1988-05-02

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Hon. Member for the electoral district of Ontario (Mr. Fennell) has been appointed as a member of the Board of Internal Economy to replace the Hon. Member for the electoral district of Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled "an Act to amend the House of Commons Act."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to seventeen petitions numbered as follows: 332-4178, 332-4179. 332-4214, 332-4215, 332-4233, 332-4234, 332-4302 to 332-4310, inclusive; 332-4332 and 332-4338.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and
Economic Affairs reporting Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, without amendment.
The matter was handled in the judicious manner which the Finance Committee handles these Bills, both expeditiously and without any problem.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-THIRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages.
The thirteenth report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the eleventh draw which took place on April 12, 1988.
May I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b) this thirteenth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Vote and Proceedings]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-290, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to introduce a Private Members' Bill in the House entitled "an Act to amend the Criminal Code (exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus)". The Bill is intended to protect individuals from the irresponsible actions of carriers of the AIDS virus.
In light of this highly infectious disease reaching epidemic proportions in several centres around the world, I think we should do everything possible in our power within the Criminal Code and by using whatever means are at our disposal to stop the spread of this disease.

May 2, 1988
Petitions
The Bill would make it a criminal offence for all those who have been diagnosed as carrying the HIV antibody to do anything that would expose a person to the AIDS virus. I hope when this matter is brought forward that it will receive the support of all Members of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 106.
These constituents are of the strong feeling that the trade deal between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on our country's economic, cultural, and political independence, and they are of the opinion that the trade deal will result in a loss of jobs in many sectors of the economy as well as in various regions of the country.
The petitioners are requesting that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada other than the trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election prior to the signing of any agreement.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the petition I have from the good residents of Nelson, British Columbia, says the same thing.
I have a suggestion for the Government on behalf of these people. The Government will table its trade legislation in early May. I suggest that the Government tables the legislation and then calls a general election right away, before July 13, so that these people of Nelson can succeed in their petition to the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) call an election on the trade deal before the deal is in fact signed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 267, 300, 305, and 306.


Mr. Caldwell: 1.	Within the last four years has the (a) CBC (b) CTV (c) Global Television Network received funding from Telefilm and, if so (i) on what dates (//) in what amounts?
2.	Over the last four years, has there been an increase in the funding of Telefilm?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: 1
have been informed by Telefilm Canada as follows:
Broadcasters, such as the CBC, CTV and Global Television Network, do not receive direct funding from Telefilm Canada. Instead, Telefilm invests in projects proposed by independent producers from the private sector. For a project to be eligible for support, assurance must be given that the production will be broadcast. This is usually demonstrated through the producer's sale to broadcasters of the broadcast rights for a production. Consequently, broadcasters benefit only indirectly from Telefilm's investments by choosing to air productions that may have received support from Telefilm.
Broadcasters may be part of the financial structure for productions in which Telefilm invests and may be identified as investors in the contracts which Telefilm signs with independent producers. As well, they can be third parties to contracts which Telefilm has signed with independent producers. Broadcasters do not, however, sign contracts directly with Telefilm.
2. Yes, there has been an increase in the funding of Telefilm over the last four years. Telefilm's total appropriations in each year were:
1983-84	$	38,764,0001984-85	$	60,848,0001985-86	$	85,340,0001986-87	$	106,860,0001987-88	$	121,960,000


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Is it required that the government approve, licence or in any other way regulate the proposed airport near the Village of Masset, on the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia and, if so, to what extent?
2.	Have any government funds been contributed, or promised, to this airport proposal and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) at what times (c) for what purposes?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: 1. Government approval is not required for the development of the proposed airport.
If the development does take place, airport certification would be required prior to its use for regular commercial air service. In that case, the airport is regulated to the extent that it requires regular inspections to ensure compliance with appropriate safety standards.
May 2, 1988

2. No. Transport Canada's involvement with the Masset proposal has been with respect to providing technical advice related to aerodrome certification standards, zoning and navigational requirements, to the community, the Province of British Columbia and other interested parties.
On July 27, 1987, the province of British Columbia through the Air Transport Assistance Program administered by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways, awarded $300,000 to the Village of Masset towards the development of a new 1200m airstrip.


Mrs. Collins: 1.	Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have regulations governing child safety and, if so (a) what are they (b) have they been updated or otherwise changed since 1984?
2.	Is the Department considering further action with respect to child safety and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes.
1 (a) Cribs and Cradles Regulations Hazardous Products (Hazardous Substances) Regulations Hazardous Products (Liquid Coating Materials) Regulations Hazardous Products (Pacifiers) Regulations Hazardous Products (Toys) Regulations Playpens Regulations Science Education Sets Regulations Carriages and Strollers Regulations Hazardous Products (Infant Feeding Bottle Nipples) Regulations Hazardous Products (Children's Sleepwear) Regulations Hazardous Products (Child Restraint Systems) Regulations
1 (b) Cribs and Cradles Regulations: amended September 11, 1986 Hazardous Products (Infant Feeding Bottle Nipples) Regulations: amended May 23, 1985.
2. The Department's intentions with regard to future child safety proposals are listed in the Federal Regulatory Plan. These include new regulations on baby gates and baby walkers as well as amendments to the child resistant packaging requirements and the cribs and cradles regulations.


Mr. Peterson: Has the Government any evidence that the State of Israel is using food as a
weapon to control the riots in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and, if so, what is
it?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: UNWRA officials confirmed to the Canadian Embassy, Tel Aviv, in January that the IDF has selectively blocked UNRWA food deliveries to Gazan refugee camps under curfew, causing serious food shortages but no starvation. Cited as example were events of January 19 whereby UNRWA was able to distribute food supplies to only four of eight
Order Paper Questions
camps. At a press briefing January 20 in New York, an official UN spokesperson said that food access to camps "continued to be intermittent", resulting in a "serious but not critical" situation. The Embassy also reported on the IDF's policy of extensive curfews on refugee camps which also restricted supply of food to the refugee population. Such curfews, amounting to a virtual economic and military blockade, allowed only an hour per day for delivery of food and medicines. During the period December 9 to March 16, Jalabia and Bureij refugee camps experienced 24-hour curfews for a total of 16 and 15 days respectively.
Since January, UNRWA has stood firm behind reports provided to the Embassy in January. The Embassy has learned that UNRWA continues to face difficulty in maintaining feeding programs, although there has been no general food shortage.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 261 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 261 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robinson: Since September 4, 1984, have any federal departments or agencies spent money in the riding of Burnaby and, if so, by (a) which departments (b) which agencies and, in each case (/') in what amounts (if) under which categories and program was the money spent?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: When Bill C-74 was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) had completed her speech. The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Hon. Members.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the other day I listened to my hon. colleague's speech on this legislation. I want to ask the Hon. Member how she feels about the approach taken in this Bill and whether the approach the Government is suggesting is the appropriate one. She is knowledgeable in this area, and I think it is important that we are aware of just how the Government approaches an issue or challenge in a particular piece of legislation. Perhaps she would want to comment on that.


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a number of ways in which the approach to the Bill is seriously flawed. We went into great detail with some amendments and in some respects a better Bill came back, but the Government has been doing the wrong thing.
I would like to quote some remarks made by Professor Ross Hume Hall who in fact will be involved in the administration of this Bill. He says very strongly that the whole approach taken by the Liberals in the past under the old Environmental Contaminants Act and this Bill does not do the job that needs to be done. He said:
The 1987 act should be scrapped in favour of a radically different approach to the control of chemical pollution, an approach which can be stated in two words: don't pollute. Ask the question, "how do chemicals get into the environment?," and then set up legal procedures to block the sources of pollution. No one action prevents pollution. It requires actions on sewage, waste dumps, disposal of household garbage, improved incineration, recycling, and prohibition of products that can't be disposed of without contamination.
Such a comprehensive approach takes time and effort to work out. But in the end, we will have an industrial society in which chemicals continue to play an important role, but which will be used and disposed of without polluting the environment.
To do that, we would have to go back to square one. I do not want to be too critical of the Conservative Government because the faults in this Bill were in the old Liberal legislation. This legislation deals with environmental contaminants and chemical pollutants one at a time, without looking at them in interaction and without looking at their cumulative effects. It goes on the basis of lab tests and hopes for the best. That is a very cumbersome procedure. We know that it took five chemicals 10 years to get on the list under the old process and
that the new process will not speed things up. The desire to do something about this is not there.
Professor Hall tells us not simply to blame the weak Department of the Environment, although he blames the weak Department of the Environment in many respects. He said:
A parade of 11 ministers of environment, either disinterested or politically feeble, has passed through the department since 1972. Successive federal governments (Liberal and Conservative) have encouraged weak management, preferring the Department of the Environment to be like a declawed and neutered tomcat, showy, but unaggressive and docile.
We still see the same thing in this Bill. Let me give an example of the approach used by the Bill and what is wrong with that approach.
The toxicology that Health and Welfare uses to test food additives and drugs is laboratory toxicology. It consists of relatively short-term tests on animals and it fails to predict toxic effects, particularly effects in humans. Professor Hall refers to a National Research Council of Canada report on the toxicity of dioxins, a serious environmental contaminant. This provides an illustration of the impossibility of predicting human effects.
A scientist working with dioxins accumulated traces of the substance over a period of time. He began to experience nightmares at night and an inability to concentrate during the day. He suffered from headaches, memory loss, and impotence. The constellation of toxic effects devastated this man. This happened to a human being. The tests, however, are done on rats and guinea-pigs. Have you ever asked a rat if he has a headache, Mr. Speaker? Obviously we do not know what happens to these lab animals.
No laboratory experiments on animals can predict the toxic effects on humans of long-term exposure, to small amounts of chemicals. We only happen to know of these effects of dioxin in humans because of accidental exposure which is neither systematic nor a desirable method of gaining toxicological information.
I welcome the opportunity to expand a bit on what is wrong with the approach, which is that the Bill goes after things one at a time and will not make a significant impact in reducing contaminants in the environment.
The process is cumbersome and we really ought to be doing what Professor Hall suggests we should be doing, which is reducing substantially contaminants entering the environment and having a whole strategy to do that, including a strategy for how we dispose of our garbage and consumer products. We must begin to do that if we really want to be serious about cleaning up the environment.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, the Member made some reference to criticism of the previous Liberal legislation with regard to the environment. The Liberals criticized this legislation, saying that it was inadequate and that they would have done better. Since they quoted the same expert in their
May 2, 1988

presentation, could the Member explain to us what this expert said with regard to previous Liberal efforts in the matter of environmental legislation?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that. This world renowned expert said that the past performance of the Liberal Government was not very good either, that we have the same flaws in this very cumbersome approach as we had in the old Bill. His blame was directed to the present Government.
He used the analogy of a bridge that falls down. Would anyone hire the same architect and the same engineers and tell them to come up with the same design to rebuild the bridge? Clearly we would not do that. Anyone would be irresponsible to do that. The model in the previous legislation is simply not adequate but the model was followed again in this legislation.
Therefore, there has been a failure to learn on the part of the present Government. Let us not go back to a rosy past when the enforcement procedures were very much better, because that is simply not true. We have a very weak and cumbersome approach which accepts that we will have an enormous amount of pollution. However, we are going to name only some criminals and there will be some contaminants that we will not allow. A special process will be set up to identify them and they will be put on a list. This process will take a very long time as it did when it was set up by the previous Government.
Professor Hall gives an interesting example of PCBs. The toxicity of the substance was well established in 1976 and manufacturing of the substance actually stopped. One would have thought it would be simple to write a regulation under the old legislation given that that was the case. However, it was not simple. The process was cumbersome. The President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada was one Brian Mulroney, and the Iron Ore Company of Canada and other industries raised objections to a regulation of PCBs. It is scandalous to think that objections were raised by none other than the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to getting rid of one of the most dangerous contaminants known, the toxicity of which had been well established.
As a New Democratic critic of the environment I want to be very clear that the deficiencies belong to both Governments; they belong to the process. If we really want a safe environment and really want to change our ways, we will have to develop a strategy which will include many elements right from packaging to consumer practices, municipal incineration, and recycling. It is time that we got down to developing real strategies which will actually improve the environment rather than only picking away, item by item, substance by substance, review committee by review committee, to provide this very modest amount of protection against only the most serious contaminants.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I would like to speak on debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will certainly keep that in mind, but I think the debate now turns to the government side. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I will come back to the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting day on Lriday and it looks like we are starting a new week on the same tone. Today we have called Bill C-74, the environmental protection Bill, which may live in the historical annals of this Chamber. Certainly in my nine years of experience I have never seen a Bill which was so thoroughly scrutinized in committee with helpful contributions from all sides of the House. There were indeed amendments made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the procedure correctly, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) was rising on debate. You recognized him and then you went to the government side under, I thought, questions and comments. If we are not on questions and comments and we are on debate, then I take it the Hon. Member for Windsor West should have had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I may have unintentionally created a difficulty here, and I ask Hon. Members to bear with me for a moment. As I understood it, the Hon. Member for Windsor West rose and the Chair recognized the Hon. Member, of course. I then asked whether he was rising on questions or comments and he said that he was rising on debate. I was not in the chair when the Bill was last debated, but I understood according to the method being followed that it was the turn of the government side to debate and, as a consequence, I recognized the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
If I have made an error I want to be completely fair. However, I understood that the Hon. Member for Windsor West was rising on debate. I may have missed somebody, but I did not see anyone rising for further questions and comments. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier could respond. If I am in error I want to be instructed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you are in error. Indeed, we just finished the first round in this debate. However, the Parliamentary Secretary is notorious for putting dilatory motions before the House. I would not suspect that he would be unable to move that the question be now put, which would stifle this debate and prevent people from speaking on it. I just wanted to ensure that he is not going to use one of his well-known methods of cutting off debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, of course, has well-known methods of pre-empting these dreadful

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
procedural strikes of one side or the other. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier knows something that the Chair, of course, is not supposed to know. However, I cannot anticipate what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may or may not do, but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor in debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has more than my nine years of experience in the House and a kind of intuition does come to the fore with wise Members over a considerable period of time.
As a representative of the Government I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that we appreciate the help and advice which have come from members of all three Parties who care about our environment. That help was well delivered in committee. Witnesses were also helpful. As I said before, I doubt very much that in the history of the Canadian Parliament there has ever been a Bill which adopted so many amendments. The quantity of amendments adopted on this Bill is really quite outstanding. In addition, I think that, there was a larger than normal number of amendments at report stage.
I thought that members of all three Parties would take pride in that accomplishment and be able to stand in the House at third reading and express their pride and satisfaction. If they believe that a few changes are still required in future, at another time and in another way, certainly the House would like to hear about that. However, it is particularly disturbing to look back on last week when time was, I believe, wasted in this House in what has become a very consistent attempt to filibuster the House in terms of its capacity-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on a point of order.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member is commenting on the debate of last week when he says that time was wasted. I do not know that it is appropriate to cast a measure of judgment on debate as being useful or not useful or desirable or not.
We had a thorough debate last week, with one round of speakers. We are now beginning a second round on this particular Bill and I question whether the Parliamentary Secretary is using the appropriate approach to this debate by casting doubt on the quality of the debate last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) I may be able to assist in pointing out that procedurally I do not think the Chair is really in a position to admonish any Member for casting some doubt on the quality of debate, whether it came from one side or the other of the House.
I understand perfectly well that the Hon. Member for Davenport is concerned about any suggestion that debate on a Bill of this serious import is "a waste of time", because that is
exactly what the Hon. Member is complaining that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary implied. I certainly understand the point the Hon. Member for Davenport is making, but I think the appropriate place to make that point would be later in the debate and in reply to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. That may assist the Hon. Member for Churchill, who may not need to rise now.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill is indeed rising. Of course I recognize him.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention. I believe the Liberal Member who just spoke had a valid point. Either the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to the quality of the debate at third reading, when there was only one speaker per party, or he was not speaking about the Bill itself, was using some parliamentary excuse to talk about other issues that were before the House in the past and was pointing out the Government's problem, that it claims to have major legislation to be debated, including the trade issue that it has not even introduced yet. That is his problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member for Churchill has assisted the House in his intervention, but of course that does not change the position of the Speaker's comments a few minutes ago.
I am sure there will be other opportunities, if other Hon. Members disagree or dispute the substance or otherwise of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's address. However the floor is with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is the temptation to comment on the quality of debate from time to time, but I do not believe I mentioned the quality of the debate. It is interesting to note the sensitivity about quality that seems to arise from the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is as aware as the rest of us at the moment about the sensitivity, so perhaps he could choose words that would bring some other reaction, in the interest of order in the Chamber.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Government is concerned that Bill C-74 becomes the law of the land as quickly as possible. It is the health of Canadians which is best served by these changes in the statute law. The sooner these changes become law, the sooner our environment is in better shape and the sooner our children can look forward to a better environmental future.
That is what the debate is about. Does Bill C-74, which changes the law to provide a greater protection to the environment, represent a step forward for this country? Government Members are unanimously convinced that it does. Government Members are disturbed because we believe we have made solid legislative proposals to help Atlantic Canada, to help western diversification, to help victims of crime. We believe Bill C-74 will provide help for the environment.
May 2, 1988

What has been happening in this Chamber is that there have been amendments at second reading stage and great blocks of amendments at report stage, all of which represent a kind of hidden tactic of which many Canadians are not aware, designed to consume time in the Chamber.
After last week, the Government was optimistic that perhaps this week Members would return to the Chamber in a mood that would signal we were prepared to move forward with this very important type of legislation. However, when we get to questions and comments we see that the only questions come from NDP caucus members of the critic for the New Democratic Party.
We are unable to determine whether they will attempt another delay with a motion that will create a second round of speakers. One must wonder whether we will be here tonight after spending another entire day on one of the best pieces of vetted legislation this Chamber has ever seen.
We on this side of the House have to believe that subtly and quietly time will be consumed so that by the end of the day again we will not have passed this very important piece of legislation. We will not be able to move on to legislation to help Atlantic Canada or the diversification for Western Canada.
In an attempt to be consistent and to signal as clearly as we can that we think it is time for changes in statute law to protect the health of Canadians through greater environmental protection, I move:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose it would be inappropriate to remark that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier certainly evidenced his usual prescience a few minutes ago.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Debate, or a point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just clarification, Mr. Speaker. Can we ask questions and comments about the Member's great speech? Does the motion take away our right to question the Member?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, the Hon. Member is absolutely correct. Questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. We all appreciate that supposedly the most efficient way to do business is as it is found in totalitarian regimes, where Governments do not have to worry about Parliaments and do not have to be concerned about open and thoughtful debates.
It is a little odd that within the first few hours of this week the Government has sent the signal to the Opposition that it plans to use whatever measures are at its disposal to curtail debate and muzzle the House of Commons. It will limit the ability of the Opposition or government Members to participate in debate.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I take this as the Government serving notice that it plans to use its majority in the House of Commons to curtail discussion of the environment.
The days when we have talked about the environment, whether about global environment conditions or local crises, have been very few and far between. As a matter of fact, I cannot recall any days, with the exception of the Opposition Parties using their opposition days to carry on that kind of debate. I find it inappropriate that the Government would now limit debate, that it would muzzle parliamentarians by moving, in a sense, a form of closure. If the Government is hoping to get co-operation to make the House of Commons work effectively and efficiently, this is not the way to do it.
I regret that the Government once again fails to appreciate the traditions of a parliamentary democracy. But what can one expect from a political Party that saw fit to storm the Speaker's chair not many months ago and bring the House of Commons to its knees day after day after day? I remember the spectacle. I can say as a parliamentarian that it was certainly the darkest day of my life when I realized that Members of Parliament of the Progressive Conservative Party believed that Parliament ought not to continue, that it should be brought to a close. We saw the spectacle day after day of bell ringing, and we saw a political Party participate in the ultimate abuse of the parliamentary system and traditions-and some of them now are laughing. They must think that this muzzling of debate is very humorous. But it is only Monday morning, and it is only the first indication of that sad tradition being adopted by the Government's parliamentary leadership.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened with great care to my friend across the way. He raised rather repeatedly a matter of great principle affecting the fundamental nature of this country, namely, a constitutional proposal back in 1980, which did indeed cause this Party, then in opposition, to use all the procedural aspects available to us to filibuster and cause change. It was a matter of fundamental principle.
I think a careful reading of our precedents and the patterns of this House would indicate that the rules exist with some looseness so that, on matters of great principle, a minority of the House can use the rules to bring these matters to the attention of Canadians and to cause perhaps change to take place. That is our tradition, and that is why it was done.
I suggest that the Member may be speaking from the heart, but he should perhaps reconsider in his head what constitutes abuse. Working within the rules and using the rules to advantage on matters of great principle, I suggest is not abuse. However, to use those same rules and those same opportunities to filibuster legislation, related, for example, to relief for victims of crime to set up an opportunities agency in Atlantic Canada, to help Atlantic Canadians to get jobs, to do the same in western Canada to help western Canadians get jobs, and to

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
clean up the environment, that is where the true abuse lies. That is abuse of the rules of this Chamber.
The Hon. Member raises the issue of closure. The calendar provides for closure on Monday at one o'clock with a recommencement at two o'clock. The calendar on Monday provides for closure at five o'clock. There is an automatic closure. By eating up the time of this House in questions and comments and repetitive speeches which stop us from getting to important matters the Opposition, and in particular the New Democratic Party on most occasions is using two closures a day. How long can they continue introducing motions for six-month hoists and recycling their speakers on the same issue? Because of the nature of the parliamentary calendar there is closure twice a day, and I suggest the Opposition since Easter-starting before, but clearly since Easter-has been using those two closure opportunities every day to grind this place to a halt so that the things Canadians need cannot come about.
On this Bill there is absolutely no abuse by the Government. No thoughtful person in this country would believe that this Bill has not had all the vetting, scrutiny, and free speech it so rightfully deserves because the environment is so important. But there comes a time, when months have passed, when witnesses have been heard, when amendments have been made, where we should bring this item to a close. We should put the law in place so that we and our children will have a better environment. It is not the time for further talk. It is the time for action.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question. Is he now saying on behalf of the Government that it wants to strike out from our rules the provision available to any Member of this House, the right to ask anyone speaking on debate questions or to make comments? Is that what he is saying? Is he now saying that the Government wants to eliminate the third reading stage debate in this House? Surely, that is what he is talking about. There have only been three speeches made at third reading so far. How can he say they are repetitive? How can he say they are excessive? How can he say they are unnecessary?
The cat is out of the bag. The Member is saying on behalf of the Government, because he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, that as far as the Government is concerned parliamentary reform is a sham. The Government wants to get rid of questions and comments. It wants to get rid of third reading entirely. It wants people to speak in this House only if the Government says so. That is the Government's version of democracy. The Government tells us the rules are all right when, somehow or other, Members can get away with going up to the Speaker's chair, shaking their fist and threatening physical violence because they do not like the ruling of the Speaker. That is all right for the Tories. What they do not like is honest and reasonable debate. There they are in their true colours. History has proven that any time a tyrant wants to close off the democratic process, that tyrant
always says: "I am doing it for the best of motives", but that does not change anything. There is something very wrong with what the Member is saying. He is saying in effect: "Do it our way or do it not at all". That is Tory democracy.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Parliamentary Secretary and then recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will make an offer right now. It is interesting that the House Leader on the other side rose in defence of democracy. Friday the House Leader of the New Democratic Party rose in defence of democracy. This House is willing to sit to the end of today, until midnight, until two o'clock in the morning, so that every member of the Opposition Parties who wants to speak on this environmental Bill can do so.
We can continue to meet this evening on the western diversification Bill, the aid to victims of crime Bill, and the Atlantic opportunities legislation until three in the morning. If those Members really believe in democracy, let them stand and agree to continue to meet this day, by unanimous consent, as long as necessary to move those four important pieces of legislation along. If democracy is what those Members want, the Government is willing. If free speech is what they want, the Government is willing. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look at their behaviour to the balance of this day, you will find they will use the two closure opportunities available to them, at one o'clock and five o'clock, so that no action takes place. That is not democracy. They are trying to stop the Government from getting important pieces of legislation through this Chamber by using the Standing Orders and the closure opportunities. It is not democracy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You abuse the Standing Orders.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Stand up and make an offer. We can meet the rest of the day until midnight.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short comment and then ask a question of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier that there is but one or two minutes left in the time allotted for questions and comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, so much for rules and so much for reform. I want to ask the Hon. Member a question on this Bill.
Does he remember that I raised in this House a question in May, 1987 concerning the federal Government's habit of polluting the Ottawa River. There was a media report which stated that the Bank of Canada, the National Research Council, the Department of Transport, and Supply and Services Canada had been accused of breaking the law by dumping toxic refuse and toxic products into the Ottawa River. I asked the Department and the Government at that
May 2, 1988

time what they were going to do about preventing our own federal polluters from doing what they were doing to our waters and to our air. The answer was: "Oh, we will look into it".
The committee dealt with that matter. The Government came up with a solution. It was to leave it to the Minister to obtain concurrence from any other federal Minister before he acts on any of those pollutants.
What does the Parliamentary Secretary have to say to that type of leaving the fox in charge of the chicken-coop attitude? How does he reconcile this very serious problem of federal polluters polluting our waters and our air and not doing anything about it? Can the Hon. Member answer that question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not know that the question relates to my comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It relates to the Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: My comments were that the passage of this Bill will indeed provide a safer and healthier environment for our children.


Mr. Rossi:: Answer the question!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You don't know what you are talking about.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What the Member opposite is doing at third reading stage when substantive amendments are no longer possible is bringing up another red herring for the purpose of eating up time and delaying the Chamber. We have been through report stage. We have been through the committee stage. The Hon. Member is one of the most skilled practitioners of the rules of the House. He knows the stage that we are at. The debate should be concentrated on whether or not we approve this amended Bill. This Party says: "Yes, let us approve it. Let us get it passed on to the Senate"-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We say: "Stop pollution".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let us start with a fresh piece of paper and go after further problems and further amendments. However, the amending process on this Bill is over. On other Bills before the Chamber, we want to get them through the House and into committee where they can be examined and amended. The continuing eating up of the time of this Chamber, inappropriately, when it is important to act, is the problem.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a question or comment, I might say as a preliminary comment that the election battle has begun. I can see the strategy now. The Opposition is allegedly tying up the House so that the Government cannot get its legislation through, and it will dissolve the House and call an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Mr. Speaker:: I have tried to be as benevolent as I know Hon. Members would wish the Speaker to be, but the time for questions and comments has more than expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-74 respecting the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a measure that does take some limited, tentative but potentially useful steps in the direction of further improvement of the protection of our environment. I say this in spite of the obvious shortcomings and imperfections in the Bill. Let us recognize that in the time since the Conservative Government was elected it has taken all too many backward steps which provide reason, good reason, for very legitimate skepticism concerning its resolve in following through on whatever positive aspects Bill C-74 may have.
Since September, 1984 the Conservative Government, by way of just one example of what I am talking about, has drastically cut back funding for the Canadian Wildlife Service, which has limited the Service's capacity to conduct research into toxic chemical effects on wildlife. This is a research activity that provides important preliminary scientific clues to indicate what effect chemicals discharged into our air, water, and land have on the health of Canadians.
In November, 1984 the Conservative Government eliminated the funding previously pledged by the previous Liberal Government for the toxicology research centres proposed by the Universities of Guelph and Toronto. If these centres had gone ahead, if they were now in place, they would not only be carrying out important research but they would be providing answers to concerns we have about toxic chemicals. This cut was only one part of the $48 million in cuts in spending that the Conservative Government has made in past years from the total government budget for the environment.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) silenced his Environment Canada research officers when they tried to tell the truth to Canadians about the dangerous levels of toxic chemical contamination in general and in particular about the levels of contamination in the St. Clair River. In November, 1985 the Minister of the Environment turned down a request by the Great Lakes Institute of the University of Windsor for a grant of $100,000, which would have enabled the Institute to have continued its urgently needed and outstanding work on the issue of the toxic blob in the St. Clair River. By removing this mandate the Government lessened-in fact it undermined-the Institute's capacity to provide research leadership in solving the problems of toxic chemical pollution like that of the toxic blob in the St. Clair River.
I was able to find out and tell the House and the public that it appeared that the federal Department of the Environment sat for a year on a chemical sample obtained by the Great Lakes Institute from the St. Clair River which would have brought out the problem of the St. Clair River blob about a

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
year earlier than in fact was the case. So much for commitment and concern when it comes to real action to deal with problems of the environment.
Let us remember also that the Government withheld the Storm Warnings Report on the build-up and circulation of toxic chemicals through our air, soil, and water, the very same toxins that emerge in our food supply.
Under the best of circumstances it would be hard to prevent our environmental law and the associated enforcement rules and regulations that control and reduce harmful toxic substances in our air, water, and soil, from lagging behind the increasingly rapid development in technology and the ongoing introduction of new chemical substances. But it is still to be proven whether Bill C-74 can be at all effective in regulating toxic substances and whether, as the Government originally stated, it can serve as a foundation for more comprehensive protection of our environment.
We already know that Bill C-74 itself will not contribute to enforcing the repair of previous environmental damage in the St. Clair, Detroit, St. Lawrence, and Niagara rivers, to name but a few examples.
Back in October, 1986 I called for the creation of a super fund as part of a joint federal-provincial effort to deal with the problems of the high cost of the clean-up of toxic chemicals. Even though the Government indicated some openness to this idea, nothing at all has happened. The legislation before us today does nothing to enable the creation of such a fund. Among other things, a super fund would help pay for the clean-up of chemical wastes which have been dumped in burial sites across the country.
Bill C-74 will not provide a straightforward set of rules to assist in the regulation of chemical breakdown products such as dioxins. It will not regulate pesticides, herbicides, and the food and drug additives which are currently covered under other statutes. This Bill does not even specify the chemicals to be controlled after it becomes law.
Also, Bill C-74 was supposed to be a consolidation of the many existing federal environmental laws but it only includes the Clean Air Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act, and Part III of the Clean Water Act. In addition, there is a well recognized and widely agreed upon need for these laws to be updated and strengthened, but Bill C-74 does not deal with this need in any way, shape, or form.
Bill C-74 will have no impact on the reduction of acid rain from Canadian sources or otherwise. We saw last week how the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) continues to boast about his special relationship with President Reagan of the United States, and the value of this relationship. He signed a trade deal with the United States that will surrender vitally important elements of control by Canadians over their own social, economic, and cultural affairs. However, the most recent of his
four annual summit meetings has again failed totally to move the United States Government toward even a plan for reducing its sulphur dioxide emissions, a key cause of the very serious problem of acid rain. In fact, last week we learned that the United States is pressing agencies of the United Nations for relaxation of previously negotiated international limits on emissions that cause acid rain.
In its original form, Bill C-74 did not stop the export of toxic substances that are banned in Canada. These exports are now prohibited by the Bill, because the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Liberal critic for the environment, worked long and hard on behalf of the Liberal caucus to bring about amendments. However, this legislation does not follow through upon the Minister's promise of April, 1986 to establish an environmental bill of rights.
Upon his introduction of Bill C-74 on June 26 of last year, the Minister of the Environment took great pains to point out and emphasize the severity of penalties to be applied against those convicted of crimes against the environment. Executives of companies that pollute the environment will face jail sentences and fines of up to $1 million per day.
We in the Official Opposition agree strongly with the imposition of the appropriate penalties, but we are concerned that the Conservative Government will neither provide the resources required to detect violations that cause environmental damage, nor exert the leadership required to prosecute and secure imposition of the new, higher penalties.
The Government has committed the paltry sum of $37 million to be allocated among three government agencies over five years to finance the work of assessing substances already in existence, and new chemicals before they are marketed. That is not all. This same $37 million will have to finance enforcement of the legislation in the field over that same five years. Surely this is absurd.
There are approximately 60,000 chemicals already circulating in our environment, and we can expect the future introduction of 1,000 or so per year. According to the information provided by highly regarded experts in the pollution control field, the single chemical approach to compliance research carried on by the designated government agencies will take
38.000	person-years to develop regulations on just 1,000 of the
60.000	chemicals currently in existence. How can the agencies involved even begin to examine the 1,000 new chemicals brought into use each year?
These projections have been published by Dr. Ross Hume Hall of McMaster University, a former member of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. He bases his findings on the most recent record of the Government's own Contaminants Control Branch. This branch is staffed by only 19 people; it has produced control regulations at the rate of one chemical for every two years. In my view, Canadians have absolutely no reason to believe that the compliance and enforcement provisions contained in Bill C-74 will either reduce the rate of introduction of new pollutants or redress, in
May 2, 1988

any significant way, the damage already done. Canadians are concerned that the Government will continue its record of failure to devote the expertise and financial resources required to begin solving the real problems of pollution.
What does this mean to ordinary Canadians? For some two years I have been trying without success to get the Conservative Government to contribute funds to help the provincial and municipal Governments to upgrade outdated sewage treatment systems located in the Windsor area, and similar cases in other parts of the country. Fortunately, the Peterson Government of the Province of Ontario has stepped in to begin the work. However, the inaction of the federal Government means that this will take a lot longer, and it will likely cost the municipal taxpayers much more than if the federal Conservative Government was in fact doing its fair share.
In the City of Windsor problems have to be solved that have been caused by the inadequate facilities at the Little River sewage treatment plant. Problems have to be solved that are caused by the existence of more than 4,000 septic tanks on the west side of Windsor and Sandwich West Township which overflow and discharge into the Detroit River through Turkey Creek. There must be new joint programs created by the federal and provincial Governments to respond to these and similar infrastructure needs across the country.
I have made repeated representations to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who has responsibility for Canada's involvement in international waterways.
In spite of these representations, the Government has failed to commit itself to doing what should be its full part to solve these types of problems. It refuses to accept its role in putting up the money to maintain, renew, or upgrade facilities that, in turn, provide our clean water. Its refusal contributes to a deteriorating situation that jeopardizes the health and wellbeing of Canadians. Yet, even though the Government argues that it should not do this because it is not a federal matter, there are well established precedents for the federal Government assuming its share of financial responsibility. Examples include the former federal Government's municipal loan fund as well as its urban transportation assistance program, another area which some have argued is not under federal jurisdiction when it comes to municipal roadways and provincial highways. There is a federal role in infrastructure for our cities, towns, and municipalities. It is something which involves the health and safety of Canadians and it involves the well-being of the entire economy.
In Windsor and Essex County the people are very concerned about the huge garbage incinerator being built by the City of Detroit, without the necessary pollution control equipment to prevent the discharge of dangerous toxic chemicals into our air. They ask the questions: "Is the federal Government really doing enough to help bring about the installation of this pollution control equipment? Is it making full use of the Great
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boundary Waters Treaty, which also covers the airborne pollution of our boundary waters to help deal with this situation?"
I have urged both the Ontario provincial and the federal Government to take every action possible both under existing international agreements, like the ones I have mentioned, as well as the laws of the State of Michigan and of the United States to help bring about a meaningful solution to this problem. In my view the Conservative Government, in spite of the honeyed words of the Minister of the Environment, is not being sufficiently active to press the Canadian case in preventing the Detroit incinerator from being built and operated without the necessary air pollution control equipment. In effect, the Ontario Government has been left on its own to defend the Canadian environmental interests by taking the issue to the courts of the State of Michigan.
Through my own direct inquiries of the Office of the Governor of Michigan, I discovered that there were no less than six possible incinerator projects that might go ahead in the Michigan area near the international boundary, projects that the State of Michigan was aware of but Environment Canada and External Affairs did not seem to know anything about them. As a result I called for an early warning system to be set up to allow Canadian authorities, both federal and provincial, to be aware of such projects that could affect Canadians at a very early stage. This step would permit sufficient time for studies to be carried out and representations to be made in order to prevent these projects from going ahead, unless they had all the necessary pollution control equipment to ensure the protection of the health and safety of Canadians.
The federal Department of the Environment first stated that existing forms of consultation were sufficient. However, after I pressed the matter and pointed out the significance of this list of projects that I discovered, not too long ago the Minister of the Environment finally agreed with me to set up such a system in co-operation with the United States federal and state authorities and the Province of Ontario.
These are not the only important environmental issues concerning the people of Windsor and Essex County which require immediate and urgent action at the international level. The Fermi II nuclear generating plant owned by Detroit Edison and located in Munroe, Michigan is just a short distance from the international border and the 300,000 people living in the Windsor-Essex County area. They are not satisfied that there is absolutely no risk to their health and safety if that plant continues to be allowed to operate at full power.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has rejected my request that the Canadian Government seek the agreement of the United States Government for a reference to the International Joint Commission to permit permanent and ongoing

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
monitoring of the safety of the Fermi II nuclear power plant and similar power plants on both sides of the border. This reference would be carried out by the International Joint Commission, but agreement by both the Canadian and American Governments is required for it to be done. I have asked the Minister to review his decision, to re-open it, and to take a fresh look because the International Joint Commission has a track record of looking into these kinds of questions. However, it cannot carry out the job that it could do without agreement of the Canadian and American Governments.
In the meantime I have contacted the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to request that it constitute an Operational Safety Review Team to examine the Fermi II reactor in order to assure, if possible, the people of Windsor and Essex County that all the necessary safety requirements applying to Fermi II are being fully met.
What I have been talking about shows that the current Conservative Government is not doing nearly enough to preserve and protect our environment. This piece of legislation we are currently discussing, Bill C-74, is only one small and limited step-I admit a step in the right direction-which will be of value only if the Conservative Government can be relied upon to summon the will power to devote the necessary resources toward the effective enforcement of its provisions.
The Government's record on environmental matters since it took office does not give us good reason to be optimistic. The people of Canada have demonstrated that they consider protection of the environment both in Canada and around the world to be a number one priority for their Governments, federal and provincial. They want in particular this federal Government to do more than it has done already.
While Bill C-74 deserves some support, we have to recognize it for the limited step it is and to reiterate that to be meaningful there must be a greater commitment than has been shown in the past by the Conservative Government to enforce this Bill, to carry out its responsibility within Canada and in the world, and to help Canadians as members of the great family of the world to a clean and healthy environment. Without it, our world and its future are at risk. Canadians are calling for action and we in turn call upon this Government for action, action it has unfortunately not shown up to now.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has demonstrated in his intervention today how concerned he is about the quality of the environment for citizens in Windsor and that region. He has also outlined a number of initiatives that he has taken which are very impressive, both in the field of water quality and air quality, as well as in ensuring that plans for the construction of incinerators on the other side of the border will not impair or affect the health of the population in his area.
The Member has also made a reference to an operational safety review team that he has requested from the Atomic Energy Agency, which is a very creative and imaginative idea
that would help considerably in laying the foundation for a better approach in the construction of future plans in that area.
1 would encourage the Hon. Member for Windsor West, because of the limited time he had in making his presentation, to expand on any of these initiatives so that the citizens in his area will have the full flavour and understanding of what he has attempted to do. Evidently his efforts are not being listened to carefully by federal authorities and the federal Government here in Ottawa. As he already pointed out there are gaps between the rhetoric being expounded by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and in moving to meet the real needs in certain areas.
Would the Hon. Member for Windsor West give us a deeper insight into the situation as he assesses it in his area?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport has raised some important points. I will attempt to deal with them briefly. Over all what we need to see on the part of this Conservative Government is a greater willingness as the voice of Canada in dealing with other countries, particularly the United States to speak up and be more vigorous in defence of Canadian interests.
If there is a special relationship between the Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan, then why is it not made use of in some constructive way? We have already had it demonstrated that this special relationship is worse than useless when it comes to acid rain. Why has the Prime Minister not used the special relationship to get the American Government to press the City of Detroit not to go ahead with the Detroit garbage incinerator without the necessary pollution control equipment? Why has the Prime Minister not used the special relationship to ask the American Government to take more seriously than has been the case until now the concerns of the people in the Windsor area about the Fermi II nuclear generating plant?
One thing I did not mention in my speech is that I and other Members of Parliament for the area, involving all three political Parties, made a formal appeal to the full nuclear regulatory commission of the United States when the regional office of that commission, based in Chicago, granted a few months ago authority to Detroit Edison to operate the Fermi II plant at full power in spite of the record of technical and personnel problems and the concerns expressed in the assessment reports of the nuclear regulatory commission's own staff. We made this appeal to the full commission. The commission has accepted our appeal and is studying it.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to join with us in formally supporting our appeal, but we have had no agreement so far. I have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to support my formal request to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the setting up of a special operational safety team to review Fermi II, but I have had no response to this request so far. I would think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should
May 2, 1988

support this request, because it is to an agency of the United Nations and Canada is a member of the agency and supports its work. I look forward, hopefully in this case, to a favourable response.
What is missing here is a sense of purpose, commitment, and action to go along with the very nice language that we hear all the time from the federal Minister of the Environment. Certainly it would be hard to surpass him for rhetoric when it comes to the matter of protection of the environment. When one peels off the various covering layers on that rhetoric or if one waits awhile to see what happens after the rhetoric, one finds very little there. That is all too bad, because even though we do not support this Government, even though we think it is a bad Government that should be replaced, it is in power and it does have an opportunity to act. It is not doing its job in this matter of the environment, as it is not doing its job in so many other areas of importance to Canadians.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the Liberal Party has spoken at third reading and not before. If it is not the intention of the Liberal Party of Canada to contribute to the filibuster on the protection of the environment, I wonder if I could at least have a commitment from the House Leader of the Liberal Party. If speaking out on behalf of constituents is what the Liberal Party would like, would he indicate to the House that he is prepared to sit through the luncheon adjournment so that freedom of speech can prevail and so that Hon. Members do have a chance to speak on behalf of their Parties?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is a new definition of filibuster here. For the Government, filibuster begins after three speeches, one of which is the Government's own speech. The Hon. Member is reflecting on the quality, value, and necessity of the Government's own spokesman on this Bill. If that is a filibuster, why did he not prevent a Conservative from speaking on third reading? I hope the record will show what the Hon. Member who is speaking on behalf of the Government thinks about the value, quality, and content of the speech made by the spokesman for the Conservative Party when third reading stage began.
The rules of this House, supported with great fanfare by the Hon. Member's Government, provide for breaks at the noon hour and in the evening. If the Hon. Member did not like that, why did he and his Party support those rules? Why have they been going around the country boasting about how these rules which include these breaks are models of parliamentary reform? The Government had the majority to prevent the stipulation of times for adjournment, but it included that stipulation because it recognized that breaks to enable people to get in touch with their offices, and, yes, to have lunch or supper from time to time, contribute to a better quality of consideration of issues in the House of Commons.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
The Government controls what measures are brought before the House when it pertains to government business. If the Government has something more important than this Bill that it wants to deal with, it can substitute without any notice whatsoever any other measure it wants and which it considers more important.
I hope the Hon. Member does not think that he is fooling anyone with the suggestion that some reasonable debate on third reading, which is provided for in the rules and has been part of British and Canadian parliamentary procedure for hundreds of years and which has remained in the rules after parliamentary reform, is in any way an abuse or a filibuster.
Instead, if the Hon. Member thinks there is something more important than this Bill-and that is what he seems to be saying because the point of what he said was that the speech given by the Conservative Member in support of the Bill was useless-and if he says that further debate on this Bill should not go on, I challenge him to call another measure that he considers to be more important. If he does not do that, he will be exposed as the sham that he, his Party, and his Government really are.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak about some of the same concerns about which the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has spoken. I hope that as part of this debate our colleague, the Conservative Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell), who has assisted on a number of important environmental initiatives which have crossed Parties because of the serious problems which exist in the Windsor area, will also feel that it is important to speak on these issues and will make clear his commitment on these concerns.
In discussing this Bill as it has come back from committee, I think we must bear in mind the expectations of Canadians. It is quite clear that their expectations for the environment and the future of our planet are very high. These expectations have been expressed, for example, by the Brundtland Commission report on the environment and development which concluded in April, 1987 that national Governments should establish clear environmental goals and enforce environmental laws, regulations, incentives, and standards on industrial enterprises, and that this should normally be done at the national level with local Governments being empowered to exceed but not to lower national norms.
The Bill before us certainly contains some steps in the right direction, but in studying it one must conclude that it is essentially weak legislation which does not establish that strong national environmental leadership for which Canadians are crying out. For instance, the legislation has not included consideration of some of the most destructive substances that are in use today. Pesticides, for instance, are not regulated, nor are emissions from motor vehicles. I say that as someone from an automotive city. That is something we should be taking leadership on at the national level.

May 2, 1988
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
The Bill does not provide standards of environmental quality. It does not redress the principle that has contributed to our current high levels of pollution, the principle that a substance must be proved harmful before it can be regulated. We need a regulatory tool that requires that substances be proven harmless before they can be used.
The Bill certainly does not incorporate an environmental bill of rights, a bill of rights which would give Canadians a sense of commitment to a healthy environment on the part of the national Government. Canadians have asked the Government for the right to take any polluter to court, for the right to environmental qualilty, and for the right to participate in decision-making with respect to the environment. However, that has not been provided by this Bill.
In fact, this Bill does not advance us beyond the 1970s in terms of environmental legislation. The approach is still a substance by substance one, one that aims to manage toxic chemicals instead of seeking to reduce them. In short, environmental goals are not set out and environmental leadership is not being taken.
Many of us have fought on a series of environmental issues for the last four years of this Government. We have fought a hard-fought battle to try to force the Government to recognize the concerns of Canadians about the environment. The weakness of the legislation and the fact that it takes such small steps forward is not a surprise.
I think, for instance, of the fights which we have had to undertake within our communities of Essex County and Windsor which have continually come up against the brick wall of the Government's unwillingness to respond and act when citizens have demanded action by petition, have requested action of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and have solicited the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to show some backbone in dealing with the United States. Again and again a brick wall has been met.
We can talk about the blob which was discovered in the St. Clair River which contained a concentration of dioxin such as had never been experienced in our Great Lakes system before. That information would not have come out from the provincial Conservative Government, had it not been for a brave individual who came into my office and talked about the realities which had been discovered and covered up by that provincial Government.
The Government at that stage, with a new Minister of the Environment leading the charge, said: "Let's act, let's get something to happen". In fact, action took place. However, three years later I have learned in discussions with people from Dow Chemicals that there is still coming up from the bottom of the St. Clair River the same toxic material which was there when this originally came to our attention in 1984 and 1985.
The problem has not been solved. There was a great public relations burst by the Minister and $12 million was spent by Dow Chemical, but we did not get a solution to the problem. That is the environmental record of the Government-high public relations and low public performance.
We can talk about mundane things. Members of Parliament from the Windsor area have brought before the Minister of the Environment again and again serious problems which leave thousands of houses in the southern part of Windsor and in parts of Sandwich West with septic tanks and, consequently, leakage into rivers and drainage ditches throughout the community.
What has happened? Has the Government moved? Has it said that it will respond to an urgent problem brought before it? Not a chance. Instead there has been a complete lack of action despite the pressure from myself, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), and the Member for Windsor West. After looking at the performance of the Government, it has still been necessary to conclude that the Government does not care about that problem.
We can talk about the incinerator, the great Detroit incinerator, which like St. George against the dragon the Minister of the Environment was going to slay. He was going to enforce serious environmental controls on it for the future. It is almost a year and a half ago that the Minister of the Environment went to Windsor and said "We have solved the problem of the Detroit incinerator and do not have to worry about it for the future".
Well, the reality is that the Detroit incinerator continues to go up. There has been no commitment by either the Michigan Government or the City of Detroit to put the latest technology into that incinerator to prevent air coming across the river into Canada which will massively increase the pollution problems in my community.
The Premier of Ontario, that other great white hope, met with the Governor of Michigan, Mr. Blanchard. The Premier said that we were supposed to have an agreement with Michigan with respect to pollution problems. Absolutely not. There was no commitment whatsoever with respect to this very serious problem.
When this problem was first brought before the Minister, he said that it was no problem, that the Government would set up an action group of Members of Parliament from the Windsor area plus representatives from the Ministry itself, and that we would get action. Well, that so-called action group has not met once since the Minister set it up. So much for the real performance of the Government as opposed to its rhetoric. Its public performance in the face of serious problems has been disastrous.
We can say the same thing with respect to the Detroit city airport and its expansion, another environmental problem which will hit much of the City of Windsor and could bring dangerous consequences to people throughout the community.
May 2, 1988

Once again there was no commitment to move, no commitment even to communicate with the United States and convey the concerns of those who live in the community which is to be affected.
Perhaps the most telling, the most damaging, the most obvious dereliction of duty on the part of the Government with respect to the environment in our part of Essex County and Windsor has been with respect to Fermi II. It is over a year since I started raising this question. I put questions to the Government and wrote to both the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicating the serious problems existing with this reactor which is less than 10 kilometres from Canada. It is very close to population centres in Canada. That nuclear reactor has serious maintenance problems because of its age, even though it has just begun to generate power at 100 per cent capacity. It has serious monitoring problems, as well as serious basic design problems.
When one looks at the record of how it got its license to operate, it is absolutely clear that the wool was pulled over the eyes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States. It effectively held back information from that agency which members of the agency subsequently said would have prevented Fermi II from getting its licence. Despite that, the Government is not prepared to take action and tell the American Government that the people of Essex County and those affected by this nuclear reactor have asked for a joint review into what they believe are serious safety problems. The Government has not been prepared to refer the problem to the International Joint Commission.
We met with the International Joint Commission which told us that if it received a reference, it would have tremendous power to probe the problems that exist with this reactor. Yet, it is evident from letters from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment that they have consistently told us that they believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the one that should do the job and that Canada has no responsibility for this serious health concern to Canadians.
I must express my disappointment not only at the performance of the federal Government with respect to Fermi II, but also at the performance of the Ontario Government which has been approached but is unwilling to add its voice to the need for a joint review of the safety problems with respect to this nuclear reactor.
That is just a small list of what we have had to face as Members of Parliament from the Windsor and Essex County area in trying to kick the Government into action on the environmental problems affecting our people. While this Bill continues the tradition of great rhetoric, it does not give us any promise of serious, consistent action in the future. We cannot
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
trust a Government which has been so grossly incompetent in the past, as I believe this list of problems clearly shows.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in my colleague's concerns about the environmental questions affecting his City of Windsor. Has he noted any difference between the actions of the present Government and the former Government?
I recall in 1983 being part of a group with New Democrats from the provincial Legislature of Ontario touring the Windsor and Niagara area. We looked at the Love Canal situation and found a continuing ignorance of the environment, particularly of the effects that toxic substances could have on present and future generations.
Local citizens and environmental groups told us of their frustration because the laws helped polluters and hindered those who were interested in fighting pollution.
I agree with my colleague. This legislation is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Is there any difference between the actions of this Government and the previous Government?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I was not a Member of Parliament during the period of the previous Government. There is a strong desire among those who control the industrial power within our society to deal with the pollution problems in the easiest and least costly way. That desire leads to emissions of serious pollutants into the air. It has lead to emissions of pollutants into the Great Lakes that have resulted in the conclusion that the Great Lakes between Canada and the United States are the most polluted, environmentally toxic area in the world.
On the other side, there are very well intentioned Ministers of the Environment who are not strong enough to have the political leverage over the power centres within their Parties that are so influenced by those large-scale industrial groups. I believe there has always been such a battle. The consequence is that very often Ministers of the Environment, both Conservative and Liberal in the past, had to work very hard to influence their cabinet colleagues.
I recall interviewing Canada's first Minister of the Environment, a Liberal Minister, when he was appointed in 1969-70. He made the point that he had to push very hard to get his cabinet colleagues to move. I suspect that the same is true with the present Minister of the Environment.
I am certain that he truly believed it when he went to Windsor and said the problem with the Detroit incinerator was solved. However, it has not turned out to be the case because people in his Party have been far more concerned with getting a trade deal with the United States than fighting for environmental concerns within this cross border situation.
I think we have a structural problem which can only be confronted if we have first mobilized very strongly public

May 2, 1988
opinion to get a serious and comprehensive change of commitment, so that the environment becomes the number one concern, not an afterthought, not something that brings us a Bill four years after the Government comes to power. What we see in front of us is something which afflicts both Liberal and Conservative Governments. It is something which, frankly, New Democrats would face as well in government. We would need a very strong commitment, not just from our own Party but from people and groups right across this country, in order to bring about a very strong and effective environmental policy. I believe it can be done, but it is going to be a hard fight.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a short question. We have an important Bill here. I was wondering if the New Democratic Party was going to support it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear in my speech that we are always in favour of small steps forward. Unfortunately, small steps forward are not satisfactory to the people of this country. It is not enough to take dainty little steps into the future as this Government is doing. We must-and I am convinced after the next election that it will be done-put in place a pattern of commitment, of boldness, and of serious intent which will give us significant change, a significant move forward under a New Democratic Government, and which will give us a much better commitment to the environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member for Davenport on a very short question or comment.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would briefly like to ask the Hon. Member for Essex Windsor (Mr. Langdon) a question. I know it is difficult for the Member to recognize good initiatives when they take place, when they are taken by a Government whose stripe is not his own, but would he not agree, however, that Ontario has today the toughest environmental laws it has ever had in its history?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member for Essex Windsor on a brief answer, please.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, I very much agree that the previous Conservative Government which was in power for so long did so little that the important steps which were undertaken during the minority Government, with New Democratic Party support, were very crucial to our province and to our future. Unfortunately, since there has been a majority Government elected in Ontario we have seen a slowing down of these initiatives. I think of the Fermi II situation. It is absolutely unforgivable that the Ontario Government has not added its voice as powerfully as it possibly could to those of us from Essex County who are calling for a joint review of safety with respect to this dangerous nuclear reactor being so close to our boundaries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: That concludes the questions and comments. Resuming debate.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, although there are only four minutes left until the House takes recess, to speak to Bill C-74, allegedly an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health.
I would have liked to take a more positive stand, if the Bill before the House today had been as strong a piece of legislation as was claimed earlier by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).
When the Bill was tabled in the House on first reading, the impression was that this Bill had some strong points and that it was an important step towards improving the quality of our environment.
However, after everything that has happened so far and all the so-called consultation, we now have before us a Bill that has very little to show for all this frenzied activity. There are so many fundamental problems connected with the quality of the environment, the environment in which we live, that I think some comments are very much in order on what this Bill contains and, especially, on what it does not contain, in its present form.
When the Minister of the Environment agrees to ask his colleagues for advice on legislation or regulations concerning the environment, I think he is making a big mistake, because there are emergencies when the Minister of the Environment must act without necessarily consulting each of his colleagues to find out what position he should take.
If we consider certain toxic products that are being trucked or shipped across Quebec and across Canada and if we look at the accidents that have happened in recent years, I have serious doubts about the quality of the regulations we had at the time and still have here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have a few minutes more this afternoon to talk about the position taken, for instance, by the Government of Quebec on environmental problems and the kind of action that should be taken very shortly so that the Government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces can introduce environmental legislation that is strong enough to protect the quality of life and the quality of the environment in this country.
Mr. Speaker, you are signaling that I should stop ... [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.﻿May 2, 1988


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Environment Minister Jim Bradley quite rightly commented on Saturday that the much heralded Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) special relationship with President Reagan has proven worthless in resolving the acid rain issue. As Mr. Bradley stated, they have come to the end of the line and have nothing to show in the way of acid rain reductions-not one drop.
If Chairman Gorbachev can convince President Reagan to scrap missiles aimed at America's chief enemy, why can the Prime Minister not get the President to stop bombarding America's closest friend with acid rain? Acid rain costs Canada hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Canadian efforts to clean up acid rain are hampered by U.S. inaction.
Mr. Bradley told high school students that half the acid rain deposited in Ontario originates in the United States. No matter what we do, we cannot solve the acid rain problem by ourselves.
Mr. Bradley made his point effectively. When the U.S. administration will understand is another matter.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon at the Victoria Wharf Clock Tower in the Port of Montreal an important event took place under the auspices of the Canadian Legion Branch 212 of LaSalle.
This highly emotional ceremony was held to commemorate our marine heroes of the Battle of the Atlantic during the last World War. Numerous wreaths were laid at the foot of the monument facing the St. Lawrence River which leads to the sea, by Presidents of different Montreal legion branches, among which was President George Stundon of my own LaSalle branch.
The ceremonial parade was led by our legion members and army cadets. But the highly poignant instant of the commemorative event was when an 88-year old mother of a son lost at sea was invited by the officer in charge to lay flowers in memory of all sons, cousins, uncles, and fathers who gave their lives to safeguard the democratic liberties of our free world.
Lest we forget. Je me souviens.



AGRICULTURE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Government, and especially the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), recognize the serious drought threat presently existing in much of western Canada. For example, in the Kamloops area this year's spring run off is 50 per cent below normal. The Thompson River is flowing at 64 per cent of its normal rate. Streams and water-holes are dry or near dry. The Environment and Parks Ministry's hydrology section is predicting drought conditions throughout central British Columbia.
Last year was Kamloops' second driest year on record with only 160 millimetres of precipitation, and the hottest year ever recorded in history.
While cattlemen face the most dire difficulties, other problems are created by drought as well. Fires and drought, unfortunately, go hand in hand. The commercial, native, and sports fisheries are placed at risk. Water fowl habitat is destroyed. Many community reservoirs are near dry. Irrigation districts are forced to cut back on water supply.
On the Prairies many grain farmers are wondering if they should spring seed, since in some regions the soil lacks sufficient moisture for seeds to germinate.
In light of these conditions and the possible drought crisis, the Government should be developing contingency plans which would be implemented quickly if the tragic necessity does arise.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, there has been much public debate about Bill C-54 which amends the Criminal Code relating to pornographic or erotic material. This Bill would serve to prohibit pornography, particularly where children are being depicted in sexual acts, or in cases showing violent pornography and degrading sexual acts against any person.
It is unfortunate that both opposition Parties and some people in the arts community are saying that the Bill is directed at art forms; some librarians have stated that they will have to segregate some books. I believe that these groups have exaggerated a few of the points the Bill, making it seem puritanical. This is just not so. If amendments are needed to clarify the wording it is up to us to let the legislative committee do its work.

May 2, 1988
I call upon the Government and the opposition Parties to let this Bill go through second reading and go to committee in order that this vital piece of legislation can be passed before we break for the summer.



CHILD CARE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that if you are a government employee living in Ottawa or a government employee living in Edmonton, you have different rights. There are more rights for those in Ottawa, and less rights for those in Edmonton. I refer specifically to the issue of child care.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, today we expect the opening of a work site day care in Tunney's Pasture for employees serving the Ottawa area, and at the same time a similar child care operation which was proposed for the opening of Canada Place in Edmonton, scheduled to open in Edmonton next month, has been put on hold.
The child care situation in Edmonton is in limbo because the federal Treasury Board and the Department of Public Works have not got together to put forward the necessary funding. I guess that parents at federal government workplaces in Edmonton must be asking, "What is it that makes federal employees in Ottawa more important than federal employees in Edmonton?"
I would like to say that if the federal Government is serious about encouraging workplace child care, it should put its money where its mouth is and set an example not only in Ottawa but in every area across the country.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a tribute to the professionalism and experience of our Armed Forces that once again Canada has been asked by the United Nations to serve in a peace-keeping operation.
This time five Canadian officers are being sent to Afghanistan to monitor, in co-operation with military personnel from other neutral countries, the withdrawal of Soviet troops pursuant to the UN negotiated Geneva agreement.
We wish Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie and his team all possible success with the difficult and possibly dangerous monitoring task to which they have been assigned.



VIA RAIL


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the President of VIA Rail, Denis De Belleval, said that our rolling stock is the "worst in the world".
It is not exactly a new thing to find out that VIA's transportation system is in shock. People are used to travelling from Thompson to Churchill wearing parkas inside the coaches. That is not only the case in northern Manitoba, but also on the main line. People, including myself, who have taken trains from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay, to Sudbury and on to Ottawa, have woken up each morning frozen because of the antiquated system.
We also have a train system on which tourists who are travelling in this country find that they cannot get accommodation. People who live in small communities in my riding without road access cannot get on a train because there is not adequate equipment.
Prior to the 1984 election the Conservatives promised that there would be new rolling stock in place. That is another broken promise, a promise which results, as the president of VIA Rail says, in us having the worst in the world. What a record. What a broken promise.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, this week in Canada communities all across the country will be celebrating National Forest Week.
Grand Falls, Newfoundland, is especially honoured this year because it has been named forestry capital of Canada. This designation acknowledges the importance that Grand Falls places on forestry, and helps to focus the attention of all Newfoundlanders on the vital role forestry plays in our economy and our lives. National Forestry Week extends that awareness to include all Canadians.
The forest sector is a cornerstone of the Newfoundland economy, generating direct and indirect employment for 12,300 people. The federal Government is aware of the importance of forestry to this province and is investing $33.6 million in the $48 million Canada-Newfoundland Forest Resource Development Agreement. This week we should all take the opportunity to learn about our most important natural resource, our forests.
May 2, 1988



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, just 10 kilometres from my constituency the threat of the Fermi II nuclear reactor to Canadians is real. Over 7,500 people have signed petitions against it and all four Members of Parliament from the area have appealed against its operation. Now the Ontario Government has joined us.
I have here a letter from Joan Smith, Ontario Attorney General, to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) calling for an investigation of these safety concerns. It is unfortunate that the Ontario Government would not go one step further and call for a joint Canadian-U.S. review of Fermi by an independent expert team, but this letter does push the federal Government to move on this issue. So far, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have been afraid to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: False.


Steven W. Langdon: Again and again, they have refused. They must move now for the sake of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians at risk due to the poor maintenance, monitoring and design record of this reactor.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's ambassador to Ethiopia has finally recognized that country's food crisis has a political component. Drought is not its only cause. It never has been, Mr. Speaker. It has always been partly due to the Marxist militaristic oppressive regime of that country. The dictatorial Derg has been determined to turn Ethiopia into a massive collective farm even if that reduces food production. It has spent 46 per cent of its resources on weapons while its people have gone hungry. It is now preventing food supplies from reaching two million people in the rebel held North.
Canada has condemned the use of food supplies as an instrument of political policy. It is time and more than time that we condemned this action in Ethiopia.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge that changes to the Canada Pension Plan disability criteria be made.
The requirement that an applicant be disabled to the point that he or she can do no other type of work now or in the future is too onerous. The fact is that many applicants who, for the purposes of private insurance and provincial programs, are disabled are being told that they are ineligible for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan because they are not disabled. This is very perplexing to these Canadians. To be told by government doctors that they are ineligible is to leave these Canadians with a feeling of injustice.
It is time that the test be changed and the long delays eliminated.



CANADA MORTAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as you realize, there is a severe affordable housing crisis in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. One of the best ways to create affordable housing is to build co-op housing.
Because of that it is particularly distressing to learn that while the affordable housing crisis in Metro has grown progressively more severe the amount of co-op housing approved for Metro by CMHC has steadily declined from 1,182 units in 1981 to 682 units in 1984, to only 126 units in 1987.
What is going on at CMHC? Are they all asleep to reality at CMHC?



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians well know, this is National Forest Week. During National Forest Week we are reminded that the forest sector of the Canadian economy employs 750,000 Canadians. It is the mainstay for over 348 single-industry towns. Indeed, it is a backdrop for tourism and the outdoor recreation industry in Canada.
This might be a good time to remind the Government that it has promised on a number of occasions to bring in a full

May 2, 1988
Oral Questions
Forestry Ministry. A full Ministry of Forestry ought to be announced this week, National Forest Week. I would encourage the Government to take that initiative and to give forestry the due it deserves.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, some RCMP personnel and some civil servants live in government owned houses in Banff and Lake Louise. Because of the age of the houses, a "kind" Government ordered a 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in the rent. A few months later, actually in early 1988, the renters were advised that income tax would be levied on the amount that the rent had been reduced and, furthermore, that it would be retroactive to January, 1987.
I always thought that income tax was levied on income received, not on money saved through a reduction in rent. But not any more. A bureaucrat in Revenue Canada has informed me that the rent reduction is a tax benefit and the Mounties and the park officials will have to pay income tax on it.
Judging from this, we will soon be paying income tax on the savings we make by buying at a sale, and even on the nickel that is deducted by a kind candy maker. Heaven help us!



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Premier Peterson initiated the largest, most cynical tax grab in Ontario's enduring memory. In order to offset some bad publicity, Peterson said that the tax increase was to pay for the rise in cost of health care. However, the opposite is true.
The financial outlook for public hospitals, of which 50 per cent are operating in the red, is bleak, and they will receive nothing. Hospital funding remains at last year's figure of 6.9 per cent, of which 4.4 per cent represents across-the-board increases for inflation. Hospitals have been forced to impose a virtual freeze on programs and services and on appointments of badly needed medical specialists to staff.
With our aging population, and serious medical problems such as AIDS looming on the horizon, our public hospitals must have the capability to meet the needs of the community. It is obvious that the Peterson Budget was only an excuse to gouge the taxpayer while jeopardizing the future health of the population.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As everybody knows, today is the deadline for filing personal income tax returns.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House why personal income tax, not corporate taxes but the taxes of average Canadians, totals $26.7 billion more this year than in 1984 when his Government came to power?
During the last election campaign the Conservatives, and with them the Minister, promised they would not increase taxes.
Will the Minister of Finance explain to the House and to Canadians why he violated this election promise by taking $26.7 billion out of the pockets of average Canadian families?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to understand that 24 per cent of the increase in revenue of the Government of Canada is due to the increase in our economic growth rate.
It is true that we have increased taxes as a result of budgetary decisions, but 24 per cent of the increase is a result of economic growth and the Government's policies, which have led to higher employment. We have 1,200,000 more jobs in Canada and an economy whose growth rate is the best among the G-7 countries.


TAX REFORM-EFFECT ON FAMILIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister finally recognized that he has increased taxes between the 1984 return and the 1987 return which Canadians are forced to file, and by $26.7 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You're wrong. You correct that. That's absolutely wrong.


John Napier Turner: Wait a minute.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: While there may be some disagreement, I would ask the Hon. Minister to-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Quit distorting things like that.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to wait until he responds, and if there is a disagreement the Hon. Minister can
May 2, 1988

certainly comment upon it. I would ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me be precise so that the Minister can relax. I can understand why he is a little raw today when people are paying their taxes right across the country.
He has admitted to raising taxes. He has not admitted the figure that I cited. However, I will recite again that the increase between the 1984 tax return and the 1987 tax return for individual income tax is $26.7 billion.
Let us not even talk about the 77 per cent increase in sales taxes under this Government. Let us talk about what happens to the income tax of the ordinary Canadian family after four Budgets of this Minister, after all the surtaxes, after the deindexation, and after the so-called tax reform.
Will the Minister explain why, even after tax reform, a Canadian family with an income of $25,000 a year will be paying $390 more in income tax than it paid in 1984, and why a family with an income of $40,000 a year will be paying $840 a year more in income tax than in 1984, while a family with an income of $120,000 a year will be paying $3,570 less than in 1984? Is that the Minister's idea of tax fairness?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would have a bit more respect for the Leader of the Opposition if he did not completely distort what I said in an answer just a minute before he made the comment which he did. He knows perfectly well that his statement that $26 billion is a result of tax increases is a total distortion. He would have more respect from the people of Canada, and possibly the people in his caucus, if he would recognize that that sort of distortion should not be used in the House of Commons in the way in which he just has used it.
If his memory is that short, allow me to repeat for him that more than 80 per cent of the increase in the revenues of the Government of Canada over that period of time is because of growth in the economy and the increase in the number of jobs that have been created. One million two hundred thousand jobs have been created. More people are paying tax. The revenues have gone up because people are working.
Another reason the revenues of the Government of Canada have gone up is that we have the best growth record of the G-7 nations.
Yes, we have increased taxes. I have never made any secret of that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You promised you wouldn't


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Allow me to make just one more comment, Mr. Speaker. I know you are getting anxious to get up.
Oral Questions
Yes, we have raised taxes, but that is simply because of the huge-and I repeat, huge-fiscal problem that we inherited in 1984.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the figures I am reciting are derived from the statistics of the Minister's own Department reinforced by independent agencies such as the Institute of Public Policy. I would be glad to furnish him with support for every number I have raised here in the House.


TAXES PAID BY INCOME GROUPS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that Canadians are upset about paying their taxes today and over the weekend. They have every right to be mad. Ninety-nine per cent of Canadians are paying more in total taxes-I am talking about income tax, sales and excise taxes, and so on-than they were paying in 1984 when the Government came into power after it had said that it would not raise taxes.
Only one per cent of Canadians are paying less in tax. That one per cent of Canadians consists of those whose income is more than $117,000 a year. Those happen to be the facts.
Will the Minister explain why someone making $17,000 a year is paying more in taxes, while the person making $117,000 a year is paying less in taxes since he came to power?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, with the way the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, a former Finance Minister, is playing with figures today, I will not comment on any numbers that he gave. He said that $26 billion is totally because of tax increases. Is that what the Hon. Member is saying?


John Napier Turner: They are paying more in taxes by $26.8 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is the Hon. Member saying that is totally because of tax increases?


John Napier Turner: I am saying that was the result of his four Budgets-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There you have it, Mr. Speaker. That is the distortion. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is playing to the television cameras, distorting the numbers out of all reason. He wonders why I do not answer his questions. It is because he is asking questions in a way that has been quite distorted. He knows perfectly well that the reason why people are paying more taxes-


John Napier Turner: Because you increased them.

May 2, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -is because their income is up. Their income is up because we have a healthy economy. Do not give me all these distortions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Western Canadian farmers are facing the worst drought in a century, with the lowest rainfalls and precipitation since 1889. Topsoil is blowing in many areas of the Prairies and dug-outs are dry, even with the spring run-off which was practically nil.
What action will the Government take to assist these farmers who are facing the worst drought in one hundred years?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that question was posed to me by one of the members of caucus last week. I indicated in response to his question that indeed the potential for a drought in Western Canada is very high. In fact we are advised by PFRA officials who are in the field that moisture levels are perhaps at a forty-year low. It is potentially very serious.
As one producer indicated just a few days ago, we have not lost a crop in April yet. We must be hopeful that mother nature will look favourably upon us, but the Hon. Member should take some satisfaction in the fact that since the latter part of February and first part of March there has been a federal-provincial and producer task force looking at a number of options. It will continue to do its work. Hopefully we will get moisture. In fact I am advised by my Parliamentary Secretary that most parts of Manitoba received considerable rainfall last night.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when will the Government give some kind of commitment to western farmers that it will provide assistance in this national emergency? The Government of Alberta has already committed some S20 million. When will the Government, which has already cut the PFRA budget drastically in the last number of years, give a total and complete commitment to the prairie provinces? He knows that the disaster is beyond Alberta and affects much of Saskatchewan as well.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if anyone wants to take the time to examine the record of how this Government has responded positively in previous situations, that person should take some comfort with respect to our willingness to accept our responsibility in the future.
Let me inform the Hon. Member that when the Prime Minister appeared before the Outlook Conference in the first part of December, he gave a commitment of some $75 million in the area of soil and water conservation, to be matched by the provinces. So if the situation does occur that we do have an emergency situation-and I hope it does not-I am quite certain that it would be possible for us to utilize some of that $75 million which we committed in the area of soil and water conservation as early as last December.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the tragedy of child poverty. More than one million children under the age of 16, nearly 18 per cent of all of Canada's children, are growing up in poverty. This is a national disgrace. Recalling the Prime Minister's promise of social justice and equality when he took over government, will the Government now, through the Cabinet, launch a major attack on child poverty? Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to ensure this topic is on top of the agenda of the next First Ministers' meeting?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that this has been a problem in Canada. It is one we are all sympathetic to and we want to find some further solutions. This Government has done a lot towards reducing child poverty. First, the child tax credit and the refundable sales tax credit have been very helpful to families in Canada who are poor. It has helped put more money into the pockets particularly of single parents in lower-income brackets.


FAMILY BENEFITS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INCREASE TAX CREDITS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The fact remains that there are one million children living in poverty in Canada. Since the Minister of Finance has really added to poverty by deindexing family benefits-cuts in this area will mean that children are deprived of some $1.5 million by 1991-will he give poor kids a break by reindexing family benefits? And will he increase tax credits to cover the real cost of raising children, not give with one hand and take away with the other?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first let me observe that the number of Canadians who are now living in poverty is down by about 525,000 in the time we have been in office. The number of children within that figure is
May 2, 1988

down 193,000. So, as my colleague said, there has been very good progress made. The numbers are still too high of those living in poverty, but in response to that we have made a number of changes.
We have introduced the refundable sales tax credit, increased the size of the child tax credit, provided for the acceleration of payment of the child tax credit and increased the spousal allowance to those who are aged 60 to 64 years living in poverty.
We have made a number of changes in tax reform to help those in low-income brackets. There will be 850,000 taken right off the tax rolls. We have made a number of changes in the child tax credit which will help those living on low incomes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears the Government is now boasting that there are still one million children living in poverty in Canada. That is a shameful disgrace.


REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL ACTION STRATEGY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Minister responsible for the status of women. She knows that 61 per cent of the kids of single moms are poor. These are probably the poorest families in Canada. We need action now. We cannot wait.
Would the Minister assume the role of catalyst, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to launch a major attack on child poverty? One thing they could do is call a national conference of provincial Ministers and groups concerned with poverty to develop a national action strategy to deal with this problem. Will she do this?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this afternoon we have dealt with some distortions in what has been said in this House. I started my previous answer by expressing some sympathy and concern about the poverty of children. To say we are boasting about what we have done is totally incorrect and I absolutely refuse to accept that preamble.
One of the ways to help women and single family parents is to ensure they have good jobs. I should say that in the job creation statistics, 659,000 women are working today who were not working before, and 77 per cent of those jobs are full time. Through the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have a component for non-traditional job training that is helping women, particularly single parents.
We are the first Government that has come out with a child care strategy. Of course we are sympathetic, and concerned, and interested. We are dealing with these things every day through our general policies and through specific policies.
Oral Questions PORNOGRAPHY


BILL C-54-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the status of Bill C-54, the amendments to the Criminal Code, which would control pornography, a goal with which we agree. But the Bill goes far beyond that to limit free speech, to constrain culture, and to prevent virtually any expression of sexuality. The Bill is condemned by everyone except the right wing of the government caucus.
Recently the Minister said the Bill had a low priority. I want to ask him about that because concerns are still being expressed. Would he confirm that the Bill is a disaster, that it has been withdrawn and that it will not be re-presented in its present form?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus over the weekend is in worse shape than we had all suspected when that is the type of question the Hon. Member puts forward. That is a third distortion now with respect to the premise of a question. I am disappointed in him.
I hope the Liberal Party is now in support of what I think is a legitimate legislative approach to control depictions of sexual abuse of children and the degradation of women. I hope the Liberal Party has not changed its position on this issue.
At no time did I say the legislation has a low priority. This is very balanced and very much needed legislation which I think addresses a serious problem in terms of an obscenity law. The present provisions of the Criminal Code are unacceptable.
The Fraser Commission has looked at this matter in great detail. That was a commission the Hon. Member's Government, of which he was a part, put together. That commission has made some very sensible recommendations which we have accepted.
The Hon. Member talks about the Bill doing certain things, comments which I utterly and absolutely reject. I wish the Hon. Member would get his facts straight before he stands up in this House.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON LIBRARIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, everyone can agree with the goals the Minister just described as being the purpose of the legislation, but it is not just the Official Opposition which is criticizing the Bill. Would he confirm that the librarians of his own City of Saskatoon came forward to indicate that, if this Bill goes forward in its present form, not only will the goals he talked about in his answer be covered, but the Bill will go much further? I ask him to confirm that libraries like those in his own city will have to divide into sections and prevent young people from examining what is undoubtedly great literature by anyone's definition? Why does the Minister not wake up and fix up this Bill?

May 2, 1988
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, one of the prerequisites of being a librarian is the capacity to read. I think if the Hon. Member takes the time to read the legislation he will understand that we have in fact very substantially removed the provisions with respect to the written word. We are now talking about visual depictions. I am telling the librarians that right now, and I tell the Hon. Member that he should not bring forward misrepresentations of the legislation.


John Napier Turner: When is the last time you walked into that library?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The librarians in Saskatoon are my dearest friends. We come together on all occasions.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns his statement in the House last Friday in answer to a question, wanting credit for a so-called win with regard to NOx emissions. If he got the American Government to agree to a reduction in NOx emissions we would call it a win, and we would give him credit for it.
I hope that today he will be specific about what is in this win. Are there real reductions to which the American Government has agreed? Or does he consider a win to be merely the fact that the Americans have agreed to keep on talking?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the change in Geneva is very substantive. There were two proposals seriously considered by 34 countries during negotiations.
The first would have seen any previous year, not just 1987, as the baseline on which the Americans, among other countries, could calculate the extent to which they met their obligations under the treaty. The Americans, could have chosen 1978, which was their highest year of production of nitrogen oxides, which in turn would have meant that it would have been that much easier for them to meet their obligations. We have eliminated the clause "any previous year".
The second proposal concerned a provision that would have enabled the Americans and other countries, too, to credit reductions in previous years against any future reductions they would be required to make under the protocol. We have removed that provision as well.
It is a double win for Canada.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, if indeed the Americans are agreeing to that, then that would be a very significant step.
Will the Minister confirm that this protocol will go ahead without American agreement and that these really crucial matters are still left to bilateral talks? Will he confirm specifically whether or not have the Americans have agreed to get rid of the "any year" provision? Have the Americans agreed to at least a freeze? Are the Americans prepared to go ahead with stated objectives for reductions in NOx emissions?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that all the prospective signatory countries have returned to their respective jurisdictions to consult their Governments with a view to coming back to the table on July 1, 1988, a few months hence, to tell the other partners the extent to which they can go along with the protocol as drafted.
We will not know, presumably until then, or some time before the first of July, what the final position of the United States might be. I am hopeful.
However, as the Prime Minister indicated in connection with Canada-U.S. negotiations in Washington, short of pointing a cannon at Washington, what more can we do? We have put our case forcefully to the Americans, and to the world community. I think we have performed a service to the country in doing so.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF ALBERTA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Marie Laing and Christie Mjolsness, Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Dan Peterson, Member of the Provincial Legislature of British Columbia


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF BRITISH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Gwyneth Dunwoody, Member of the British Parliament.
May 2, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


METRO TORONTO YOUTH JOB CORE PROGRAM
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth. As the Minister is well aware the Metro Toronto Youth Job Core Program is a program which trains hard-core unemployed young people, who cannot get or cannot find jobs because of their own personal or work habits, to become productive citizens. He is also aware that the funding for the program is in jeopardy because of the fact that there is such a low rate of unemployment in Metropolitan Toronto.
Will the Minister undertake to review the funding criteria for that program to ensure that these young people do not turn out to be permanent welfare recipients?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the program and the project to which my hon. colleague refers are funded under the severely unemployed disadvantaged option of the job development program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy which does not provide or guarantee ongoing funding. I will be happy to look into the matter on my hon. colleague's encouragement and report back to him.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns the lack of a full English language service in New Brunswick, the only province in Canada without a CBC owned and operated television service.
Last month officials told the Premier of New Brunswick that the corporation could not find the $10 million to $20 million needed to give New Brunswick this full service. Yet, two weeks later, $220 million was found for equipment for a new broadcast centre.
How can the Minister explain to the Premier and the people of New Brunswick that, on the one hand, they can find up to $380 million for a new broadcast centre and, on the other hand, they cannot find $10 million to $20 million to give a full CBC service to New Brunswickers? Is that not another example of how the Government treats New Brunswickers? Are we going to be second-class citizens all the time under the present Government? What is happening to the Government?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, not for one moment do I accept that New Brunswickers should be considered second-class citizens. Not for one minute would I consider that anyone from the Maritimes should be considered a second-class citizen or, indeed, anyone from anywhere else in Canada.
As the Hon. Member has said, New Brunswick is the only province in Canada in which there is not an owned and operated CBC outlet for English language television. I very sincerely regret that.
I would also like to say to the Hon. Member that in the last few weeks hearings have taken place before the CRTC on the question of the future of the CBC in New Brunswick. Of course, I await the outcome of those hearings.
I would like to see a full CBC station operating in New Brunswick, but that decision has to be taken by the CBC.


PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMS IN NEW BRUNSWICK-MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister were really serious about this, if she really wanted the people of New Brunswick to get the same treatment as other Canadians, wouldn't she be prepared to instruct CBC authorities immediately to invest money in improving services and set up production facilities so that programs can be produced in New Brunswick?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one week members of the Liberal Party are telling me I should not be interfering with the CBC. The next week they are telling me that I should be going in and telling it what to do.
We believe that there should be an arm's length relationship between the Government, and the agencies that operate in the cultural sphere. 1 intend to honour that commitment.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced that the Government was not prepared to make a commitment to participate in the construction of the kaon project at the University of British Columbia. The Deputy Prime Minister will also know that this project is absolutely critical in terms of upgrading the existing TRIUMF project to make it a world-class science facility.

May 2, 1988
Oral Questions
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now indicate that if this project is considered to be feasible as a result of the design study under way, and in the Canadian interest, the Government will make a commitment to fund this first-class scientific project?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, again we have another distortion. That is not what the Minister of State for Science and Technology said at all.
What I think he did say is that there were discussions going on with provincial government officials as to the probability of funding, engineering and feasibility studies. I think that the Minister demonstrated a very positive approach on behalf of the federal Government in that regard.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Government has made a commitment to participate in the space agency, and to fund Canada's participation in the U.S. space station to the tune of $1.2 billion. The point is that virtually all this scientific research will take place in eastern Canada. We are simply saying that we want some in western Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a commitment, because the Minister of State did not make a financial commitment, that if this project is in the best interests of the people of Canada, and the design study proves to be true, western Canadians will be treated fairly when it comes to scientific research money?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the Hon. Member that I participated in a meeting with other Ministers from the provincial Government where this particular matter was discussed, and discussions are continuing. I think that the comments made by the Minister of Science and Technology yesterday clearly reflect the positive attitude that we are taking in this regard.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the same Minister who was conspicuously absent in Montreal last Friday when it was announced that another committee to examine Montreal's economic renewal had been
set up. The Minister delegated another Minister, who delegated another Member, who arrived without knowing what to say. I would like to ask the Minister: Why not, instead of just setting up a committee, why not take concrete action now, considering the urgency of the situation, by, for instance, giving CN shops the assurance they will get the contract for renovating VIA Rail rolling stock? Why look for somebody else to do the work instead of the people who have the equipment and skills to do a good job?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to ask the Hon. Member to repeat the question.


VIA RAIL ROLLING STOCK-REQUEST THAT REPAIR WORK BE DONE IN MONTREAL
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister was right to shun the Montreal meeting.
I do not know if the Government believes that it will be able to buy time by creating yet another committee to look at the economic development of Montreal, instead of making specific moves right now to create jobs and to help save jobs in the southwest part of Montreal.
May I ask the Minister again, if she is listening, why would the Government not order VIA Rail to send the refurbishing of its rolling stock to be done in the Point St. Charles CN Shops, instead of looking around to try to find someone else to do the job?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the answers we are looking for in southwest Montreal, as in eastern Montreal, are far more significant than the kind of project the Hon. Member is talking about. We want to have possible solutions identified on a long-term structural basis, after we are able to analyse the economic potential of the region. It is this type of action that will be most sensitive, as it was in Montreal east.
I should also say that employment in Montreal rose by 114,000 between 1984 and 1987, and this compares with a loss of jobs under the former Government.


HUNTING AND TRAPPING
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The livelihood of thousands of Canadian families could be devastated by proposed British legislation which would force retailers to label furs indicating that they may have been trapped.
May 2, 1988

The trapping industry cannot fight the anti-fur lobby alone, and now the situation is urgent. This legislation could be brought up in the British Parliament within weeks.
Will the Minister take the case of Canadian trappers and the Canadian fur industry directly to British parliamentarians, and provide them with information about the real facts on this issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have already begun to do that. I certainly share the concern of the Hon. Member for the Yukon, and indeed of Canadians generally with regard to the effect upon the livelihood particularly of northerners, but also of people who are engaged in trapping as their only means of making a livelihood across the country.
The High Commissioner was in again last week to speak to authorities in Great Britain. We are in touch with members of the British Cabinet. We are not yet making the progress that we want to make. It is very important that all of us in the House who understand the importance of this industry to the livelihood of some of the poorest Canadians, should join together to try to impress that fact upon British parliamentarians.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. This issue is important. There are approximately 105,000 jobs in Canada at stake. About 60 per cent of those who trap are aboriginal people who have been good husbands of the land for many years and who understand the environmental issues and humane trapping methods.
I appreciate that the Minister has said that the Government is doing something directly with British parliamentarians. Will the Minister undertake to advocate with the Prime Minister that he raise this issue when he meets with the British Prime Minister later this month?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will do that, Mr. Speaker. I also will, naturally, raise the matter both directly and personally with the British Foreign Secretary when I meet him within the next month. I have been in touch with him already but have not had the chance to discuss the matter with him directly. I intend to do that.


CHILD CARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I would
Oral Questions
rather have had an Alberta Member asking this question, but unfortunately none of them seem to be interested in this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Since there are Members of the Legislature here today from Alberta, I have a specific question for the President of the Treasury Board. Given that at Tunney's Pasture this week there will be a child care centre opening for federal government employees in Ottawa, can the President of the Treasury Board give us the assurance that the same service will be available to federal government employees in Edmonton at Canada Place?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is a proposal for a day care centre in the new government building in Edmonton. The particulars have not been finalized to date. The proposal was made long after the original design was completed. Hopefully, we will come to a conclusion about whether or not the space will be available, on what basis, and to whom, within a reasonable period of time.


TREATMENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the facility is supposed to be opening within the next few weeks. There are parents in Edmonton who would like to know if there is some kind of second-class treatment for civil servants in Alberta as compared to Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the Minister, why is it that Treasury Board had no problem coming up with the money for the Tunney's Pasture facility in the nation's capital, and when it comes to Edmonton that 20-odd Tories are silent on the issue? Why are they not fighting for federal government employees in Edmonton to have the same rights as government employees here in the nation's capital?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I might note that this is the first Government ever that has considered potential day care places for children of public servants.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's totally false.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Perhaps the Hon. Member would allow us time to determine the feasibility, the availability, and to whom the spaces might be made available.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Defence my question is directed to the Associate Minister of Defence.

May 2, 1988
Business of the House
In 1981 Mr. Stephen Green, now of Victoria, British Columbia entered the Armed Forces. He set an excellent record, and has been accepted for officer training. Unfortunately, he has recently been diagnosed as having diabetes. The officer training program has been rescinded. He has received a notice of dismissal from his present job.
When diabetics are now policemen, firemen, and hard-rock miners, why are the Armed Forces so out of touch with medical realities? Why are they discriminating against these soldiers?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to answer the question and its specifics if the Member would like to give the details in a letter.
I can inform him that we do not discriminate against diabetics. As a matter of fact, some diabetics are kept in the Armed Forces. Those whose condition is of an extremely serious nature, and who would not be able to use insulin or have doctors nearby on certain postings, unfortunately we do not keep them there because it would be a danger to their own lives.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister, and I will give him names of other people, names which I cannot make public.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is the Minister aware, as the Armed Forces does not seem to be, that there are modern methods of blood glucose monitoring, Mr. Speaker? Insulin is portable now. People can monitor themselves. Would the Minister not agree with me that modern medicine says there is no reason to take people away from their jobs or to kick them out of the Armed Forces because they suffer from diabetes?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I entirely concur with the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that in most normal situations a diabetic should be able to carry on his or her functions in all workplaces. However, the Armed Forces workplace is not always in a normal situation. Only the most extreme of cases are released from the Armed Forces. The other ones we accommodate.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Minister of Defence.
Anthony Cordesman, the author of a new book on NATO, joined a growing number of defence experts when he wrote recently that Canada's purchase of nuclear submarines was wrong, that it would jeopardize Canada's NATO commitments. He even questioned the strategic rationale of the submarines.
How many international experts criticizing this plan does the Government need before it cancels the whole cock-eyed proposal?
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the unique thing is that our Party has a plan- the Liberal Party does not-on how to defend Canada's north. We happen to believe in the sovereignty of Canada's north. We will make the decisions on how to protect it in Canada. We will not depend on American or other international experts.


COST OF SUBMARINES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this plan of purchasing submarines will do nothing to protect Canada's sovereignty in the north. Mr. Cordesman, who is a national security adviser in the U.S. Senate, said that this huge financial commitment of S12 billion would mortgage Canadian defence investment funds for a generation.
Can the Minister explain how he hopes to purchase these submarines, stay within budget, and maintain his other commitments to NATO?
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is citing another American trying to advise Canadians. Perhaps he would prefer to get some actual facts in Canada. We have done our calculations based on our economic models, based on prices in Canada, not on prices in the United States. We do not expect to spend $600 for toilet seats and $2,000 for aerials. We hope to do this in a practical and in a rational way. We do not take our advice necessarily from Americans on our sovereignty and security; we take it from Canadians.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. I was advised earlier today by the New Democratic Party that it has several more speakers for Bill C-74, an important piece of environmental legislation. We had hoped to send that Bill to the Senate along with the western diversification, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and victims of crime Bills. Unfortunately the Opposition has several more speakers, which will prevent that from happening.
In an effort to complete legislation and to speed passage of legislation to the Senate, I have advised the other Parties that

May 2, 1988

we will now call Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada. We hope that, unless there is further unusual delay, we will be able to complete this Bill by five o'clock this evening.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate to the Deputy House Leader that we appreciate the advance notice earlier today, that the Government intended to change the order of business and get on dealing with the western diversification Bill.
I agree with the Minister of State that the environmental protection legislation presently before the House is very important. While it is our intention to support that legislation as enthusiastically as we can, there are a number of points we feel ought to be made before the Bill leaves the House. Those will be done quickly, expeditiously, and in a very business-like way as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes:
That this question be now put.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to finish my remarks on the western diversification legislation. I should point out to those watching today that again we have a situation where the Government has changed the legislation before the House in a very haphazard manner.
One hour prior to this debate we were still debating Bill C-74, the environmental legislation. Now we are back to debating the western diversification Bill. It is obvious that the Government is running out of time in this legislative session. It knows its legislative program is in trouble. The Government has yet to start debate on free trade and to introduce legislation on Air Canada. The Government knows that legislatively its back is to the wall. As a result, we have the unusual situation where we deal with one piece of legislation in the morning and a different piece is dragged into the House for the afternoon. Every time there is a piece of legislation on the Order Paper, the Government attempts to extend the hours of the House. It moves to prevent legitimate amendments in the House.
Western Economic Diversification Act
This is a very difficult situation for those Members who are scheduled to speak and so engage in legitimate debate. There is absolutely no way we can believe the Government when it says what the Orders of the Day are or what the Business of the House will be for the next day.
The House has found it almost impossible to have a legislative timetable, because the Government has been unable to get its act together. It recognizes now, with two months left and the number of Opposition Days guaranteed by the rules of the House, that it will have a problem. The Government's way of dealing with that is not to sit down and negotiate with the opposition Parties in trying to come up with a timetable to see which pieces of legislation can be dealt with. The Government's approach is a bluster approach. The Government announces on Thursday what the Business of the House will be for the following week, yet a few hours later changes its mind. Even before Thursday is over there is a change with regard to Friday.
On Friday the Government announced that we would be dealing with the western diversification legislation and on Monday morning, an hour before the House sat, we found out that we were dealing with the environmental protection legislation. We went through the morning with that piece of legislation and made our plans for the afternoon. Just before Question Period started today we were told by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) that we would be back to debating the western diversification Bill.
These procedures tell us that the Government is out of control and that the Government is unable to plan a legislative timetable. It is hoping to catch the Opposition napping. The Government wants to ram through some pieces of legislation quickly in order to see if it can recapture some time. If it is following those tactics, the Government should realize that the probability of co-operation from the Opposition will diminish.
If our critics do not have notice and if members in Standing Committees are pulled out of those committees without notice, one cannot expect opposition Members to co-operate with the Government. The Government should realize that. It should stop playing this kind of poker game by dealing cards and, if it does not like the way the cards fall, taking them back and dealing them again. That is what is happening.
There are enough Members on the government side who sat in opposition when the Liberals tried the same tricks in the past to know that members of the Opposition do not like it. It makes it impossible to work and do the types of things that are necessary as a Member of Parliament and as a member on a committee, if the Government continues to change legislation the way it has.
I was particularly upset when the Parliamentary Secretary rose on Friday and moved the previous question on the issue of western diversification. This is an issue which affects all parts of the West and on which many Members of the House from western Canada have not had an opportunity to speak. It was forced through the House quickly at second reading stage.

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
When it went to committee, the Government refused to allow the committee to travel to western Canada, even though the committee studying a similar piece of legislation affecting Atlantic Canada was allowed to travel.
As I said on Friday in the few moments that I had to speak then, there are people in western Canada who would like to speak on this legislation. There are people who have various opinions on this legislation. They have ideas of their own on how the West should develop and what role the federal Government should be taking in supporting that development and diversification. Those people cannot all afford to come to Ottawa. By its very nature, the House of Commons will not pay for the transportation of all those groups to Ottawa.
This Bill is a regional Bill and it should have been taken to the region so that people from Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Kamloops, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, and the smaller communities could make presentations. The same is true for the people of the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The people from those provinces would have liked to have spoken on western diversification, but they were denied the opportunity to do so.
When the Parliamentary Secretary, a Member from Calgary, rose to move the previous question and, by doing so, limited debate on this matter, I was appalled. First we were denied the opportunity to travel to the West, and now we have been denied the opportunity to express fully our concerns with regard to this legislation.
I am not the only one with these concerns. I could quote the remarks of all sorts of groups that have concerns with this legislation. I am not just talking about those groups that have traditionally supported the New Democratic Party or the CCF. I am not talking strictly of the co-operative movement, the labour movement, or some of the other groups that are famous for having left-wing, co-operative approaches to issues. I can also quote the remarks of other groups from western Canada that are concerned with the format, the concept, and the fact that decision making will not really take place in the West. These groups are concerned that there may not be a coordination of over-all government policy within the structure developed by the Government.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has suggested that this measure might be a political slush fund, and if it is not a political slush fund, that it might be a bureaucratic slush fund. The Federation has said that it is a narrow, highly centralized approach to diversification with a continued emphasis on megaprojects. The Federation calls it a confusing black box lacking clear criteria or policy direction and has said that it is on a collision course with a myriad of client groups who will inevitably see thousands of applications rejected and thousands of hopes dashed. That is what a group supported by small business is saying about the Western Diversification Fund.
The Federation goes on to make some remarks comparing this measure to the Western Development Fund, what I called the phantom fund of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The previous Liberal Government promised $4 billion to the West and that was reduced to $2 billion and then disappeared altogether.
I realize that my time is up. I realize that that is a direct consequence of the Government's measure to restrict debate on this very important matter and that it points out the problem with the approach this Government has taken to western diversification. It is not only refusing to listen to the people of the West, but it is restricting the ability of western MPs to speak on this very important matter.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, in previous attempts at the diversification of the West or of other regions, the legislation has given Departments including DREE and DRIE responsibility for the co-ordination of the efforts of other major Departments such as Finance, Transport, and Health and Welfare. These Departments have co-ordinated efforts to develop programs which would substantially affect the region being diversified. I wonder if the Hon. Member could give us some indication of whether or not he sees something like that as being possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for his question. I believe that it is a very important question. It is something that concerns all of us.
The Macdonald Royal Commission on the economy discussed the co-ordination role of DREE, which was supposed to have acted as a co-ordinator with the other federal Departments. Its report indicated that a major federal concern was that DREE was not proving to be very effective in co-ordinating and integrating the activities of other line Departments, and that the line Departments felt relatively little need to pay much attention to regional concerns. As someone who was the DREE critic in those days and who has had an opportunity to see some multidepartmental approaches in northern Manitoba and other places, I recognize that the co-ordinating role will not happen if we simply set up a little agency in Atlantic Canada with a limited political clout and a different agency responsible to a different Minister in western Canada, again with limited political clout. There is no over-all thrust.
I must agree with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which is very critical of the approach that is being taken. With the new Atlantic agency and the Western Diversification Fund, political motivation and back room deals will be the way decisions will be made. That is a problem. When we see thousands of applications coming from western Canada and only a few being accepted, and some being accepted during provincial election campaigns, we must be skeptical and wonder what the decision-making process is all about. I am very skeptical.
May 2, 1988

Specifically in answer to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, I believe that the only way there can be an effective co-ordinating role is if there is direct accountability to a Department like the one DREE used to be before the Liberals dismantled it. There must be a responsibility written into the legislation so that various programs will be funnelled through DREE, not just when someone thinks it is necessary or a good idea but as a requirement so that when development is taking place in western Canada, decisions are made in Ottawa, and that is just as important.
Decisions made in Ottawa affect the regions, and I am referring to decisions like the Air Canada-Airbus decision, the CF-18 decision, and a number of other decisions which seem to be made for certain political reasons with no regard for what is happening or for what negative effect it will have. We must see that some second thought is given, and that is what we are not seeing at this time.
I believe that the lack of any clear authority in this legislation means that the diversification agency will have no role over the line Departments and that they will continue, as happened under the Liberal Government, to ignore any role for regional development.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Churchill has indicated, one of the very important roles which the Western Diversification Office ought to take on is to be an advocate for western Canada-western Canadian business, western Canadian industry, and western Canadians.
We all remember the CF-18 decision. All the experts said that Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg should carry on the maintenance of those fighter jets, but the decision was made that the maintenance would go to Montreal. The Member also mentioned Air Canada's pending decision on the Airbus, which would again result in a significant decrease in the maintenance program in Manitoba.
I want to ask the Member about the kaon project. The Member is well aware that the kaon project is a supportive development for the TRIUMF project in British Columbia. British Columbians, particularly the scientists at the University of British Columbia, are very proud of the contribution which that has made to particle science, particularly particle physics. We now have a chance to make this into a world-class scientific project, a leading scientific project in the world. However, it requires a commitment from the federal Government.
Does the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) consider this to be a legitimate role for the Western Diversification Office to play? Does he think it should be an advocate to ensure that westerners, western Canada, and specifically a western university, be the home of a world-class scientific project, the kaon project or the TRIUMF project? This would be in line with the decision of the federal Government to support the space agency and set aside $1.2 billion in scientific
Western Economic Diversification Act
research for that agency which will be done, by and large, in eastern Canadian universities. Does the Hon. Member for Churchill consider this a legitimate role for the Western Diversification Office to play?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. It points out the problem we have with the legislation and with the way the Government acts. This appears to be a very good project in western Canada which is not being favoured by the Minister responsible. We thought that the Western Diversification Office was co-ordinating development in western Canada. Rather, the Minister, acting by himself, is saying that the Government will probably not sponsor the project.
Were the people at the Western Diversification Office even consulted? We do not know whether they were or not. Was the Minister responsible for western diversification consulted on this decision? Again, we do not know whether or not he was consulted. Was a report made on the merits for western Canada of this project going forward? If so, what were the benefits to the West, and what were some of the negative aspects involved in this decision? Again, we do not know.
When we see important decisions relating to research and scientific and technological study and improvements being turned down in western Canada, we have to wonder whether the Western Diversification Office had any role whatsoever in the decision.
How do you develop co-ordination of various government programs in the West if major decisions are being made by one Minister acting alone, even though they have a fundamental effect on the development of western Canada? Although the money and the programs are needed, the Western Diversification Fund will not help the West unless there is an over-all coordinating role and if they continue to ignore what is happening in the communities and the suggestions of people in the regions.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak on Bill C-113 because it is a very important Bill in western Canada. We feel western Canada is facing the most difficult time in its history, not only because of the dramatic downturn in oil prices in 1986 which plunged the prices to a level at it is simply not feasible to operate many of the new projects which we would like to see developed in the tar sands and heavy oils, but because the cash flow generated puts a lot of small operators into a serious position.
Government Members are, of course, always very critical of previous government programs with regard to energy. However, it is clear that the Western Accord did not provide for the downturn which we saw in energy prices in 1986. The prices are still hovering at $16 to $17 per barrel. It is my understanding that the economic incentive provided under CEDIP for the past year is going to be phased out as well for oil and gas exploration. Of course, any program under the Western

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Economic Diversification Program is all government assistance. Therefore, when programs like CEDIP are phased out we must ask whether this new program takes its place. Of course it does not. It is an entirely different kind of program for an entirely different number of activities.
In addition to CEDIP being phased out, we are seeing the earned depletion allowance being phased out which has provided $600 million or $700 million for mineral exploration and development in the past three or four years. Of course the new program under the Western Economic Diversification Office does not take its place. As a matter of fact it is much smaller. It involves some $60 million a year for each of the four western provinces.
A program which has been instrumental in developing new mines in northern Manitoba and other areas of the West is being phased out at the same time, and the net result is less incentive for exploration and development in the mineral and oil and gas industries, and this at a time when the economy of the West is generally down.
We must look at the program which has been put in place because, even though the legislation has not been passed, there is enabling legislation for departmental reorganization and establishment and grants are being given under the Western Economic Diversification Office. We must look at the programs and grants which have been established.
I had an opportunity to hear some of the witnesses before the committee. One of the most penetrating and decisive descriptions put to the committee was put forward by Dennis Young, the President of the Single-Industry Towns Association He put the argument forward that we should be working more toward developing small industries in individual communities. From the experience I have had in my district, I have been very impressed with programs like the business development centres under the Department of Employment and Immigration. While that program exists in some communities in the West, it does not apply to many areas. Programs under this legislation will not provide that kind of assistance.
Under the Business Development Centres Program, a small amount of money is provided as an incentive for the operation of the Economic Development Corporation. Funds amounting to $275,000 per year are provided at that level.
The funds that are provided for incentives in my area take the form of a loan at regular commercial rates of interest of 11 per cent or 12 per cent. It is amazing that in my constituency, businesses have been able to create some 30 or 40 jobs with capital funds of $275,000 per year. This is not done by large manufacturing concerns or through megaprojects, but with small community-based projects that are expanding businesses. This program provides funds strictly on a loan basis.
A number of witnesses made the argument that this type of program will deliver more effective economic development on a
more sound basis than the present program. I hope that the Government will consider it because it is a valid criticism.
The Single Industry Towns Association points out that most of the grants go to the large cities. I assume that these grants will continue to go to large cities in the West, which perhaps are already more diversified and successful in attracting new business than the rural towns and villages throughout the Prairies which have difficulty in attracting new business.
The Government should consider this concern because it is a very valid criticism. This problem has been overcome in many communities with the use of the Business Development Centres Program under the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Unfortunately, only a limited number of these projects have been approved across the country, and the Western Diversification Program does not provide funding.
Prairie communities have been facing a downturn in the price of oil and natural gas since 1986. They are also suffering from extremely low grain prices. Bill C-113 is not adequate to cope with the dramatic events that are taking place at the international level. The U.S.-European Economic Community trade war is resulting in dramatically reduced property values on farms throughout the West.
I do not believe the economic fall out of this has been fully appreciated. While the report will not be out for another two months, we hear that the Farm Credit Corporation is facing the loss of $500 million to $1 billion. The full impact of this situation has not been investigated, nor has a program been established to deal with the problem.
The Agriculture Committee has been studying agriculture throughout Canada, but clearly the Prairies are facing the greatest challenge in the face of a reduction in the value of commodities, especially grains and oil seeds, and the consequent reduction of farm property values. As farmers lose their equity, their position of stability is being challenged.
Furthermore, many parts of the southern half of Alberta and Saskatchewan are facing a drought situation. Slews are dried up, for the first time in memory, and the dug-outs used to water cattle are dry. Dust storms are blowing away the top soil.
Today I asked the Minister when a program would be announced and what would be the Government's commitment. Alberta has already made a commitment of some $20 million for expanding dug-outs for water supply, for developing new wells and pumping systems. If the situation continues, the Government will have to make a commitment.
It is unfortunate that the Government cut back the budget of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration which has provided assistance for the development of water supplies and so on in the past. The budget has been cut to $64 million from some $150 million a few years ago.
May 2, 1988

Western Canada is facing a difficult time. We are concerned about whether this western diversification office is the proper mechanism to cope with the kind of economic diversification we really need, not only in western Canada, which depends on one or two major resource commodities, but in other parts of the country which face the same kind of difficulties.
The decline of the rural community as a result of lack of funding for useful programs has been exacerbated by the policy not to replace the postmasters who leave rural post offices. Some 5,000 rural post offices are under the gun, along with some 90,000 jobs as a result of that policy. Rural Canadians can only hope that their postmaster will not have to retire in the near future.
Rural communities also require infrastructure, including the replacement of streets, sewers and water works systems. This western diversification program will not provide that important infrastructure for these rural communities.
The Canadian Municipal Association put forward a program a couple of years ago. It stated that over five years it would need a $15 billion program to upgrade rural community infrastructure across the country. That program would have provided $1 billion from the federal Government, $1 billion from the provincial Government and a similar amount from the municipalities across Canada. Unfortunately, under the rural Economic Diversification Program, no funding will be provided for municipal infrastructure. That is unfortunate because various groups that came before the committee complained that not only are the grants going mostly to urban centres across the Prairies but there is very little help for the small towns and communities and no municipal infrastructure is provided under this program. So there are a number of problems that just do not seem to be resolved under this Western Economic Diversification Program.
We are also concerned about the program for railway rehabilitation for western Canada which is essential for the transportation of grain, especially in branch lines. It appears at the present time that this billion dollar program is going to be wound up next year with about $125 million left in the program which will not be made available to do that essential upgrading. Clearly this is a breach of the trust of western communities and the western grain industry. That commitment should be honoured by the Government.
When we talk about $1.2 billion over five years, it sounds like a lot of money, but when we break it down to four provinces per year, we are looking at some $60 million per year. We see the Government phasing out the CIDA program for exploration and development in oil and gas. We see the earned depletion allowance phased out for exploration and development in mining. We see $125 million in the Railway Rehabilitation Program which is not being spent. We see the cut-back in funding for postal services and we see the cut-
Western Economic Diversification Act
backs in the community colleges which are essential for the training and upgrading of our young people. That cut-back involves 40 per cent during the last three or four years. We see a massive number of cut-backs which are not compensated for under this program of western diversification. So I think those are very important concerns which should be addressed.
It is not clear, for instance, with the phasing out of the IDRP program, if the funding provided there is balanced and is the same amount of money as in the Western Economic Diversification Program. Although the delivery mechanism is a little different, there are regional offices, which is an advantage. Is there any net increase in the money for regional development? It is not very clear just what the increase is under any of these programs. Those are some of the concerns I see.
I could go on to talk about the softwood lumber export tax which in British Columbia has been transferred from an export tax to a stumpage charge. For one company alone in Prince George, British Columbia, the stumpage charge went from $6.2 million to $19 million a year when that tax was transferred. That is the kind of problem many rural communities will face in the British Columbia area under the transfer to a new stumpage charge from the export tax charge. So I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and considered before this legislation is passed and put into effect.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to both the previous speaker and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I think some things have to be clarified. I would like to ask this question; how can the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), for example, say with candour that the Government refused to allow the committee to travel when there was no request for the committee to travel? It is unfortunate we are hearing these kinds of things during debate on a very important Bill.
The Hon. Member also said the Government refused to hear witnesses, but the committee heard three witnesses put forward by the New Democratic Party. There was a question on delay in committee, and that is why it was brought back. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Algoma, who indicated that it was a slush fund and that there were questions to be asked, how he can indicate this when there are basically 58 Progressive Conservative ridings in western Canada and it is going to be very difficult for programs to be approved under the Western Economic Diversification Program if they are not approved in some of the Conservative ridings? How does the Hon. Member square that?


Maurice Brydon Foster: With respect to the Government providing witnesses, there was a terrible battle to get any witnesses before the committee, even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It had prepared quite an important paper on the subject and we had a great battle to get it accepted as a witness. A number of witnesses were proposed by the New Democratic Party. Although the Member says three of them were allowed by the Government to attend the

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
committee hearings, practically none of the witnesses proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), were permitted to appear before the committee. For instance, Dr. Michael Percy, past Director of the Western Centre for Economic Research, University of Alberta, was not permitted to appear. Mr. Ed Guest, Executive Director of the Port of Churchill Development Board was not permitted to appear. Chief Rodney Spence, Nelson House Band, Nelson House, Manitoba, was not permitted to appear. There is a report coming out fairly soon which, I understand, has been prepared by Mr. Michael Decter, a consultant to the Economic Council of Canada, who was not permitted to appear.
I think it is totally understandable that the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party said that committees never travelled because government Members would not permit it. There is no question about that. There was no agreement even to have any witnesses appear.
When the Hon. Member talks about concern for the funds being used as a slush fund, that is exactly what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its submission to the Minister responsible for economic diversification, said on February 12. On the first page of the executive summary it states with respect to the program, that its enthusiasm has been tempered by growing concern that the western diversification initiative is degenerating into at least one of the following. It then lists the following items.
It states that it is degenerating into a political slush fund to support vulnerable constituencies, lure in big business, or bail out obsolete industries in the hope of gaining short-term political profile. It is not members of the Opposition who are expressing concern about this initiative, it is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which is expressing the concern that the fund would be used as a slush fund.
Its second concern also refers to a slush fund. It states that it would be a bureaucratic slush fund available for other line Departments and Ministers to raid in lieu of other national programs that should have their fair share spent in the West.
There are two aspects to the slush fund about which the Federation is concerned. The first is that it is a political slush fund for PC candidates who are in trouble in their own ridings, or their big business friends who are in trouble with obsolete industries or industries which are failing. The second concern with regard to the slush fund approach is that it may become a bureaucratic slush fund. The concern that this will be a slush fund is well documented by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Liberals have had a lot of experience with slush funds, Maurice.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is probably very nervous about this aspect, since I
think some grants have gone to some Saskatoon areas. He is probably very concerned because in the Department of Justice there is no access to line department funds. He would see it as an opportunity for a political slush fund for his own constituency, not so much a bureaucratic slush fund as a political one. I suppose he could also see it as something of a bureaucratic slush fund because the Department of Justice does not build many court houses or have that type of thing. I understand how the Minister of Justice is very concerned about this matter.
The third approach taken by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is that it be a narrow and highly centralized approach-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) would not want to mislead the House or the Canadian people in his remarks today. Therefore he should point out that the paper from which he is reading from the independent businessmen was prepared long before the legislation was in place. Since the legislation has been in place they actually indicated to the Chairman of the committee that they did not want to appear.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member has brought up an interesting point in debate, but it is not a point of order. There is a minute and a half left in the Hon. Member's time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Clearly, Madam Speaker, the government Members did their best to make sure that they would not appear. I can understand that. I believe I did read that into the committee record. They said: "Will representatives from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business appear?" They said: "Gee, we cannot get there tomorrow". Later on, after some debate, both in committee and in the House, they did appear, at our insistence. I thought that they made a worthwhile contribution to the committee study.
It took about one week to get them before the committee, but I thought that they made worth-while presentations. If there is anything wrong with the whole process, it is that this study was put out on February 12. If the legislation had been before the committee last fall, there could have been time for hearings. In that way we could have gone to the West and heard people make their presentations right in their own backyard as to how they want to see the legislation put before the House. We did not have that opportunity. What we are trying to do is to explore and explode all the problems of the legislation here at third reading.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have probably not been more upset than I am today as we are talking about this legislation when Members talk about the process that was used. I want to point out that I was a member of the legislative committee which studied this matter. When we studied the Bill clause by clause a request was made for a list of witnesses to come forward. There was a large list submitted by the Liberal
May 2, 1988

Member on the committee, and a somewhat watered-down list was received from the New Democratic Member.
Members indicated during the committee that these people had actually requested to appear before the committee. On checking that out we found that they did not request to appear before the committee, but that the request was being orchestrated by the Liberal member on the committee and by the New Democratic member on the committee strictly as a delaying tactic to keep the legislation in committee. In this way it would not be brought into the House and passed, and western diversification could not start to work in western Canada.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example, was telephoned by the Chairman of the committee who said: "Are you requesting to come before us?" They said that they were not. He then asked: "Do you want to appear before us?" They said: "We really do not want to appear before the committee. If you request us to do so, we will". The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) by his own words today in debate said that they appeared "at our insistence". That is exactly it. We can bring anyone to a legislative committee as a witness if we want to do it at our insistence. I do not think that that is fair. It is really another way that Members on the other side are trying to delay this Bill, as they have been trying to delay legislation in this House for the past month. They know that people in western Canada are waiting for the legislation. They say one thing out in western Canada and then when the legislation is to be put through which will help individuals, firms and employment in western Canada what do they do? They delay, delay, delay. It is very unfair that they do that. It is very unfair that they present these meaningless arguments that they have put forward to try to justify their position of delay. I will not accept that.
There is another question that came up in debate today. It is one that I resent most sincerely. Members opposite said that the committee was not allowed to travel. The committee did not make a request to travel.


Mr. Cassidy:: Because your majority would not allow it to.


Jack Wendele Shields: There was no request from the committee to travel across Canada. It was not even brought up before the committee, to my knowledge. I do not remember one person standing up to request that during that period.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You refused to hear witnesses. It was the Tories who refused to have the committee travel.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member now knows where it stands-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has something to say he may want to seek the floor later on this afternoon. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has the floor. It is very difficult for the Chair to listen to two people at one time.
Western Economic Diversification Act


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, it upsets me when there was not a request made by either the Liberal Member or the New Democratic Party Member. There was not a request to travel. There was never a request to travel before the committee. The subject was never even discussed in committee. It was not a matter of who controlled the committee. It was never brought up in committee. The request was never made.
I am tired of these delaying tactics. Therefore, I would like to put before the House the following motion:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of third reading of Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Athabasca. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their place.
And more than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since 15 Members have risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to be withdrawn.
On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Justice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As you know, Madam Speaker, my purpose here is to see that justice not only is done, but appears to be done.
I wish to ask whether the Hon. Member had an opportunity to continue his remarks or comments.


Carlo Rossi: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Your voice is either getting much deeper, Madam Speaker, or someone is yelling in your place.


Carlo Rossi: You are talking to the Minister of injustice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Member speaks from a seated position, but he is muffling his voice.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is asking for unanimous consent for the Member to continue his remarks. We would not give unanimous consent. The very purpose of the motion moved by the Hon. Member would prevent any western Canadian Member of Parliament who is not present today from ever having a chance to debate this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Mr. Siddon:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) a question? I think that that is allowed under the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca could not continue with his speech, but the period of question and comments following the speech can be proceeded with. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has asked for the floor. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, please tell me how one can ask questions of someone who did not make a speech of any substance of any kind? How can a Minister ask questions of a back-bench Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Minister of Fisheries has the floor on a question or comment.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I wanted to receive an indication from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who has been very close to the delivery of the western diversification initiative these past several months, whether he has some examples to illustrate the manner in which this very important program is bringing benefit to the four western provinces.
It has been some time now since the office was opened in Edmonton, and there are now sub-offices in all four of the provinces. I think the House would be interested to learn the extent to which these initiatives are bringing benefit to the various sectors of the economy of western Canada, and in particular to achieve the objective, which is to diversify the economy of western Canada.


Jack Wendele Shields: I am very happy to have an opportunity to answer the very intelligent question put forward.
One of the things that people in Canada should be made aware of, and particularly the people in western Canada, is that for the first time in the history of this country a full federal Department with a Deputy Minister will be headquartered, not in Ottawa, but in western Canada. The place chosen for the headquarters of this very important Western Economic Diversification Department is Edmonton, and there are suboffices in every province in western Canada.
We talked about the delay in getting the program operational in western Canada. The delay is owing to the fact that we are waiting for the legislation. I hope that it has been noticed that when we attempted to limit debate to today, the NDP and the Liberals stood up en masse, rushing in from the back rooms, and rushing in breathlessly from their offices to defeat that motion in order that they can delay, in exactly the same way that they had been delaying it in committee by asking questions on trivial matters.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Who rang the bells for two weeks in the House? Which Party was that? What a short memory.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Member opposite asked who rang the bells in this House for over two weeks. I am happy to say it was the Conservative Members of the Opposition because of the National Energy Program that was being rammed down our throats. It was an ominous energy Bill with the National Energy Program. The NDP and Liberal Members wanted to perpetrate it on western Canada and kill the economy of western Canada. They eventually succeeded in doing that. That is why the bells were rung, because we were trying to protect the interests of western Canada.
Today the NDP and Liberal Members are trying to destroy the interests of western Canada, because they are delaying and delaying. The people in western Canada will not stand for the type of shenanigans that the Liberals and the NDP Members are using today in delaying this western diversification Bill that means so much to western Canadians from all walks of life.
I hope that the people in western Canada will recognize the tomfoolery that is going on across the floor. I would ask the NDP and the Liberals why they are so against western Canada and constantly fighting against western Canada in this House, and then returning to their ridings in western Canada and saying that they are standing up for western Canada, because they truly are not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wish to make a comment and ask my friend, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), a question. He was supposed to explain the initiatives approved by the Government's Western Diversification Office that would diversify the economy of western Canada. I notice that he failed to do that in his response to my hon. friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon).
The Hon. Member will be aware of a recent proposal put forward by the Thompson Nicola Manufacturers Association. This association was formed two years ago to co-ordinate the efforts of the manufacturing sector in British Columbia. This association in British Columbia represents 500 different manufacturers. It wanted $40,000 from the Western Diversification Office to set up a whole new initiative that would result not only in new manufacturers starting, but in new product lines being expanded from existing manufacturers. The request for $40,000 was made to the office, but the request was denied. The Western Diversification Office stated that it was not going to approve the $40,000 request over a two year period. Would the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) explain why that request was rejected? It is perplexing to the 500 manufacturers which the association represents.
While he is on his feet, will he explain also why he is so afraid of members of the New Democratic Party speaking on this legislation? It is legislation that represents a very important initiative in attempts to diversify the western economy. Members of the New Democratic Party have been attempting
May 2, 1988

to participate in the debate, but time after time the Government makes an effort to curtail and restrict Members' ability to participate in a thoughtful, positive discussion on the issue.
Will the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) explain why it is that he wants to use a form of closure on this legislation to muzzle the Opposition's voice in Parliament, which would then in a sense go against the very spirit of a parliamentary democracy?


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer my friend's question.
One of the main thrusts of the western diversification initiative is the Western Diversification Fund. The legislation presently before this House authorizes ways in which the Department can offer financial assistance for proposals and further diversification. It is that very fund which the Minister responsible for western diversification cannot approach at this time until this legislation is through the House. My hon. friend knows that. The Member gets up and pretends he does not know. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) knows full well the thrust that has been made so far and, because the Minister responsible for the western diversification does not have access to the western diversification fund, a number of proposals have been turned down. The flexibility was not there to allow the Minister to stream them off into other existing programs. My hon. friend knows that, Madam Speaker. Western diversification has been attempting to respond to small business. Seventy per cent of the projects that have been approved to date have been awarded to small businesses and are going through existing programs. These had to be moved off to DRIE and to sub-agreements made with the provinces and so on.
The other question raised was why we on this side of this House are trying to curtail debate. We are not trying to curtail debate at all, Madam Speaker. I am the first speaker on western diversification. We will allow the Opposition all the time it requires to debate the Bill. We know that with the Opposition's actions in committee every item, every word, every clause on the western diversification Bill was filibustered by the Liberal and the NDP Members. We outlasted them in committee. When the Liberal Member left, we were able to push the Bill through to bring it back to the House. We are seeing exactly the same actions today.
The Bill is straightforward. The opposition Members cannot tell us all the amendments they want to put through. This is strictly a delay tactic and the delay is hurting western Canadians. The same New Democrats go out to western Canada and say, "Boy, are we here to help you". Here they are being run from Oshawa. They are also tools of Bob White and Shirley Carr. They will do anything and say anything if they think it will gain them one seat anywhere in Canada, and I resent that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
Western Economic Diversification Act


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate, if my voice holds out. First, I want to respond to my friend from Athabasca. His last comments were not very worthy of a distinguished Member like him-


Jack Wendele Shields: They are honest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -when he talks about the NDP being run from Oshawa. He is using regionalism to try to divide the country. He has this fetish about Shirley Carr. I can say as a Canadian that I would rather be a friend of Shirley Carr than of Conrad Black, who is a good friend of my friend from Athabasca.
You can tell when a Member of Parliament is in trouble. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) is in serious trouble because he is going to be defeated by the NDP in the next campaign. I am sure you read The Globe and Mail special about this about 10 days ago, Madam Speaker. The paper wrote about the first Member of Parliament in Alberta of the Tory Party to be defeated. You can tell why the Member from Athabasca is very desperate when he speaks in the House. He is receiving a message from back home that the voters do not like the federal Conservative Party.
The Bill before the House today is a Bill ostensibly to diversify the economy in western Canada. We have been debating Bill C-113 for quite some time at second reading and at committee stage, and now we are back at third reading in the House. The whole debate about diversification in the West is a debate that has been going on for a very long time. As a western Canadian Member of Parliament since 1968 I can tell you that this has always been an issue. Those of us in western Canada feel that we have not received our fair deal from Confederation in the division of the resources of Canada and the ability of our country to have fair economic planning for all regions.
On Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week I went to 12 to 14 different communities in my riding. I attended public meetings in villages and towns and meetings in farm houses in various parts of the constituency of Yorkton- Melville. There is still the feeling that the western part of Canada has not received a fair deal from Confederation. In many ways there is even more of a backlash now against the federal Government than there was a few years ago. A lot of western Canadians thought that the Conservative Party was a Party that had significant western roots and because of that many long time grievances of western Canadians would be solved, but that has not happened.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about Virginia?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) from Saskatoon, when he goes there every two or three months, gets feedback that the people are not happy with the Conservative Party of Canada. People are not happy with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). The Minister

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
is nodding his head, I can hear him! He has also seen the poll results in his riding as I see them. The Minister of Justice is running scared not because of his qualities as a Member of Parliament. The Minister is a pretty nice, decent, likeable chap, but he is running scared because people are no longer confident in the Conservative Party of Canada and no longer confident in the leadership of the Prime Minister of this country. One reason has been the insensitivity in responding to the legitimate wishes and concerns of the people of western Canada.


Mr. St. Germain:: What about the national energy policy that the Liberals and the NDP brought in?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When you get this kind of response from across the way you know that the problem is similar in British Columbia as well, otherwise we would not have the trumpeting of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).
Bill C-113 will not solve a lot of the problems of western Canada. The Bill will nowhere near respond to the problems that exist.
The establishment of the Western Diversification Office was first revealed to the public in August, 1987. This, you might recall, was done after the scandal at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion where there was a cost overrun last year of $7 to $9 million. Do you remember that, Madam Speaker? There were two independent studies that confirmed a major cost overrun in DRIE because of incompetence and the misallocation of funds.
One thing the Government tried to do to respond to this cost overrun was to decentralize the whole process of regional development in Canada. It created the Atlantic Provinces Economic Opportunities Agency, an agency in northern Ontario and the Western Diversification Office in the hope of responding to the problem of regional development in Canada in order to detract from some of the negative press the Government has been receiving. I do not think there will be any real difference in the job that will be done by this agency and the job that was being done previously by various regional development or expansion offices in Canada. We have essentially the same funding, essentially the same people and essentially the same programs. Sure, the Department now has a different title, a title that is more politically attractive. Who can be against western diversification? Probably the only Hon. Member who is against it is the Hon. Member from Selkirk. It is really the same old programs, just in different clothing, for mainly electoral purposes for the Conservative Party across the way.
Over the last quarter of a century, despite all the talk, rhetoric and various programs and new initiatives in different parts of Canada, less than 3 per cent of the country's economic development dollars have been spent on regional development. That is a very, very small portion of the money that has been
allocated for economic development in Canada since 1960 or 1965. I do not think that the federal Governments over the years have been very serious about the question of regional development.
We have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Minister in charge of the Western Diversification Office that some $1.2 billion will be spent on regional development in western Canada, and $1.2 billion over five years works out to some $60 million per year per province. Sixty million dollars is still a fair amount of money, but $60 million per year per province is really not that much in light of what must be done. In particular, it is not that much money when we consider that some federal government programs and agreements under the previous regime will be in the process of expiring during the life of western diversification's funding over five years.
In reality, there will not be very much additional money being spent in western Canada. Sure, new money will be spent, but some of the old programs are expiring. The sunset has come for some of them. Sure, there will be new money, but looking at the balance sheet, there will not be much additional money coming to western Canada.
When the Prime Minister made the announcement back in August of last year, he said that this new money would be over and above all the existing programs. He said that this money is over and above the amounts presently flowing to western Canada under existing programs and arrangements and that these funds shall be disbursed over a five-year period in a manner that will equitably reflect the needs and the growth opportunities in our western provinces. In fact he said that on August 4, 1987.
There has been much debate over the question of the Prime Minister's claim that there will be new money with the allocation of $1.2 billion to the Western Diversification Office. Since the establishment of the Western Diversification Office involves the disbanding of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which was responsible for certain regional development programs, it is difficult to trace the money to ascertain what is new money and what is old money. That is a very difficult question to answer.
Sure, there will be new money coming in because there will be new programs and new budget allocations, but the original Department of DRIE is now being sacked and a lot of the programs of DRIE are being dropped or rolled into the new western diversification programs. In this new versus old money controversy, the key phrase in the Prime Minister's statement is "the amounts presently flowing under existing programs and arrangements". Again, he said that the money would be over and above the amounts presently flowing to western Canada under existing programs and arrangements.
Some of the existing programs and arrangements will be expiring, and while this money will be in addition to those arrangements and programs, if the old regime had remained in place, some of those existing programs and arrangements
May 2, 1988

would have continued. Those programs and arrangements would have spent millions and millions of dollars in all four provinces of western Canada.
How much new money is there and how much old money is there? What are the existing programs? I will give an example of what I mean, because I can see that the Minister from British Columbia is raising his eyebrows and asking questions about the new money versus old money argument. He will probably ask me about this in about 10 or 15 minutes anyway.
What are the existing programs? Three of DRIE's major program delivery tools had or are about to face major changes because of the phasing out of DRIE and the evolution of these new agencies in the different regions. The IRDP program, for example, is to expire in June of this year. That program has about 60 days to go and then the funding for that program will expire. I assume that if we did not have a Western Diversification Office or the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, a program like IRDP would be expanded beyond June of this year to finish off 1988 and to go into 1989 or 1990.
In addition to that program, many of the sub-agreements with the provinces under the ERDA programs, economic and regional development agreements, are expiring in 1989 or 1990. The costs of these programs are shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the federal Government and the provincial Government. Like IRDP, the existing ERDA arrangements will soon expire, and that old money will soon disappear. Once again, if we did not have the Western Diversification Office, I assume that new ERDA agreements would be signed between the provinces and the federal Government. I assume that millions of dollars would be spent under those programs. I simply assume that this Government would continue those programs.
Third, the Western Transportation Industrial Development Program was rejigged to become the funding program of the Western Diversification Office. Some of the ERDA programs and sub-agreements are the responsibilities of the Departments of Agriculture, Science and Technology and Transport Canada. Other sub-agreements were formerly the responsibility of DRIE and are being transferred to the Western Diversification Office. It is noted that most of these subsidiary agreements are up for renegotiation during the first five-year term of western diversification. I noted that in my remarks a few moments ago.
If we look at the moneys that are being spent and the moneys that, in all likelihood, would have been spent, we will find that there is not much if any additional money coming into western Canada. Sure, there is new money because we have program x with $100 million being scrapped to spend $100 million on program y. Program y is a brand new program with new money, but it is not additional money for my constituents and the other 6.5 million or seven million people who live in various parts of western Canada.
There are a number of other things that could be said about new money versus old money, but I do not think I have too
Western Economic Diversification Act
much time left to make my remarks. I would like to say some other things about the Bill that is before us.
As I said, I just came from a very extensive tour of my riding last week. I was in places like Dauphin, Kilaly, Sturgis, Stenan, Whitebeech, Yorkton, Melville, Preeceville, Norquay and a number of other communities. I went to about 12 or 15 communities in four days last week. My constituents kept asking time and time again why we in western Canada cannot get a fair deal from the federal Government.
I have already mentioned the problems with new money and the lack thereof coming into western Canada. We also have a problem with procurement of goods and services purchased by the federal Government. One or two cabinet Ministers are across the way, as are two Members from British Columbia, the junior Minister from Mission-Port Moody and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon). Perhaps during the question and comment period they can explain why the federal Government is spending less and less of its money proportionately in procuring items from western Canada. I have figures, which I will table, from the regional distribution of Supply and Service contracts in dollar values for western provinces as a percentage of the national government purchases in Canada for the fiscal years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87.
During the first fiscal year for which the Government had responsibility for Government of Canada spending, 1984-85, some 13.9 per cent of purchases by the Department of Supply and Services were made from western Canadian firms, businesses, and industries. In 1985-86 it went down from 13.9 per cent to 12.8 per cent. In 1986-87 it went down again to 11.5 per cent. Therefore, in the first two years of Conservative Government we had a drop in the proportion of goods and services bought in western Canada from 13.9 per cent to 11.5 per cent. That is a substantial drop of 2.4 per cent.
Why is the Government buying proportionately less and less from western Canada? In this age of high technology and computers we supply more things than we did in the past. Why is the Government, with a large western representation and many prominent westerners in the Cabinet, purchasing fewer and fewer goods and services from western Canada on a proportionate basis? Twenty-eight to 30 per cent of the population of the country is in western Canada. Why is the Government not purchasing about 25 or 30 per cent of its good and services from western Canadian enterprises and firms instead of only 11.5 per cent? That is way less than half of what our proportionate share should be.
If the federal Government had been purchasing more and more rather than less and less from the West, there would be fewer people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba unemployed. I would like to know what is behind the idea of purchasing fewer and fewer items and goods in western Canada. There are two Ministers from the West in the House

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
and perhaps in the next five or ten minutes we can get an answer to that.
It is very important that this new Western Diversification Office be efficient and effective when dealing with the public of Canada. I have here a letter from a constituent of one my Saskatchewan P.C. colleagues. I do not think I should read the person's name into the record but I will read part of the letter addressed to myself. He says:
To begin with I do not think much of the Western Diversification Program.
I will explain the enclosed material which are copies. When I first heard of this program I felt that finally a government program is available to help a small western business. I was not looking for a handout, only backing to help get a loan. At the end of Aug. 1987, 1 wrote western diversification explaining my situation. Towards the end of Sept. 1987, I received a letter from western diversification and an assigned project number 4000.8-G5.
Feb. 15, 1988 having not heard from these people I wrote a letter asking for a status report. I again wrote the same letter on Mar. 1, 1988. On Mar. 7, 1988 I received a call from a lady in this office telling me my application had been rejected.
I told her I expected as much as I had noted in the paper only large enterprises seemed to qualify. She said that was not true as there were a number of small businesses that would be named shortly. To date I have seen nothing. I asked to have a letter of rejection sent.
After two weeks and still no letter I phoned again.
You are cutting me off, Madam Speaker. I realize that my time is up. This is someone from Saskatchewan who applied for backing for a loan for a small business. He received no response whatsoever month after month. When he did get a response it was a telephone call, after prodding, saying that his project had been rejected.
I do hope that when this program is established in western Canada it will be efficiently and well run so that the positive aspects of the program are available to all western Canadians equally regardless of where they may live.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment or two and then ask the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) a question. As chairman of the committee I thought it was very unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville was unable to attend all the meetings. He was busy elsewhere. He certainly made a very valuable contribution to the meeting which he did attend. I want to thank him for his good sense and logic. In my view the debate in the committee was very sound.
I think the language of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) was rather badly chosen when he said that certain witnesses "were not permitted to come". None of the witnesses which he mentioned asked to come. It was not a case of not being permitted, they never asked either myself or the clerk to appear.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville dealt with DRIE and the Western Economic Diversification Program. He wondered whether there would be any difference. I suggest that there will be a vast difference. For instance, only one area in the entire Province of Alberta qualified under the DRIE program. Consequently, the program was of little use to the
Province of Alberta. The Whitecourt area was the only area in the entire Province of Alberta which qualified under DRIE.
I think that western diversification will be a different program. There are two major differences between DRIE and western diversification. Under western diversification the board may make loans and it may guarantee loans. That will make a world of difference as far as the Province of Alberta is concerned.
We are talking about diversification with regard to agriculture and oil and gas. One of the best examples is the shortfall of the Crow. If the shortfall of the Crow were paid to the producers in the Province of Alberta there would be diversification galore without any extra funds, yet we are giving very little consideration to the shortfall of the Crow.
The other example I have is also based on agriculture, that is, making fuel from ethane and methynol. We could use millions of bushels of wheat which would create a tremendous new industry and provide diversification. However, there must be money provided for that.
In the view of the Hon. Member would these two items not help a great deal to make the Western Economic Diversification Program more successful than the DRIE program has been so far?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his question and his comments. He pointed out my absence at the committee. I was there for one meeting. I was not there for the others because, as he probably knows, I was travelling with the Energy Committee with the Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). We were studying the question of nuclear waste. The Member has been around politics for a long time and knows that you cannot split yourself into two or three. I am very sorry that I was not able to attend all the committee meetings but I certainly followed them very closely.
I agree with the Member for Bow River that there are some positive things in this program. I said that in the main it is basically the old program, as far as I am concerned. However, he did mention a couple of things which make it a bit more attractive to people across western Canada.
One of my concerns, which is perhaps a concern of the Hon. Member too, is that we do not want the program to be aimed in a major sense at big business. I am primarily interested in small business. I have here an editorial from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, which is one of the big dailies in the Province of Saskatchewan. They are concerned about the fact that so far the money has been going out to big business.
The other concern which I have, which I did not have a chance to mention before, is that some of the money spent so far has not been spent on diversification. It has been spent for economic expansion. Of course, I am not opposed to economic expansion. I want to expand agriculture, the potash industry and so on for western Canada. However, as I asked the
May 2, 1988

Minister in the committee, if this is the Western Diversification Office, why is not more money being targeted for genuine diversification in western Canada?
I refer again to the editorial in the Star-Phoenix which states that: "However, with the first two high-profile announcements about specific funding under our diversification initiative involving $75 million in soil erosion and $5 million in potash marketing, taxpayers may well be wondering what diversification really does mean to the Government of Canada. The spending on these two programs is welcome". The editorial goes on to say: "Anything that enhances the farming sector and potash mining is good news for Saskatchewan people. But this is not moving the province or the West in general away from dependence on the familiar staple industries. So far, from what has been made public about projects approved under the initiative, it is just another economic aid package: welcome, certainly, but not the stuff of new directions in an unusually moribund western economy".
I suggest to my hon. friend from Alberta, as does this article, that we welcome economic expansion and economic development. However, this program is supposed to be one to diversify.
I wonder, as I am sure he wonders as a western Member of Parliament, how much of this money will be spent on items to diversify the economy of western Canada.
We are all interested in diversifying. We love agriculture, mining, potash, oil and gas and forestry in British Columbia, and want to do what we can in those areas, but we do not want to be held solely dependent on those resources.
It appears, not only to us but to independent observers, that so far the major part of this program is directed toward economic expansion rather than economic diversification. If so, it should be called the western diversification and expansion office. However, if it is meant for diversification, let it proceed in that way.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments in response to some of the points made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and to answer a particular question he put to us.
First, I am pleased to learn that the Hon. Member supports the establishment of this western diversification program. I only urge that he and his Party get on with allowing us to provide the program with the full legal weight and effect that is required in order to deliver these important initiatives in western Canada.
The Hon. Member made an issue of the percentages with respect to procurement by the various Departments of Government through the Department of Supply and Services. I will grant that in regard to specific percentages there is a trend with which we are not particularly pleased. However, to be fair, I think the Hon. Member should give the numbers in
Western Economic Diversification Act
terms of dollars expended by each government Department through the Department of Supply and Services for the procurement of government supply. He may well see quite a different trend.
In fact, I think it is unfair only to deal with the statistics on a percentage basis with respect to procurement of the normal supply to Government of such things as pencils, paper clips and the routine supply that all Governments procure from time to time. He should not do so without considering the larger picture and comparing it with those percentage figures, not just the dollar amounts which have increased substantially in western Canada since this Government took office, but the unprecedented level of Federal Government support for industrial diversification in British Columbia and western Canada.
My own riding is a typical example of that expansion. There has been some $ 100 million worth of assistance to enterprise in the nature of industrial diversification in such sophisticated areas as the advanced aerospace industry. We opened a new automated precision machining plant in Delta, British Columbia a few days ago. That is a multimillion dollar investment. There are many examples, through various companies that are on the leading edge of technology and applied technology, of unprecedented things occurring in western Canada. I have calculated a total of more than $2 billion worth of initiatives by this Government in the Province of British Columbia alone. That is far in excess of anything previously committed by way of government initiatives in British Columbia.
For example, there is the $268 million North warning contract to Microtek The western diversification initiative itself will bring tens of millions of dollars to British Columbia, and is already beginning to do so.
There is the $350 million ice-breaker decision, assistance with the modernization of the Cominco Plant for $68 million, the multimillion dollar assistance to the forest industry, with $300 million in a sub-agreement to assist with reforestation, and the $260 million that went by way of the softwood lumber agreement. There is something in the order of $2 billion worth of initiatives in British Columbia alone.
Similarly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, these initiatives are unprecedented in western Canada and are a result of strong representation from western Canada in Cabinet, in the caucus and in the Government.
It is scurrilous and absolutely reprehensible that the Hon. Member should play games with a few figures and totally defy the truth that this Government has been doing a great job in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate.


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this

May 2, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
particular Bill. As a member from British Columbia I am most conscious of the importance of this western diversification initiative.
For a number of years British Columbia, like most western provinces, has suffered what can only be described as benign neglect. It has not been a case of Ottawa and central Canada deliberately initiating programs to the detriment of the West, but a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Without adequate representation in the Government of Canada, various initiatives that should have been supported were not.
This initiative is long overdue. It is no longer acceptable simply to suggest that we should spend more money to purchase more goods in western Canada.
When my constituents elected me in 1984, they expected two things of me. First, they expected fiscal responsibility by a Government that would spend smart. Their second expectation of me was to address regional disparity.
Clearly, they sometimes forget that these two expectations are in direct conflict. If the sole objective of the federal Government is to spend smart, then about 90 per cent of all the goods and services would be purchased in central Canada where most of these goods and services are produced. However, it is quite correct that such a policy would indeed deal extremely harshly with the far-reaching provinces of this country.
Therefore, this Government and other Governments have had to embark on the difficult task of attempting to spend wisely to get the best value for the dollar but nevertheless, to be conscious of the needs of all the provinces of this country. The difficulty is that a number of the items the federal Government purchases in the way of goods and services are not produced in western Canada. Steel is a case in point. The federal Government, through its various purchases, spends quite a lot of money purchasing steel. We have embarked on a naval ship construction program. To suggest that it is a purchase that could be made in western Canada is nonsense.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), in citing the fact that some of the purchases have been reduced in western Canada in the last several years, is being very selective. In certain Departments it is a fact. CIDA is a case in point where the purchases by the federal Government and its expenditures rise and fall depending on the particular contract and where the contract is actually being carried out. The statistics are not in for this year, but I am confident that next year the statistics will show that particular expenditures in that Department will have gone up dramatically over the last several years. It is part of the normal cycle of expenditures which occur in some of the smaller Departments. But to say that this Government has neglected the needs of western Canada is misrepresenting the truth.
This particular initiative, the Western Economic Diversification Program, is an important step to establish control in western Canada. Hitherto, the assorted schemes to deal with problems in some of the smaller provinces from population or economic strength have been directed from Ottawa, and I am not suggesting there has been any malice aforethought, that the people here have not done their best within the terms of reference and perhaps their limited knowledge. This western diversification proposal establishes control for those programs in the western provinces. They will be staffed there. The research will be done there and the decisions will be taken there by westerners for westerners. A sum of money is being allocated to the Western Diversification Fund to achieve that purpose.
I know for a fact that in my constituency of Esquimalt- Saanich a number of businessmen have had some extremely exciting ideas with considerable economic prospects, but in the past, because of their lack of sophistication, perhaps, and the time and distance problem, they have not been able to go to Ottawa to sell their case. They have gone to Vancouver and made representation. The paperwork has been forwarded to Ottawa and decisions have been taken here, many miles away from the location where the original proposal originated.
It has been far too easy for Governments over a number of years to say: "Well, we are not entirely sure about that. We do not know that fellow", and consequently, delay has occurred. That particular individual who has come up with a better idea, perhaps ran out of financial resources or could not muster the support he needed to carry the day here in Ottawa. The western diversification proposal will reverse that trend. There will be staff, offices and competence in each of the four western provinces so that individuals can make their cases. Once they make the case that they can offer some genuine diversification, value added, perhaps, in some instances, but it does not necessarily fit some program hatched here in Ottawa, then those individuals at long last will have the opportunity to get the support they have so richly deserved for these many years.
My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), in his remarks a few moments ago, drew attention to the many initiatives that have occurred in the last several years in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia. I am conscious of a number of the small businesses in my constituency which are on the list. They are waiting for this initiative to be passed, for it to become law, so that the money can be put in place and we can get on with it. The time for promises is over. There has been a tremendous amount of work already done to prepare the necessary paperwork to fund some of these initiatives. It is just not good enough to say: "We want to talk some more".
The present opposition Parties are still, amazingly enough, proud of the national energy policy they supported in the early 1980s, which brought ruin to many Canadian western businesses. That was a classic case of "Ottawa knows best". The people who purported to represent western Canada in

May 2, 1988

Government at that time, or in the New Democratic Party, certainly were not listening to their constituents. We are only just now recovering from the devastation of that program.


Some Hon. Members:: What program?


Patrick Dermott Crofton: The national energy policy, supported by the New Democratic Party.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order,-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order, and I can assure him I am not deaf.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member is misleading the House when he says the New Democratic Party supported the National Energy Program. If he checks the record, he will find we did not. He should check the vote. I was here at the time. I was the energy critic and I can tell him that. I am not sure he was here, but he should read the vote.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I heard a very unparliamentary expression. Being a third party to this little fight between the Tories and the NDP, I still would like to see the rules of this House followed as closely as possible. Any language used in this House should be parliamentary, and I think the Hon. Member should withdraw the term he used.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has a point. I know we Tories fight-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We New Democrats fight Tories. Tories fight New Democrats and Liberals fight Liberals. I did not mean to say the Hon. Member intentionally mislead the House. Perhaps unintentionally he mislead the House. I will let him finish his speech, but he should know that we did not support the national energy policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway for doing the honourable thing, and I will give the floor back to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) for the minute and a half that is left.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) did not seem to be entirely sure about his political stripe so I do not know whether he can be relied upon to remember how he voted some years back. I think the important thing is that members of the New Democratic Party, or the Liberal Party, have to say the same thing in two consecutive places. They cannot do all they can to delay the passage of important legislation in this House and then on weekends go to western constituencies and cast aspersions on the Government of the day because it is not doing enough for western Canada.
Criminal Code
That is precisely what this piece of legislation is intended to do. The opposition Parties have to cut or fish bait. They cannot say different things in different places. Either they are in support of the initiatives to assist in the economic recovery of western Canada or they are not. If they are in favour, they should vote for this Bill. If they are not, they should carry on the way they are and delay and drag their feet. They have to make up their minds exactly what it is they want to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: that Bill C-278, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (peeping Toms), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to introduce Bill C-278 for second reading debate in the House of Commons today.
First, I want to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, that in spite of the fact that some people may find that this is a light-hearted issue clearly it is not. I want to bring to the attention of the House a serious crime that happens and which too often lies unreported. Even when it is reported, citizens are unable to have access to judicial authorities, to the police principally, for getting redress.
Section 173 of the Criminal Code states:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It states "at night", which is precisely the problem. If right now someone commits acts of voyeurism in the daytime it is practically impossible for the police to intervene. This is a serious issue. I wish to tell the House how it came to my attention.
On November 12, 1986, I received a letter from the Mayor of the Township of Cumberland in my riding. It states:
I received a telephone call from (a constituent) with respect to problems she's having with workmen at her new house. Apparently, she came to her patio door last summer and opened the curtains and found a workman at the back door. She was very concerned that there was no warning that a workman would be there, and specifically requested the foreman from (the construction company) and the workmen not to do such a thing without prior arrangement or prior notification.

May 2, 1988
Criminal Code
More recently, the same workmen appeared again to do some painting on the outside of the kitchen window and she alleged that he was there for fifteen minutes not doing anything but looking in the window. In her view, this is the classic "peeping Tom" charge and when she called the Police, the only charge that they were willing to lay was trespassing because the Criminal Code does not have a "peeping Tom" law for daytime situations.
It is her opinion that the Criminal Code should be amended so that this type of intrusion to people's privacy can be dealt with at any time of day.
I informed her that I have no direct responsibility for the Federal Criminal Code and gave her your phone number so that you may deal with it.
Kindest personal regards-
The letter is signed by Peter D. Clark, Mayor of the Township of Cumberland.
If anyone thinks that this is not a serious crime I want to remind the House that the Statistics Canada report said there are 12,000 such offences per year.
We know of course that charges can only be laid for offences that occur at night. That leads me to believe that the actual number is far greater. I would not be surprised if it were twice that because, of course, many opportunities to act that way would probably be greater in the daytime than they would be at night to start with.
There have been a number of studies done on the issue of criminal behaviour of people who are voyeurs. As a matter of fact, there is an article that was produced by the Nassau Community College in Garden City, New York, entitled: "A Pattern of Voyeurism Among Construction Workers". A further document which I bring to the attention of the House was published in Scandinavia entitled: "Deviants and Criminality: The case of voyeur in peepers' paradise". It was published by the University of Copenhagen, the Institute of Criminal Science.
What is alleged in a number of studies is that people who commit such acts eventually commit other more serious acts of voyeurism and, of course, other more serious sexual crimes as well. This Bill is not one which should be seen by any Member as being controversial. It is merely rectifying a section of the Criminal Code which is far outdated.
As to why the Criminal Code reads as it does now, I can only speculate that at some point, probably 100 years ago or whatever, someone became aware that individuals would prowl upon the property of another at night for the purpose of peeping through the windows. Of course, that offence would then have only been possible at night simply because that was the only time in which it was lighter inside than outside, it being pitch black outside. There was usually a lamp or a lantern or even electricity inside for those people who had it. Today, things are vastly different. Most people use light bulbs and other electrical devices to have light inside a dwelling house, whether it is the daytime or not. We all know that we turn on lights in the daytime, which is something that would not have happened then. We now have a situation in which of course it is just as light in the daytime inside a dwelling house as it would be at night. It is now possible for individuals to behave in that way.
The Bill I am proposing, as I said previously, is not one which should take up five hours of debate. I do not think that it should even take up one hour of debate. It is a Bill which corrects part of a law which is really outdated.
In my respectful opinion there is no reason why Parliament should not deal expeditiously with correcting what is a mistake in the law.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that when I announced I was going to present a Bill of this kind in the House of Commons, I received many telephone calls from Canadians, and especially Canadian women, who called me because they themselves had been victimized in this way and, when they went to the police, the authorities were unable to take any action to protect them.
I was also contacted by a number of police officers who even came to see me personally and told me they were delighted to hear that at last, the Parliament of Canada had become aware of this gap in our legislation, a historic gap, which could be remedied today.
Therefore, without further delay and without taking up all the time I am allowed today, I simply want to say to Hon. Members on both sides of the House, on behalf of all Canadians and especially Canadian women, that we must recognize the fact that the victims are almost always women, and I therefore ask the House of Commons to support this Bill so that Bill C-278 will become law.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuff):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
I must admit I did not realize that the problem with peeping Toms was so acute in Canada, especially in the Hon. Member's riding, that the House would have to consider a Bill to amend the Criminal Code and reinforce existing legislation.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on the subject that may be of interest to Members who are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure it must be a traumatic experience to realize there is a peeping Tom near one's home who is invading one's privacy and that of one's family. I agree that voyeurism is an invasion of the victim's privacy, but since the offence is committed at some distance, usually from a neighbour's property or from the street, I don't think, on the face of it, that the proposed amendment will provide any effective way to fight voyeurism.
Mr. Speaker, I have also done some research on what we refer to as "Peeping Toms", and I discovered that Peeping Tom is part of the legend of Lady Godiva. Hon. Members will probably recall the story of this famous lady's ride through Coventry. The earliest reports go back to the Chronicles of
May 2, 1988

1057. When Lady Godiva beseeched her husband Leofric to relieve the tax burden on the people of Coventry, she was so insistent that her husband cried out that he would do it if she rode stark naked through the crowd in the market place. The Chronicles tell us that she did, and that her hair covered her entire body except for her legs, and that upon her return, Leofric issued the Charter that freed Coventry from its taxes. There are of course many other versions of this story, but it seems we have to wait until the 17th century for Peeping Tom to make his appearance. The dictionary tells us that Peeping Tom was a tailor whose curiosity got the better of him and who was struck blind when he looked out of the window when Lady Godiva rode by. It seems a festival still commemorates this fact.
Of course, our Criminal Code takes care of our Lady Godivas and our Peeping Toms. As for the former, she might be accused of indecent exposure under Section 169 of the Criminal Code, while the unfortunate tailor might be convicted under Section 173, provided he committed his act of curiosity on Leofric's property, between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.
I don't want to belabour the point, but if we are to adopt measures to discourage latter-day peeping Toms, I think it is essential to consider the existing legislation very carefully. Tinkering with our legislation by extending the time of the offence to all hours of the day and night, without changing the circumstances of intruding on someone else's property, as is the case with the Bill before the House today, fails to attach to this particularly odious behaviour the social censure it deserves.
On the other hand, I must admit quite frankly that I have no practical experience in this area.
For instance, I don't know anything about the number of complaints received by the police. As far as the police is concerned, there seems to be no indication that the present provision is deficient and that this Bill would make up the deficiency, so I suggest we wait until the Government looks at this area of the Criminal Code when considering the proposals of the Law Reform Commission of Canada and its review of the Criminal Code. So far, no associations like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have drawn my attention to any serious problems connected with voyeurism. To my knowledge, provincial attorneys general have made no statements to the effect that peeping Toms do what they do before nightfall to avoid violating the provision on acts of voyeurism committed during the night. It is clearly up to the Members of this House to define the nature of the problem before adopting legislation that is supposed to deal with it.
We must not forget that the Bill is aimed only at peeping Toms and not at other persons who might be on the property of another person for other unlawful purposes.
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether Hon. Members who suggest amending the Criminal Code in this way actually realize that this measure will only have the effect of making trespassing on another's property at any hour of the day an
Criminal Code
offence, without actually dealing with the legitimate concerns of the victims of voyeurism. This amendment will hardly discourage those few peeping Toms who might be tempted to stand at the window of a house in broad daylight to observe its occupants.
Obviously, the great majority of peeping Toms can be expected to use the cover of darkness to peep into brightly lit houses, instead of running the risk of being caught in the act of voyeurism during the day.
What I have just said shows how unrealistic this Bill is. The offender would have to be completely crazy to commit such acts in broad daylight, knowing full well that the risk of being discovered, arrested and convicted is then much greater. Madam Speaker, that is as plain as can be.
Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect this Bill to result in an increased number of prosecutions of real peeping Toms.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you and Hon. Members present that I am prepared to take measures to solve this problem once I am convinced that the solutions proposed will result in fewer offences or make it easier to charge and punish offenders.
In my opinion, the Hon. Member's Bill is both premature and deficient. It does not assure the legislators that the measures taken will be effective, which is essential. Therefore, I must oppose this Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this Bill. It is a very interesting Bill. It is different and unique.
I wish to tell the House that I am a New Democrat and not a Tory. Members may have become confused during the last exchange.


An Hon. Member:: Why are you sitting with the Liberals?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just because I am wearing a blue suit and look like a corporation lawyer, let me assure Members that I am still a New Democrat.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) referred to the origins of the trespassing at night section of the Criminal Code. I do not think it went back 100 years ago. It may have in English common law. I am informed that in Canadian law Section 173 was added to our Criminal Code in its present form in approximately 1957. This followed a Supreme Court of Canada decision which ruled that peeping at night was not an offence under the Code, because there was nothing in the Code or in the British common law which applied to Canada.
The case of Frey v. Fedoruk (1956), 10 C.R. 26 (SCC) is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It involved an act of looking through a window at a woman who was in her nightgown. It occurred at night, the classic peeping tom

May 2, 1988
Criminal Code
situation. The peeper was apprehended, and subsequently the peeper sued for damages for false imprisonment on the grounds that he was stalked and imprisoned by the police, but that he did not commit any criminal offence, therefore he could not be held. The court had to reluctantly agree and allowed him to recover damages. That is why the section was put in our present Criminal Code.
I gather that the incident that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell spoke about took place in Orleans. It involved some construction workers looking into a woman's window during the daytime. There is some concern that even if there were this amendment and this section were in place it may not capture or render the day conduct of the construction workers illegal.
The substantive wrong complained of was that of invading the woman's privacy by looking through her windows, which is known as "voyeurism". The section does not, however, make it an offence to commit an act of voyeurism. The offence deals with "loitering" or "prowling" on private property "without lawful excuse".
The act of prowling involves very specific conduct. You have to move around in a stealthy manner seeking an opportunity to commit a criminal offence. The workers' acts may not fall within the meaning of prowling. Loitering, on the other hand, involves no more than lingering in one area. This simple act was made a criminal offence in these circumstances because when it occurs on private property at night, it is presumed that the person is trespassing for the purpose of invading the owner's privacy. Indeed, it has been called trespassing at night. It is a presumption of what a person is doing around someone's property at night. Normally people are not around property and maybe a person has a bad purpose, to wit, voyeurism.
The workers who were alleged to have invaded the Orleans woman's privacy may not have been trespassing at all. The newspaper reports of the incidents are not clear, but it would appear that they may have been working on the building in which the woman lived. If that is the case, they would have had a lawful excuse for being on the property. They were there to carry out certain work, presumably at the owner's request. So long as the work required them to be within the vicinity of the woman's dwelling house, their conduct would not be punishable under Section 173, even if it were amended.
I heard the Hon. Member say that those are not exactly the facts. I think it is debatable that the facts may have been different. One has to be careful, I was going to say, construction workers being construction workers. Construction workers often have certain elements of conduct whereby they make sly remarks or do things. It is sort of accepted as part of the culture, if you like, of a construction worker. I do agree it does go too far when workers or anyone else peers purposely into someone's private house for a voyeuristic purpose. It is not fair
to the woman involved. People are quite rightly frightened, and I do not blame them.
I think the Bill is an interesting Bill and I commend the Hon. Member for bringing it forward. He is a Member who always tackles many interesting subjects, some of which are controversial. I am not going to take any longer in speaking to the Bill. I have flagged some of the problems with it. To quote that great Tory criminal lawyer, who is a bit a hero of mine, Sir John A. Macdonald, he said, "Maybe the Bill is worth looking at further". I will sit down and let the Bill go to committee-I believe it will go to committee-the Member is nodding, then we can look at some of these concerns raised and at the whole topic. A Member asked how many cases and complaints there are and is there really a big difference between night and day cases. Are there incidents in other parts of the country. Those things need to be looked into, and this can be done in committee.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the proposal put forward in Bill C-278 to amend Section 173 of the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibits trespassing at night.
The purpose of the Bill, which would strike down the words "at night" is set out in the explanatory note as follows:
The proposed change would extend the offence to acts of voyeurism committed during the day.
Bill C-278 would extend the prohibition contained in Section 173 of the Code to apply at any time of the day or night. Section 173 now reads as follows:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Before commenting on the merits of the proposed amendment, and to appreciate fully the potential consequences of such an amendment, it is important to explain for history the rationale underlying Section 173, which is commonly referred to as the "peeping-Tom" provision of the Code.
The enactment of Section 173 in 1954 resulted from the 1950 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Frey v. Fedoruk (1950) S.C.R. 517. I will therefore rely to a great extent on that judgment to trace the history of Section 173. The facts of the case are outlined in the judgment of Mr. Justice Cartwright as follows:
About 11.15 p.m. the 4th March 1947, the mother of the defendant, Fedoruk, while standing in her nightgown in her lighted bedroom in her son's house saw the plaintiff peeping into her window, the curtains of which were only partially drawn. She was frightened and called to her son who seized a butcher knife and ran outside. He shouted at the plaintiff who was then just leaving Fedoruk's property. The plaintiff (Frey) started to run; Fedoruk chased him about 100 yards to a point where the plaintiff was trying to unlock and get into his truck. The lights of the truck were out. Fedoruk took the plaintiff back to his House, threatening him with the knife. Fedoruk's mother identified the plaintiff as the man whom she had seen at her window and the police were called.
The defendant Stone, a police constable, arrived accompanied by another police officer, and after some investigation, as a result of which he formed the
May 2, 1988

opinion that the plaintiff had been "peeping", he told the plaintiff he was under arrest and took him to the police station where he was confined.
At trial, the claim by the plaintiff, Frey, for civil damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution was dismissed against all three defendants, that is, the civilian Fedoruk and the two police officers, Watt and Stone. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the claim against Watt was allowed and $100 damages against him were awarded. However, the claim against Fedoruk and Stone were dismissed. It was these latter dismissals that were appealed to the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The issue dealt with by the Supreme Court was whether or not the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence when he "peeped" through the window of Fedoruk's mother's bedroom. If he was, then all parties defendant would have been justified in arresting the plaintiff. Mr. Justice O'Halloran held for the majority of the British Columbia Court of appeal that the plaintiffs actions constituted a breach of the peace in that he disturbed the "tranquility and privacy in a manner that he would naturally expect to invite immediate violence against him". He continued:
It is my judgment that the circumstances here surround the intruder's act of looking in the window with such sinister implications, that in the lack of a credible explanation, his conduct as a whole must be regarded as criminal at common law. It was late at night, the intruder was on private property some 40 to 50 feet back from the street line; he was looking in a side window which did not face the street, the window was lighted and he could see a woman preparing for bed. Quite apart from the "peeping-Tom" aspect, the presence of a prowler in such circumstances, the dread of the hostile unknown at night, would naturally frighten the inmates of the house, and incite them to immediate violent defensive or offensive action against him.
This judge had specifically found that the plaintiffs conduct constituted neither an offence against the provisions of the existing Criminal Code nor the common law. In effect, Mr. Justice O'Halloran was criminalizing the conduct of the plaintiff not for what he did, but for the probable consequences that could ensure from that conduct the potential for violent retaliation for his conduct.
Mr. Justice Robertson, dissenting, observed that a "mere trespass" onto private property could not constitute a breach of the peace, even in these rather disturbing circumstances. The fact that this conduct had the distinct potential for disturbing those in peaceable possession of the residence did not alter his opinion. In particular, he found that any response by the residents would have been "offensive and retributive" rather than defensive in the absence of any evidence that the intruder displayed an intent to become violent. This latter element had been clearly established by the plaintiffs immediate flight from the premises when pursued by the defendant Fedoruk. In that regard, Mr. Justice Robertson made the following comment:
I do not think that it is safe to hold as a matter of law, that conduct, not otherwise criminal and not falling within any category of offences defined by the criminal law, becomes criminal because a natural and probable result thereof will be to provoke others to violent retributive action.
If such a principle were admitted, it seems to me that many courses of conduct which it is well settled are not criminal could be made the subject of
Criminal Code
indictment by setting out the facts and concluding with the words that such conduct was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Two examples may be mentioned. The speaking of insulting words unaccompanied by any threat of violence undoubtedly may and sometimes does produce violent retributive action, but is not criminal. The commission of adultery has, in many recorded cases, when unexpectedly discovered, resulted in homicide; but, except where expressly made so by statute, adultery is not a crime.
He went on to note that the only remedy provided for such conduct in addition to civil damages would be the procedure to have the person bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In reference to a claim that there was an inherent judicial power to declare any conduct to be an offence if it is in fact injurious to the public, even though it had never been declared to be criminal conduct, he noted:
In my opinion, this power has not been held and should not be held to exist in Canada. I think it safer to hold that no one shall be convicted of a crime unless the offence with which he is charged is recognized as such in the provisions of the Criminal Code, or can be established by the authority of some reported cases as an offence known to the law.
I think that if any course of conduct is now to be declared criminal, which has not up to the present time been so regarded such declaration should be made by Parliament and not by the Courts.
In relation to any claim of justification relied upon by the defendants, these failed of necessity, in the opinion of this judge, on the principle that ignorance of the law provided no such defence.
Mr. Justice Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada, speaking for himself and five other judges, agreed with the opinion of Mr. Justice Robertson in dissent in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Mr. Justice Kerwin of the Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of Mr. Justice Robertson in a separate concurring judgment despite the fact that he referred to the conduct of the plaintiff as contemptible.
The state of the law as a result of this judgment was considered to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, in the amendments to the Criminal Code that came into effect in 1954, this new offence of trespassing at night came into existence. The harmful nature of the prohibited conduct flows from the very fact that it is happening at night. This essential aspect, mentioned by Mr. Justice O'Halloran in the Frey v. Fedoruk case, is essential and is worth repeating. It reads:
It was late at night, the intruder was on private property-the window was lighted and he could see a woman preparing for bed. Quite apart from the "peeping-Tom" aspect, the presence of a prowler in such circumstances, the dread of the hostile unknown at night, would naturally frighten the inmates of the house ...
This was many years before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. What concerns me about the amendment to Section 173 proposed by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is that the addition of the liability to daytime hours may very well cause the provision to become Charter vulnerable. I do not purport to be a constitutional law expert, but even I am aware of the prohibition in the Charter against any provision that offends the presumption of innocence of an accused person.

May 2, 1988
Criminal Code
The present provision has withstood constitutional attack until the present time because of all of the conditions that must be proved by the prosecution before the reverse onus applies. One of these conditions is that the suspicious conduct must take place at night. If the provision is expanded to apply during the day, then I am concerned that the courts would no longer feel that the reverse onus is a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter. This would potentially place the entire section in jeopardy and, for this reason, I cannot support the proposed legislation.


Morrissey Johnson: Madam Speaker-


Don Boudria: Another spontaneous speech.


Morrissey Johnson: Do you want to make it?
The Hon. Member proposes that there be an amendment to Section 173 of the Criminal Code. The effect of this amendment would be to make it an offence to loiter or prowl upon the property of another person adjacent to a dwelling house at any time of day. In my view, the amendment he advances, the deletion of the words "at night", does not achieve this purpose. In making-


Don Boudria: Do you mean there are times other than day or night?


Morrissey Johnson: Madam Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is rude, but I wish he would let me get on with my speech.


Don Boudria: I'll try.


Morrissey Johnson: I would like to share some of my concerns on this proposed amendment, which I hope will prove not to be as effective as suggested by my hon. colleague.
It behooves us, whenever we consider a legislative initiative such as the present one, to ask ourselves how the present legislation came into being and what it was initially intended to achieve. I have found it most instructive to review the exchange of views which took place at the time Section 173 of the Criminal Code was first introduced in our law.
I found it very interesting to read some of the debates that took place back in 1953 and 1954. An exchange took place between the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Stuart Garson, and the then Hon. Member for Kamloops, Mr. E. D. Fulton. I see that they found it difficult to define just exactly what a peeping-Tom was.
In one part of Mr. Fulton's remarks, he said:
It seems to me that if it is intended to cover the offence of peeping we must
be far more specific than we are in this section, particularly since the peeper
may not stand on the lot on which the dwelling house into which he is peeping
is situated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Morrissey Johnson: Madam Speaker, I find this amusing as well. Mr. Fulton went on to say that he could stand far away from a building and use a pair of binoculars to observe what was going on, and people still do that today. It is funny that things have not changed very much since 1953.
I am sure that during the debate at the time, people were laughing at some of the remarks that were made. I suppose the hon. gentlemen of that day tried to bring out their feelings toward certain things that were taking place in debate, and people found it amusing. Sometimes, in order to get their point across, they had to be amusing.
I, like Mr. Fulton, am not an expert either in the technique of committing the offence or in the law regarding it. I would like to reiterate that.
The Hon. Minister of Justice at the time, in his response, said:
-in most cases it would not be possible for the peeping Tom to look into a window or that sort of thing unless he had come onto the ground of another and was loitering or prowling there near a dwelling house. In the special committee of the House of Commons, the majority, which were concerned that they should not create a new offence that would make a criminal out of every petty trespasser, said that the man had to be loitering or prowling near the dwelling house.
He would have to be doing that in order to be considered to be committing an offence. If he simply crossed the edge of a man's farm or the corner of his building lot it would not be an offence under this section.
I could go on and quote a lot more of what those gentlemen said in 1953. However, as we consider the Hon. Member's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code, let us, in addition to considering the views expressed over 30 years ago, consider the more recent report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
In Volume I of its report entitled Recodifying the Criminal Law published in 1986, the Law Reform Commission looked at Section 173 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with two other provisions in the law which addressed the protection of one's property rights. In Chapter 12 entitled "Criminal Intrusion", the authors did not address their minds to the time of day aspect of Section 17 3 and appear prepared to leave it as is. I suppose, Madam Speaker, that they were trying to say that you could commit the offence regardless of whether it was day or night.
Basically our present law, found in Sections 173, 306, and 308 of the Code, says that the statutes extended the latter, that is burglary and house breaking, to cover shops, warehouses, and other types of buildings in addition to only dwelling houses.
As a couple of my colleagues have said, Madam Speaker, I am unable to support the Hon. Member's Bill which, in my view, will have little beneficial impact on the mischief caused by peeping Toms. I would suggest that in the absence of any
May 2, 1988

demonstrated urgent need for this legislation to be immediately adopted, this House may want to await the Government's response to the Law Reform Commission's report. Surely the development of an offence specifically tailored to address peeping Toms, one which would not be limited to persons physically present on the property of another, might be one of the options which might merit consideration. It would not appear to me that creating a daytime offence of trespass is necessarily the most appropriate response to the perceived problem which this legislative measure is intended to address.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today and comment on Bill C-278 presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-[DOT] Russell (Mr. Boudria), which reads as follows:
"173. Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, prowls upon the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
This is an amendment of Section 173, which now reads:
"173. Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person ...
This means that emphasis is put on the difference between day and night. Obviously many offences are committed at night, Madam Speaker, and it is easy to find out who is on private property at night and who is not supposed to be there. Compared with the daytime, it is much harder because normally everyone in large urban centres is working during the day and completely harmless or innocent people may then be arrested or accused of loitering or "scrounging around."
I agree with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that such offences are committed during the day as well, but I still have a problem. I would be willing to support his Bill, if distinctions could be made to define daytime and nighttime offences. For instance, Madam Speaker, in larger urban areas, many children go to play next door, on private property. How do we explain that those children are not loiterers or peeping Toms? There are public employees, such as electricians who have to climb hydro poles in our cities to do repairs. If they happen to be right opposite a window on the second floor and the shades are up, they could be accused of voyeurism. Now how can we accuse these people of something they never even thought of doing? They are just doing their job! And when the baker, for instance, rings the doorbell and the babysitter happens to open the door, and she doesn't know the baker, how is she supposed to know the man is a baker and not a loiterer? The same applies to the milkman and to the garbage pick-up crew. If people go down the street and happen to look into a window, they could be accused right then and there. I am of course referring to people who work during the day. At night it is a lot easier, as the Hon. Member said earlier. The light is on inside, while it is dark outside. So these people are on someone else's property for a very specific purpose, and no one is going to deny that. During the day, however, it is not as clear cut.
Criminal Code
I wonder how we are going to be able to make those distinctions, and how this provision can be enforced fairly. A lot of offences are committed in broad daylight, and I am not just referring to peeping Toms. For instance, in the city and in broad daylight, while people are on the patio or near the pool, burglars break into the house. This does happen, and we must find a way to prevent it. But I don't think we should have to amend a section of the Criminal Code to give it more "teeth" in order to stop these things from happening. In fact, I think we need some kind of public awareness program. In several cities like Laval, for instance, there is an anti-burglary program called Prevol. It is a kind of information network. There are a number of lookouts, there are area leaders, and the neighbours around each area leader.
Early each week, area leaders send each of their individual lookouts the following message: Last week, some thieves broke into a number of homes by using such means as smashing doors or basement windows. They circulate this information, so that people can better protect themselves and prevent this type of break-ins. Something similar could be used to stop peeping Toms, without having to amend the Canadian legislation.
It is a fact that it is not easy to implement such programs or have people accept them, because they already find awareness programs disturbing, and that is the whole tragedy. They would like to have everything, without having to make an effort to get it, and they would like the community to foot the bill. Madam Speaker, instead of using the time of the House to debate a bill which, in principle, seems to me to be logical, except that it would be difficult if not outright impossible to implement, I feel rather that each and everyone of us should act in our respective ridings-since the phenomena described by my friend the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell does not exist only in his riding, although we could say so if we wanted to make political gains, but it exists from coast to coast, and not only in our own backyards.
Perhaps we should use all the means at our disposal to discourage this type of day or night activities. Of course, Madam Speaker, the three levels of Government, federal, provincial and municipal, would have to co-operate; we need to rely on their contribution. At the municipal level, and I mention again the City of Laval where such a program already exists, the police force is already working in close co-operation with all the other organizations involved in fighting these activities. For instance, the police force co-operates with Prevol. It co-operates also with the Block Parents organization. In the province of Quebec, everybody knows about Block Parents and I suggest there is an enormous need for this kind of protection for our children and our homes. The police forces and all civil protection organizations, in both large and small communities, have the duty to co-operate and they do it gladly.
Concerning the bill we are dealing with today, Madam Speaker, I say there should be consultations, beginning with the larger communities, to set up such an organization which could contribute very quickly, much more quickly than federal

May 2, 1988
Criminal Code
legislation, in curbing this rash of break-ins without using so much public funds.
I conclude, Madam Speaker, for I know that other Members want to contribute to this debate. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had very good intentions when he introduced this bill, but he will agree with me, I am sure, that without any legislation, we could come to an agreement and stop this rash of break-ins and vandalism.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Private Member's Bill C-278. The Hon. Member has introduced an interesting and easily understandable amendment to the trespassing section of the Criminal Code.
Section 173 as it now stands states:
Everyone who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him,
loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling
house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction.
In 1985 across Canada there were over 12,000 charges laid and an even more substantial number in 1986. In the case of someone loitering around one's dwelling house during the daytime, my friend advises me that the police can be summoned to see what is happening but cannot lay any charges because the section of the Criminal Code states very clearly that charges can only be laid if that person has been prowling at night.
The House will know that there are many types of prowling infractions that take place at times other than during the night. The proposal being made by my hon. friend is very logical. I was a probation and parole officer before being elected to this House and I believe laws must provide the kind of definition that allow for charges to be laid when someone is being bothered. For example, what would happen at this time of the day in Ottawa to someone waiting outside a dwelling house with no lawful excuse? That person may be peeking in windows or simply bothering the property owner and making one nervous.
It seems to me that we should clarify the laws. My friend is proposing to cut some red tape. It is a logical proposal that could even be included in an omnibus Bill, sent to committee, or even voted on now.
The Hon. Member's proposal is logical, and would only require the deletion of the two words "at night", so the section would apply 24-hours a day, all year long. It would provide a greater sense of security for Canadians across the country so that they would know that if someone was prowling or loitering around their property they could call the local police, who could not only ask whether or not the person had a lawful excuse for being there, but could lay charges if that person was loitering.
Perhaps we can allow for a vote on this Bill so that it could pass through all stages or go to committee. I believe this is a good opportunity to vote on a very logical and understandable proposal.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a most interesting Private Member's Bill. Unlike the Member who just spoke, I do not agree that it is a simple, straightforward amendment. It has quite a dramatic effect on the present reading of the Criminal Code.
Trespassing is not, in itself, a criminal offence. Under provincial law, however, it may give rise to a cause of action that would provide compensation for damages.
Some provinces have also enacted provincial statutory offences for trespass if certain conditions are fulfilled. In Ontario, for example, the Trespass to Property Act provides that a person is guilty of trespass and liable to a fine if he or she, without the express permission of the occupier and without a lawful right or authority, enters onto or engages in an activity on the property of another person when such is prohibited by the Act, or does not immediately leave the premises when requested to do so. Other provinces have similar offences. It should be noted, however, that these provincial offences do not create crimes, but are merely regulatory offences. Mere trespass to property is not a crime.
Furthermore, neither is mere trespass a crime under the Criminal Code. Section 173 of the Criminal Code, although entitled "Trespassing at Night" in the heading, does not create a general offence of trespass. It prohibits, without lawful excuse, loitering or prowling at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling house. The term "prowls" has been held by the courts to mean conduct that consists of hunting around in a stealthy manner for an opportunity to commit an offence. Clearly, this term connotes a serious type of conduct, one deserving of the criminal sanction.
However, the term "loitering" has been held by the courts to mean "hanging around" or "lingering". Hanging around or lingering is not the type of conduct that justifies the imposition of the criminal sanction.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, before you call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker, and proceed to the vote, may I ask if the Government will tell us if it wants to work tomorrow? What is the agenda for tomorrow so that we can prepare, if anyone over there knows the answer?


William (Bill) Gottselig: Come tomorrow morning at 11.00 o'clock and you will find out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
May 2, 1988

expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is deleted from the Order Paper.