. You do not believe in them three-quarters of the time or half the time. That is the position that I adopted in Saskatchewan and it is the same position in Manitoba, Quebec, or British Columbia.
When minority constitutional rights could have been constitutionalized in 1982, because that is the only way in which to protect them fully, I think it was a source of regret to everyone that that was not done. I think that is a source of deep regret not only to my hon. friend but to many of us.

April 19, 1988
Presence in the Gallery
Linguistic minorities were left hanging out in 1982. Moreover, what is a matter of deep concern to me is that at that time provincial Premiers were given the right of constitutional over-ride in certain provisions. In exchange for what? This remains to be seen.
That is the constitutional position I have taken. I deeply deplore, as do the people in Saskatchewan, that there were not better protections at that time. L'Association des fransaskois is concerned as well with the residual implications of the Supreme Court decision, as am I.
With regard to the future, Premier Devine has set out his wish that Saskatchewan become bilingual. I think it is an important step forward for Canada that a Premier of a western province make that statement. As Prime Minister of Canada, I have genuinely encouraged Premier Devine along that road. 1 think it would be an important new advance for Canada in this regard. To that extent representatives of the Government of Canada are there working with the representatives of the Government of Saskatchewan to bring what I hope will be a greater degree of fairness to the province, a greater degree of understanding of this sensitive matter, and a greater degree of support for the French language minority in the Province of Saskatchewan, to enable them to preserve their language, their heritage, and their contribution to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. I gave the Minister notice of this question last week.
As the Minister knows, CMHC owns some 80 townhouses in the city of Kitchener, Ontario, that have been vacant for some eight years because it was discovered that they were located on a landfill and garbage dumpsite. The reason they are vacant is because methane gas from the dump has been migrating into the houses.
Will the Minister advise the House why CMHC is now trying to sell those houses on the private market and is claiming that it does not want to destroy the houses because it considers them to be affordable housing?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for notice of the question. This is a situation which has existed for some 10 years. There is a lack of affordable housing in that particular area and we are endeavouring to respond.
We have called for private sector solutions to see if the methane gas problem can be dealt with. We have had 13
responses and are now analyzing those to see if the criteria we have put in place can be adhered to.
We will not sell those houses until we have guarantees approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies that the sales can proceed without damage to anyone.


DANGER OF GAS EXPLOSION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be aware that his Department has commissioned reports which clearly indicate the danger involved in occupying these homes which are contaminated by methane gas. Does the Minister not agree with those reports which state that the only solution to the problem is to demolish the houses and excavate the garbage in those dumps? Will the Minister not agree that his proposal is really quite a hare-brained scheme? I do not know of anyone who would want to live in those houses which could explode on ignition of that methane gas.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it may not be relevant, but there are five houses in the methane gas area which are now occupied and have been occupied for the past six years.


Mr. Cassidy:: By non-smokers.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Nevertheless, we recognize that there is a danger and we recognize the health problem. We will not proceed until officials give us advice that we can do so in safety.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMISSIONER FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND TRADE POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Willy De Clerc, Commissioner for External Relations and Trade Policy of the European Communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On June 22, 1987, the Government announced that Toronto developer Huang and Danczay Ltd., supported by consultant
April 19, 1988

Frank Moores, a friend of the Prime Minister, had won the contract for the $381-million project to build Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport and that construction would begin in the fall of 1987.
Since the project is now some six months late and passenger congestion at Pearson has reached unprecedented levels, can the Minister explain to this House why the work has not begun? Yet privatization was supposed to speed up the whole process. What is happening on this?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend will admit that privatization has nothing to do with Terminal 3 in Toronto.
Yes, for all sorts of reasons, there were delays in the beginning the work began at Terminal 3 in Toronto, but I think that these issues are progessively being solved and I hope in the coming days to go to Toronto for the ground-breaking at Terminal 3.


GOVERNMENT LOAN GUARANTEES
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm to the House that the real reason why work has not started at Terminal 3 is that Huang and Danczkay want more than the $70 million in loan guarantees already granted by the Government and which other bidders have already labelled as a sham and an unfair commitment never offered to the other bidders? Is the Government prepared to offer more financial support to this one developer? Are the original terms of the June 22 offer being revised?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with what my hon. friend proposed. As I said in French, there were some complexities involved with all of this contract. We are quite sure that next Monday we will be able to perform the sod turning in Toronto.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Transport. Since he is new at the job I have made it kind of easy. What is the current status of the Polar 8 ice-breaker project? When will construction start? Is there any good news for British Columbia?


Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for posing the first question I will have to answer in the House after being selected to Cabinet. I want to say to all Members in the House that I am prepared to work with them in helping serve their constituents better.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerry St. Germain: In regard to the Polar 8 contract which is so important to British Columbia and to the Hon. Member's riding, I can tell the Hon. Member that the project is proceeding well. The actual construction contract should take place in December of 1988 and the contract should be completed by
1992.1	think this important project will not only mean jobs for British Columbians but jobs for the people in the Arctic as well.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who knows that Windsor has been plagued by a number of environmental disputes precipitated by actions taken on the American side. These include the Detroit incinerator, the Fermi II nuclear plant and the Detroit airport expansion. None of these issues has been resolved.
Just last night the Governor of Michigan indicated to Premier Peterson that a Canadian request for the installation of pollution control devices on the incinerator had been rejected. Will the Prime Minister raise these issues with President Reagan to the end of seeking a satisfactory resolution to these horrendous environmental problems in the Windsor area?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, and myself in particular, attach a great deal of importance to the three issues mentioned and others of import to the Windsor residents. The matter of the Detroit incinerator was raised by myself with VicePresident George Bush when he was in Ottawa. So the U.S. administration is very sensitive, indeed, to Canadian concerns and those of the Canadian Government.
As for the other two issues raised by the Hon. Member, among them Fermi II, the Government is making the most vigorous representations possible through all diplomatic and political channels available to us.


MECHANISM TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government claims to have made vigorous interventions. The fact is that nothing has happened. Will the Prime Minister raise the serious problems resulting particularly from trans-boundary atmospheric pollution? Will he suggest to the President of the United States that a mechanism ought to be developed whereby we can have environmental impact assessment establishments on either side

April 19, 1988
Oral Questions
of the border which will affect the other country, and some mechanism designed to resolve the kinds of disputes we have in the Windsor area and other parts of Canada which are not now subject to any kind of resolution?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the question because it reflects what appears to be a lack of appreciation on the part of the Hon. Member of the truth that there are now mechanisms that can be pressed into service for this kind of environmental problem. I refer, for example, to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in one context and, in another context the International Joint Commission. We have already made references to the IJC for such purposes. If the Hon. Member thinks that further representations need to be made, and that more needs to be done through the International Joint Commission and through other existing joint instruments, we would be very open to his representations in that connection.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE'S INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of his Excellency, Ambassador Chai, Vice President of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples' Republic of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister. The Minister knows that thousands of honey producers in western Canada, from Manitoba through to the Peace River country, are facing the loss of their business this year due to the Government closing the border with respect to replacement stocks of bees from the United States.
Can the Acting Minister explain what the Government is going to do with respect to this serious problem for western Canada? Some 2,500 jobs are involved and tens of millions of dollars of production of honey. There is also the impact on clover and canola crops. What is the Government going to do to provide assistance with respect to bringing in replacement stocks of bees from non-infected countries or areas?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the
federal Government has responded to the request on the part of nine provincial beekeepers' associations throughout Canada to take the necessary precautions to close the door to Canada because of the presence of the Varroa mite in many States of the United States. Our concern in doing that, of course, was to protect the well-being of the Canadian honey industry in general. We recognize in doing that that there is, of course, a very substantial disadvantage to those who have been buying packaged bees.
The industry has worked with the Department to try to ensure that supplies are made available to be brought into Canada from alternative sources such as Australia and New Zealand. Of course, as the Member also knows, the inclusion of the honey industry in the Special Grains Program was a first this year. We hope that as well will help ease the financial crisis being experienced by honey producers.


REQUEST THAT HONEY PRODUCERS BE GIVEN GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is when the Government is going to provide assistance to bring in replacement bees from other countries, and not the history of why the border was closed. The Government has dawdled so long since January 1 in carrying this out. Is it now prepared to provide direct compensation to these honey producers who are facing the loss of their business and losses of tens of millions of dollars?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, again as the Hon. Member knows, the Government has a responsibility to try to make decisions for the betterment of the industry as a whole. In doing that, we have acted in very close co-operation with the provincial honey producers' associations. We have been following their advice. We have also been trying to provide guidance in terms of location of those available alternative sources.
As I said before, the fact that there has already been a payment under the Special Grains Program, we believe will assist those producers who need help at this particular time. I would also point out that some provincial Departments of Agriculture in western Canada have responded very, very well to the needs of their own honey producers by making special grants available. Unfortunately, there are certain provinces in the Prairies which have not accepted that responsibility, so there is a certain disparity for honey producers in western Canada. Perhaps elections in the future will change that.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he is aware that the Saskatchewan Government has


April 19, 1988

started construction of the Rafferty Dam on the Souris River which is located in the Premier's riding. I am sure he is also aware that under the International River Improvements Act this construction requires a licence from the federal Government. Elas the Government of Saskatchewan applied for this licence? Has the licence been granted? If the licence has not been granted, will the Minister seek an injunction to stop the Province of Saskatchewan from proceeding with construction of this dam?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in saying that a permit is required under the International River Improvements Act, for which purpose the Government of Saskatchewan has made an application. I believe the application was received by my Department, which administers the relevant Act, in January. Due process is being followed.
The Government of Saskatchewan will have to satisfy the Government of Canada that issues surrounding the quantity and quality of the water, will be resolved in favour of the environment. I have followed the matter with keen personal interest, of course at a distance, to ensure that the integrity of the process is preserved. I am advised by my most senior officials that every environmental consideration is being factored into the equation.


REQUEST THAT CONSTRUCTION BE HALTED PENDING ISSUANCE OF LICENCE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Despite what the Minister has stated, the fact is that the Saskatchewan Government has proceeded with construction. It has built several coffer dams which deflect the flow of this river. This is clearly illegal under the International River Improvements Act.
Will the Minister assure us that the federal Environmental Assessment Review Process will be followed before a licence is issued? Will the Minister ask the Government of Saskatchewan to stop construction until it gets its licence?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I said in my first answer that an application had been made. The permit has yet to be issued. I will not pronounce now, since it would be premature to do so, on whether a permit will be issued. The building of the coffer dams is not in contravention of the relevant Act because it does not yet have an effect on the inter-basin flows as far as international and national jurisdictions are concerned.
I can tell the Hon. Member, in response to his question, that the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process is now being followed.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. Canada Post buses its employees to downtown luxury hotels in maximum security and secrecy to show videos of the Post Office, while ordering them to leave their jobs unattended and the mail on the floor while at the meetings.
If Canada Post is performing so well, why all these supersecrets about these meetings? If these meetings are regular why is there all this security, with walkie-talkies in people's hands while walking around the hotel forbidding anyone to get close to the meeting place? What does Canada Post have to hide?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is asking a question about an erroneous television report from BC TV. What Canada Post was doing, which is what most corporations do, was holding a seminar for its employees to which employees were invited to attend on a voluntary basis. It had to do with internal communications and trying to encourage the employees to treat customers like real customers, to recognize there is competition and that they should be polite in dealing with customers.
If the Hon. Member finds that an insidious activity on the part of Canada Post, then that is his opinion. It is not one that I share.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister that these meetings are going on not only in Vancouver but also in Montreal.


MAIL DELIVERY-MEETING COSTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: While Canada Post wants to improve its employees' morale by showing them videos in luxury hotels, who is delivering the mail left on the ground and who pays? How much will these meetings, to be held across the country by the end of May cost?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to know how much it costs to rent a room in a hotel, why does he not phone the hotel? This is somewhat of an absurd question to raise in Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: When this meeting was set up by Canada Post one of the union shop stewards, one to whom the Hon. Member seems to listen all the time, called the television studio to say that Canada Post was having a secret meeting to lay off some employees. When it turned out to be false, of course the union was a little embarrassed. It is now trying to

April 19, 1988
Oral Questions
cover up by giving this erroneous information to the Hon. Member who dutifully brings it forward to the House of Commons, wasting the time of everyone here.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure all Members of the House are aware that over the weekend and again yesterday the Socred Minister responsible for environment and fisheries in B.C. suggested that the commercial fishing and processing industry in B.C. should be shut down.
Will the Minister advise the House what formal steps he has taken to protest the attacks on an industry that produced over $750 million in product last year alone, and make it clear to the Canadian public and to the B.C. public that this is a viable, wealth producing industry and that it has its place on the B.C. coast?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard of the statements attributed to the Hon. Mr. Strachan I could not believe that he could have said what he is said to have said. Therefore I intend to be calling him in the next 24 hours to find out if indeed he did say what he was reported to have said with respect to the commercial fishery. At the same time I intend to set him straight if he feels that in any way we could sacrifice this very important industry on the Pacific Coast of Canada employing 20,000 to 25,000 Canadians, fishermen and shore workers, and producing some three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of wealth to the British Columbia and Canadian economy each year.
I intend to ensure that he has his figures straight, and that we recognize that all of those who enjoy the opportunity to have access to our precious salmon resources share equitably in that benefit.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONVENE MEETING OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Minister has been variously described as a lunatic, and other things. I would like to know why the Minister of Fisheries is waiting to call him.
Since both Ministers have failed miserably to seek consensus among the competing user groups in B.C., and since the B.C. Government has now thrown down the gauntlet and escalated the conflict to new heights, will the Minister today agree to
take steps before the end of May to pull together the competing user groups in B.C., native, sports and commercial groups, to a summit meeting in British Columbia to find common ground before obtaining consensus in British Columbia is impossible?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not normally make a practice of calling persons lunatics in a hurry.
I do not know to what crisis the Hon. Member is referring. In fact, we are involving all user groups in consultation on all important fishery matters. I treat them with an even-handedness and a sense of concern for all of their problems, as I will continue to do.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that he is aware of the fact that the Province of Ontario has just introduced legislation which will give a financial contributor to a municipal political candidate a deduction from real estate property taxes for that contribution.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that he will move immediately to introduce amendments to the Canada Elections Act to ensure that the devious minds in the NDP do not find a way to rip off the taxpayers of Canada further by giving the contributors to their municipal candidates both the deduction from property taxes and also, in addition to that, the immoral deduction from federal income taxes which the NDP presently gives?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians will be grateful for the watchful eye of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can advise him and other Hon. Members of the House that there are a number of suggested amendments to the Canada Elections Act that we are now considering. What I am presently trying to determine is whether it might be better to seek unanimous consent of all Members of the House to withdraw this Bill and to rewrite it, incorporating some of the new amendments, or whether we can work out some way in which the amendments can be incorporated. However, that is something that I will be taking up with the House Leaders in the next few days.
April 19, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier in Question Period I understood him to say that matters such as the Fermi II nuclear generating plant could be dealt with through the International Joint Commission. I want to ask him is he not aware that the International Joint Commission has no reference giving it a mandate to deal with matters like Fermi II.
Is he not aware that after I requested the Secretary of State for External Affairs to get the U.S. Government to agree to such a reference, the Secretary of State for External Affairs rejected that request? I want to know why he is telling Members of the House and the public that the IJC has a role to deal with Fermi II when his own Government is refusing to get the United States to agree to a reference which would give the IJC a mandate to go into this important matter.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think that a careful reading of the "blues" by the Hon. Member will support me when I say that my reference to the International Joint Commission was with respect to the Detroit incinerator and not Fermi II.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of the Environment if he would join with me in urging his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), to reopen and rethink his previous refusal of my request, and get him to agree to ask the United States to agree to a reference of the Fermi II and other similar matters to the International Joint Commission to allow the International Joint Commission to monitor Fermi II on an ongoing basis.
Will the Minister of the Environment be serious about his mandate to protect the environment in the Windsor area, and join with me in order that some action can be taken on this important matter which is so worrisome to the people of Windsor and Essex County?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that one of his idols, Premier Peterson of Ontario, made a very vigorous representation to his opposite number in the State of Michigan on this and several other environmental matters, and struck out. It is, therefore, understandable that the House Leader of the Liberal Party would come to the floor of the House of Commons and make this type of appeal.
I commit myself and the Government of Canada to the cause. We have been following every possible legal and
Question Period
political route. We have had some genuine success. I do not think that the Hon. Member should be so wedded to the International Joint Commission that he rules out other possibilities that the federal Government itself is at present entertaining. I am open to representations from the Hon. Member and his Party on this as on other matters.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The House is now aware that last Saturday 22 Chinese arrived at Vancouver International Airport claiming refugee status; on Sunday, 18 Iranians did the same; on Monday, two Sri Lankans and eight more Chinese repeated this action. None of those people were carrying proper documentation.
What is the legal position of the Government with regard to action that can be taken against abusers of our immigration policy?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As the Hon. Member knows, if people arrive in Canada without proper documentation there is a process to be followed in terms of immigration officials. As long as we are aware that people will show up for their immigration hearing, we do not like to detain them. We are not in the business of detaining people. As soon as we receive that assurance, we do not detain them any longer. That is why we need the two immigration Bills C-84 and C-55 in order that we can turn around as soon as possible refugee claimants who are not genuine.
The immigration officials deal with each of those cases on an individual basis when they first arrive in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last single question of Question Period. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Mala-hat-The Islands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, when the five leaders of the political opposition returned to Guatemala two of them, Rigoberto Menchu and Rolando Castillo, were arrested and subsequently released.

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Given the precarious nature of human rights in Guatemala where political kidnappings and disappearances still take place, will the Canadian Government make representations to the Government of Guatemala indicating Canadian concern for the continued safety of the five opposition leaders who have returned to Guatemala as part of the reconciliation process that was called for by the Esquipulas Accord?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, two of the Guatemalan leaders in exile who returned to Guatemala on April 18 were arrested as they deplaned. They have since been released, which we welcome, and think that it will encourage further moderation and dialogue in Guatemala.
Our Ambassador to Guatemala has expressed to the President the concern of Canadians with respect to the safety and well-being of those individuals. We will continue to make representations in that respect.
We should note that the human rights situation in Guatemala has improved considerably since the election of a civilian government. That is at least a step in the right direction.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of of Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I have several observations with respect to the matter that is in front of the House at the present time.

There are 31 motions in amendment for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and human life and health. After much deliberation and especially discussion with the concerned Members, I am now ready to make a ruling on the grouping and voting pattern for the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 5(a) and 31 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) cause the Chair some procedural difficulty. I will deal with parts (b) and (c) of motion No. 5 later. These three motions in amendment refer to aboriginal peoples. The Hon. Member is attempting to introduce into Bill C-74 a definition of aboriginal peoples which is designated in section 35 of the Constitution Act. Unfortunately, by inserting this particular definition, the Hon. Member is increasing the scope of the Bill to a stage beyond what was agreed to at second reading. The only
reference already included in the Bill is to reserves or surrendered lands subject to the Indian Act which, of course, concerns Indians or Metis but not specifically Cree or Naskapi bands. Therefore, I am of the opinion that to include this particular definition of "Aboriginal Peoples" takes the Bill beyond what was originally envisaged, consequently I must rule these amendments out of order. Therefore, motions Nos. 1, 5(a) and 31 will not be put to the House.
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was moved in the committee during its study of the Bill. The legislative committee had debated at length similar amendments which were negatived on recorded divisions. Nevertheless, after consultation with the Hon. Member, he has made the case that this matter of "establishing national standards" is of such significance that it warrants further consideration as permitted under Standing Order 114(10). Accordingly, Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 3, 5(b), 5(c), 7, 20, and 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) are also a cause of some procedural difficulty to the Chair. Each of these motions in amendment attempts to insert into the Bill additional aspects based upon the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement. These further motions go beyond the scope of the clauses which they attempt to amend. However important and worthy these proposed changes may be, I feel that I must declare them procedurally unacceptable in accordance with Beauchesne's Fifth edition at Citation 773(1). Consequently, they will not be put to the House.
[ Translation]
Motions numbered 4, 14 and 25 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted on as follows. Motion No. 4 will be voted upon separately and the vote on motion No. 14 will apply to motion No. 25.

Motions Nos. 6, 8 and 9 are in order and will be debated together but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11, standing in the name of the Hon. Members for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and Davenport (Mr. Caccia) respectively, are similar to amendments debated and negatived in committee. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 114(10), I shall not put them to the House for further debate.

Motions Nos. 12 and 13 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 15, 16, 19 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 17 and 18 are acceptable and will be debated and voted upon separately.
April 19, 1988

Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) causes the Chair some procedural difficulty. The clause which the Hon. Member proposes to amend concerns air pollution in countries other than Canada in possible violation of an international agreement. The proposal of the Hon. Member deals with air pollution in a province within Canada. Therefore, I must rule this motion in amendment inadmissible in accordance with Beauchesne's Citation 773(1) in that it goes beyond the scope of the clause.
Motions Nos. 23 and 24 are in order but will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 26, 27 and 28 will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 29 and 30 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
(f) endeavour to establish national standards of environmental quality.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the acceptance of this motion which is extremely important. It deals with a question that strikes at the very heart of the Bill itself having to do with the importance of recognizing the establishment of national standards of environmental quality.
The Bill as worded now is weak and reveals on the part of the Government a lack of political will in acting as it speaks. The Government announced that this Bill is the greatest measure to clean up the environment, which it does not, and will open up a new era for the protection of the environment from damage that could be caused by new products, which it does attempt to do. But in endeavouring to do that the Government shies away, it withdraws and is afraid to put forward and entrench in the Bill, which is to be known as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the notion that it will establish national standards of environmental quality for the protection of Canadians.
It is interesting to note, and I want to bring it to your attention as forcefully as I can, Madam Speaker, that when this Bill was the object of public consultations in draft form it had in it exactly what I am proposing this afternoon. I draw your attention to page one of the draft Bill entitled Proposed Environmental Protection Act. On page one you will find in subparagraph (b) the following:
provide leadership in the establishment of nationally consistent standards of
environmental quality,
I repeat, "standards of environmental quality". That phrase has disappeared and one wonders why because it was a good
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
phrase. It received substantial and widespread support throughout the country in the process of public consultation, but it has gone. This is why at committee it became absolutely essential to put forward again this phrase, this concept, that in the duties of the Government in applying this Bill national standards of environmental quality be established. Instead what we have here, and what we object to, is this phrase which simply says "endeavour to establish nationally consistent levels of environmental quality". This is a far cry, quite different and extremely weak in comparison to the wording, "establish national standards of environmental quality".
The way the Bill is drafted now puts the emphasis on consistency. The way that Motion No.2 as proposed by us reads is to establish national standards. The difference that I want to bring out as clearly as I can is between the public relations effort of the Government in appearing to be the defender of environmental quality and the substance it delivered.
There was the impression, as I read from page 1, subparagraph (b), that the Government would provide leadership in the establishment of nationally consistent standards of environmental quality, but when it comes to the crunch the Government retreats into the words, "nationally consistent levels of environmental quality". What a sham, Madam Speaker. No wonder Canadians are catching up with the Government because they are beginning to see through the smokescreen which the Government has attempted to create not only with environmental matters. Here is a glowing and classical example of abandonment of the Government's stand when it launched the Bill and the substance we are facing today at report stage debate. This is why we objected in committee.
I am glad and very grateful to the Chair for having overruled the Chairman of the committee who ruled out of order what is now Motion No. 2 when we were in committee. I am extremely grateful because Mr. Speaker understood the importance of this amendment, its validity and its acceptability as we now have an opportunity to debate it in the light of the ruling a few minutes ago.
I cannot stress sufficiently and with enough vigour and passion the importance of this clause covered in Motion No. 2. When a government retreats from the policy concept of establishing national standards into the comfortable mushy world of endeavouring to establish nationally consistent levels, the Government does a 180 turnaround and says "Look, what we are really going to achieve is the lowest common denominator, that is what we will accept". The lowest, weakest standard that will be established in one part of the country will become our guiding principle in the application of our duties in relation to this particular legislation. There will no longer be national standards but only consistency. There will no longer be the strongest possible standards from the point of view of the public interest. We will only use what the weakest element in the link will be willing to accept. I do not want to mention any

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
region or any particular province because that would be unfair and premature.
I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the serious implication of the departure in political and policy terms that this Government has made by abandoning the concept that existed in the draft legislation and what came out of the committee as a result of the clause-by-clause analysis. I see you are indicating that my time is up, Madam Speaker. I will sit down, but again I want to express my gratitude to the Chair for having overruled the decision, thus permitting the debate on this particular amendment to occur today.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, we are very pleased that this Bill has now proceeded to report stage on the floor of the House of Commons. We spent many weeks on it in committee. We debated a number of amendments that were put to the committee, and of all the committees on which I have worked, it seems to me that there was the greatest amount of co-operation extended on the legislative committee on this Bill under the direction of Barry Turner, the chairman at the time, and I know you are telling me that I should not be mentioning any names, Madam Speaker, but I have forgotten his riding, one of those great Ottawa ridings.
A number of witnesses appeared before the committee. A number of amendments were debated, the vast majority of which were passed. The members of the committee had the sense that we wanted this to be the finest environment Bill that had ever come to the House of Commons because this is the first environment Bill that has come to the House of Commons for 11 years. The amendment before us indeed was debated at great length in the committee. The amendment deals with national standards as opposed to nationally consistent levels.
For the first time, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will provide an ecosystem management approach to environmental protection, an approach that protects the Canadian environment against the contamination of our air, our waterways, our soils and the marine environment. For the first time, we will have an Act with real teeth.
Clause 33 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Bill gives the Government broad powers to regulate against substances that harm the health and/or the environment of Canada and its citizens. These regulations will define national standards of control on the toxic substances now threatening our nation.
The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who has just spoken, proposed a seemingly minor amendment to the administrative duties section of the Bill. He has recommended that we make one word change by substituting the word "levels" for the word "standards" so that subclause 2(f) would require the Government of Canada to endeavour to establish nationally consistent standards, not levels, of environmental quality.
Although I recognize the Hon. Member's intention is to further strengthen this important piece of legislation, to adopt his seemingly innocent word change would be to impair the very goal he seeks. Consider the fact that subclause 2(0 lies within the administrative duties part of the Bill, the part that establishes the framework for the functioning of the Bill. It establishes a framework of flexibility, reflecting the very complexity of environmental management in a country this size and in this day and age.
The establishment of environmental standards, as requested by the Hon. Member, is an option under the Bill's regulatory apparatus. The replacement of the word "levels" with the word "standards" under the administrative duties part of the Bill would limit its regulatory powers to but one regulatory option which would be that of standards.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Bill, by signalling the Government's intention to establish nationally consistent levels, not standards, of environmental quality, is also signalling its refusal to limit itself to just one option of environmental control. The word "levels" allows for a range of regulatory possibilities, guidelines for industries to follow, objectives to be aimed at, codes of practice to be adhered to, standards to be achieved and outright bans to be implemented if required.
Canada's acid rain program is a case in point. The federal Government did not establish standards that would have prescribed emission limits at specific sources. Rather, it established an objective, the famous 20 kilograms of sulphur dioxide per hectare per year, as necessary for the protection of the Canadian environment. The provinces east of Saskatchewan have agreed to that objective and each of them is working to control its emissions to help meet that objective.
Flexibility of action is the key here. The provinces have different industries with different technologies. How they meet that objective is left to them. To call for national standards of environmental quality is to restrict unduly the many options for environmental control and to impair the capacity of the Government to offer Canadians the environmental protection they are demanding. I would ask that Hon. Members reject the proposed amendment to subclause 2(f).


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and I would like to thank the Chair for allowing this debate on such an important matter by in effect overruling the decision of the committee which tried to dispose of it by simply denying the importance of this question. We will now have a debate in the House on this absolutely crucial, vital matter.
Subclause 2(f) of the Bill simply says that we endeavour to establish nationally consistent levels of environmental quality. That is the obligation set out in the Bill, but the obligation is to establish nationally consistent levels, and the clause only requires that we endeavour to do so. How weak can the wording be? The amendment merely asks that we endeavour
April 19, 1988

to establish national standards of environmental equality. I believe the wording ought to be far, far stronger than that.
The Brundtland Commission report entitled Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development, concluded the following:
-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.
This is a proposal of the UN World Commission headed by the Prime Minister of Norway. The report has been approved in principle by the federal and provincial Governments. They say in principle we want this excellent protection for the environment, but here we have a specific piece of legislation and they do not stand up to be counted. They are not there when it comes to actually having national standards. Guidelines are weaker.
The committee heard in detail from environmental groups coast to coast, national, provincial and local groups, all kinds of experts and concerned citizens, about environmental protection and the need for really strong national standards. Let me just quote some of the advice given to the committee, now to the House, and so far ignored by the Government. Pollution Probe is a major environmental group and I quote them:
In Clause 8, CEPA leaves out one of the strongest tools that can be used for environmental protection-legally enforceable standards. Not all numbers related to environmental protection need to be standards, but not to have the option of using them is simply short-sighted, and limits available tools for use in the future.
I could not agree more. Let me quote Friends of the Earth:
The Bill should provide the opportunity to set numeric standards for ambient environmental quality, discharge limitations, or any other area which can be appropriately regulated in this manner and delete the reference to guidelines since they would allow for displacement of truly enforceable regulatory tools.
It is perfectly clear what the advice is but, I am sorry to say, it is being ignored by the Government. Let me quote the Environmental Law Centre, a major source of expertise on the subject:
It is unfortunate that the guidelines to be formulated by the Minister will not be legally binding. They should be given legislative force and enacted as regulations. The Minister should be given authority to issue standards.
The language is perfectly clear. Toxic Watch Project said this:
The absence of the word "standards" from this clause is a concern especially since CEPA repeals the Clean Air Act. The federal government must be able to set standards since only standards can be enforced.
To quote that group further:
The federal government should have the ability to set national minimum standards with provincial authority to exceed such standards.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I heartily agree that the provinces should have the opportunity to set higher standards where they believe they are necessary for conditions in their own provinces. However, we should have nothing but the best national standards to ensure there will not be pollution ghettos and that some province will opt out or there will be negotiations whereby some kind of agreed upon objective is accepted as the only one politically saleables. In short, one that is not good enough.
Let me quote the Canadian Labour Congress, which participated in these hearings:
The federal government should have authority to establish strong minimum
national standards.
Let me be clear that this kind of advice came from all across the country. No province with environmental groups said anything different. All across the country there is agreement that environmental questions require minimum national standards. Why? Because environmentalists understand that pollution does not stop at provincial or municipal boundaries. Rivers cross international and provincial boundaries. Underground water crosses all kinds of boundaries. This very parochial approach does not take into account the reality that all life is connected, that pollution travels by air and by water, and that it is extremely important to have thoroughly adequate national standards.
Some of us thought we were going to get them. We thought we were going to get something at least close. The Minister stated earlier that there would be consultation with the provinces. He said that under the new amendment the federal Government is not compelled to consult with the provinces before taking action in cases where it is going to be necessary to act without it. Instead, where a province can convince the federal Government that its regulations are as strong or stronger than federal regulations and that the province is actively enforcing them, both Governments can enter into an agreement that ensures the requirements of the federal legislation are met.
The idea was that the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) would publish a report on the status of agreements worked out with the provinces and they would be made public so people would be able to look at the adequacy of the agreements. Further, any group of 12 provincial residents can petition the federal Minister if they believe the province is failing to honour the agreement. In that case the federal Minister would be required to investigate and respond within 90 days. The Minister said the effect of the relevant provisions would be to create a mechanism for provincial accountability for the environment through federal statute. In his view those provisions, along with others in the Act, have the potential to create an unprecedented level of integration and co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments on environmental issues in a way which respects the jurisdiction of both.
That is what the Minister said. Subsequently he introduced new amendments that went against it. We saw the Bill being weakened. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the very

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
high standards Canadians wanted are not going to be achieved at ail in this Bill. We hope there will be some modest effort toward reducing pollution in the future but we should not have any illusions at all that this Bill will achieve any kind of cleanup whatsoever.
Therefore, I very much support the wording proposed by the Hon. Member for Davenport. It is modest but it is certainly in the spirit of the Brundtland Commission report. It is strongly supported by environmental groups across the country and would indeed make the Act stronger and contribute to giving Canadians the kind of protection they want for the environment. I strongly urge all Hon. Members to accept this amendment because we will end up with a far better Bill.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I was very impressed with the amendment presented by my colleague from Davenport. He may well be referred to as the Hon. Member from Italy or Zimbabwe or the European National Council because he is internationally renowned in the field of environmental studies, environment control, and certainly very knowledgeable in the field of pollution. If he felt there was an error in the way the Government structured the wording of this Bill, I suggest that we pay close attention to what he has to say.
Obviously this Bill will be touted by the Government as a great piece of pollution control. It will be a feather in the cap of the Government, a centre-piece of the Government's approach on the election trail. Yet it really is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that does not clean up the environment and control pollution. Let us not have any illusions. If the Government is serious about going through with a very important piece of legislation, let it be open enough to acknowledge the fact that we have to strengthen it. That, it seems to me, is not such a terrible thing. I think it would be in the Government's best interests.
The Parliamentary Secretary said it is just a minor word we are talking about, that all the Hon. Member wants to do is change the word "levels" to "standards", and I think that speaks reams.
I would suggest that the Meech Lake virus is creeping in here. The Member knows that within the Meech Lake concept one must establish national standards in order for the provincial governments to co-operate with the federal Government. That is exactly what they are trying to avoid doing by establishing the proper wording which has been recommended by my colleague, that is:
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(0 endeavour to establish national standards of environmental quality;"
-instead of leaving it as it presently is under "Administrative Duties", "Duties of the Government of Canada":
(f) endeavour to establish nationally consistent levels of environmental
quality;"
You and I, Madam Speaker, know very well that we have had enough examples of the establishment of low quality criteria in some provinces while other provinces have been very concerned and very effective. To include this clause puts the lowest common denominator in place rather than the approach which my colleague has suggested which has been supported by the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
We are asking the Government to adopt this seemingly innocent change which has a powerful impact and is worth serious consideration rather than the light approach taken by the Member of the Government. This is an enforceable tool which makes it worth while. I am very glad that the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) brought this forward so that we can address it.
The Brundtland Commission said that we should establish and enforce national standards on enterprises. We need this excellent protection. As the Member for Broadview- Greenwood pointed out, pollution does not recognize boundaries whether international, national, provincial, or municipal. If this will enable us to effect that kind of change the Government should gladly accept it and be appreciative of what the Member for Davenport has done.
I want to conclude by quoting something said by Mr. Higgins, a senior Canadian Government official, before the committee. He said:
The term "standard" in the context of environmental quality standard is one that has had some considerable debate within the environmental regulatory community in Canada. In terms of developing water quality guidelines, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers attempted to define various terms to allow for a differentiation of them. Perhaps I could read what they have described as a water quality standard:
"It is an objective that is recognized in enforceable environmental control laws of a level of government.
I think that is what the committee is suggesting-that members of the committee would like to see, within this particular section of the legislation, the ability of the Minister to set such standards, which would be enforceable in law.
That is what is wrong with many of the Bills the Government has brought in. They all say certain things in essence but have no teeth which enable us to move forward in a concrete way in order to realize the goals which are enunciated but not carried out in the legislation. This is a perfect example of such misuse of words and intent. I hope that the House will support the motion put forward by the Hon. Member.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I want to participate briefly in the grouping of motions before us. I am particularly interested in the clause which relates to legally enforceable standards. It is important that we place in law the strength necessary to provide rules that make clear what is required. Not all aspects of environmental protection need to be chiselled in stone, but we must be able to examine them and adhere to them.
In Clause 8, for example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act leaves out one of the strongest tools that can be used for environmental protection, that is, legally enforceable
April 19, 1988

standards. Not all numbers related to environmental protection need to be standards, but not to have the option of using them is simply short-sighted and limits available tools for use in the future.
Pollution Probe has recommended that the authority to set standards should be added to Clause 8 wherever it is now limited to objective, guidelines, and codes of practice. Clearly, "objectives, guidelines, and codes of practice" are kind of fuzzy. They are subject to interpretation and abuse, if you like.
Elowever, when placed in law they become, if I can use the analogy, like a zoning by-law in a municipality. In order to change them one must go through a set process. If any government wanted to change those standards, to make them either stronger or weaker, it would have to come before this Parliament to do so. It would require a Bill and the kind of public notification and public debate that is occurring with regard to this Bill today. I think it is important that we provide that level of protection for our environment to ensure that any changes over and above those provided for by this Act must come before this House in order that the public is made aware of the changes desired.
The Bill should provide the opportunity to set numeric standards for ambient environmental quality, discharge limitations, or any other area which can be appropriately regulated in this manner and delete the reference to guidelines since they would allow for displacement of truly enforceable regulatory tools.
Also, codes of practice should not be part of the Department's legislative mandate. The development of such codes may be an internal tool for regulated parties to achieve compliance but should not replace regulatory or legal requirements.
I think it makes eminent sense that this amendment be accepted. It provides the Bill with stronger teeth and much more rigid adherence to the protection of our environment.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the time I have is somewhat limited. I will therefore try to state concisely why I agree with my colleagues that this provision in Section 2 of the Act is a cop-out compared to the language found in the proposed Environmental Protection Act which was circulated by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) some time ago.
Section (b) of the discussion paper which was circulated to interested parties throughout the country said that the Department's responsibilities were to include providing leadership-and I stress the word "leadership"-in the establishment of nationally consistent standards of environmental quality. I think that the word which should be stressed in the second part of this objective is "standard".
The legislation which we are studying today as amended by the legislative committee talks about the responsibility of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
department to establish nationally consistent levels of environmental quality. Therefore, I say it is a cop-out because, first, the word "leadership" has been removed. Quite clearly the Government does not want to take the bold step of saying that leadership should be part of its role as a national government.
The Government is not prepared to say that it should be the role of the Parliament of Canada and agencies of this Parliament and the national Government to speak for all of Canada and provide national leadership which can only come from a body that speaks for the whole of the country.
We are familiar with the Meech Lake agreement. As my colleague, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has described it, the Meech Lake virus has found its way into the area of environmental protection. Quite clearly, the Government is reluctant to express it in those kinds of terms. It is reluctant to assume leadership. Again, I think this is reflected in the change of the word "standards" to ''levels", whatever "levels" means.
I recall Professor A1 Johnston who appeared before the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. He referred to the significance of the word "standard". He related it to the Canada Health Act which contains objectives to promote the health and well-being of Canadians, but then lists a set of standards which include such things as accessibility, universality, and comprehensiveness of a national health care plan with which the federal Government requires the provinces to comply with in order not to be penalized financially under the Canada Health Act.
This is the kind of standard which should be included in the environmental protection Bill. I am not saying the federal Government should devise these standards and impose them without any form of consultation because clearly there should be consultation among all levels of government and all interested parties. However, at some point someone has to decide what is in the national interest and clearly that is the role of the Parliament of Canada and the federal department or agency.
I deplore the fact that these changes have been made to this legislation. They are clearly not just semantic differences. These differences reflect themselves in many of the provisions of this Bill which we will be addressing during this report stage. Therefore, I wish to support the amendment of my colleague, the Member for Davenport, who argues that Clause 2 should be amended by striking out the text we find in lines 19 and 20 at page 2 and adding that it is the role of the department to endeavour to establish national standards of environmental quality.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 28
at page 2 the following:
'(j) endeavour to act expeditiously to assess whether substances in use in
Canada are toxic or capable of becoming toxic.'
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-74 be amended by adding immediately after line 38 at page 10
the following:
'14. Where a substance has been specified on the Priority substance list for a period of five years and the Ministers have not yet assessed whether the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, any person may file a notice of objection with the Minister requesting that a board of review be established under section 88.'
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 88 by adding immediately after line
35 at page 65 the following:
'(5) Where a person files with the Minister a notice of objection under subsection 13(2) in respect of failure to make a decision about whether a substance is toxic the Minister shall establish a board of review to inquire into whether the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.'
She said: Madam Speaker, I simply want to explain the purpose of these three motions. They reflect the frustration that many of us felt at committee stage that the Government was not prepared to implement sufficiently strong measures and particularly to move expeditiously to review the toxic chemicals. If the Government could have given us firm guarantees in the legislation, these amendments would not have been necessary.
The first motion simply seeks to add a new clause which states that the Minister shall endeavour to act expeditiously to assess whether substances in use in Canada are toxic or
capable of becoming toxic. We were unable to get any specific time frame in the legislation, so this at least gives the Minister some direction to act expeditiously.
The problem has been caused by slow response. There are substances which for years have been known to be toxic. Experts have raised objections and environmental groups have protested. Yet there has been a long tedious period of review. It has taken years to get toxic chemicals placed on a list and banned. In some cases, the chemical has even gone out of production because of objections in other places. It has even taken a long time to have substances that are no longer manufactured thoroughly banned on account of their toxicity. This motion is an additional attempt to get the Minister to act expeditiously.
Motion No. 14 deals with this problem of time. Five years is a long time for the Government to investigate the toxic substances in question. In the case of frivolous objections, there is no need to proceed. The Bill cannot compel the Government to assess toxicity of substances specified on the priority substances list.
The Minister's representative said that it would be unrealistic and unreasonable to require that any substances be assessed within a particular time frame. Even 10 years was considered to be unreasonable. What I have done is propose an amendment so that at least people can object if there has been no action in five years. That seems to me the least we can do in the circumstances. The Bill gives too much discretion to the Minister. With this amendment the Minister could still take as long as he wished to decide which priority substances were toxic and the public would have the right to abort a review when more than five years had lapsed.
The third motion, Motion No. 25, is consequential on the previous motion. Where a person files with the Minister a notice of objection in respect of failure to make a decision about whether a substance is toxic, the Minister shall establish a board of review to inquire into whether the subject is toxic or not. That seems to me the least we can do in the circumstances.
We have here a Bill with procedures that are, frankly, quite cumbersome. Many people have pointed out how cumbersome these procedures are and how very long it takes under the existing procedures to get a substance ruled to be toxic and regulated or banned. The new procedure is actually a little more complicated. We fear it will be even more time consuming to get action on it. These are three amendments which simply give citizens a bit of a right to push, to require the Minister to act when five years has elapsed. This makes the Bill a little more realistic and a little easier to respond to the really serious concerns environmentalists have. I would hope the Government would see fit at this stage to support these very reasonable and quite simple amendments.
April 19, 1988


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, with respect to these three motions we are debating together today, I would first like to speak to Motion No. 4. The key word here is "expeditiously". The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has brought it to our attention. I think it is an important word for us to include in this Act. This word, I am certain, was chosen because assessments of the toxic effects of substances existing in Canadian commerce have in the past not been carried out quickly enough. As we know, the Government has committed new resources to speed up the assessment process. Therefore, we would be pleased to accept Motion No. 4 as presented.
Motion No. 14 talks about the five years on the priority substance list. The Government is committed in assessing the substances placed on the priority substance list. That is its purpose. We want them assessed. We are in complete agreement with the establishment of a board of review when a substance has remained on the list for a five-year period without assessment. Therefore, the Government accepts Motion No. 14 also.
I understand we will be voting on Motion No. 14 with motion No. 25. Consequently, we will be supporting Motion No. 25 as it relates to Clause 88 of the Bill.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, as the seconder of these three motions, Motions Nos. 4, 14 and
25,1	would like to record my Party's thanks and satisfaction to the Parliamentary Secretary for the acceptance of these motions and, of course, our congratulations to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who put them forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: the next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). The vote on Motion No. 14 will also apply to Motion No. 25.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 14 and 25 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 6.


Lynn McDonald: Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) For the purposes of carrying out the Minister's duties under this Act, the Minister shall establish an advisory council, composed of equal representation from industry, labour and environmental public interest groups, to
(a)	provide advice to the Minister on matters that have been brought to its attention or referred to it concerning notification, assessment or procedure, and policy issues;
(b)	make recommendations to the Minister concerning the administration of the Act;
(c)	make recommendations with respect to biotechnology and products of biotechnology; and
(d)	review the new chemicals program every three years.
(2) The advisory council shall report annually to the Minister on its activities, and this report shall be made public."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: The next question is on Motion No. 8.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 8:
That Bill C-74 be amended by deleting Clause 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"6. (1) Either Minister may, in cooperation with the governments of the provinces, establish a federal-provincial advisory committee to advise the Ministers on the exercise of the powers conferred by sections 7 and 32, paragraphs 33(1 )(a), (b), (d), (o) and (q).
(2) The Minister shall include in the annual report required by section 137 a report of the activities of the federal-provincial advisory committee."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 9:


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 9:
That Bill C-74 be amended by adding immediately after line 39 at page 5 the following:
"7. The Minister will make public all correspondence, documents and information arising from the work of the committees referred to in sections 5 and 6."


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I will speak briefly on Motion No. 6 and Motion No. 8. I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues in this House the way in which Clause 5 is presently written. It does not indicate the disposition on the part of the Government of the day or the Minister of the day to appoint an advisory committee that would be balanced in representing different interests in the community at large. It may well be that that might happen, but it may not. It may well be that an advisory committee could be loaded, so to speak, in favour of one interest in society as opposed to another.
1 submit that it is good legislative practice to indicate in the law how a committee ought to be representative of the

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
community at large. This is the reason why in the amendment that Your Honour just read reference is made on the part of my Party to equal representation by industry, labour and nongovernmental groups, mainly public interest groups that are active in environmental protection.
Why is that? First, it is to ensure that there is a certain balance in advisory committees to be created under the clause. Second, it is to open up the process, to ensure that the process of environmental advisory committees, which committees would advise the Minister of the day, would have access to it as well as a guarantee in the legislation to have this type of access.
It was our Party which in committee ensured by way of an amendment the inclusion of labour in a clause further on in the Bill, an inclusion which had been omitted, so that it would be a participant in a consultative process envisaged further on in the Bill. We therefore spoke for labour on that occasion. We are glad to do the same here now by way of an amendment that opens up the process to these three major sectors in society which usually have something very important to say when it comes to environmental matters.
With respect to Motion No. 8, the purpose of the motion is very simple. It is to make public the information that is the object of Clause 6. It is a very straightforward amendment that endeavours to do something that we do in a variety of ways when it comes to reports in other activities that are of public interest.
Therefore I hope that the House will see fit to adopt Motion No. 6 and Motion No. 8 in order to improve the quality of the Bill, the quality of consultation and the quality of public information.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 6 put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think it is an important matter to have in the type of consultations proposed here an advisory council composed of equal representation from industry, labour and environmental public interest groups. It would have the function of providing advice to the Minister on matters brought forward, make recommendations concerning administration of the Act and recommendations respecting biotechnology and products of biotechnology, and review the new chemicals program and report annually.
These same three groups, industry, labour and environmental, have been working together in a variety of respects. Apropos toxic chemicals they came forward with a united approach as to how they should be dealt with. So we have had some useful experience of the groups working together to try to come up with some decent standards and advice. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable proposal. Perhaps these groups have other ways of getting their advice into Government and felt that a permanent advisory council was necessary and that Government was not listening to them. They wanted to have some input on the over-all direction with respect to
how we are going and whether or not it is working. Frankly, we have a process that is not all that strong, and perhaps there need to be reviews of it. I do not mean solely with respect to particular substances where there can be input on the whole direction of the program to reduce pollution by toxic chemicals. There has been significant demand in order to have this type of a central consultative committee.
The second part of the proposal, Motion No. 8, I am a little bit more leery of because this is a federal-provincial advisory committee to advise Ministers on the exercise of powers. What makes me a little bit leery-and of course I am in favour of the principle of consultation between the federal and provincial Governments-is the very cumbersome process that has been put up. It is something like the double-whammy approach. First, we were told that if we were to have national standards with consultation then that was one thing. If a process of equivalency is set up that says that we will not have national standards, that we will let the provinces set up equivalent standards, and we will only have very modest guidelines, then why would there be the consultative process? It seems that one would spend all one's time consulting and that one would not end up with national standards since they have been rejected.
I am not happy with this. It seems that the principle of consultation is certainly a proper one. However, when we end up with too much consultation and we do not end up with adequate standards as a result of that consultation, I wonder if we are not wasting some time and should be going one or other route more consistently.
The third of the motions is the one that I proposed. It is Motion No. 9. It would amend the Bill to the effect that the Minister will make public all correspondence, documents and information arising from the work of the committees referred to in Sections 5 and 6, that is, the labour, industry and environmental committee, and the federal-provincial committee.
The reason for this needs to be understood very carefully. We have a Government that has bowed to pressure from the provinces to be consulted before the federal Government exercises its authority in environmental matters. This consultation seems to be going on at all times with respect to equivalency. It is being built into the process. However, there are some dangers in this consultation that have to be understood. One of them is a loophole that exists in accessing information passed between federal and provincial Governments. The provinces should not be able to become lobbyists in secret. By giving the public clear access to federal-provincial correspondence, abuse of this federal-provincial advisory process will be mitigated.
If we are to have the process which is proposed in the second motion, then it is very clear that experts, environmental groups and critics in the Opposition will be able to have access to the documents to ensure that there are not secret deals being made. We need to know what this advice is. Clearly, the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction in our Constitution. Clearly, the provinces have an important role. Clearly,
April 19, 1988

the need for national standards and the national presence is also there.
If we are to have decent environmental regulation, then we have to understand what consultation is going on between the federal Government and the provinces. We need to know what advice is being given. If a province is advising that it wants a pollution ghetto, if it is asking for standards to be reduced or is trying to look for ways to get out of having adequate environmental protection, then we need to know that. We do not want to have secret deals. So it seems to me very reasonable that Motion No. 9 would be passed.
It would simply respect the intent of the Bill to improve environmental protection and to involve the public and environmental groups. The Government has built this into the Bill at various stages. It has certainly showed a willingness to work with environmental groups and, indeed, to benefit from the expertise, the knowledge and experience which environmental groups have. It seems to me that this would be a very logical extension of that principle. Accordingly, I hope that the Government will see fit to support these amendments.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, as we begin discussing Motion No. 6 and Motion No. 8, I am going to ask if it is possible to divide Motion No. 6 and vote on each part separately. The first part relates to Clause 5(1), and the second part relates to Clause 5(2). Motion No. 8 relates to Clause 6. Might we vote on Clauses 6(1) and 6(2) separately?
First, I will speak to Motion No. 6. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act does in fact provide an effective framework for protecting the Canadian environment. The Act is designed to counter the increasing number of environmental and health threats afflicting the world around us.
The very drafting and formulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was truly a national effort, because it is the culmination of extensive public consultations involving all three levels of Government, industry, labour, the university community, and citizens' groups. Indeed, it is the product of five years' work as experts joined together to grapple with the problems associated with toxic chemicals.
That consultative process is built into the very fabric of this Act. Citizens now have unprecedented rights of participation in helping to implement and enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Citizens can request that a substance be added to the priority substance list for assessment and possible controls. They can object to regulatory decisions by requesting that a board of review be established, and they can make representation before those boards. Canadians can petition the Minister of the Environment to investigate an alleged infraction under the Act. The people of Canada will have a very strong say in how this Act is administered.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act also provides the Minister with an opportunity to establish special advisory committees. It is an important provision; environmental concerns are complex. A Minister must have proper recourse to a range of possibilities in overseeing an implementation of the Act. Flexibility of approach is the key to good management.
The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has proposed that Section 5 be amended. He suggested that it require the Minister to establish an advisory council to oversee the administration of the Act. I find this point redundant. We have debated this extensively in committee. There already exists an advisory body, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, which advises the Minister. It was established in 1972.
The council provides guidance and makes recommendations to the Minister of the Environment, and through him to the Government as a whole, and through the Government to the public on environmental policy. Its work is becoming increasingly public. In the same manner as it was active in the national consultation process on CEPA and gave impetus to many of the changes in the earlier parts, so also will it play a key role in advising on the administration of the legislation following passage.
The council has been involved in the development of CEPA. It is now working on a project to enhance the efficiency of the assessment of substances. The council is representative; its members appointed to reflect the reality that is Canada. They come from all regions. At different times, the council members have been drawn from the ranks of academe, citizens' groups, industry, and labour, the goal being a genuine cross-section of Canadian society and expertise.
I see no point in the Hon. Member's amendment to tie down in legislation a reality that already exists, an advisory council to advise the Minister. In this section, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I do recommend that the House reject the first part of this amendment.
In regard to part (2) requiring an annual report on the activities of advisory committees, because Section 5 talks about advisory committees, the Government accepts that part of the motion if it refers to advisory committees.
In relation to Motion No. 8 before the House, we would also seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, in having the two parts voted on separately. In this motion, Bill C-74 provides a Canada-wide framework of environmental protection. Forging a partnership between the federal Government and the provinces will serve to harmonize environmental controls, and ensure an equivalent level of protection for all Canadians, no matter where they reside in this country. The federal-provincial advisory committee is an important manifestation of that partnership. Therefore, it shall be established.
The committee's focus is regulations. The motion suggests that the committee also deal with monitoring activities

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
described in Clause 7. There is well-established co-operation among Governments for sharing monitoring and operating equipment, and Clause 7(2) confirms that. In our view, it is unnecessary to have this activity be the subject of a federal-provincial advisory committee.
The motion proposes the committee deal with clause 32 which establishes a list of toxic substances. This clause is linked with the regulation making power set in Clause 33, and regulations are the subject of the committee. The amendment is therefore not considered necessary. The amendment drops the whole idea of consultation in paragraph 33(1 )(c) which deals with regulations on the release of toxic substances to the environment at the commercial, manufacturing, or processing stages of the life cycle.
This paragraph will be of just as much interest and import to the provinces as paragraphs 33(1 )(a),(b), and (d) which also deal with regulations on the release of toxic substances. These areas have traditionally fallen within the purview of provincial governments.
In general, the motion would define a very narrow role for the federal-provincial advisory committee, while removing the flexibility to assign to it tasks of mutual interest to both the federal and provincial Governments. Rather, our intention is that the committee will be an important mechanism for forging and maintaining the federal-provincial partnership.
To be effective in this role, both the Minister and the committee must retain a considerable flexibility in the tasks which can be assigned and assumed. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we reject the first part of this motion. If, in any given year, the committee is active and contributes to the administration of the Act, its work must be included in the annual report to Parliament. Therefore, we accept the second part of this motion.
Motion No. 9 is aimed at releasing the maximum amount of information to the public on matters arising from the work of the ministerial and federal-provincial advisory committees established under Bill C-74. Section 5(2) of the Act already provides for public release of reports of the ministerial advisory committees, subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Act. This provision is necessary to allow ministerial advisory committees to work with confidential business information, such as trade secrets, where circumstances warrant.
As far the federal-provincial advisory committees are concerned, the Access to Information Act allows exemption from release for information transmitted between the two levels of Government. The motion as proposed might put in jeopardy the provision of advice to the Minister by the provinces, and therefore Motion No. 9 would not be supported by the Government.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to deal with Motion No. 6 at the outset. Motion No. 6
amends Bill C-74 by deleting Clause 5 and substituting the following:
Motion No. 6
"5.(1) For the purposes of carrying out the Minister's duties under this Act, the Minister shall establish an advisory council, composed of equal representation from industry, labour and environmental public interest groups,
It goes on to outline what the responsibilities of these groups would be; namely, to:
(a)	provide advice to the Minister on matters that have been brought to its attention or referred to it concerning notification, assessment or procedure, and policy issues;
That is the provision of advice. Then to:
(b)	make recommendations to the Minister concerning the administration of the Act;
So we are now talking about advice and recommendations. We go on to:
(c)	make recommendations with respect to biotechnology and products of biotechnology;
Lord only knows we certainly need some concrete recommendations in this new and evolving technology. Last to:
(d)	review the new chemicals program every three years.
We know how quickly we are changing in this new and dynamic field and certainly the review every three years just makes quite logical sense of chemical programs. Then we come to:
(2) The advisory council shall report annually to the the Minister on its
activities,-
It strikes me that we are elected Members of this House, and that the Minister through his contacts carries his responsibilities further than that of an elected Member, but he is in a position to give real meaning to listening to the grass-roots, to listening to the professional organizations and to listening to those labour and industry groups actively involved in pursuing improvement in pollution and pollution control. They have already worked together as the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) have said. We know that the STOP group and La societe pour vaincre la pollution, S.V.P., are very important.
We enable national standards and we establish national standards. This should be a primary goal which I am sure the Minister would like to have so there would not be the sense of copping out or hiding-which surely the Minister does not want. In the establishment of national standards and having this advisory group enable us to establish those national standards, we will be giving real meaning to the intent behind this particular Bill. I would strongly suggest that if the Minister will consider this, it would be much appreciated by groups in society with respect to the goals that he has established for this Bill.
April 19, 1988

If you look to Motion No. 8, Madam Speaker, you will see that there is a move on the part of my colleague from Davenport involving the deletion of Clause 6. I think his point was well accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary. I read from the committee reports, issue No. 22 for March 3, the exchange between the Member, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), Mr. Higgins, the expert and the Parliamentary Secretary. It is obvious they had a pleasant exchange but fundamentally the exchange is all about why we need this correction. Mr. Higgins said:

"The guidelines proposed in clause 8 are certainly the sorts of issues that advisory committees could deal with to advise the minister."
I do not see why the Minister would not agree to be advised. I believe that he has very effective advisors, but this would add to his competence in the subject.
Later, my colleague said, "Given Mr. Higgins' answer, it would be desirable to move a subamendment to clause 6 by adding after the words" other environmental matters that are of mutual interest to the federal and provincial governments and pertain to this Act."

What we have here is a tidying up of a lot of rhetoric, an establishment of principle and practice that is clear, unfuzzy and denotes the goals that are envisaged in this Bill.

So I suggest that we adopt the effective and enlightened recommendations to improve the contents of this Bill and the procedures provided therein.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this very enlightening debate. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has articulated very well the general views of the Government with respect to the proposals put forward by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). As is usually the case, one wants to be as accommodating as possible for constructive suggestions.
However, one of the difficulties is the nature of these proposals. Sometimes the way in which motions are put makes it difficult to accommodate the intentions of the Government and the intentions of the Opposition. I am not sure whether anything would be gained by having a look at whether or not we can, in effect, salvage this matter. It may be the form of the Hon. Member's motion as such, having predicated the whole set of amendments on deleting the clause completely. The Minister is here and I defer to my colleague. I guess I am donning my old House Leader's hat, seeing whether there is something that might be done and asking whether we might give some consideration to seeing what we can do, but I think it is very difficult for us in light of the form of the amendment.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I think as a government we will have to vote against this amendment as per the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I might explain that while we are interested in certain aspects of the amendment, because of its nature we cannot accept it, and we will have to vote against the total amendment. That is the final and definitive position of the Government, until there is a change.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I know there have been some discussions at the table but I wonder whether it might make sense at this point to defer any further debate on these clauses and allow a resolve that might meet the intent of the Hon. Member who moved the motion and the Government.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his helpful intervention both in the spirit and in the substance of what he has just said. I also want to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for having expressed very clearly the will of the Government in relation to Motion Nos. 6 and 8 in particular. It seems to me that the difficulty which the Minister of Justice just outlined could be resolved.
Of course, I am making a case to see whether it would not be within the power of the House that if you were to call for a split in the vote so as to permit Motion No. 6, in particular, and Motion No. 8-or whichever it is that requires a splitting-so that by way of unanimous consent each motion is approached paragraph by paragraph. Having done so, we might then be able to overcome the procedural difficulty to which the Minister of Justice referred a few moments ago. That, of course, does not preclude the prerogative and privilege on the part of the Opposition to seek a recorded vote on the balance of the motion which is not acceptable to the Government. That, of course, is normal procedure.
I thought that the timely intervention on the part of the Minister of Justice and the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary might indicate an avenue for us to explore, a route which is entirely in your hands at this point, Madam Speaker, but it might allow us to overcome this procedural hurdle. I seek your guidance on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will hear from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in a moment. The Chair is quite aware of the difficult situation which was quite well explained by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and obviously well understood by members of the Opposition. There could also be another avenue which Hon. Members might want to consider, and that is the possibility of proposing a subamendment. I will now hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps representatives of the different Parties may wish to get together on this. I wanted to make the House aware of this other possibility at this time.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, the Government applauds those parts of the amendments which deal with making reports

April 19, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
of committees available to the public and with having the annual report to the federal-provincial advisory committee included in the annual report. We would like to accept those parts of the motions which make the information available to the public.
As I understand it, the difficulty arises because the motion begins by deleting the whole clause. If we voted against the first part and voted for the second part, all we would have is the second part. We would have a public report with no committees having been formed. As I understand what was said by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), it would not be acceptable for the Government to accept the second part of the motion as the preamble to it now reads.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, let me for a few moments join in this discussion. Perhaps there is another option, and that is for the Hon. Member who moved the motion to withdraw his motion. 1 would assume that that would require unanimous consent. Then either he or the Government could put forward a motion dealing with these two clauses, a motion that would meet what the Government is prepared to accept.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, returning to your intervention of a few minutes ago, it would seem to me that although the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed very clearly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to the Government, nevertheless that will ought to be expressed in the language with which the Government is best acquainted. It would not be so easy for me to formulate the phraseology necessary to express the will of the Government. It seems to me, therefore, that your suggestion of a few moments ago to proceed by way of a subamendment would permit the clarity of language that only the Government could achieve.
The Government itself knows exactly what it is willing to accept, and to me, it would be perfectly acceptable to support a subamendment, in the spirit of co-operation that is emerging on these two motions. Therefore, the route you have suggested seems to me to be the one that will lead to a precision of language that in the end will achieve the desired result.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: After listening very carefully to all Hon. Members, I have a suggestion that the House may want to consider. I suggest that we let Motions Nos. 6, 8 and 9 stand at this point. Perhaps tomorrow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary or someone else could propose an amendment to the motions that are now before the House so that it would be clearly understood by everyone what is hoped to be achieved through these motions. That is one suggestion that I am prepared to offer to the House.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, thank you for that suggestion. As I indicated, we are prepared to look at the latter parts of Motions Nos. 6 and 8. Your suggestion is to defer this until we have had time to review it in order to draw up such a subamendment. However, I would seek some clarification. If that were to be so, would Motions Nos. 6 and 8 be withdrawn?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Amendments to the motions would be presented to the House at that time, and the House would deal with those amendments to these motions. Then the House could vote on the amendments to the motions.
The Hon. Member would have to make sure that the appropriate changes are made to the motions so that they could be presented to the House again.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I gather that we will not be able to complete all of the motions today, so we could carry on to the next motion then.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to stand Motions Nos. 6, 8 and 9 at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will then move to the next grouping, Motions Nos. 12 and 13.


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 16 at page 9
and substituting the following therefor:
"human, animal or plant life depends; or".
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-74 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 18 at page 9
and substituting the following therefor:
"danger in Canada to life or health."
She said: Madam Speaker, I rise to explain Motions Nos. 12 and 13 and to urge Hon. Members to support them. The purpose of these motions is to ensure that we have an adequately broad definition of the environment and of the kinds of harm that exist.
Clause 11 deals with toxic substances. It provides that for the purposes of this part, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions, and the first condition is having or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment. The second is constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends. The third part says "constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."
Under the first amendment at line 16 the new wording would be:
constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which
human life depends;
Then the words "human life" simply become "life". This is to broaden the definition in two particular places and the point is to indicate very clearly that we are all part of the environment. It is not just human life and health that can be affected by toxic substances. We want to make it very clear that our
April 19, 1988

environment includes plants and animals, and if a toxic substance is causing harm to plants and animals, eventually it will get to us because we live on the same planet. There is a food chain, one thing leads to another, and the effect of toxic substances is magnified as they move up the food chain. If it is only lichens or very simple forms of life affected first, we should not ignore it on the grounds they are not human beings but some kind of low, non-conscious form of life. Lichens, after all, are eaten by other creatures, those creatures are eaten by larger creatures, and so on. Toxic substances are then concentrated as they move up the food chain.
I hope people will not see this as being unduly sentimental. I happen to take a perhaps more religious view of our responsibilities as stewards of the environment. However, we have to be practical. We all live on the planet and these things are connected. It is just foolish to think that we human beings stand at the top and we can ignore the threat to those beings further down the chain. We are all in it together and we have responsibilities. We have not taken those responsibilities very well and we have had all kinds of environmental disasters as a result of our lack of conscience, vigour, enforcement, and slowness in appreciating what is happening to the environment.
These amendments are to say let us be careful that we are not too narrow in defining only threats to human health or the environment on which human beings depend, but really understand that plants, animals and human beings all affect each other. We have to be clear. This is an Environmental Protection Act. Human health is an important part but let us not focus too narrowly and assume that by doing that we are going to protect ourselves or the environment.
It seems to me that these are simple amendments and will be recognized by every environmentalist as being eminently practical and wise. We cannot set ourselves apart and protect only ourselves. We have to be good environmentalists and understand the importance of protecting all life, plant and animal, and those of us who rise and speak in Parliament as well.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, in support of this amendment I would like to bring to your attention the fact that we spent a considerable amount of time in committee debating this clause because it deals with a definition of nothing less than toxic substances. Therefore, this is the heart and soul, in a way, of this Bill. Toxic substances cannot be regulated, you will appreciate, until a comprehensive and adequate definition has been worked out. We spent a lot of time in committee focusing on two words, "significant" and "important". In the end we collectively managed to arrive at a significantly improved definition, the one here before us today. In that respect we were all quite satisfied that we had made progress.
The two motions deal with two other subclauses that were, in retrospect, overlooked at bit because of our preoccupation in
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
committee, as I recall it, with the first half of this clause. The thrust of the motion by the Hon. Member is to broaden the orientation of this clause from just and only the human perspective, as she put it, to a recognition of the totality of the value of an environment which is more than just humans. We know that what happens in animal life, for example, and this is why we have the Canadian Wildlife Service, or in plant life, eventually can reach humans because of the ecological chain the Hon. Member spoke about. If this clause is left the way it reads now, it means that toxic substances are important only within the context of human life. That is not bad. It is a good start.
However, we are saying, in the hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, that there has to be a totality in the description of what is toxic which is broader than just what affects humans. Hence, the value and importance of this amendment which also looks at life as plants and the animal world, not because of a romantic notion so much, as the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) quite rightly put it, but because we know from experience that what happens in animals and plant life eventually has a significant, and sometimes profound effect on human beings on this planet.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to point out that what has happened here today was generally the kind of thing that happened in the committee. There was a kind of co-operation that took place with respect to the seven or eight amendments that we have discussed here today. The Government accepted three of them and is taking a look at two others.
However, in relation to Motion No. 12 and Motion No. 13, we feel they are not necessary and the Government will not support them. They are designed to add the concept of animal and plant life, but subclause 11 (a) deals with the effects on the environment. If you go to Clause 3 of the Bill where it defines "environment", it already includes plant and animal life in the words "living organisms" in the definition of the word "environment". We believe these amendments are therefore unnecessary and the Government will not support them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will then continue with Motions 12 and 13 tomorrow.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

April 19, 1988
Blue Water Bridge Authority Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services) moved: that Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I find myself in a somewhat unorthodox situation and I will explain why. This Bill is very important to me and I would like to expand upon it. However, you may be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have recently been appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Albert James: Consequently, I do not feel that it would be right for me to continue as the sponsor of this Bill. I have been in contact with my colleague, the Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey) who will take over for me as the sponsor of this Bill.
I would like to take this opportunity, however, to say a few words because 1 am honoured to have been given the opportunity to present this Bill. The concerns which have been expressed to me centre around the issue of liability on the Blue Water Bridge which spans the St. Clair River between Michigan and Ontario.
As Hon. Members may recall, the insurance industry has been very volatile in recent years and liability insurance costs sky-rocketed. In 1984-85 the Blue Water Bridge Authority's insurance brokers provided a $50 million public liability umbrella policy on the bridge for $18,000 a year. In 1986-87 the highest insurance package that the brokers could offer was a $45 million public liability policy for $80,000 a year-a decrease in coverage with a premium increase of nearly 500 per cent.
Traffic on the bridge continues to increase dramatically. The commissioners and the general manager of the Blue Water Bridge Authority are concerned that, in the event of a major disaster on the bridge, their personal property and possessions could be attached if the $50 million coverage was not sufficient. Given the liberal insurance settlements we have seen recently in the courts, this is a real concern.
It is the contention of the Department of Transport that this issue is dealt with through the common law and is covered through other Acts of Parliament. I am aware of Transport Canada's concern and I do respect the department's position. However, I have been approached by the Blue Water Bridge Authority and it is clear that the commissioners do not feel entirely comfortable with the department's position.
I believe that the concerns expressed by the Blue Water Bridge Authority are valid. Also, I do understand and respect
the reservations of the Department of Transport. However, the problem remains and a solution must be found. It is my feeling that a legislative committee will provide the best possible forum in which to resolve this subject to everyone's satisfaction.
It may be that the solution to the issue lies somewhere between Bill C-210 and the current situation. I would encourage all Hon. Members to support this Bill at second reading. It is too important a subject to ignore.
I understand that consultations have taken place with the opposition Parties and I believe, Madam Speaker, that you will find consent for the following motion:
That the motion of Mr. James for second reading and reference to a
legislative committee of Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge
Authority Act, be, by unanimous consent, amended to stand in the name of
Mr. Hardey, and that in any subsequent proceedings on the said Bill, the Bill
will be deemed to stand in that Member's name.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James). Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Boudria:: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among various Members. I and my colleagues are certainly willing to give that unanimous consent in order to assist the Member with this Bill which could be of benefit to his constituency.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, 1, too, want to indicate that there have been discussions and that we are agreeable. Let me bootleg my congratulations to the Hon. Member on his appointment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As there is unanimous consent, the motion is agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I just want to make one short intervention. I appreciate that we want to get Bill C-210 into a legislative committee so that there can be an examination of both its principle and its content. However, I have one question in my mind after having read the Bill. The Bill says that the members of the bridge authority are not personally liable for any injury or loss suffered by any user of the Blue Water Bridge as a result of an act of terrorism or the fault, neglect, want of skill, or willful or wrongful act of any person.
Does that free the board as an entity from any action taken against it because of a decision it has made? I am not sure that it was the intent of the mover to take away the legal responsibility and liability of the board should it decide to forego maintenance and should that lack of maintenance lead to a situation which creates an accident. I do not think that the board should be exempt from action by a citizen who finds himself injured because of that.
April 19, 1988

I hope that that will be examined during the discussions of the legislative committee to ensure that while an individual member is not taken to court as a result of an action over which he or she had no control, there must be some onus on the board itself. If a court of law finds the board negligent, an aggrieved party should have some recourse such as a pay-out or whatever.
We are not going to put up any more speakers and are quite willing to have this Bill passed very quickly.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I only want a moment or two to participate in this debate. I certainly have no intention of delaying this Bill in any way, shape, or form. I share the concerns which have been brought to the attention of the House. Perhaps, with unanimous consent, the Member could speak again and address some of those concerns. I would be willing to give such consent.
We do not want, of course, board members to be singularly or collectively responsible for liability. On the other hand, there must be provision, in the event of a mishap, for persons affected to collect. For example, if there was a major spill from a vehicle that perhaps ran off the end of the bridge due to a deficiency in the bridge as opposed to their own neglect, we would want to ensure there are provisions there for that kind of situation.
The Member prepared a briefing book for us and it states in the notes that he was to have delivered to us prior to his promotion, which cut down somewhat on his speech, that in the event of a major disaster on the bridge there is presently a $50 million liability coverage. If I understand it correctly, the situation is such that board members could be sued for a claim that was in excess of that. That is essentially the problem that the Hon. Member was explaining to us.
Nevertheless, we are also concerned particularly because of settlements that have been made in courts in recent years. We do not want to create the situation which would cause undue hardship for members of the board of that bridge authority.
We are willing to let the Bill go to committee. I invite the Member or one of his colleagues to perhaps answer some of those concerns. If that is possible, as far as I am concerned the Bill could then go to a legislative committee in order to be dealt with as soon as possible.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the Government and present its view on this Private Members' Bill. First, I want to commend my colleague, the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), for his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services. It is a very important department which will involve a lot of extra work on his behalf. I am sure his
Blue Water Bridge Authority Act
constituents will understand that and will be thankful that he is to provide his judgment on behalf of the people of Canada.
Second, I want to commend the Hon. Member for this Bill. My colleague is a new Member and does not remember the old days when private Members had a Private Members' Hour but their Bills were almost universally talked out. No matter what Government was in power, private Members had no ability to legislate. This built frustrations that were genuine on our part as back-benchers.
Therefore, this new procedure whereby more and more Bills go to legislative committee and can actually become law of the land is a tremendous addition to law-making in this country. There is now a short list of 20 Bills which can come up, six of which can be drawn and are actually forced to a vote. Even though a Member may have a Bill that is inconvenient or indeed opposed by the Cabinet, if it is on the votable list it will come to a vote and the Cabinet has to accept that. That is tremendous power for back-benchers.
It is an historic occasion for a Bill to go to a legislative committee. We should be thankful because this would not be the rule of the House if it had not been for the actions of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Only he had the courage, after a whole succession of Prime Ministers, to face this directly. As a new Prime Minister he said that he wanted Members of Parliament to be important. We should all be thankful for that. We may have partisan differences, but the Prime Minister deserves credit for this amendment to our rules.
In response to the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and the Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), I have seen a briefing note raising the points the officials have made. I think it would be wiser to send the Bill to committee where we will make sure all the witnesses necessary will explain any questions Members might have. I suggest that would be a wiser resolution, rather than getting into debate on it today. Therefore, I hope Members will agree to send it to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the hour, and knowing that there is a vote scheduled at six o'clock, perhaps it would be appropriate to suspend the sitting until then.

April 19, 1988
Sitting Suspended


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will suspend the sitting until six o'clock, at which time we will call in the Members pursuant to order made earlier.
At 5.17 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 18, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That this question be now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Hawkes for the previous question in relation to Bill C-121.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Hawkes) which
was agreed to on the	following division:	
	(Division No. 318)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Beatty	Brightwell	CossittBelsher	Browes	CroftonBernier	Cadieux	CrosbieBertrand	Cardiff	(St. JohrBinns	Carney	CrouseBlackburn	Clark	Darling(Jonquiere)	(Brandon-Souris)	DesjardinsBlais	Clifford	DuguayBlenkarn	Collins	EdwardsBlouin	Cooper	FennellBoyer	Corbett	Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Gagnon
Gass
Layton Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and
Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Gerin	the Islands)	Scowen	Gormley	MacKay	Siddon	Graham	Malone	Speyer	Gray	Mantha	Stevens	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Marin	Stewart	'V [DOT]'la-Madeleine)	Mazankowski	Suluk	Greenaway	McCain	Taylor	?'[DOT]Grise	McCrossan	Thacker	*Halliday	Mclnnes	Towers	Hamelin	McKenzie	Tremblay	Hardey	McKinnon	(Quebec-Est)	Hawkes	McKnight	Tremblay	Hicks	McLean	(Lotbiniere)	Hnatyshyn	McMillan	Tupper	^fj:Hockin	Minaker	Turner	Howie	Nicholson	(Ottawa-Carlcton)	Hudon	(Niagara Falls)	Valcourt	James	Nickerson	Vezina	IpJardine	Oberle	Vincent	MJelinek	O'Neil	Weiner	*Johnson	Pennock	Wenman	/[DOT](Bonavista-T rinity-	Pietz	Wilson	Conception)	Plourde	(Swift Current	Jourdenais	Porter	- Maple Creek)	Kelleher	Ravis	Wilson	Kilgour	Redway	(Etobicoke	
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Lawrence
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
++NAYS
Members
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Isabelle
Jewett
Langdon
Lapierre
MacLellan
McCurdy
Centre)
Winegard-112
McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood)
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Rodriguez
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Waddell Young-37
Allmand
Angus
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria Caccia Cassidy de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.

April 19, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Excise Tax Act
++NAYS


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXCISE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefore:
"Bill O-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13 (4) (a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin to Bill C-117.
The question is on the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.

It being 6.38 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, April 20, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers