1989-05-12

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its negligence with regard to the illegal importation and sale of fuel tainted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other toxic substances.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I am happy to have an opportunity to debate this issue but I think it is going to give us an opportunity to put some facts on the record, facts which unfortunately have been in the possession of the Government for some time, up to 28 months, and have been ignored. These are facts that involve a potential risk to the health of Canadians, including the possibility of cancer-causing PCBs being mixed into gasoline fuel, into home heating fuel, into fuel used in industry, into fuel that is used in greenhouses to grow vegetables and fruit which eventually find their way to our tables, leading to the possibility of toxic wastes invading the food chain and posing a risk to the health of Canadians.
I think the first question Canadians have to ask themselves is why, when on several occasions information came to various Ministers of this Government about the possibility of a wide ranging criminal scam, the extent of which we probably have not seen in any kind of trafficking in this country, there has been widespread potential trafficking in toxic wastes between Canada and the United States? When Minister after Minister and Government official after Government official were
informed, why did they sweep the issue under the table? Why did they not want to deal with an issue that could very directly affect the health of Canadians?
I would like to go back for a moment with a bit of chronology. The chronology, if we take it in reverse order of occurrence, would go as follows: In March, 1989, there was a major conference in Switzerland to which the Government of Canada sent the Associate Minister of Transport as its major representative. At that particular conference, the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) was specifically told by Daniel Green-

-the president of Montreal's Society to Conquer Pollution-

-that he had a meeting specifically with Mrs. Martin in which he laid certain facts on the table. To quote Mr. Green, prior to the specific meeting with the Minister of State for Transport, he contacted the office of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard).
I will just read into the record, Mr. Speaker, for the attention of the Government, the names of the people that Mr. Green says he spoke with directly on this issue. In terms of Ministers, he spoke to the Minister of State for Transport. He also spoke to two representatives in the office of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). He stated this morning, Vic Shantora and John Myslicki. He spoke to Alan Beasley from External Affairs and he also spoke directly to the assistant to the Associate Minister for Transport, Shirley Wood. So we have four Government officials in three departments along with the Minister of State who were specifically told in March of this year about the existence of that scam.
However, that was not the first time that the private sector had tried to alert the Government to the possibility of a major wide-ranging scam which is not, I must point out-

May 12, 1989
Supply

An issue inside Quebec only.

The Centre for Investigative Reporting in Washington, a Mr. Andrew Porterfield, who has been working on this issue for a number of years and who has had input into the American Government hearings, seems to have known about this for years, although several Ministers have claimed this week in the House that they just learned about the situation on Monday. Mr. Andrew Porterfield says that he has evidence of hazardous substances travelling from Idaho and Washington State to British Columbia and Alberta. He believes that it is not simply an Ontario and Quebec issue, so when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) stands up and says he has done testing and there are no regional disparities, it is likely that there are no regional disparities because the level of illegal toxic activity has been going on from British Columbia potentially through to Quebec and possibly Atlantic Canada. That was the statement of Andrew Porterfield, it was not the statement of the Opposition.
At the same time we now know-and I was called a liar yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek). He called me a liar because I suggested, quite directly, that the executive vice-president of the Canadian Petroleum Marketers Association had a very specific meeting here in Ottawa 28 months ago, more than two years ago, a face to face meeting with the Minister in which he pointed out the possibility of toxic wastes being imported into Canada by way of a major criminal scam. What did the Minister of National Revenue choose to do with that information? He sat on it. As late as yesterday he denied he claimed I was a liar, or his colleague claimed I was a liar. Mr. Green is a liar. Mr. Conrad is a liar. Presumably somebody, either on this side of the House or at The Globe and Mail or by way of the Canadian Petroleum Marketers Association, or L 'Association pour vaincre la pollution, wants to get the facts on the record and we would have no reason to lie. It is fine to label the Opposition as liars but when you are talking about independent organizations-


An Hon. Member:: Sensationalism,


Sheila Maureen Copps: What possible interest could Jim Conrad have in creating a sensation?
The executive vice-president of the Canadian Petroleum Marketers Association is not interested in sensationalism. He has a product to sell and he wants to make sure that it is a clean, untainted product. He is interested in the revenue scam that took place and was being investigated, but he is also interested specifically in the assurances that he should be able to give to Canadians about the quality of his product. That quality has been compromised because of the complete negligence of this Government, the absolute indifference of the former Minister of National Revenue who in January of 1987 was told point blank that there is activity going on in the area of toxic waste importation from the United States. Yet he chose to do nothing.
The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin), who was told in March of this year by an environmentalist whom the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) himself has called a respected environmentalist, chose to do nothing. The Minister of National Revenue stood in the House yesterday and admitted that in September, 1987, almost two years ago, a high level meeting took place in Toronto at which evidence was brought forward about toxic wastes being mixed into fuels, but he claims that the information dealt only with shipping between states in the United States.
My information, from a police informant whom I am sure the Minister will know because he said that copious notes have been kept of the meetings that were taking place on a twice annual basis, gave direct evidence to the Ministry of Revenue and offered to supply ongoing evidence about the criminal nature of toxic products being put into the waste in 1987 and the Ministry of Revenue declined that offer. If it did not have to do with tax fraud, the Ministry did not want to know about it. It was not concerned about the potential, long term implications of this type of toxin coming into the Canadian environment.
Let us look at the broader question, Mr. Speaker. Why would we see the level of shipping of illegal toxins that we are currently led to believe has been going on for the last number of years? Partly because in the United States, for example California, there are extremely stringent laws concerning the disposal of toxic waste. If a company of source is caught shipping toxic waste which ultimately ends up in some type of illegal activity, it is held responsible. If you are the owner of a small operation that may be dealing with used oils in California

and somehow after you tender out your shipping of toxic fuels it ends up in an illegal dump in the State of California, you would be held criminally responsible.
But American law says that once the toxins leave its borders, the original producer of the toxins can go scot-free. So there is a direct impetus on the basis of existing U.S. legislation for American companies to get their toxic wastes out of the United States. Proper, clean, thorough disposal of toxic waste in the United States costs approximately $1,000 for every container that has to be disposed of.
If in the course of exporting that fuel, which may perhaps be laced with PCBs or with other toxins, it finds itself in an illegal dump, as long as the illegal dump is in Canada there is no problem.
I personally was shocked-and I am sure this will shock a lot of Canadians-to learn from the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, a Mr. Jim Vincent-not a Liberal set-up, not a spokesperson for Canada; everybody is lying except the Government of Canada-


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how many times the Hon. Member has implied that Members on this side of the House have called her or her colleagues or other people liars. I looked through the statement of yesterday. There is absolutely no reference to that and, of course, to do so would be unparliamentary.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You did not watch television last night.


Albert Glen Cooper: I think the Hon. Member should be reminded that she is accusing someone-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Otto Jelinek.


Albert Glen Cooper: -of doing something in this House that would be out of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I do not know where the Member has been the last few days but Otto Jelinek called me a liar.
Mr. Cooper. Where?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yesterday outside the House, and the Member for Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce) heard it and so did millions of Canadians.
Supply


Mr. Della  Noce@: She lied-


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-
Mr. Deputy Speaker Could we stop talking about that, please? Could the Member just continue her speech? Otherwise we will never end. The Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Speaker's ruling and I agree that we should not pursue this point any further. However, when another Member inside the House, as just a moment ago, made a similar accusation against the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), at least that Member, being the Member from Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce), I think should stand up and retract what he has just said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask Members one more time not to use that word. Sometimes it is unparliamentary, sometimes it is not. It depends if the person means that something was done deliberately or not. But most of the time the use of the word brings disorder in the House. If Members would refrain from using it, I am sure we would have a better quality of debate.


Don Boudria: I think you are right.


Mr. Della  Noce@: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker The Hon. Member for Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce) on a point of order.


Mr. Della  Noce@: My name has just been mentioned, Mr. Speaker. What I said yesterday to the press is-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not say it was you, I said I heard the Minister-


Mr. Della  Noce@: The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has just mentioned my name. I talked to the press yesterday. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said to the press that I had called. It is not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not say that. The Revenue Minister did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Now that the case is closed, could the Member continue?

May 12, 1989
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what shocked me. This is in relation to the fact that Canada is rapidly becoming, in a legal and illegal fashion, the dumping ground for American toxic waste.
If society, and I speak not only of Canada but of the world, is to address the problem of pollution, toxic waste and the environmental damage that causes, we have to understand that there is a basic principle to which we should adhere and that is that we are responsible for our own garbage. In the United States, there are very strict laws which could lead to criminal convictions against companies that illegally dispose of toxic wastes in the United States but make no such provision inteijurisdic-tionally. Because of that, American companies that want to play it fast and loose, want to make the cheapest bid or get the absolute lowest price for disposing of toxic waste, in some cases hand waste over to fly-by-night haulers who use any means whatsoever, including the illegal mixing of toxins into fuel and industrial oil, to get it out of the country.
At the moment, according to the EPA, we are receiving approximately 120,000 tonnes of toxic waste from the United States per year. We are having enough difficulty looking after the toxic waste we create from our own industrial and residential pollution, but we have become the major dumping ground outside the United States for American industrial waste. If we are going to get into the business of looking after other people's garbage, as we have done with respect to toxic wastes from the United States, then at the very least we owe it to Canadians to have a system in place and a Government in place that will respond to the early warning signals, the early warning signals that the former Minister of National Revenue ignored in 1987.
Later, there were warnings at the September meeting of Ministry of Revenue officials in Tbronto in 1987, warning signals which were ignored. Later warning signals were given to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) at an international conference by someone the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) describes as a respected environmentalist. The final signals were laid at the door of the Minister of the Environment in March of this year when once again Mr. Green let his
views be known and his concerns expressed about the possibility of toxic wastes being imported.
The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States admits that the system in place there for the export of toxic waste is subject to flaws. Once a manifest for toxic waste is drawn up, an acknowledgement of consent letter is written to confirm that the particular shipment has been licensed for export but the manifest which includes the original toxins is never cross-referenced with the letter and no check is made to see if companies have consent to export. The American system that is tougher than the one we have in Canada does not even check to see whether companies that are shipping the stuff out of the country have consent to export. That is one major flaw.
If Hon. Members do not believe me, perhaps they will believe Mr. Jim Vincent of the Enforcement Division of the Environmental Protection Agency in Denver, Colorado. He says that rarely are samples taken to confirm a shipment's contents. Usually, if samples are taken, they are taken by the sending company and sent to the receiving company and it is the receiving company that confirms the contents of the sample. That is a bit like having the fox looking after the henhouse. The sending company and receiving company are the only two parties that actually check to see whether the sample of waste is what it is supposed to be.
If there is to be the importation into Canada of 140,000 tonnes of waste a year from the United States, we must have the systems in place to enforce the regulations. This week the Minister of the Environment rose in the House but made no mention of the fact that throughout the mandate of this Government, under the infamous Nielsen Task Force, Customs and Excise alone had 336 positions eliminated. There cannot be the elimination of 336 jobs without there being some effect on control at the border.
The Minister said he would add 34 person-years to his staff which is currently responsible for enforcing regulations emanating from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are 140 border points across Canada. If we assume that people are not capable of working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week-and most of us cannot do that-we can assume that those 34 positions may possibly, at best, be able to cover 8 or 10 border crossings.
May 12, 1989

That leaves 130 borders unprotected from the potential for major criminal activity and importation of toxins.

That point was raised several times by Mr. Green in his conversations with the Environment Minister's officials and with the Minister of State for Transport Minister. He said that if the Canadian Government was really concerned about toxic substances, it must at least treat criminals in that field as severely as it does criminal drug traffickers.
We know the Revenue Minister made a big fuss last week about various measures he is taking at the border to control drug movement and trafficking.
Mr. Speaker, PCB traffic affects the health of all Canadians. Nearly all Canadian families are suffering from environmental diseases such as cancer, breathing problems, emphysema and so on. The health of Canadians should also be important. For that reason, I think the least the federal Government could do, as was suggested during the debate on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is to make sure PCB and other toxic substance traffickers are treated like criminals.
Mr. Speaker, today's papers say that a major PCB trafficker was fined $100,000. But that's practically nothing compared to the profits that can be made over two years.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal Government really wants to improve the situation, it must be recognized that it has ignored the problem for 28 months- But the issue was raised by members of the public and journalists-thank God we have journalists for that-as well as by industry and environment people. I think the federal Government can at least review our federal legislation which does not treat PCB traffickers like drug traffickers and put in place systems to investigate, from beginning to end, the movement of toxic substances in Canada.

A fundamental question will have to be answered over the next few days and weeks. Do we as Canadians want to become the garbage dump of the United States for toxic products? Do we not create enough toxic products from our own industrial, residential and commercial wastes? Perhaps we do intend to make our mark as a major garbage dump for American toxic wastes. If we are
Supply
bringing in 140,000 tonnes of the stuff legally, not including illegal importation of toxic wastes, we had better have in place a system to ensure that that toxic waste is properly disposed of.
As a result of what I have seen this week, which has been a comedy of errors and almost Keystone Cops, like the approach to the disposal of illegal hazardous waste, I do not have a lot of confidence that this Government will be able to deliver on a system which will reassure Canadians that PCBs and the other toxins coming from the United States are being properly disposed of. There is a lot of work for the Government. It would behove the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), who has said that the environment is his number one priority, as the superminister over the heads of other Ministers to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee so that we can all have some input into the process in typing it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Deputy Speaker. Questions or comments? [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce) on a question or comment.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in this debate, which I care about and in which I took part in 1987. Unfortunately, I was not at that meeting in Toronto, but it must have been the only one I missed, since Mr. Conrad spent almost three months in my office.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You telephoned Mr. Conrad.


Mr. Della  Noce@: I am a bit disappointed to see the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who was just speaking, often jump to conclusions. She even told the press yesterday that I had talked to Mr. Conrad yesterday. Then I knew where the news came from. If we talk about credibility here, we should see that the Hon. Member does not sound off so much, because there is already enough hot air in this House. I did not speak to Mr. Conrad yesterday. Unfortunately, I called him and he was not there. I would also like to say to the Hon. Member, since she was not there in Toronto, that I talked with Mr. Conrad for many hours, but only about the sales tax.

May 12, 1989
Supply
I would like to ask the Hon. Member who thinks she knows everything in this field, although I spent 25 years of my life in it, why she says it is dangerous for health, since there has not yet been any evidence that such a thing occurred. All kinds of things have happened, but not that with toxic PCBs. So I want to ask her whether she at least has any proof of these allegations, proof that an automobile could run on toxic substances. As a first class mechanic, I can tell my fellow Member that I shall bring her a carburetor and show her what a carburetor is and that such a thing cannot happen. Now if she has proof, let her say so. But if not, let her stop jumping to conclusions. Mr. Conrad worked with me and Mr. Conrad was dismissed from our association. I would like to ask her why she starts rumours. If she at least has proof, let her give it to us in this House and let her stop-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is so keen on telling the truth in the House, then why, when he was on Pierre Pascau's radio show on CKAC in Montreal this week, did he say, when they were talking about tainted fuel, that he knew that was going on? Why did he do the interview with Pierre Pascau in Montreal this week?


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Hon. Member fails to make a distinction between a tax fraud case involving the tax on gas, in which 169 charges were laid following my complaint to the Minister who was very efficient, the Minister of National Revenue at the time, not Mr. Jelinek, the other one I was talking to Mr. Pascau about the sales tax since there was never any evidence that PCBs or toxic waste were involved. There have been all kinds of fraud, but there never was- In any case, in Quebec we never had fraud involving gasoline directly. That is what I said, and you are getting gas mixed up with toxic waste.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think that the mix up, Mr. Speaker, from what the Hon. Member from Duvemay was saying, I think it is clear he admits there were allegations during the years when he was involved in the gasoline sector. He admitted as much.


Mr. Della  Noce@: It wasn't PCBs!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He admitted there were allegations about toxic products, and he came here some time ago. But he just said so, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Della  Noce@: No, I didn't.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He talked about the tax fraud issue but doesn't seem to realize what was understood by all parties who looked at the issue in Washington when they sat on a committee of Congress with the oil companies and environmentalists, namely that the tax issue is inextricably bound up with the fraudulent contamination of fuel with PCBs and other toxic products.


Mr. Della  Noce@: No,no!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He says no. When companies


Mr. Della  Noce@: No, that's not true!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It isn't true? So now the Hon. Member is playing the police investigator! It isn't true!
Mr. Speaker, when a company is prepared to ignore the tax laws, when it claims, for instance, that it ships a certain kind of gas to avoid paying tax, that company has shown that it does not intend to respect the law, and as I see it, it is quite conceivable that the company that commits a tax fraud is prepared to mix other substances with the gas to make further illegal profits. Why is it involved in tax fraud? Because it wants to make illegal profits.
These are companies that would do anything to make illegal profits-


Mr. Della  Noce@: They are criminals.


Sheila Maureen Copps: To make an illegal profit through tax fraud, these companies are prepared to mix toxic products with gasoline, to avoid having to pay $1,000 per barrel and at the same time dispose of them legally.


Mr. Della  Noce@: That's not true!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says it isn't true. Am I to conclude that the information given yesterday to the House by the Minister of National Revenue is false? Yesterday, the Minister said in the House that in September 1987, there was proof that this type of shipping was taking place between two states in the United States. And who is to say such shipments did not reach Canada? When we realize that shipping goes on between Canada and the United States every day, I think we should understand that this evidence, which is absolutely-

In Washington, the evidence is absolutely staggering as to what is going on between states. We heard about this yesterday from the Minister of National Revenue. The Member says it is false, but the Minister himself admitted yesterday in the House that there was evidence brought to them about the trafficking of illegal toxic substances between states in the United States-his
May 12, 1989

nuance, Mr. Speaker-and how he attempted some damage control. He said he did not do anything because it had not crossed the Canadian border. But the evidence is voluminous. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would rather listen to the word of a respected environmentalist-

a respected environmentalist, as the Minister of the Environment said, than to the words of the Hon. Member for Duvemay (Mr. Della Noce).


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in her remarks referred to the meeting between Mr. Conrad and the former Minister of National Revenue which took place in January, 1987. According to my understanding, the then Minister, and the officials who were present, have made it very clear that that discussion concerned only the question of excise tax evasion. If indeed Mr. Conrad had wished to raise issue at that particular time, and had done so, would it not seem logical that he would have taken a subsequent opportunity to do so when he appeared before the Finance Committee on the same issue of excise tax evasion on May 20, some five months later in 1987? Would it not seem logical that if he had conveyed that information to the Minister in early January, he then would have taken the opportunity to convey it to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance in May 1987?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the natural outcome of the question would be to suggest that Mr. Conrad was not telling the truth. I do not know why Mr. Conrad, who is not a member of the Opposition and who does not have a particular axe to grind, would be interested in bringing up a meeting that took place 28 months ago, which the Minister does not deny took place. According to a follow-up letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister, the Minister has launched an international investigation, but not into tax fraud. The international investigation that he allegedly launched involved enforcement agencies of the United States. The FBI has known about this since at least since 1987. The ADM says in his letter to Mr. Conrad that the Government is launching an international investigation into the impor-
Supply
tation of fuels. Obviously tax fraud is the major concern of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association. It is the one that has to pay the bill if there is a fraudulent tax scam. It is the receiver of the gasoline, and is the one to be hit financially.
The individual makes no bones about the fact that when he met with the Minister, his main concern and the main issue that he raised was the tax fraud. On television today from coast to coast-I did not make up the story-he said that at the same time the relationship between the tax fraud and the toxic waste mixing were inextricably linked and that the companies or the fly-bynight operations are the underbelly of the industry that was involved in trying to scam the tax man. At the same time, there are going to be even bigger profits by mixing toxins with legitimate fuel oils.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned in the last few days that the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario have focused on tax fraud and tax evasion in relation to the bootlegged oil and gas side of this issue rather than on the public health issue. We need to review the history of the poisoned fuel matter. It has become evident that Environment Canada has known about poisoned fuel in Canada since 1985, and Revenue Canada has known about since September 11, 1987. We know the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) learned of it between March 20 and March 22 of this year when Daniel Green discussed hazardous waste smuggling with the Minister of State for Transport at a meeting on the transportation of dangerous goods in Switzerland. Daniel Green also phoned the office of the Minister of the Environment and asked to speak with the chief of staff. Instead, he spoke with Ann Marie Jean. She is currently employed in the Minister's office as a special assistant.
Between April 11 and April 13 a border blitz took place involving officials of Environment Canada, Revenue Canada, the Ontario Department of the Environment, the Ontario Provincial Police and Ontario Revenue. There was one Environment Canada inspector on site whose mandate was to ensure compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canada-U.S. Agreement on Transportation of Dangerous Goods. There were no Environment Canada in-

May 12, 1989
Supply
spectors on site to investigate compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which governs "cradle to grave" PCBs and other toxic substances.
An Environment Canada official, Mr. Shantora, says that this was the only sampling of fuel crossing the border in the past year. It would appear that the focus of the border blitz was tax evasion and not public health. Three hundred and eighty- three trucks were checked, and 113 samples were taken for analysis. The samples are being analysed by the Ontario Government for the presence of PCBs and other toxic substances. On May 8 a Globe and Mail story by Jock Ferguson, backed up by two reporters from The Centre for Investigative Reporting in Washington, D.C. revealed information about hazardous waste smuggling to Canada. The Minister of the Environment said in the House and I quote:
Minister Bradley-will be in a position to gather more facts and lay charges.
It became clear at that very moment that the Minister of the Environment was not taking seriously his responsibilities either under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or in relation to the transport of toxic and hazardous substances into Canada.
There was also a quote in the same article by Mr. Ferguson:
For several weeks now we have been conducting routine border inspections, together with the Province of Ontario, to ensure compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. We intend to get in touch with the oil industry to ensure that Canadians are offered high quality gasoline.
That was the line being taken by the Minister of the Environment. By May 9, we found that Daniel Green had revealed his warnings to the Department of the Environment, and the Minister of the Environment said in the House that an official was told in Switzerland, and that the information was passed on to the Ontario Government, which action prompted the April blitz. I quote:
It was not one of my aides, but a civil servant from the department who received the general information from Mr. Green.
Of course, that is directly contradicted by the information from Daniel Green who has been described by the Minister as an extraordinary and fine individual.
The Government then announced a program to address the issue: Border blitzes, including sampling; tracing the movement of fuel from those dealers mentioned in the Globe and Mail story; contacting U.S. authorities; and working with the Canadian petroleum producers.
However, major questions earlier in the week were never answered by the Government side. Why has no attempt been made to find out whether the fuel which is heating Canadian homes, propelling their cars or sitting in Jerry cans in their carports to go into lawn mowers, or for cleaning paint brushes, was contaminated. Neither the Minister of Environment nor the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) have launched that kind of serious investigation. One can only wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister is suggesting that it is safe to bum fuel contaminated with PCBs.
There is not a toxicologist in the world who does not know that if you bum PCBs in a truck, car, lawn mower, or in anything else, you get incomplete combustion and you get furans and dioxins, which are far more lethal and far more dangerous than PCBs. One ten-thousandth of a gram of dioxin will kill you stone dead. To give you some idea of how small it is, Mr. Speaker, anyone who has vacuumed where there is a ray of sunlight coming through a window and sees those little particles of dust floating in that shaft of sunlight, one of those particles of dust weighs about 1/10,000 of a gram. That is how much dioxin there is coming out of the back end of a vehicle that is incompletely combusting PCBs. It is very, very minute quantities.
We have to ask, is the Minister satisfied that there is no PCB contaminated fuel in any Canadian home? This is the time of year when a lot of oil companies go around and top up people's tanks.
Those tanks then sit in a lot of basements and a lot of warm areas, in many cases improperly ventilated, almost always in the lower portion of a home. Why is the Government not doing at least some spot checks to find out? We heard from Mr. Volpe on CBC this morning that there may be nine million litres, not just of fuel, but nine million litres of contamination in terms of various
May 12, 1989

toxic wastes that may be sitting in Canadians' cars, trucks, homes and fuel tanks at various gas stations and so on. Why is it not being located? Why are those people who are most likely to handle it not being advised of the health dangers that they face if they are pumping gas all day long and getting gasoline and diesel on their hands that may be highly contaminated, and not just with PCBs. I will come to the other toxics in a moment.
The Minister of the Environment then suggests that the April 11 to April 13 blitz was prompted by the environmentalist Daniel Green's warning. Only one Environment Canada inspector was on site. There were no inspectors to ensure compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the keystone piece of legislation for which the Minister is responsible in this matter. Why are there so few environmental inspectors, Mr. Speaker? There are 77 for the whole of Canada responsible under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Budget promises 56 more but we have heard of positions promised before.
Currently, even the City of Ottawa has almost as many people making sure there are no parking violations as the federal Government has to check for environmental infractions in the whole country. There are 66 people who hand out parking tickets just in the City of Ottawa.
We know now that this extremely serious criminal conspiracy has been going on for at least four years. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Environment Canada has known about poisoned fuel being in Canada since 1985.
What about British Columbia? We have not heard from the Government side. No statement has been released to assure British Columbians about toxic fuel that is apparently coming from California into British Columbia. We have heard no statement from Ministers or from Departments about the Province of Alberta, which apparently has toxic contaminated and poisoned fuel coming from the State of Idaho into Alberta.
We know that in Quebec and Ontario it has been coming principally from the Buffalo area, in the State of New York. We know that for the last five months there
Supply
has been a co-ordinating police strike force in Buffalo investigating what has been going on there.
We hear from the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada in his statement to the House on privilege yesterday morning, that all that there had been as far as he is aware was the September 11, 1987 meeting in Toronto. When the FBI has the Canadian border staked out, wanting to see what is going on, they know with certainty there is an interstate movement of poison fuel. We also know that the investigation was focusing on bootlegged fuel coming into Canada, which was Ontario's apparent chief concern. They were trying to capture those provincial taxes, hundreds of millions of dollars per year over the last four or five years. It goes beyond credibility to think that neither the FBI nor anyone from the co-ordinated strike force, nor anyone from any of the state authorities, nor anyone from the state tax authorities would have come to anyone at any of those Canadian border crossings and said: "Look, you should watch out. We know there is the interstate transfer of poisoned fuel. You should be watching out for it".
I think that defies credulity, Mr. Speaker, and I think that goes to the heart of the problem that Canadians are having with the position being taken by the Government that it simply did not know until Monday. We know Environment Canada knew in 1985. We know that Revenue Canada knew since 1987. We know the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) knew since the March meeting in Switzerland.
How do we deal with it, Mr. Speaker? It is an extremely serious matter. I think going back and forth over the history of the matter is helpful, but there are an awful lot of Canadians who want to know how the Government should deal with this kind of an extremely serious situation.
A few months ago, the Minister of Environment, new to his portfolio, responded to the concerns of residents of Quebec and Ontario regarding the 170,000 tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste being trucked into the two provinces from the United States, and indicated that legislative steps were going to be taken to stop the flow of toxic and hazardous wastes from the U.S. into Canada. The Department of Environment has known for many months that large quantities of toxic and hazardous wastes were coming from the United States. Why were they coming? The reason for that is very obvious.

May 12, 1989
Supply
According to Congressman Synor, who has been on television lately, 250 million tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste were produced last year in the United States. Their landfills are filling very quickly. What has happened is that the cost for storage of contaminated materials at landfills has increased massively.
For example, we know that it costs $1,000 to take a 45 gallon drum of PCBs to a proper land-fill. The cost for dumping at all regular dumps in the northeastern interior of the United States has gone from $10 a tonne to $25 a tonne. Many of our land-fills and dumps in Canada are not properly engineered, not properly regulated and many of them do not even have anyone at a gate. One can simply drive in with a truck and dump whatever one likes, without permit, licence or anything.
The Minister of the Environment will know that a former Minister of the Environment, John Roberts, advised Canadians some years ago that about 80 per cent of toxic and hazardous waste produced in Canada is either improperly or illegally dumped. It is dumped on farmers' fields, in creeks, in unlicensed and unregulated land-fills.
As the toxic and hazardous waste problem in the United States reaches crisis proportions, where are they looking to get rid of the materials? Why have mob figures now come to be attached to the whole issue of contaminated waste in the United States? The reason is obvious. The producers would have to pay $1,000 to have a barrel of PCBs properly disposed of, to be eventually incinerated or sealed in a land-fill. The mob buys it. They do not take it to a secure proper land-fill, they dump it into empty tankers. We know this from the work that has already been done by police forces and investigators in the United States. TTiey then go to a virgin fuel filling station and fill the rest of the tanker with virgin fuel, either diesel, gasoline or home-heating fuel, then truck it into Canada.
We know that there was only one fuel test in the past year at Canada's border. It would be obvious to any of those criminal conspirators that one of the best places to get rid of the stuff is not through an interstate transfer where they could get caught and be chased by the FBI in the United States, but to bring it to the nearest neighbour, Canada, and sell it at bargain basement prices, avoiding taxes. But it puts Canadian health seriously at risk.
The Minister of the Environment knows how serious the problem of contaminants has become in Canada. Canadians from coast to coast are aware that one of the great symbols of Canada, the polar bear, is now at risk from PCB contamination. The young males now walking in the Arctic may be the last breeding population of polar bears left in the Arctic. The Minister of the Environment knows the mobility of a lot of those toxic contaminants. They can move through the atmosphere and then, like many of the toxic and hazardous materials, bio-accumulate and bio-magnify. That means that the very small levels of lindane, PCBs and other contaminants moving through the atmosphere, go into the Arctic because of the climatic conditions there, into the marine system and build up in the shrimp and so on. They build up in the seals. We know that there are very high levels of PCBs in the milk of Inuit mothers.
One would have thought that the sanctity and purity of Canada's Arctic was still there. Canadians are now just awakening to the fact that even our northern most pristine environments are becoming contaminated by the unregulated and illegal dumping and handling of toxic and hazardous materials.
We must deal with the issue as though we are on ground zero. Many people around the planet recognize that this whole issue of contaminates are just as risky for humanity as is the potential of nuclear war and nuclear winter. The insidious movement of toxic, hazardous and contaminated materials into our environment, into our wildlife, into food systems and into our air is ending up back in our bodies. It is setting in play genetic time bombs for our future. We cannot predict how great or serious the cancer risk will be. We know that PCBs cause nerve damage, brain damage and serious skin disorders, but the genetic damage that could be happening in this country right now in relation to these contaminants could be extremely high.
If the mob is buying up drums of PCBs to save producers $1,000 a barrel, it is very likely, if not without doubt, picking up the more dangerous and higher contaminants and doing exactly the same thing with them. That is ground zero.

What about zero tolerance? Why has the Minister of the Environment not done exactly the same thing as one would expect with the drug epidemic? The United States went to zero tolerance in relation to those crossing the border with drugs in their vehicles. Now, in the era of deregulation, when the federal Government has direct responsibility for international truck traffic and interprovincial truck traffic, we see the dawn of deregulation.
How many trucks are coming in with contaminated fuel in their gas tanks? How many tankers are coming in with contaminated fuel in the tanks? There are 170,000 tonnes of licensed toxic and hazardous waste coming from the United States, but we do not even know where it goes once it comes into Canada. We must move precipitously to zero tolerance for the importation of toxic and hazardous materials, whether it is in poison fuels, in trucks or anything else.
We must get our own house in order in terms of toxic and hazardous waste. We have not even dealt with the 2,300 PCB sites here in Canada that require incineration. We have not even dealt with the problem at home, in our Territories or provinces, yet there is this avalanche of hazardous and toxic materials coming from the United States.
The United States must also go to zero tolerance. There is information that Canada has also been shipping poison fuel from Canada back into the United States.
The question of zero discharge is something the Minister of the Environment must adopt as his foremost policy. The Minister has recognized the need to do it in terms of pulp mill effluent, in terms of organo chlorines, dioxins and so on. The Minister must deal seriously with the issue of toxic and hazardous waste by making it clear that toxic and hazardous waste produced at any mill site or industrial site anywhere in Canada stays on the mill site until there is an appropriate means of properly disposing of it. Once those toxic and hazardous wastes leave the site, it opens the door to the criminal conspiracies we are now investigating and the U.S. Congress is investigating. Once the waste is out there, the companies that are set up look for the cheapest possible way to get rid of those materials.
Supply
Not too long ago I was at the Love Canal with some Members of the House. The New York public interest group, on its way to the Love Canal to show it to the parliamentary committee, passed the Hudson River, which had been on fire. That is how much toxic and hazardous material is being dumped into some waterways in the United States. Someone driving over a bridge threw a cigarette into the Hudson River and, because there was so much toxic and contaminated waste on the surface of the river, it caught fire.
There is a serious crisis with toxic and hazardous waste. Polar bears all over Canada are facing contamination. The fishery in Prince Rupert harbour is closed because of dioxin contamination. The shellfish, prawns and shrimp cannot even be taken out of what everyone assumes is a pristine marine environment.
There must be zero discharge. The Minister of the Environment has an absolute responsibility to move immediately to require zero discharge and the maintenance of those toxic and hazardous wastes on site. When those wastes leave the site we know, according to a former Minister of the Environment, that 80 per cent of the toxic and hazardous waste created in Canada is either illegally or improperly disposed of.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) said it was fear mongering to talk about the possible health implications of having potentially millions of gallons of toxic and hazardous materials in fuel for cars, lawn mowers, trucks, homes and so on. The Government spent $2.7 million trying to convince Canadians about the impact of the national debt. It is very helpful for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to find $2.7 million for that purpose, but what kind of Government would not take the same steps to publish a health alert to advise Canadians of how best to avoid coming into direct contact with toxic and hazardous materials. We know that in 1985 the Minister of the Environment knew there was PCB contaminated poison fuel in Canada. The Government knew about it four years ago. Steps have been missed all the way along.
We must have zero tolerance. We must face up to the fact that we are at ground zero. We must deal with this issue with a sense of urgency. That is the only way to protect the health of Canadians now and in the future.

May 12, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed with Statements by Members with the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was proud to join with Mr. Vince DeVita, President of CDA Industries, in opening CDA's Atlanta marketing office. The office will further the substantial contacts CDA has already made in the U.S. as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.
Vince DeVita and CDA Industries represent the true spirit of Canadian entrepreneurial talent. Starting with virtually nothing 30 years ago, Mr. DeVita has created the largest display advertising company in Canada employing close to 130 in Scarborough, and many more in his plant in Mississauga. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, CDA is already negotiating new American contracts which will expand its operations in Scarborough.
I salute Vince DeVita and CDA as they continue to demonstrate that free enterprise and free trade works.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, General Manuel Noriega of Panama, a criminal on several counts, has denied the people of Panama the basic democratic right to bring to power their choice of Government. Meanwhile, our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) makes a feeble public statement pertaining to "election fraud" and a "volatile situation" in Panama.
Canada is losing all credibility nationally and internationally as an independent, caring, peace-promoting nation. Through unconscionable budget cut-backs in
official development assistance we are blindly telling the starving to tighten their non-existent belts because we have had a drought. Our budget cut-backs will have the direct effect of causing thousands of human beings to die. Are we now going to passively watch a fragile democracy in Panama die too?
Panamanians and Latin American countries want a diplomatic solution, not a U.S. military solution to the current impasse in Panama.
The people of Panama deserve more than a whimper from Canada. I implore the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take action, to take a strong independent Canadian stand today supporting the voice of Panamanians and other Latin American countries to promote democracy and peace through non-military intervention in Panama.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, international and inter-provincial trucking are areas of federal jurisdiction. In light of that fact and in light of recent revelations about the transborder shipping of hazardous wastes and dangerous goods, and since the provinces have shown themselves unable or unwilling to inspect adequately inter-provincial and international trucking, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) must immediately carry out his responsibility and implement a program of full inspections of trucks carrying dangerous goods across international and provincial boundaries.
A truck carrying dangerous goods crossing an international or provincial boundary should be inspected to determine whether or not it meets safety and maintenance standards, and to ensure that all federal and provincial taxes have been paid. It should also undergo direct inspection as to the nature of the cargo, whether properly contained and loaded, and a determination as to whether or not the cargo is contaminated with toxic wastes.
Instead of that, we have chaos-13 jurisdictions all dabbling in the situation. There is no standard set of guidelines, rules and regulations. There are no uniform standards. Instead, we have incompetence and negligence which are the order of the day for the Government and the respective Ministers responsible.
May 12, 1989



NATIONAL HEALTH WEEK


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating today throughout the country Canada Health Day.
It is in recognition of the skills and dedication of thousands of volunteers and health care professionals who contribute to the high quality of health care in Canada, consequently making of the Canadian health care system one of the best in the world.
This year's theme is about the involvement of volunteers into health promotion.
Therefore I invite all Canadians to celebrate this annual event sponsored jointly by the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Public Health Association.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate both those associations for taking the initiative of holding such an event.



FORESTRY


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured today to rise in the House to commemorate National Forest Week.
Today, New Brunswick ranks second only to British Columbia in terms of the importance of forestry to the province's economy. Indeed, the forest industry is one of the pillars of New Brunswick's economy, accounting for over $1 billion in exports and 8 per cent of the province's Gross Domestic Product.
New Brunswick was recently honoured, as was my riding, when Nackawic, New Brunswick, was chosen to be the national forest capital in 1991. I believe this designation capsulizes the historic and continuing importance of the forest industry in my province.



NATIONAL POLICE WEEK


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, next week will be National Police Week across Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks, as I know every Member of the House would do likewise, to the police officers across our country who serve the public so well.
An example of this service is the many officers who participate in fund-raising activities for the Special Olympics. Last year, 3,200 police officers donated their time and efforts to raising close to $400,000 for the Special Olympics. This project, sponsored by the Association of Chiefs of Police, has been in existence for three years now. This year's goal is three-quarters of a million dollars.
On behalf of this House I would like to offer our sincere appreciation and thanks to those officers across Canada who have given selflessly of themselves to assist the .Special Olympics.
I would also like to thank the members of police forces throughout our country for the excellent service they provide within our communities.



FORESTRY


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago almost to the day, I made a statement in this House regarding the devastation caused by forest fires in western Canada which were raging out of control. As I speak it is happening all over again.
As we celebrate Manitoba Day today, hundreds of residents of Jackhead, Fisher River, Ashern, Seymour-ville, Manigotagan, and Hollow Water have been evacuated. Dozens of homes have been destroyed.
Today, present weather conditions being hot and windy, the situation begs our deepest concern and consideration.

My discussion last night with the provincial Minister of Natural Resources, Harry Enns, outlined the real tragedy of this devastation. Almost all the fires have been started by careless individuals.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago four members of the Guatemalan Government in exile, the RUOG, entered Guatemala to participate in the peace process. They were accompanied by a number of Canadians.
In the last two days there have been a number of death threats made against this delegation, both in Guatemala and in Canada. I raised this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) two weeks ago. I have been unable to confirm whether or not he has been able to act on my request that he speak to the Guatemalan Government about this concern.
In view of these death threats I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to act today to notify the Guatemalan Government that we in Canada hold that Government accountable for the protection of Canadian citizens in Guatemala participating in this peace process.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, once again parts of the West, primarily in the south, show indications that we may have to endure another summer of incredible drought. Surface moisture at this time is quite adequate but the subsurface moisture is very low.
Yesterday and the day before we had incredibly hot winds. However, it is also true that there is sufficient water, if managed properly.
Well over 50 per cent of the snowfall and the rain is lost in the spring runoff. It is lost for irrigation systems, fishing, and water systems for towns.
With properly built dams this water can produce food, not only for Canada but for the entire world. They can also provide water for the many towns and villages in western Canada.
The point is that irrigation dams are good investments. They can enrich the dry areas of Canada and, indeed, the world.



ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying that the "environment is a new preoccupation", supposedly for the Government. I welcome him into the real world.
In view of the fact that these tainted fuels have been coming into our country, and in view of the fact that two of the busiest crossings are in the Niagara Peninsula, where I represent an area, in Niagara Falls and in Fort Erie, it is incumbent upon the Government to take its responsibilities as a spokesman between two nations, Canada and the United States, and it should have done something long before now about the tainted fuel.
Like thousands of Canadians, I was shocked to learn that tainted fuels have entered Canada and have been sold to unsuspecting patrons. If an investigation proves that gasoline containing hazardous waste and cancer-causing PCBs has been knowingly sold by operators, because they are the last end before people get hold of it to use, they should be charged with criminal negligence and punished to the greatest extent of the law.



MOTHER'S DAY


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May 14, is Mothers' Day. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all Canadian mothers, especially mine and those of my constituents in Montreal North-Bourassa. I also wish a happy Mothers' Day to all nuns and teachers, in fact to all those women who play a maternal role by giving birth to children, by
May 12, 1989

feeding them and by helping them grow mentally as well as physically.
We know that family is the basis of our society and that the mother is the core of the family. We have to thank those women who, through their unconditional dedication, make sure the values we hold as a nation are passed on to our children.
To all Canadian mothers, thank you and happy Mothers' Day!
\English]



COMMEMORATION OF THE BIRTH OF FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, today is the anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, and it is also Nurses' Week in Canada.
I invite Members of the House to pay tribute to the service provided to Canadians by Canada's more than
200,000	professional nurses.
I would also invite my colleagues to respond quickly to the crisis in nursing in Canada today. There are thousands of vacant nursing positions in Canada that cannot be filled. This causes serious problems in health care delivery. Nursing is a strenuous and demanding profession, and people are leaving it because of low wages, unacceptable working conditions, and a lack of opportunity to provide effective, professional input into the delivery of health care.
The Government, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), must respond quickly to the nursing crisis, providing more resources to improve salaries, working conditions, and provide nurses with an opportunity to share as team members in the health care decision-making process.
Perhaps the most important message from nurses to Canadians today is that we spend too much of the $46.2 billion in the health care budget treating sick people rather than keeping healthy people healthy.
Oral Questions NATO



NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION IN EUROPE

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of ending the cold war and achieving nuclear disarmament was never greater than it is today. As the Soviet Union makes important proposals for arms reductions with the withdrawal of 500 tactical warheads in Eastern Europe this year, and a further offer to pull out all nuclear arms by 1991, if this is matched by the United States, now is the time for Canada to take a strong stand on this crucial issue.
Canada should join with those NATO allies that favour a nuclear-free future by urging the reduction of short-range missiles in the West.
West Germany has been asking for such steps as the weapons sit on its soil. Certain NATO allies clearly see that this move will bring us closer to an end to the nuclear arms race. The cold war can end and it is imperative that Canada, long recognized as a peacekeeping nation, be instrumental in its demise.
Nuclear weapons could destroy this planet and 800 million lives in 12 hours. Let us not miss this chance to guarantee our survival and banish these weapons from Europe forever.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago Canadian pork was first exported to Japan. In recognition of this important event, the Canadian Meat Council has this day held a special seminar in Tokyo for several hundred key Japanese importers and senior government officials. Agriculture Canada is financially supporting this important industry initiative.
The purpose of the seminar is to show Japan that the Canadian pork industry produces a quality product that is second to none, and that the industry is committed to providing its Japanese customers with the consistent supply of pork that meets their demanding specifications.

May 12, 1989
Oral Questions
Japan is an important market for Canada's agri-food products. Last year our exports of those products to Japan totalled almost $1.5 billion. Pork exports accounted for $130 million of this amount.
The Canadian Meat Council and this country's pork industry recognize that there is a potential for even greater sales to this lucrative market. The Canadian Government applauds this initiative and we are pleased to be able to support their efforts through Agriculture Canada and the Department of External Affairs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, let me briefly review the events of the environmental situation this week in Canada.
The Minister of the Environment told the House that he knew nothing about the transportation of toxic waste gas into this country from the United States until Monday. The Minister of State for Transport heard allegations in March and claims she took action. The Minister of National Revenue states that he knew nothing about the shipment of toxic fuels until this week. The Minister of Public Works states that he was at a meeting on January 7, 1987, while he was still Revenue Minister, and that meeting was about the shipment of toxic fuels, but he denies that any allegations were made. The Solicitor General says that he only heard about it this week. The Minister of Health knows absolutely nothing about it, but in his usual style claims he is on top of the issue.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister haul in this group of bumbling, incompetent Ministers, get them together, get their story together, and produce a straightforward version for Canadians that we can have in a definitive fashion about who knew what, when, why, and where about this toxic mess?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very strange business.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: That's for sure.


Lucien Bouchard: We all know that the Leader of the Opposition was a prestigious lawyer and that he made magnificent performances before courts of law because he knew then what were the rules of evidence. Now, on the statement of Mr. Conrad, he is basing the fact that a Minister of the Crown would have been made aware of advance allegations of the commerce of tainted fuel from the United States to Canada.
First, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that no mention at all was made in the statement about transboundary movement from the United States to Canada of such tainted fuel. It was only about tainted fuel within the states.
Second, if Mr. Conrad was so preoccupied with the question to the point of raising it during such a meeting with the Minister, why did he not raise it five months later when he appeared before the Finance Committee and where he could express his preoccupation with the commerce of fuel? He did not raise the question then. That was the place to do it, and he did not do it.


MINISTERIAL NEGLIGENCE
Right Hon. John N. Dirner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is contagious Ministerial negligence. We have a seeping incompetence. We have Ministers who do not talk to each other.
I recognize, in turn, that the Hon. Minister was a leading counsel in Quebec and in Chicoutimi, le grand royaume du Saguenay.
What we are dealing with here is the confused evidence of Ministers in the House. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he produce a coherent story.
Frankly, since the Minister questions the statement of one of the witnesses, I think Canadians are more inclined to believe the statements of one of Canada's leading environmentalists, and the statements of the head of one of Canada's leading petroleum associations, than they are to believe the confused denials of Ministers in the House.
At the time the Prime Minister appointed this Minister of the Environment, he said he was going to be a czar of the environment. He was going to co-ordinate all the Departments on environmental policy. He was going to
May 12, 1989

bring Ministers together. He was going to make the environment the number one priority.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister when-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Go talk to the PLO or something.


Mr. Andre:: Does anybody here know Beauchesne's?


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: -will he or the Prime Minister refer this whole toxic mess to a parliamentary committee in order that we can have a full public inquiry?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is more interested in engaging in political rhetoric rather than getting to the bottom of the issue.
What has been done is that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have this morning had a number of meetings with their provincial counterparts. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has held several meetings with the industry to work out a comprehensive plan to deal with this very specific issue. At an appropriate time, a comprehensive action plan will, in fact, be presented. It may be later this day.
What is important is to take action to get to the bottom of this issue to try to resolve it, rather than trace what might have been and who might have said what when.
Mr. T\irner (Vancouver Quadra): If you had had
competent Ministers, that would have been right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member says that this thing should be referred to a Parliamentary committee. He has always chastized the Government for its failure to deal effectively in a Parliamentary sense with these kinds of issues. I remind him that under Parliamentary reform the committee of the Environment or any other standing committee, if it so desires, can seize the issue and if the Standing Committee on the Environment would so desire to study the issue in full detail, I am sure
Oral Questions
it would have the full support of the Government, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think we have brought the Deputy Prime Minister some way here. If he would just add the phrase, "not only the full support of the Government, but to be referred specifically to the committee on the environment", then we would be very satisfied.


REQUEST THAT MATTER BE REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has the largest Cabinet


An Hon. Member:: Careful now!


John Napier Turner: Ministers are somewhat touchy and disorganized this morning, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs who always wants to be the Speaker of the House. There are limits.
The Prime Minister has the largest Cabinet in the history of this country. Is that why his Ministers cannot even talk to one another? Is the Cabinet so overtaken by the events that Ministers no longer speak to public servants? Is it so busy that Ministers no longer know which way to turn with respect to the scandal in environmental and health matters which has now lasted over two years?
Mr. Speaker, since the Ministers are obviously more concerned about saving their own hides than they are about protecting public health, can the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The question, please.


John Napier Turner: Can the Deputy Prime Minister now assure us that he will try to convince the Prime Minister that the Government should refer to the environment committee the whole question of this scandal concerning the environment and the toxic products that are have been trucked into Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it seems quite obvious from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that his Party

May 12, 1989
Oral Questions
is not interested in seizing the initiative to have this matter brought before the Parliamentary committee.
If the Opposition is not prepared to seize this initiative, I can tell the Hon. Member that the Government will. Of course we will refer this matter to the committee, much, I am sure, to the disappointment of the Right Hon. Member.


Mr.   TUmer@Vancouver Quadra: I like it. Thank you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reference has already been made to the Committee on Transport but obviously the Minister of Transport has not informed the Deputy Prime Minister of that.


An Hon. Member:: Why was your leader asking for it then?


TRANSPORTATION OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL IN THE UNITED STATES
Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the current Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House the current Minister of National Revenue stated for the record, and I believe he believes himself to be an honourable Member, that:
I am further advised that during the discussions on fuel import fraud, which took place at the time, a reference was made to the transport of contaminated material between states in the United States.
I would ask the Minister to review the following:
At no time was there any allegation made about toxic materials being placed in fuels for export to Canada.
Does the Minister stand by that statement? And I ask him, before he lets the House know whether he has reviewed that statement with people who were at the meeting, including Ken Lowry, Sheldon Kates, Stanley Horvath, Mr. Hart, and from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, Ken Christoff?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, our officials spoke to all seven of the officials who attended that meeting some 18 or 19 months ago. I can confirm that the discussion from the informant was a reference to the possibility of contaminated fuels being shipped transborder within the United States. When I say trans-border, that is to say between one state and another state, and that no evidence and no suggestion of contaminated
fuel coming into Canada was made by the informer or by anybody else.
I was surprised to note the Hon. Member for Hamilton East in this morning's debate stated and quoted the informant, to whom she claims she spoke, who said, as she said, "who offered to supply them"-that is to say Revenue officials-"with the criminal nature of toxic products being put into waste in 1987". That is exactly the same information we have received, namely, toxic waste being put into fuel in the United States for shipments within the United States. But no, no evidence then or since has come to this Government or to any of our Ministers. When the Leader of the Opposition says there is confusion here, I can tell him that there is nothing but consistency here and we have acted properly and straightforwardly from the very beginning.


TRANS-BORDER SHIPMENT OF CONTAMINATED FUELS INTO CANADA
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I spoke once more to the informant this morning, and again the informant, who was at the meeting, stated-


An Hon. Member:: What is his name?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where else would I find out who participated in the meeting? Ken Christoff, Ken Lowry, Mr. Hart from Canada Customs, Sheldon Kates and Stanley Horvath.
The informant stated categorically that the reason he was there and the reason he was brought there by the RCMP was so that he could tell this group about the trans-border transportation of PCBs coming into Canada from the United States, specifically PCB-laced fuels, and that the Government refused his offer to continue to provide them with information on this very serious matter. The Government ignored the whole thing.


Otto John Jelinek: That, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Somebody is lying.


Otto John Jelinek: -is absolutely not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You were there.


Otto John Jelinek: This informant, who at that time was serving a 15-year prison term for theft-


Mr. Beatty:: Sheila's source of information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -according to the seven Revenue people who were there, at no time made any reference to the possibility of toxic waste coming into Canada in fuels.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Guess which one Sheila believes though?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


An Hon. Member:: This is ridiculous.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: This is a serious matter and there is nothing but catcalls from across the way, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I am sure by now he is aware that Ttirbo Resources of Alberta discovered poisoned fuel containing 6,000 parts per million PCBs in 1985. That was reported directly to Bruce Thompson of Environment Canada.
Can the Minister tell Canadians today why no federal action was taken concerning the finding of that poisoned fuel in Alberta?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the information the Government obtained is known. I personally had my officials check the Department's files for recent years up to today. All information I have obtained so far shows that our Department never had any information about the shipment of PCB-tainted petroleum products from the United States to Canada. We only had specific allegations in Monday morning's Globe and Mail. But since then, we have acted quickly and diligently.
This morning, together with my colleague from Health and Welfare Canada and our provincial Environment colleagues from Ontario and Quebec, we announced a four-point plan that will take effect in the coming days, in the next few hours. This plan first involves a central investigation coordinated by the RCMP with the full integrated cooperation of the police forces in Quebec
Oral Questions
and Ontario, the FBI, the U.S. EPA and the enforcement officials of our departments.
In addition, I announced that we would close nearly a hundred entry points for American petroleum on the Canadian border, to concentrate our resources at some fifty entry points only. Mr. Speaker, one need only look at what we have done to see that the results are very good.
Furthermore, I would like to add one final thing-


TESTING OF IMPORTED FUELS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago when there was no evidence of poisoned grapes or produce from Chile being on the shelves in Canada, all of those products were removed from the shelves and the products that were en route to Canada were blocked from coming here. Since serious matters of public health cannot be adequately aired either during Question Period or in debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and since the Minister is now aware that there is substantiated evidence that poisoned fuel from California has gone into British Columbia, that poisoned fuel from Idaho has gone into Alberta and that poisoned fuel from Buffalo, New York has gone into Quebec and Ontario, does the Minister not believe, looking back at what the Minister of National Health and Welfare did in relation to potentially poisoned products from Chile, that every transport or shipment of fuels from the United States should be tested at this time and that those locations within Canada that potentially have poisoned fuel should be tested now?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in summary, that is the plan we announced this morning, with a few variations. As everyone knows, we take very seriously the allegations that have been going around since Monday morning. Nevertheless, we must say, we must in truth tell the House that all the laboratory results that we have obtained since yesterday from the samples taken in April in Ontario as part of the surprise operation that was completely unannounced and the results from the analyses of samples we took ourselves the day before yesterday show no PCBs. This does not mean that none will turn up eventually. But so

May 12, 1989
Oral Questions
far, nothing has yet been found, despite very many inspections. But we shall continue to be vigilant.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of the Environment is so sure of what he has been saying since Monday, will he trigger an inquiry under a piece of legislation for which he is responsible, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and investigate whether Ministers of the Crown, officials of the Government of Canada, transporters, wholesalers and retailers have complied with Sections 36 and 24 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? The Minister is directly responsible for that. Will he trigger such an investigation?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that I hope to be able to issue today an interim order which will add 97 waste types to the list of substances forbidden in Canada under CEPA.


EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED FUELS
Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Two days ago, the Minister was asked what steps his ministry had taken to monitor the health risk to Canadians from illegal shipments of PCB contaminated fuel. The Minister told the House that his ministry is monitoring vegetables and water plants.
We all know that the greatest risk to Canadians is through direct inhalation of fumes from the combustion of these toxic substances. When will the Minister implement a program to screen individuals in industries of greatest exposure to these fumes in order to assess the full degree of contamination of these workers?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for introducing facts into this discussion. It is probably appropriate to point out that to date, with all of the testing that has been done, both by the Government of Ontario and by the Government of Canada, no evidence has as yet been found of PCBs being put into fuel oil or
into gasoline. Notwithstanding that fact, both the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario and the Federal Ministry do test from time to time the food supply or the water supply to ensure that there is no generalized threat. We have found no instance, either federally or provincially, of changes in PCB levels which would be of concern either in the food supply or the water supply in Ontario.
The other thing we have done is indicate that if any evidence does turn up as a result of the work being done by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, or by the work being done by the Government of Ontario to suggest that fuels laden with PCBs have in fact been burned, we will do precisely that and will do follow-up tests. However, it makes sense to me to find out whether in fact this has taken place in the first place, and second, if it has, who will be doing it.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister will only act when he finds PCBs in three Chilean grapes.


HEALTH EFFECTS ON CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, knowing that small construction sites are the most prone to using fuel from small independent sources and given that unsuspecting drivers and construction workers at these sites have been handling and burning dangerous PCB contaminated fuels, when will the Minister take responsibility for the health of these workers, which is no laughing matter? When will he stop hiding behind his colleagues on the front bench and take the lead in acting to protect the health of these Canadians?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will step out in front of my colleagues on the front bench to point something out to the Hon. Member. It would be helpful if, before she reads her supplementary question, she listened to the response to the first question. The response to the first question pointed out that notwithstanding all of the investigations by the Government of Ontario and the federal Government to date, no evidence has been found to substantiate her allegation that such PCB laden fuels have been burned. Perhaps she could listen to the responses, learn from them and not make irresponsible allegations.
May 12, 1989


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whoever the Acting Minister is, because the Prime Minister is not here.
One of the basic principles in the groundfish management plan of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the following:
Allocation of fishery resources will be on the basis of equity taking into account adjacency to the resource, the relative dependence of coastal communities and various fleet sectors upon a given resource, economic efficiency and fleet mobility.
I am sure that this has been the policy of the Department of Fisheries for many years. In light of Clearwater and now National Sea Products each closing down two Nova Scotia fishing communities, Lockeport and Port Mouton, communities which have always had fish landed at the wharves to provide the people with a living, will the Minister either reallocate the boats which have historically fished out of these communities or reallocate part of the fish quotas given to the companies, to the communities and therefore ensure the economic survival of the people of these communities?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the quotas that are allocated are allocated to enterprises. They are enterprise allocations. They are not quotas allocated to communities or to plants. They are allocated to enterprises and that is what has been done in this case in a fair and equitable manner.
The problem is that the quota losses that were suffered by National Sea Products in the last five years have been greater in waters off Nova Scotia and therefore the impact on employment is more severe in Nova Scotia. In the case of Lockeport, there was 25,000 tonnes of quota in the general area of Lockeport in 1982. Today, there is only about 1,400 tonnes of quota in waters adjacent to Lockeport. The most severe decrease in quotas, I think a decrease of four-fifths, has occurred in the South Nova area.
Oral Questions
The problem is that there has been a severe loss of fish resources off South West Nova in the last several years due to a number of reasons including over-fishing and under-reporting of catches in a deplorable manner by certain people in that area, and the Department of Fisheries and others have been trying to correct that. That is one of the reasons for this problem-


Coline M. Campbell: Answer my question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think I have answered your question. If I have not, ask it again.


CAPE NORTH FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLER
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question. Yesterday he was quoted in the papers as saying that he is trying to find options. I gave him an option for these communities. These communities historically have lived by the sea. There is nothing else. They had fish landed there. The boats that were taken away by Clearwater and National are the livelihood of these communities. My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister might listen to it for one of his options, is in view of the fact that the Cape North, our National Sea's freezer factory ship, that this Government gave a licence to, along with others, catches fish 20 miles within the coastline of these communities, Lockeport and Port Mouton, and the fishermen in these communities cannot go fishing during the summer months, will the Minister now direct National Sea to send its fleet to fish underutilized species as it was supposed to do when it was given its freezer factory licence? This would allow fish that is within 20 miles of the coast to be caught by this freezer factory ship to be fished and processed by the people on shore in these communities.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the factory-freezer trawler, Cape North, was given a five-year experimental licence under an arrangement that expires in 1990. Of course, that arrangement will be reviewed then. But I can say that that vessel has the ability to fish quotas that National Sea has which cannot be caught and processed for economic or operational reasons by the wet fish fleet. It can fish in a more adverse environment than the majority of the wet fish fleet. At present they are fishing for red fish which they can process on board. In the fall the company is

Oral Questions
directing them to fish for cod and 2-GH and underutilized species which, if successful, will be very encouraging. So the vessel is not fishing for fish stocks that are suitable for processing in wet fish plants.


Coline M. Campbell: They are processing pollack there.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are fishing for red fish. They are not fishing for species that can be processed in wet fish plants. Do I have to repeat it again, Mr. Speaker? What do we have to do to give the facts to this Opposition which does care about facts?


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Garth  Dimer@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have heard some extremely serious allegations in this House about tainted fuel coming into this country. A lot of those allegations have come from Mr. Tim Conrad, executive director of the Canadian Petroleum Products Marketing Board. I would like to know if the Minister of National Revenue has had a chance to review those allegations. If so, would he inform this House as to their validity?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion on Mr. Conrad's statements. Once he said that there was explicit mention of contaminated fuel in the discussions with my predecessor some years ago. This morning on Canada AM, referring to the same meeting, Mr. Conrad said and I quote:
While the meeting focused primarily on tax evasion, so we didn't
deal explicitly with the toxic contamination.
Further to that, on that same date of the meeting, January 7, 1987, Mr. Conrad sent a letter to Mr. MacKay, my predecessor, regarding strategy on tax evasion. Nowhere in that letter was there reference made to contaminated fuels. If Mr. Conrad was indeed concerned about contaminated fuels, surely he would have made mention of it either in a letter or a few months later in the committee hearings on waste disposal. There is no record anywhere, at any time of Mr. Conrad making any statements in respect of contaminated fuels.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
OPPOSmON TO CLAW-BACK PROVISIONS
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance about the Budget's betrayal of old age pensioners and seniors in this country. The Minister has conceded that the claw-back provisions of the Budget are not fully indexed. This means that the number of older Canadians hit by the old age pension tax will double in the next 10 years. In fact, in 20 years, one in four seniors will have their old age pension cheques, which they have earned by their contribution to this country, taxed back.
My question is this: Four years ago, faced with the united opposition of seniors in this country to the Government's attack on old age pensions through deindexing, the Government backed down. Will the Minister tell this House, faced now with the united opposition of seniors across this country to his claw-back provisions, that the Government will back down from this onerous and obnoxious provision?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Let me
comment on the Hon. Member's question. First, we are asking a wide range of Canadians, particularly those who are best able to bear the additional burden, to join with us in our attack on the debt and the deficit. If we can get this debt down, if we can get it under control, we are going to make for a better country, a healthier country for the children and the grandchildren of the people that the Hon. Member is talking about.
This particular measures affects 4.3 per cent of elderly Canadians. Less than 2 per cent will have the whole amount of their old age security recovered. It will be done through the tax system. The existing old age security is also subject to taxation. We are just changing the nature of the taxation of the program.
The Hon. Member is referring to the indexation of this. We have said quite clearly in the Budget papers that we will review this on an ongoing basis, as we have other elements of indexation in the tax system. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions previously in this House, we have made changes in the tax reform that affected the low-income thresholds that came into place in 1987.
May 12, 1989


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CLAW-BACK PROVISION
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has completely failed to ask wealthy corporations in this country to bear their share of the deficit. Yet he has asked pensioners in certain tax brackets to put 100 per cent of their old age pensions back into the Treasury of this country. If the Minister is going to deal fairly with seniors, he must look at the deindexing provisions of this Budget, and back away from this provision. I ask the Minister again not to talk about "might review" and not to question what he might do. It is going to be difficult for seniors in this country to have much confidence in the commitments made by this Government. Will he state to this House and to the seniors of this country that he is going to withdraw this provision from the Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to corporations. I refer him to the Budget papers. It is shown very specifically where we are increasing the tax burden on corporations. We have done so in tax reform and have done it again in this Budget. I am still waiting to hear any acknowledgement of this from the Hon. Member or anybody in his Party. Corporate tax revenues would increase by 7 per cent as a result of this Budget. The personal tax revenues, including the high-income surtax, will only increase by a little over 2 per cent. In tax reform, we increased the threshold at which elderly Canadians start to pay tax from $10,700 to $11,400 for singles and $16,900 to $19,000 for married couples over age 65. When he asks if I am going to say that we will review it, yes, we will review it on an ongoing basis. We have demonstrated from our actions in the past that when it is appropriate, we will act.


LAY-OFFS IN EAST COAST OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had lay-offs in the fishery in Newfoundland, and today it is Texaco, announcing its decision not to pursue its option to drill more wells. It is pulling out. Today, all drilling will stop off the coast of Newfoundland and 250 lay-off notices will be issued.
Oral Questions
This morning I spoke to representatives of Husky Oil and they told me that it was issuing lay-off notices to all its staff in Newfoundland. They are closing its offices. These lay-offs are like a nightmare that does not end. It goes on and on, and it is getting worse. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, what does the Government of Canada have to say now to these hundreds of people who are receiving their lay-off notices today in the oil industry on the East Coast? How can the Government explain the fact that for the first time in 10 years not one drilling rig will be operating off the entire east coast of Canada after today?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that when he takes a look at the drilling activity off the East Coast, there have been two cycles. The first cycle was in the 1960s to 1976, and the second one which ends this year was 1977 to 1989. In that second cycle there was more delineation of the finds that had taken place in the first cycle.
What has happened is that the second cycle was to end in 1989, and as the Hon. Member has stated, lay-off notices are being issued today. It is not clear at this point in time whether there will be other companies taking up further delineation activity or proofing activity over the next period of time. I cannot confirm that today, nor can the Hon. Member in his question make the point that there will not be any further activity in the immediate future. That is one point.
The second point, as the Hon. Member knows, is the federal Government's commitment on Hibernia, and it is due to the first and second stages that Hibernia is made possible.


HIBERNIA PROJECT-PRESENT STATUS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the past 10 years we have had Hibernia held out like a political carrot. We were all going to become Jed Clampett's and we would not have to move to Beverley Hills.
That carrot is becoming mouldy and the hopeful are becoming hopeless. I would like to ask this Minister, what then-


An Hon. Member:: You can be Jethrow.

May 12, 1989
Oral Questions


George Baker: -is the present status of the Hibernia project? When he gives his answer, can he give us the straight goods because in Newfoundland we are tired of Hibernia hype.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Jethrow, I will try and reply. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I have not been giving Hibernia hype. I have been giving answers in this House and publicly very clearly on Hibernia. The hon. gentleman I think knows that, and the three points that I have been stressing and I will make those today again. What I am saying to the hon. gentleman is this: In terms of the federal Government's commitment to Hibernia, that remains firm.
Second, with respect to the legal work that I talked about earlier, the testing of the financial markets, as well as the need to finalize what form, especially top sides, are going to be used on the GBS, that work is going forward. The federal Government's commitment to Hibernia remains as we have put it in the Memorandum of Understanding. We hope to have that completed in this calendar year.
I say to the Hon. Member in all seriousness, I hope that while I have not used hype that he as well will not use hype, and will go back now to his provincial Government and convince it that its commitment to Hibernia should be as solid as the federal Government's commitment to Hibernia is this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Montreal-based Kraft Canada has announced its intention to move its headquarters to Ontario in the coming months to rationalize operations. Over 225 jobs are at stake. Can the Prime Minister or, in his absence, his Government guarantee us that Montreal won't lose jobs due to the unjustified transfer of another headquarters? And does he intend to speak to President Morrisson to keep this
decision centre in Montreal, since over half its sales are made in Quebec?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this decision Kraft is making is apparently involved with a merger of its firm. In the process, this merger has been examined by Investment Canada to determine whether in fact there is net benefit to Canada. I understand that it is increasing some research activities, and generally the activity level in Quebec will be increased. I will refer the representation of the Hon. Member to Investment Canada officials to see whether in fact it would be appropriate for us to take the kind of action she is suggesting.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent on a veiy short supplementary, please!


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to me that this Government is not overly concerned with the well-being of the people of Montreal.

The recent closure of Gillette and the loss of the space agency demonstrates the irrelevance of Montreal Island to the Ministers of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Shirley Maheu: What is the matter, does the truth hurt? The truth hurts. When are the Ministers from-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


Shirley Maheu: When are the Ministers from Montreal going to come out of their shells and fight for the interests of the people who live in Montreal? Will the Prime Minister and his Government assure this House that this move will not lead to any job losses in Montreal now or in the near future?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member for St. Laurent was going to rise to her feet and congratulate the Government for its contribution to Canadair for the
May 12, 1989

Oral Questions
recent jet which is going to create hundreds and hundreds of high tech jobs in her constituency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister who is responding today on behalf of employment and immigration. A woman in British Columbia, Rose Marie Roux, had left her job to move to B.C. to be with her fiance. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits and received a very inappropriate letter from the Canada Employment Centre.
To quote from the letter, it said: "Are you living common-law with your fiance? How long have you been living together? Have you set a date for your wedding? When was this date established? What is the date? Are there any children involved?"
I would like to ask the Government, how can it justify such a blatant invasion of a person's privacy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will not be surprised to find out that I do not know of the particulars of that case. I would not presume that any Minister of the Crown would be expected in all reasonableness to have knowledge of such a specific case as it came up in Question Period. I will certainly be very happy to have the Department of Employment and Immigration look into this matter as rapidly as possible and get back to the Member as rapidly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. member. A short supplementary.


Dawn Black: I would like to know if you find the letter as offensive-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order. Order.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Agriculture and relates to the alarming statements we have been reading or hearing on radio and TV since yesterday about the precarious situation of Quebec farm producers.
Can the Minister tell the House whether it is true that, as a result of the recent decision of the federal Government to freeze milk prices, Quebec farmers are now in such a predicament that some of them can no longer produce?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, alarming statements have indeed been reported in newspapers in recent days. Canadian and Quebec farm producers can rest assured that the Canadian Government will honour its commitment to maintain marketing boards and re-inforce GATT section 11.
The commitment was made a number of years ago and this Government will stick to it. As a matter of fact, the work that was done Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was one of the leaders who raised the issue of surplus control at the international level. The fact that world surpluses were reduced last year has meant $70 million more in the pockets of dairy producers in Canada and in Quebec. These are facts and achievements.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question each from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Hon. Member for Churchill.



Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It may be raining here in

May 12, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Ottawa but it is not raining anywhere in the West. It is not raining in Carman, Manitoba, in the Minister's constituency, or anywhere else.
Forecasters are already predicting that another year of drought is at hand. At page 65 of the Budget papers, the Government makes it clear that there will be no emergency assistance for drought-affected farmers. As well, a discussion paper on crop insurance given to MPs yesterday stated that the province will be asked to bear more of the load for crop insurance. Will the Minister assure the western farmers that the Government will be there for them this time, and state what form that assistance will take?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the PFRA has been monitoring moisture conditions on the Prairies on a regular basis for over two years. We know that the situation is certainly less than ideal in much of the Prairies.
The Hon. Member should know that in a good part of Alberta there is adequate moisture; Saskatchewan has the poorest conditions of the three prairie provinces as far as moisture is concerned, and in southern Manitoba there is enough moisture for germination.
It is very early in the year. We understand the concern and appreciate the question. We are monitoring the situation. The Government has been there to help in the past and if the situation develops at all in the way it looks in the last two days, we will have to be dealing with the situation on a regular basis.
The Hon. Member should know that this is very early in the growing season. No one on the Prairies has ever lost a crop in May yet. We will be watching the situation to see what we can do.


FISHERIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is quoted in the Halifax paper this morning as saying that he is proposing changes which would give fishermen an incentive to sell fish to Canadian processors rather than selling it whole to exporters who ship fish products to the Boston market.
Will the Minister responsible answer how that can be done under the GATT rules and explain exactly what will be done to help the people in the fishing industry in the Atlantic region?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the situation is that there is a considerable amount of fish sold in the United States in a fresh state by individuals who catch the fish in Nova Scotia. I believe the amount last year was some 80 million pounds. If sold in Nova Scotia, it would be a considerable help to fish plant workers in Nova Scotia.
Of course, there is quite a difference between trying to provide incentives for people to sell fish to the local domestic Nova Scotian fish plants and putting in place regulations or legislation to do that, which could well be challenged under the GATT.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Orders I wish to table in both official languages the corporate plan for Petro-Canada for the planning period 1989-93, and the capital budget for the 1989 budget year.


TOURISM
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, next week is National Tourism Awareness Week.
Under the direction of the Tourism Industry Association, all across Canada, Canadians who make their living from tourism will be telling their fellow Canadians the facts of tourism and emphasizing that Canada grows with tourism.
The facts of tourism tell of an enormous Canadian success story. They tell the story of an industry which is of vital importance to the Canadian economy.
May 12, 1989

In fact, there are 60,000 tourism businesses in Canada employing 600,000 Canadians, and another 500,000 people who depend on tourism for at least part of their livelihood.
This sector has a record of job creation unmatched by any other industrial sector. In fact, tourism ranks second, right behind the auto industry in terms of job creation.
Tourism in Canada is a $21 billion a year business. Of every dollar spent in Canada on consumer goods and services, 6.7 cents is spent on tourism goods and services.
Tourism is also Canada's second largest export industry. It brings in more than $6 billion from foreign travellers.

The tourist industry extend across Canada and ranks among the first in every province and territory. And its future is as promising as its past, Mr. Speaker. According to the Conference Board of Canada's Institute on tourist resources, unemployment in the tourist industry should grow by 16 per cent through 1992.

In fact, by 1994 we expect to have an increase of 2.1 million foreign visitors a year.
The revenue from the increase in foreign visitors is expected to rise from $6.3 billion in 1987 to $13.6 billion in 1994, which means an extra $1.6 billion in tax revenue and the creation of about 145,000 new, full-time jobs.
This Government is committed to working with the industry and the provinces to ensure the continued growth of the Canadian tourism industry.
Together we organized the Tourism Tomorrow Conference, at which the private sector and the provincial and federal Governments reviewed priorities and strengthened co-operative ties.
We organized the Tburism Marketing Council and we sponsored the most ambitious and thorough study ever done of the American pleasure travel market, and shared the results with the provinces and the private sector.
Routine Proceedings
The Free Trade Agreement with the United States will make travel between our two countries easier. This is important for the tourism industry because Canada's largest tourism customer is the United States.
Tourism is very much a small business industry. Eighty five per cent of the 60,000 businesses in the tourism industry in Canada are small businesses. That is they have annual revenues of less than $2 million and employ fewer than 100 people.
This Government is always mindful of the entrepreneurial basis of the Canadian tourism industry. This is an industry filled with risk takers and solid entrepreneurs. Our commitment to encourage and stimulate entrepreneurship will help the tourism industry grow. As we have seen, Canada does indeed grow with tourism.
I am committed to telling parliamentarians, legislators, business people and all Canadians about the importance of tourism to Canada.
Tourism is an important industry which touches every Canadian. We must encourage and an awareness of the industry's importance and an understanding of its challenges and its rewards.
Let us hope that National Tourism Awareness Week will bring about a greater understanding of this industry and a greater appreciation of its importance to the Canadian economy.
I urge all Members of the House and all Canadians to join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the tourism industry, and to help promote Canadian tourism next week.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on this side of the House would like to express our appreciation to the men and women who work in the tourism industry in Canada. Many have to work long hours to maintain their small businesses. Not only do they need recognition during National Tourism Awareness Week, they need sustained assistance, co-operation and a sympathetic ear to the multiple small but irritable problems that prevent growth in the industry.
The Minister said in his address that by 1992 there would be growth of 16 per cent. This does not concur with the figures of the Tourist Industry Association of

May 12, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Canada which disputes that figure. The Association is very critical of the new taxes set out in the latest Budget. It has said that those taxes will have an adverse affect on the industry and that that figure will not be attained.

On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we would like to join other Members to extend to everyone in the tourist industry our best wishes during the coming Canadian Tourist Week. We would like to hail all those who work long hours to ensure their business runs well because they invest a lot of time and energy to make sure the Canadian tourist industry remains healthy.
I would like to emphasize that the Canadian tourist industry criticized the last Budget, and I would like to quote just one sentence here: Increased costs and reduced marketing expenditures are bad news for the $21 billion Canadian tourist industry. Tourism Canada's international marketing budget will be slashed by a third over the next three years, at a time when there is serious competition internationally for the tourism dollar and its benefits. According to Mr. Rowe, chairman of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, we have now reached a point where the Americain States individually are spending more than the Canadian Government to promote tourism. To take one example, Mr. Speaker, the State of Illinois is spending more than the Canadian Government on tourism promotion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of aspects in the tourist industry on which we could focus. It was taken for granted over the years that the tourist industry could go on automatically. This is not the case. The fact is those industries create jobs. They sometimes need to be supported, but they would like above all to be consulted in order to make adjustments. Certainly, if the Minister took the time to consult the various Canadian tourist associations, he could learn a lot of things to improve the situation of the very important Canadian tourist industry.

In conclusion, I bring to the attention of the House the fact that there is a great deal of competition internationally to get tourist dollars. Everyone recognizes that, especially those in the tourist industry. However, when we see that one single state of the United States, the State of Illinois, spends more than the Government of Canada to promote tourism, I think the time has come to review our tourist promotion program and to sit down to
listen to those who make their living from tourism. They are the experts in the field. From what I have seen over the last few weeks, after having consulted with those people they will be only too glad to join with the Government in seeing that their industry is kept alive and vibrant.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Hockin) for providing my office and that of my Liberal colleague with an advance copy of his statement. That has given me an opportunity to provide a thoughtful reply to the Minister's comment.
At this time I would also like to join with the Minister in recognition of the tourism industry and its economic benefits to Canada. As the Minister has pointed out, the tourism industry is an important component of Canada's national economy. I hope that the importance of this industry will be highlighted next week during the celebration of National Tourism Awareness Week.
Tourism is Canada's fastest growing industry. In every province it has ranked first in the creation of new jobs, most of them in the small business sector. There is virtually no other industry which contributes more to Canada's regional development than does the tourism industry. It is already the largest employer in Canada. By the year 2000 it is expected that tourism will be the leading industry in Canada.
The Minister and I are in full agreement that the tourism industry is indeed a vitally important component of our national economy. Yet I am concerned that despite the good intentions of the Minister of State for Tourism, his colleagues in Cabinet have failed to understand the current and future economic impact that this industry will have in Canada.
It is evident in the legislation currently before the House that the Government wants to relegate tourism to the back-burner of economic development by hiding it within the proposed Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology. The Government has not given my colleague the status of a full ministry, something that the industry has been calling for over some time. I am sure that the Minister is reluctant to bite the hand that feeds him so I will come to his defence and say this to his colleagues on the Government side of the House: It is time that the Ministry of Tourism be given the priority
May 12, 1989

and profile it needs and deserves in order to do its job properly.
Maintaining the Department of Tourism as a sub-ministry fails to acknowledge the growing importance of this industry in Canada. It fails to recognize the commitment that the Government made back in 1984 to increase the profile of the Department.
Since that time we have seen member after member of the Government praise the importance of the tourism industry. The industry itself has made it very clear that it is not satisfied with anything less than a full-fledged ministry. It has called repeatedly for the establishment of a separate Ministry of Tourism with a status equal to other major economic sectors. The Government has continued to ignore such appeals. Whether we can meet the expectations of the market-place in the future will be critical in terms of Canada becoming globally competitive in the tourism industry.
Although it is indeed a growth industry in Canada, our international tourism deficit has grown steadily. We have reached an all-time high in our tourism trade deficit of about $5.2 billion. To remain globally competitive, we will have to do better. We will have to develop and be more aggressive in marketing our tourism product. That will take initiatives that can be developed only through a full-fledged Ministry of Tourism, not a miniscule Department that is hidden within the bowels of another ministry. It will take a commitment from the Government to put its money where its mouth is, to assist the industry in the task of international marketing.
Over the past 10 years, federal investment in tourism marketing has not even kept pace with inflation. We have now reached the point at which some individual states in the United States, as my Liberal colleague pointed out, spend as much on tourism marketing as does the entire federal Government.
According to the spending estimates, the average expenditures for tourism development have not even kept pace with inflation. That is not enough for an industry poised to become the largest industry worldwide by the 21st Century. Yet what has been the
Routine Proceedings
response of Government? It has slashed $10 million- fully one-third of its foreign marketing budget.
I am certain that my colleague, the Minister of State for Tourism, is genuine in his commitment to the industry. However, we are going to need more than the soothing words of the Minister if Canada is to become a competitive player in the global market-place of tourism.
I welcome the opportunity to work together with my colleague, the Minister of State for Tourism, to ensure that the concerns of the tourism industry are both heard and acted upon by the Government.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. I am submitting the petition on behalf of several people employed by Canada Post in Scarborough, Ontario.
These employees would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that they are facing severe harassment by management personnel. This harassment is in the form of management refusing to guard employees' sick leave with pay. All employees at Canada Post have enjoyed this right until now.
The employees of Canada Post call upon Parliament to investigate and correct the irregular behaviour and actions of the management of Canada Post, Scarborough Plant.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition on behalf of the Dutch community in my region. The signatories are anxious to receive the benefits to which they are entitled from their country of origin, namely, the Netherlands.
The petitioners urge the Canadian Government to proceed without delay to the ratification of the agreement entered into with the Government of the Nether-

May 12, 1989
Supply
lands on February 26, 1987. The petitioners hope that it will not take another two years before this particular agreement is put into effect.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 51 individuals who are requesting that the Government implement the recommendations made by the subcommittee on equality rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The subcommittee, representing all Parties, recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition duly approved by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petition is presented on behalf of a number of residents of the City of Revelstoke. This city is heavily dependent upon the tourist industry, and particularly dependent on the rail system and VIA Rail in particular.
The petitioners point out that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in its report on passenger rail services, stated: "The federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that rail passenger services in Canada be retained, modernized and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system. To that end, it is recommended that federal transportation spending priorities be reordered to put a greater emphasis on rail passenger services".
The undersigned petitioners call upon the Government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail, to abandon plans for further cuts to VIA's budget, and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modem, effective transportation company, rather than as a museum.
In view of this being National Tourism Week, and today's statement by the Minister, I hope that the Government will listen to the petitioners and act to restore and keep passenger rail services in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by fifteen minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Copps:
That this House condemn the Government for its negligence with
regard to the illegal importation and sale of fuel tainted with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other toxic substances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now start the 10-minute question and comment period on the speech of the Hon. Member for Skeena, with the Hon. Member for Perth- Wellington-Waterloo.


Mr. Brightwell:: As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your great experience, it is often difficult here to keep perspective on things spoken of in the House. I believe that I can put a better perspective on some matters spoken about by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) before we broke for Question Period.
Yesterday the Hon. Member spoke about this PCB-contaminated material touching a person's hand as he was filling his lawn mower or his car. Today he spoke about the polar bears being at risk from PCBs.
I wish to relate a story about this issue. A major environmental scientist spoke to me about what he would do if he were working in a laboratory and there was a container with a high concentration of PCBs in that lab and he dropped his pen into that container. Would he give up his pen? Would he walk away from it? Would he put on a glove and reach into the container? This scientist stated that he would simply reach into this container with his hand, pull out his pen, wash his hands off, and not think anything more about it. I asked a

relative of mine the same question. He is also a reputable scientist. He stated that he would do the same thing. I relate this story to indicate that perhaps PCBs in themselves are not as violently toxic as the rhetoric might indicate.
The Hon. Member for Skeena stated that thousands of gallons of contaminated material have been trucked into Canada. This morning we heard that Mr. Conrad is now suggesting that his information was not as positive as it appeared before, and a constituent of mine, Mr. Hammond, who attended those meetings has stated that this was not mentioned in the meetings with the people from Revenue. How can the Member for Skeena be so sure? What proof does he have that the trucking of contaminated fuel is occurring?


James Ross Fulton: First, I would like to comment on the Hon. Member's remarks. It is highly irresponsible in the extreme to be suggesting to Canadians watching the proceedings of the House of Commons today that it is quite appropriate to stick your hands into pure PCBs. That is extraordinarily irresponsible. I hope that the Minister will rise and expunge that remark from the record.
It is not only PCBs that we are concerned about here. There are many other serious contaminants associated with this poisoned fuel scam. The Hon. Member should know that. To suggest that it is appropriate to bathe your hands in PCBs and then wash them in the sink and let that go down the drain is the height of irresponsibility. That is why the Government should not continue to be in office.
In terms of proof, Mr. Speaker, one of the chief law enforcement officers in the United States has stated now that in February, 1988, federal officials were advised that the poisoned fuel scam was going on. I wish to quote a story in The Globe and Mail which has not been challenged in any single way by any Minister of the Crown, or the Government of Canada.
On May 8, 1989, in an article in The Globe and Mail written by Jock Ferguson it states:
The fly-by-night oil companies in Tbronto-known as gasoline
bootleggers to investigators-that handled the tainted fuel undercut
Supply
legitimate fuel dealers by not paying the 9.3-cent-a-litre provincial fuel tax. The loss to the Ontario government was at least $ 100-million annually in each of the past five years, tax investigators said.
The Globe and Mail found that, and here is the information the Member is looking for. It was on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The article further states:
American Continental Oil Inc. of Buffalo diluted heavy industrial fuel and diesel fuel with transformer oils and other wastes, former employees of the company said. Bill Barnes, owner of American Continental, admitted his company did "some mixing of transformer oil in heavy No. 6 oil and there was a lot of obvious controversy over it because of PCB contamination."
Erie Petroleum Uansfers Inc. of Tbnawanda, N.Y., has used waste oil and solvents to dilute diesel fuel and gasoline, sources familiar with the company's operations said.
Erie Petroleum was a major exporter of gasoline and diesel fuel to Ontario in the past five years and is now the object of a major investigation by the Organized Crime Strike Force in Buffalo.
Welch Energy Inc. shipped large volumes of heavy fuel oil to Buffalo-area industries that was blended with transformer oil, and it was a supplier of diesel fuel to bootleg oil companies in Toronto. Welch was financed and controlled by the same people who operate a large hazardous-waste company in Niagara Falls, N.Y., Envirosure Management Corp. Inc., which is now under investigation by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Bootleggers that sold some of the tainted fuels in Canada-
That is what the article states, and it has not been challenged by the RCMP, the FBI, or by anyone in the Government.
Bootleggers that sold some of the tainted fuels in Canada-Ebony Oil and J. R. Oil sales-were in the waste-oil business at the same time.
Solvent-contaminated gasoline from Detroit was sold by several bootleggers in Tbronto to unsuspecting service stations, sources who sold the gasoline said in recent interviews.
How can the Member suggest that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek), and the former Minister of National Revenue, have stated categorically that what Mr. Conrad is claiming is wrong? I accept what they are stating. However, if the Hon. Member is not attempting to challenge anything that has been published by Jack Ferguson, based on a lengthy series of interviews with more than 50 sources, then I think the Member has holes in his head.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the points he has made in his speech and for his response to the Hon. Member.

May 12, 1989
Supply
In view of the fact that any law concerning the movement, handling and storage of dangerous goods or the safety transportation practices is only as good as an inspection enforcement capacity can be, and since we have 13 jurisdictions, 10 provinces, 2 territories and the federal Government all dabbling in inspection and enforcement, does my colleague have any evidence about a lack of co-ordination or a failure to have a standard and uniform system of inspection enforcement which affects about five different Departments of the Government?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who has great knowledge in the area of transportation, particularly the transportation of hazardous goods and the problems being created through deregulation.
We learned that only one test was done at the border by the Government of Canada. If that is the kind of inspection to be expected under CPA and by the Government of Canada, no wonder the mob in New York have chosen Canada as a great place to get rid of a lot of contaminated products.
As I pointed out in my speech, we know there are as many people involved in handing out parking tickets in the City of Ottawa, of whom there are 66, as there are investigators for all of the Government of Canada to deal with the transborder shipment of contaminated fuels and poisoned fuels. It is something to which the Minister of the Environment should respond in relation to the letter I have provided him, which is provided pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. According to Section 108(1) it is possible to request an investigation of possible infractions of the Act. I will quote from "infractions" under Section 36.
First, though, I think the Minister is aware that there have been such infractions and it is quite appropriate for the Minister, now that he has the necessary signatures, to launch just exactly such an investigation. Under infractions in Section 2,1 point out that the Government of Canada is "obliged to endeavour to protect the environment from the release of toxic substances".
We ask you to investigate whether the failure to take action during the 24 months since Revenue Canada officials were told that toxic fuel was being imported and sold constitutes the absence of an endeavour and an infraction under this Section.
I hope to hear from the Minister of the Environment about inspection and whether or not he feels there are sufficient inspectors to have enforcement and compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and whether or not he plans to move effectively to zero tolerance. This is something Canadians want to hear from the Minister in relation to zero tolerance on
170,000	metric tonnes of toxic and hazardous cargo which the Minister knows is coming into the country and has known since he became Minister. We want to know whether or not the Minister plans to go for zero tolerance at the border in relation to poisoned fuel. The Government has not been forthright enough in exactly what its position is and whether or not the Minister plans to move to zero discharge, something his own Government and his own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) endorsed in the annex to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to make sure that toxic and hazardous contaminants are kept on plant sites until appropriate landfill sites and appropriate forms of incineration are available.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the Government is taking very seriously the allegations that appeared this week in The Globe and Mail in connection with illegal movement of gasoline products contaminated with PCBs. I think there are some very serious questions that must be asked and that, above all, something has to be done. I made it clear earlier that we have reacted very strongly.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the reaction of the opposition parties to this situation. I don't think we heard them getting very upset about the situation and about the concerns of Canadians. They see this merely as a vote-getting exercise. They are taking undue advantage of the concerns that are being voiced across this country, in an attempt to damage the Government.
Now, trying to damage the Government is not that dramatic! However, Mr. Speaker, at the same time they are undermining the confidence of Canadians in the systems that were put in place to protect them. We know perfectly well that our systems have operated very effectively for years, and that thousands of operations are monitored and tested every year by government
May 12, 1989

services whose word has given no cause for any criticism whatsoever.
And how did the opposition parties react when they read, as we did, about the allegations published in The Globe and Mail last Monday? Their first reaction was: The Government knew. Well, the Ministers concerned did their duty. They each checked with their officials to find out whether there was any information circulating in my Department, and so forth.
So far, according to the reports we have been given, they had no such information. However, the Opposition insists they did, on the basis of statements from Mr. Daniel Green and Mr. Conrad, and it referred to a conversation that took place in 1987 in the offices of the Department of National Revenue in Toronto.
However, when we look at these allegations, beyond the campaign slogans, the rhetoric and the purely political interests of the Opposition parties, what is left? Nothing, Mr. Speaker!
We know that during an international conference held in Basel, Switzerland last March, a Canadian Minister representing the Government of Canada at this conference, which ended with the signing of a very important agreement on the transportation of dangerous products from country to country, that this Minister met with members of the Canadian Delegation, including Mr. Green, who was there with another official from the Department of the Environment.
When Canadians abroad sit around conference tables and get together during breaks, it is normal for them to exchange views on all sorts of issues. On the basis of what our representatives have reported and the statement which the Minister of State (Transport) has made, we know that during these discussions Mr. Green referred generally to the fact that it was rumored that some people involved in the illegal shipping of toxic materials were violating the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
When we stop to think with a view to not only alarming people and distorting the facts we know that toxic materials are being shipped both ways between Canada and the United States. We even know that this shipping can be legal because the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which Parliament adopted in 1980 authorizes shipping of toxic materials. Such legitimate transporta-
Supply
tion does occur. It involves generally the transportation of tainted goods of various nature, industrial wastes, hospital wastes, used oil and similar materials which are shipped across the border to be destroyed or recycled.
This shipping occurs from Canada to the United States as well as from the United States to Canada. We even know the quantities involved. We know that we import from the United States some 180,000 tons, and that we export to the United States nearly 66,000 tons. The whole purpose of this transshipping is to minimize the distances toxic materials must travel to get properly destroyed or recycled.
That is the reason why the Canadian Government adopted in 1980 a legislation to control such transportation.
However, Mr. Speaker, we had to wait five years for the adoption of the relevant regulations. The same Liberals who now are screeming their heads off were unable for four years, between 1980 and 1984, to adopt the relevant regulations.
In 1985, this Government, one year after its election in 1984, had to step in and pass the regulations which gave its full meaning to a legislation adopted in 1980. This lack of action and interest on the part the previous Government on the toxic waste transportation issue is the real scandal, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Bouchard: Not satisfied with adopting such regulations, the Govemement successfully negotiated with the United States an extremely important Canada-United States Agreement to specifically regulate how the shipping of toxic materials would be handled between our two countries. That is something Canadians should know, Mr. Speaker. Have we heard anyone from the Opposition side recognize this week that such system does exist? No!


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Lucien Bouchard: No, because that would have comforted Canadians! But Members of the Opposition have no interest in doing that! They want to make a stir.


Mr. Della  Noce@: That is spreading fear.

May 12, 1989
Supply


Lucien Bouchard: They want to spread fear, Mr. Speaker.
So those measures are the result of the Government's work, concern and dispatch. Basically, they provide that there cannot be legal transportation of toxic substances either way between Canada and the United States without previous warning to the countries and also to the provinces. There must be prior notification.
There must also be waste manifests and every time a truck, for instance, stops at the border for checking, the driver must submit a list of the goods he is transporting that can be checked against his load. The drivers of those trucks must also go through special training and courses. They must pass extremely severe tests and carry a permit that certifies they comply with those requirements. There are many more measures, Mr. Speaker, because we must ascertain that on the other side of the border, the destination will meet all requirements and whether it will be possible to destroy or recycle the product in a way that is appropriate and safe for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, having done all that, this Government also put in place an inspection network in the five areas of the country in 1985 and 1986. We had to wait all that time to take this kind of measure, Mr. Speaker, because the Liberals were in power for 20 years. They are the last ones who should talk today, who should get up in this House and become indignant, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: That's it!


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: The Government knew. Of course, it is very easy to cast doubts on Government activity. Citizens know that Governments are huge machines. Of course, considering the enormous responsibilities they are given, those machines must be huge. Some doubts always remain in the citizens' minds: Do bureaucrats and politicians who manage our taxes manage them properly and do they protect us efficiently? It is very easy to cast doubts in the citizens' minds. It is partly also the game of the opposition, but beyond a certain limit, it becomes irresponsibility, and we have had all week a brillant demonstration of such irresponsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: Let's take an example. Much has been said about a meeting which took place in 1987 in those offices in Toronto. We are told that there was an informer. It is strange enough that the Hon. Member from the opposition, got out in the middle of the sitting and came back to tell us: I have just talked with the informer. This is a very strange story, Mr. Speaker. It is not up to me to describe it, but you will understand that I am amazed that an Opposition Member is in direct contact with an informer, whom he says has served time in prison-I don't know whether he is still in prison or not. Nevertheless, it is all quite extraordinary.
But what is the situation being described to us? This 1987 meeting in the Revenue Department office, an informer claims to have overheard-that is hearsay, isn't it? He did not see it. He was not a witness. He heard that a truck traveling in the United States was carrying tainted gasoline. That is a big scandal with the Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: He's a friend of the Liberal Party!


Lucien Bouchard: It's incredible! We cannot accept such things. We just heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who was a very great lawyer and who may soon become one again. I am sure that the legal community will be very honoured to see him rejoin their ranks, if he decides to do so, but he has somewhat forgotten the rules of evidence. He knew them very well before, but he will need a little refresher course to return to the practice of law, I think, because from this meeting, he drew the conclusion that the Government knew about contaminated gasoline being transported from Canada to the United States. All that is incredible!
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this Government acted as soon as it learned of the allegations. The Government first had to make sure that these allegations were founded.
A government has the basic duty to assume responsibility, to go seek the truth, and to ascertain if Canadians should be concerned or not about the situation. So, that is what we did. As soon as we heard about those allegations, together with the Ontario Government in particular and all the governments in Canada, we immediately ordered that inspections be carried out in every
May 12, 1989

region, not at all border crossings but at those where it was thought that this traffic could be going on.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this morning we announced the implementation of another action plan which will reinforce the one that had been put in place early this week and which, this time, came out of a meeting that took place between three provincial ministers and two federal ministers, with further follow-up between all the governments in Canada. What is this action plan? First of all, investigation. We have to know where the truth stands. We must find out if the allegations were true and to what extent and we must know who are responsible? And then charges will be laid and those who are responsible must be jailed, that is the situation!


Mr. Della  Noce@: There you are!


Lucien Bouchard: One must proceed with this investigation in an orderly fashion. I think a Member of the New Democratic Party said a while ago that there are 13 different levels of government in Canada. That is a fact which make Canada uniquely rich but it can complicate operations sometimes.


Mr. Della  Noce@: There you are!


Lucien Bouchard: Therefore, we decided to proceed with a joint investigation which will be coordinated by the RCMP with the close cooperation of the Ontario and Quebec police forces, the FBI, the US Environment Protection Agency and the provincial departments involved.
Second, we know very well that ours is a vast country and we can rightly be proud of that, but it is also the source of a problem. How can we guarantee strict and adequate control over nearly 175 border crossing points? How can we do that? It is very difficult. So this morning we decided we would reduce to 50 the number of border crossings through which American oil products can be carried into Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Excellent move!


Lucien Bouchard: I take this opportunity to thank my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) who is also responsible for Customs and Excise. He has acted most efficiently in setting up this plan and he will be able to unveil some of the operational details on Monday or Thesday. Mr. Speaker, I think this procedure will enable us to concentrate the resources we have, and we will seek additional help. I
Supply
was assured this morning that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will lend us some facilities concerning inspections and lab tests. One of the problems we are experiencing this week stems from the huge number of samples we took; practically all trucks carrying gas were checked and we are left with a large number of lab tests to be done. The labs are not used to this and, with so many tests, the shortage of technicians is more obvious. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the kind of resources we need and it will lend us a hand for this operation.
The other announcement we made, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the issuance of a temporary order in council which I hope to sign before the end of the day. This order will immediately put in place a very important measure. Currently, PCB's may not be transported on either side of the border. If the slightest trace is found in a substance that is to be sold or consumed, like gas for instance, and if more than 50 ppm are found, it becomes a toxic substance, a toxic waste under the act. That order will add to the list of illegal substances 97 other ones of various nature that are not currently illegal. Under this order in Council, it will be illegal to mix them with fuel or similar products. This a most important measure we are taking today or Monday at the latest.
Mr. Speaker, what are the results of the operation? As I said, we are not taking this matter lightly nor reducing this Government's vigilance. Quite the opposite, we will exercise it fully. However, the truth of the matter is all the results obtained since the beginning of this week, whether from samples taken by us yesterday and the day before or samples taken by the Ontario Government during their blitz inspection of April last, during which nearly 40 trucks were stopped, up till now all tests have been negative-there was no PBC's in the fuel. Let us hope in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the Opposition will join me in this, that this will remain the case up to the end of the operations, so that we may re-assure Canadians.
However, testing continues and is even increased. We are now testing even gas stations. I received yesterday the report on four gas stations-all are negative. We will continue to do this even on an increased basis to ensure we are following up on allegations in a responsible manner. And if we find PCBs, we will act in all harshness and we will try to get our hands non only on small

May 12, 1989
Supply
carriers, if any, but on the bigger interests hiding behind them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say that once the protests have fallen silent and things have settled, which has yet to be done, there will be lessons to draw from that and, among others, that there is a need for close cooperation between all levels of government, the industry, our American friends, and various police forces. I think that is an example of the lessons the environment teaches us more and more every day. Indeed, as we know, the environment is threatened by acts of man, common acts of society, economic development, Nature itself, and maybe also, now, criminal activities. If so, we will also have to develop professional reactions, reactions of vigilance and great expertise. That is why, Mr. Speaker, one of the basic lessons of this week and maybe next, as we will see, will be to ensure a better cooperation between all concerned, including the Opposition. Nothing prevents the Opposition from helping the Gov-emement cope with that kind of problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Minister's remarks, but he seems to be painting a picture for the public of Canada that there may or may not have been toxic and hazardous materials contaminating fuels that were sold in Canada. He did not respond to the request that I made. His colleague suggested that PCBs are just as safe as peanut butter. He said you can stick your hands in, stick your arms in and that is just fine. I do not think the Minister of Environment would want that message to stay untouched on the record.
So I have three points that I would like the Minister to respond to. First, is in relation to the front page Globe and Mail story of May 9 which says:
In Buffalo at least three oil companies have blended chemical wastes into fuel products over the past four years and sold them in Canada, police tax investigators and participants in the schemes said in interviews over the last five months.
Is the Minister suggesting that the New York State police and tax investigators and the participants are not telling the truth? If he is, I would like to know that.
I would also like him to comment on what Premier Peterson said in The Citizen on May 10, which is just two days ago. I quote:
But he also said federal officials had been told about the tainted fuel. I am told by some that they were told that they were a part of some of these investigations. The question you want to ask is why didn't they tell their Minister.
Premier Peterson says that the Government of Canada knew. The Government continues to say that they did not know. The veracity of the police and the tax investigators in the United States is being challenged. I would like the Minister to respond. Is he saying that PCBs are safe? Does he agree with his colleague? Is he saying that there have not been poisoned fuel sold in Canada? Is that the message he is trying to send out to Canadians? Is he contradicting Premier Peterson? Let us set aside the September 11 meeting, the meeting in Basle, all of these other things. Is he suggesting that the officials of the Government of Canada did not know? I believe these are very important questions. The Minister developed his entire argument to create the impression for Canadians that there is not a problem out there, that none of these fuels came into Canada, and even if they did, they are safe. I do not think that that is a fair message to send to Canadians.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the allegations concerning the ongoing investigations on the American side of the border. What we want to know is if there is or is not tainted fuel traffic from the United States to Canada. We will check it. We will conduct a very extensive investigation to know everything about it. If we find in the end that there is such traffic, we will act swiftly and lay charges against the responsible people. That will be done. The truth will be known and justice will be done.
As far as Premier Peterson's allegations are concerned, I did not hear those allegations myself. I suppose that if Premier Peterson knows something about this traffic, he will go and see the police and inform them of what he knows. If he had personally informed federal officials of such a thing, I guess he would be in a position to tell to whom he said it. We have a right to know if it is true that he said that.
As far as the danger of PCBs, nobody in this House has ever suggested that PCBs are not dangerous. They are controlled in our regulations under the Transportation Act. They have been one of the main preoccupations
May 12, 1989

of my Department for the last year. We are devoting a lot of time to providing Canadians with facilities to destroy PCBs. We know that PCBs are dangerous. We combat them. We have a program to eliminate PCBs from Canada over the next five years.


Mr. Keyes:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment announced on Wednesday, and he has just restated today, that he has 34 Environment Canada inspectors working with other federal Government departments in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There has been no reference by the Minister to the posting of inspectors at border crossings in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick or Yukon. News reports indicate that the same scam may be occurring in Alberta and B.C. With 140 border crossings strung out along that Canada-U.S. border, is the Minister trying to suggest that 34 inspectors are enough to protect the health of Canadians from toxic-laced fuels?


Lucien Bouchard: There will never be enough inspectors. There should be more. It is a question of balancing the resources that we have. But we feel that by appointing 34 federal inspectors specifically to those points of entry where illegal traffic is most likely, we are making the best of the situation.
We must not forget that we also have 3,000 customs officials in Canada. What is being done is an attempt to embarrass the Government, but we have duty to the truth. The Hon. Member never mentioned that there are 3,000 devoted customs officials working in Canada to check the borders. We also have the benefit of the co-operation of the provinces in a joint effort. All over Canada, there is an intensive operation going on. We have concentrated our efforts in Ontario because that is where the main allegations are heard and because that is where the main traffic roads are located. We feel that we will have vigorous and efficient results.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the Minister if he is concerned that this all may be too little too late and whether all this publicity is not simply driving the illegal traffickers in contaminated oil underground? What actions are being taken to foresee the possibility that this oil is no longer moving across the border? Perhaps we are trying to catch the horse after the bam door has closed.
Supply
Second, I wonder as I sit there with my fuel tank two-thirds full of oil, is the Minister in a position to advise Canadians, based on where they have purchased their fuel and from whom, as to whether they need to be concerned about using fuels that they have in their possession.


Lucien Bouchard: We are also concerned with the fact that if there are people involved in illegal operations of that kind, they will go underground since they know that we are conducting intensive operations and inspections. That is true, but we are also testing service station tanks at the same time because shipments have suddenly been made there from weeks before. We are testing those stations. I am glad to say, and to repeat, that yesterday we had the results from the laboratories of four of those tests in Toronto area service stations. They were all negative. There were no PCBs.
We are also in a way comforted by the fact that we also received yesterday partial results of an analysis of samples taken by the Ontario Government in April during the surprise inspection blitz. There was no advance notice given then. It was a commando inspection. All the lab results that we have-and I think we had nine yesterday and maybe three more today-are all negative as far as the presence of PCBs is concerned.
We would advise Canadians to to identify the stations, if any are found, where there would be PCB tainted fuel. As of now we have never found any stations where we could issue this kind of notice. We cannot say anything, but as soon as we get more information, as soon as we find out that some stations are selling tainted fuel, we will close them and we will advise people not to go back there. However, as of now there is nothing of the kind.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate my colleague, not only for the information he gave us today on the action that was taken, but also because car owners will surely be pleased to learn that after the big issue the Opposition made of all this, not one incident has yet been reported in Canada. Anyway, I do not want to talk about Canada but Quebec where I have been investigating with all the inspectors since those allegations were made last week. I have just been told one more time that there have been no positive test in Quebec. Toronto in particular was mentioned and I

Supply
can assure you that in Quebec we have done everything we could to deal with those problems. We have inspectors on the road since 1972.
I would also like to put a few questions to my colleague, because those matters are important. The Opposition has unleashed a lot of fear, and the Minister said so eloquently in his speech: people have been given a fright. Some people have even said that service stations are selling fuel mixed with toxic products. I challenge opposition members to name such a service station! I am prepared to go and check it with them. Believe me, if the fuel that is sold had been mixed with toxic substances, the motors in cars are so sophisticated nowadays that we would have had a lot of complaints.
So I ask the Minister if there have been complaints in the last week from car drivers who would have experienced major car trouble? Did service stations complain about any product? Has he received any advice from within his Department regarding allegations made by the Opposition? As far as I am concerned, I have not received anything.
I would like to ask the Minister if he could reassure all Canadians by telling them that we are dealing more with allegations than facts, even though he has promised to investigate further, to have people check these allegations. I am sure it will be very positive for the Department and for the public.
So, did the Minister receive any complaints, can he reassure the public, have any gas stations been caught selling tainted products?
The Opposition is destroying the credibility of gas stations, of independent retailers who are honest and who would never do anything to compromise their reputation, and of oil companies which, I am sure, are not even remotely involved in this alleged scam. So can the Minister tell us if he has received any complaint to that effect?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I must assure Canadians in that we can tell them that so far, the results obtained show no PCBs. I cannot reassure them by saying that there will never be any, that the allegations are not serious. On the contrary, we believe that
they must be checked thoroughly and we will step up our efforts to find the truth!
I would like to make a clarification to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions: we are still waiting for the first results of the analyses from Quebec. No results have yet come from Quebec. Some have come from Ontario, but not yet from Quebec. We expect to have some soon and the public will of course be informed of the results of the investigation under way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the entire nation is concerned today with the fact that gasoline and oil fuels tainted with PCBs have entered the country through certain border points. We all can recall that dangerous situation at St. Basil le Grand in Quebec when a whole community had to be evacuated because PCBs had escaped into the environment. It was a very serious situation.
We are faced with an equally dangerous situation right now for several reasons. The fact that industrial boilers, greenhouses, and motor vehicles are suspected of carrying fuels laced with PCBs means that in the present case the contamination is widespread. We know that it takes very little parts per million of these highly carcinogenic materials to cause much concern.
However, the fact that the Government knew of the importation into Canada from the U.S. of these tainted fuels is equally as serious. This Government has not come clean with the Canadian public and could have and should have stopped this illegal action months ago.
The Minister of Environment (Mr. Bouchard) informed the House on May 9, 1989, as reported at page 1494 of Hansard'.
Mr. Speaker, while in Switzerland two months ago one of my aides received a general hint from an environmentalist from Montreal on possible illegal toxic-commerce crossing the border between Canada and the United States. It was a general allegation with no specific possibilities involving, for example, tainted fuel.
However, as early as this morning, Mr. Speaker, on a television news program that same noted Montreal environmentalist, Daniel Green, said: "Well, I have been dealing with government bureaucrats for years. Sometimes you have the impression that they don't want to hear about the problems that they are carrying. They give you the impression that they are carrying such a
May 12, 1989

heavy burden on their shoulders that they would rather not hear about it. You must not forget that as an environmentalist when I say something to Government they don't think I'm telling the truth or that I lack credibility. But as you have heard, even industry tells something to government bureaucrats, they also don't seem to react."
I do not think that the Canadian public would treat the threat of contaminated fuels illegally entering this country as a general matter. It is a very serious matter indeed. He also stated that no one in his Department, or in any other federal Department had been told of any specific allegation of tainted fuel.
I will draw your attention again, Mr. Speaker, to page 1534 of Hansard for May 10, 1989 wherein the Minister of the Environment said:
Mr. Speaker, all the reports I received, including the statements made yesterday to the press by the Minister of State for Tlansport, are to the effect that no specific allegations concerning illegal shipments of contaminated gasoline were passed on, either in Geneva or elsewhere, to departmental employees or members of my office staff - Personally, I didn't know anything about all this before reading the article in The Globe and Mail.
That was Monday's The Globe and Mail. How can the Minister of the Environment say on May 10 that he did not know anything about all this until he read a newspaper article but state on the previous day that two months ago one of his aides received a hint from environmentalist Green that possible illegal toxic waste was crossing the Canada-U.S. border?


Lucien Bouchard: That's not what he said.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: He did say it. I can give you the evidence of that.
On May 10, as reported at page 1535 of Hansard, the Minister of State for Transport said:
Mr. Speaker, at a conference in Basle, Switzerland, there were conversations in which Mr. Green stated his concern about toxic waste crossing the border. Those concerns were voiced to the officials of Environment who were at that conference. They were voiced within my hearing. The Department took action and that is the extent of it.
That certainly is not the extent of it. She later states, as reported at page 1535 of Hansard, on May 10:
Supply
- Mr. Green had concerns about the possibilities of toxic wastes being shipped across the border to Canada. That was the extent of it.
He has it from one of his own Ministers. She continues:
When he brought that forward, the departmental officials were there. They heard his concerns, I heard his concerns and the departmental officials for Environment under whose jurisdiction his concerns lie followed up on the details.
The Minister of the Environment is on record as saying that no one in his or any other federal Department was told that there was a specific allegation of tainted fuel. Who are Canadians to believe? It is obvious that the Government is attempting to mask the issue by creating a state of confusion from Department to Department.
Am I to conclude from statements given by the Minister that the Minister of State for Transport feels it was not her responsibility to request an immediate investigation into this serious matter? She is the Minister of State for Transport and carries the ministerial responsibility-


Mr. Bosley:: No.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: -on behalf of Canadians to supervise the transportation of hazardous goods and materials.


Lucien Bouchard: No.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The Environment Minister shakes his head and says "no". Let me quote from the press release which accompanied the Minister of State for Transport's return from Switzerland in March. It states:
The federal Department of Transport administers the Act and regulations, and is responsible for ensuring compliance in rail, marine and air transport, and generally for the activities of shippers of dangerous goods, which includes hazardous wastes.
They are not shaking their heads any more. It is right in her own press release from her Department.
As the newest member of the Standing Committee on Transport, whose responsibility it is among other things to ensure the safe transportation of dangerous goods, I submitted an open letter to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. It requests that the Minister of State for Transport be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport. I wrote:
It is imperative that the Minister explain what she knew concerning the illegal importation of toxic contaminated gasoline and oils into Canada from the United States.

May 12, 1989
Supply
As you are aware, the Minister has confirmed that she has learned
of the possibility that contaminated petroleum products were being
transported across the Canadian border from Mr. Daniel Green, a
Montreal environmentalist. It is incumbent upon the Minister of
State for Transport to answer the following questions:
1.	What was the exact nature of the Minister's discussions with Mr. Green?
2.	Was this the first time that the possibility of toxic-contaminated petroleum products being transported into Canada came to the Minister's attention?
3.	Did the Minister have any conversations with other federal Departments or agencies regarding such possibilities?
4.	Did the Minister at any time discuss such possibilities with other Ministers of the Crown?
5.	What immediate steps did the Minister take to ensure the safety of the Canadian public by identifying possible sources of toxic-contaminated gasoline and oils?
6.	What does she mean when she states that officials from the Department of the Environment "took action" in relation to this possibility?
7.	Did the Minister or any other member of the Crown communicate the possibility of illegal importations of toxic-contaminated petroleum products to officials of the United States Government?
8.	Did the Minister or any other Minister of the Crown to her knowledge receive any information from officials of the United States Government of the possibility that toxic-contaminated petroleum products were entering Canada?
The Canadian public and Members of the House of Commons have been trying to acquire the answers to these and other questions. I believe that the only recourse left to us is to have the Minister appear before the committee at the earliest possible time.
First it was the Minister of Finance who seriously breached his ministerial responsibility by issuing his Budget by press release. Then the Minister of State for Transport chose to ignore very serious information given to her in Switzerland two months ago. Again, it is a breach of ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Revenue all have breached their ministerial responsibility in order to conceal and then confuse Canadians.
This is a very dangerous precedent. Ministerial responsibility is a key principle of British parliamentary tradition. All of this negligence is inexcusable and is eroding this absolutely crucial principle of our parliamentary system.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct some questions to the Minister, but I will ask the Member who just spoke what he thinks of the competence of the Minister and his Department.
The Minister has praised his Department for all that it is doing. I met with officials of his Department on March 9 to discuss a serious problem in regard to the burning of chemical waste products in an open burner at a pulp mill in Montana. I received an interim answer on April 3, stating that the matter was being investigated.
People are very concerned about this situation which had never happened in North America. Russia is the only other place where we could find these kind of chemicals being burned in an open burner.
On April 251 wrote back to the Minister to update him on the situation and explain the growing urgency. This time I only received an acknowledgement to my letter.
On May 9 I wrote again saying that Canadians were agonizing in their wait for an answer. I received another letter saying that the Minister was investigating.
His Department has been approached with a specific topic. It was given samples of the caustic material being burned. To date the Department is still investigating.
Is that the kind of environmental protection we are getting with regard to contaminated gasoline coming from the United States?
The Minister's Department knows about the specific topic I have raised. We are still waiting for an answer about what the Department is doing. We have simply asked it to conduct some testing to identify the material. Representatives from Montana and British Columbia are worried about it, yet the Department has not found the time to give us an answer.
Does the Hon. Member have confidence in this Environment Minister and his Department to deal with the type of problems that we have?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is hard to put trust in someone like the Minister who has the responsibility to look after Canadians, especially when it comes to pollution and the like. I say that especially in light of the situation which we face at this time when evidence has been revealed and when people have known about it months ago. It shows that there has been obvious neglect. Someone came up and
May 12, 1989

said: "Did you know this?" It was someone with some credibility who said: "Did you know this or that?" In reply we have seen that the Minister said: "Oh, yes, that is very interesting, thank you very much". To use her own words: "That was the extent of it". Yes, it is repugnant. It is totally irresponsible. I have no faith in the Minister of the Environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Members opposite laugh. Why should I have shame? I point to the Hon. Member opposite who said: "Shame on you". How can he sit behind the Minister of the Environment and say that? All I am doing is putting forward the evidence as was stated in Hansard and in the Government's own press releases. Members opposite cannot argue with the facts. The facts are all there.
In the debate on the Budget we heard from Members opposite: "What would you have done about it? How can we handle the deficit?" Let me go on record right now on this particular matter to outline with pride the Liberal Party's actions versus the Conservative Government's inaction. We on this side of the House have been concerned about transboundaiy shipments of hazardous wastes for some time. Unlike the Government we are not the Johnny-come-lately to this important issue.
Soon after the House resumed last month the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Official Opposition's spokesperson for the environment placed a question on the Order Paper which requested the release of detailed information to this House and to the Canadian people on the importation of hazardous wastes into Canada. Information concerning exports of hazardous wastes from Canada was also requested.
Members of the Liberal Party did not know, in advance of Monday of this week, that hazardous wastes were being mixed in with fuel shipments. We were not in attendance at the UN conference in Switzerland, as was the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin). We were not party to Mr. Green's conversations with the Minister and other departmental officials, nor did Liber-
Supply
al MPs participate in the meeting between the former Minister of National Revenue and Mr. James Conrad, Executive Vice-President of the Petroleum Marketers Association of Canada. Finally, Liberal MPs did not attend the September 11, 1987 meeting at the Toronto offices of Revenue Canada where this same issue of toxic tainted fuel was discussed.
The Official Opposition is calling for a committee of Parliament to begin an immediate and in-depth study of toxic waste fuel trade in the country and into the Government's inept response to numerous warnings of its existence, warnings that came possibly months ago.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. friend from Hamilton West. I have been listening with care to his remarks. I am just a little chagrined that he should be attacking such an attentive, hard working, responsible and caring Minister as the Hon. the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I would like it to be on record that it was this Government in the previous Parliament which passed one of the most rigorous and stringent environmental protection Acts that the country has ever seen.
I would be very interested to know from the Hon. Member, since he is talking about what can practically be done when Liberals are taken into the picture, when they know the facts and what action they can take, just what action has been taken by the Government of Ontario in this instance. As we know, environment is a shared jurisdiction.
I wonder whether in his vast experience in the Liberal Party the Hon. Member is privy to whether Mr. Conrad has during his quests for Liberal nominations said anything about these matters in any nomination speeches.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not going to thank the Hon. Member for his question. It was put in the typical way that the Government has been acting over the past few days by making light of an issue of such importance.

May 12, 1989
Supply


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am not making light of it. I am asking a question.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The Hon. Member shows an obvious dereliction of duty, a masking of some type of interpretative event. He is saying more or less: "Let us make some fun of them and Canadians will forget all about it. The newspaper headlines will die out and we will go on to some other issue". This issue will not die out. This Party is committed to preserving what Canadians believe we in this House should be doing, that is, looking after their needs when it comes to pollution and when it comes to the environment.
The question included a quote.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: You are afraid of the question.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I have already said that I am not going to grace the Hon. Member with an answer to his completely ridiculous question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I am trying to get serious about this issue.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Answer the question!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, in the Hon. Member's question he talked about the attentive, caring and hard working Minister. When it comes to working for one's constituents and representing their interests in the House, whether one is in opposition or at the ministerial level, I do not question whether the person is attentive or hard working. We are all very hard working. We are all very attentive. There is no question about that.
What I have to question is: if the Minister has total responsibility for those who are under him, then how could those who work under him or around him in other Ministries not communicate with the Minister? If there is no communication with the Minister, the Minister cannot act on a situation, as has happened in this very case, which has been demonstrated by, first, not knowing about it, then knowing about it, and then: "I knew about it Monday. I know I did not. I knew about it last month. Oh, the Minister of State for Transport mentioned it to me a couple of months ago". Let us get serious here about this situation. Yes, he is a hard working Minister. He has the ultimate responsibility to be accountable for those underneath him. Unfortunately, those building
blocks underneath him are crumbling. He has no choice but to say: "We were wrong".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last question. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay).


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the Hon. Member from the Official Opposition had to say, but I would just like to have his comments on the following point, especially when he mentions the responsibility of the various Ministers involved and when he also quotes his references concerning Mr. Green's statements and particularly Mr. Conrad's, not without casting doubt on these individuals' statements, but he was just quoting a statement or something said on a television program, if I understood correctly this morning, to the effect that Mr. Green seemed to be sort of testifying that officials or individuals in the Department were not as attentive as they might be to certain questions. That of course is based on his experience going back several years. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, because this whole debate has been going on for a week or even more in this House about the impact and importance of this, in view of what he said, I would like him to give us more specific-I would even say more relevant-facts about the general allegations made by these individuals.
Because, on the one hand, if Mr. Green complains that officials were not or still are not attentive to his comments, not only his but those of the companies, how come, faced with such an important problem, he was not more straightforward, specific and to-the-point? Secondly, how come Mr. Conrad, who also couched his remarks in general terms, who is responsible for our having the debate today, did not take the opportunity a few months after he appeared before the Finance Committee to get down to particulars and be specific about his denunciations so that, again, the Government could discharge its responsibilities?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Did you understand that question any better than I did, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Member wants me to go to the Committee on Finance? Perhaps the Hon. Member could clear up the question. I am at a loss to understand the point of his question.
May 12, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member did not quite understand the question. The Hon. Member for Lotbi-niere (Mr. Tremblay).


Maurice Tremblay: In that case, I will try- I was careful to speak slowly and clearly, but I will repeat: According to the Hon. Member, we are faced with a serious problem. I may remind him, however, that we are dealing with allegations of a general nature. No details were given in this debate about a specific business or a specific situation that would jeopardize the health of Canadians. Since there is no specific information, I may refer you to two people who were widely quoted during the past week, who said themselves that public servants did not always pay much attention to their information. Why wasn't Mr. Green, who has had many years of experience in dealing with politicians and public servants, more direct and more specific in his statements so that the Minister concerned could act immediately? Furthermore, the Hon. Member does not seem to be aware that Mr. Conrad, after his meeting in Ibronto, appeared a few weeks later, before the Finance Committee to talk about the tax. On that occasion, he did not mention the general statements he made in Toronto. Why didn't he, if it was as important as all that?


Mr. Della  Noce@: He never talked about it!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I have been attempting to work very hard for my constituents in Hamilton West on various committees with various points of view. The Hon. Member mentioned that I brought forward evidence of generalities. This evidence of generalities is the Government's own creation. I was not privy to the meetings that have taken place. Liberal MPs were not privy to the events in Switzerland. The Hon. Member and the Government was.
Two months ago evidence was brought forward and indications were made to the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin). She was told by the environmentalist that there was a problem and the possibility that there were trans-shipments of those fuels laced with PCBs.


Mr. Della  Noce@: How do you know? That is not true. You were not there.
Supply
Mr Keyes: I refer back to Hansard, and also the Hon. Member could refer to the statement made today.
On May 10, 1989 as reported in Hansard at page 1535 the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) stated:
Mr. Speaker, at a conference in Basle, Switzerland, there were
conversations in which Mr. Green stated his concern about toxic
waste crossing the border-


John William Bosley: Not fuel. Not gasoline.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The issue came before the Government. It was placed in the hands of the Government. Mr. Green mentioned it directly to the Minister of State for Transport who is responsible for the transportation of hazardous wastes.
As a colleague of mine on this side of the House asked: Are we beaming this stuff around? We are not in the Star Trek generation yet, so how is it getting across the border? It must be getting across the border in drums, or perhaps not drums, trucks.
Acting swiftly, as it should have two months ago, the Government advised Customs that there was a problem, put some more crews on the border to ensure that those trucks or those specific avenues in which toxic wastes could cross the border were checked out, and that those trucks did not have that material in them. Let us take samples of all those materials coming across and make note of the transportation companies. That is what should have been done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a most interesting exchange, however, it must end. On debate the Hon. Minister of National Revenue.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible in an attempt to set the record straight from the perspective of the Department of National Revenue.
The Liberal Member who just finished speaking seems to be as confused as was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) today in Question Period, when he suggested that what was happening on this side of the House within the Ministry and between various Government and cabinet colleagues was inconsistent and confusing. The only inconsistency and confusion exists in the minds of the Leader of the Opposition and some of his back-benchers, including the one who just finished speaking, and most specifically the environmental critic, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who is not only inconsistent, but in most of her statements on

May 12, 1989
Supply
this matter, and her history serves her well, she is unreliable and irresponsible.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Nonsense.


Otto John Jelinek: I will address the allegations once again, although they have been answered by myself and others very clearly over the past four or five days. This Cabinet is unified and consistent, and that is something we do not find across the aisle in the Liberal Party or in the New Democratic Party.
We have acted swiftly and responsibly. The last speaker talked about the meeting in Switzerland. When talking about inconsistency, in his last two statements the Hon. Member was totally inconsistent in that he suggested there was discussion at that meeting in Switzerland about contaminated fuel crossing the borders between Canada and the United States. When he was pressed by my colleague to come up with the facts he read from Hansard and quoted the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) who has clearly stated on a number of occasions that the only discussions that took place in Switzerland were generalities about the possibility of toxic wastes coming across the border.
Through our 3,000 very professional Customs Officers across the border, the Department of National Revenue, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, with other police forces and with provincial Governments we have instituted ongoing tests, spot checks, and random testing of toxic waste coming across the border. Because of the discussion in Switzerland that everyone is now talking about, at 5 a.m. of that morning, officials in Switzerland placed a phone call to their leadership here, to the Department of the Environment, in which they stated that Mr. Green had made this vague suggestion that there was a possibility that toxic materials-not contaminated fuel-was crossing the border. Immediately the Department of the Environment speeded up its process of blitz checks. That process was not scheduled to begin until May or June.
Those checks were speeded up, and I believe April 1 was the first check. There were several days of checks at that time, and another series of checks a week later. There was immediate and decisive action taken in co-operation with the Department of National Revenue
and the provinces. Samples were taken and, lo and behold, no fuel was found to have been contaminated.
Instead of trying to come up with scare tactics, which seems to be what Members of the Opposition do on any given day, I wish they would finally realize the facts are as I have stated and as have been stated by the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and other Ministers in a very consistent, responsible manner.
That leads me to the allegations made of people in Revenue Canada having known some time ago as a result of the meeting on September 11, 1987 in Toronto. As I pointed out yesterday, at the earliest opportunity upon finding out that such a meeting did take place I came to this Chamber at 11 a.m. and rose on a question of privilege. I made it very clear that-I do not have the notes from which I read so I will paraphrase-a meeting had taken place regarding tax evasion. There was an ongoing investigation by the Department of National Revenue, again in conjunction with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, in this instance, and there was a meeting to determine how best we could act in that respect.
During the course of the meeting it is true that an informant made mention of the fact that a truck driver in the United States told him that the truck driver thought that perhaps there was some questionable material put into his fuel tanker for transportation within the United States. At no time at that meeting was there any suggestion of contaminated fuel or the possibility of contaminated fuel flowing from the United States into Canada. Upon finding this out we contacted the seven individuals representing Revenue Canada who were at that meeting. Five of those individuals have no recollection of contaminated fuel even being discussed and the other two confirmed that, in fact, the informant said that there may have been a truck driver who may have had some waste put into his fuel tanker for transportation within the United States.
Further to that, notes were taken by two of these officers from Revenue Canada. I have reviewed those notes very carefully and I can tell you that there was no mention whatever in either of the two notes referring to any contaminated fuel, let alone the possibility of contaminated fuel coming across the border to Canada. That
May 12, 1989

is why the Revenue Canada officers did not pass on information to higher sources within Revenue Canada because there was no information regarding contamination of fuel coming into Canada.
Because there is an RCMP investigation taking place into this whole matter at present, I passed along those notes to the RCMP yesterday as part of the over-all investigation. So much about the meeting in Toronto with Revenue Canada officials.
Let us get to Mr. Jim Conrad, the executive vice-president of the Petroleum Marketers Association of Canada. I guess he first told the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) about the matter, for whatever reason I do not know. Perhaps because he ran for the nomination of the Liberal Party prior to the last election in Etobicoke Centre wanting to run against my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He lost. He was not satisfied with that so Mr. Conrad ran for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga South after that to try to run against the chairman of our Finance Committee. He lost that nomination as well. I am not saying that there is any prejudice on Mr. Conrad's part against the Conservative Party and in favour of the Liberals-


Some Hon. Members:: Of course not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -lam just putting on record some of the facts, Mr. Speaker.
In any event, Mr. Conrad, after making accusations at a meeting on January 7, 1987 with my predecessor, the then Minister of National Revenue, he brought up the matter of the possibility of contaminated fuels coming into Canada from the United States and we started looking at all of the records, all of them.
First, on that same day, January 7, 1987, Mr. Conrad wrote a letter to the then Minister of National Revenue. I will be happy to table the letter. It deals strictly with the strategy on tax evasion. There is no reference whatever to contaminated fuels in that letter. It seems to me that if Mr. Conrad on the same day he wrote that letter and is alleged to have told the then Minister that he was concerned about contaminated fuel that he would have
Supply
made reference to it in his letter. But no reference was made in that letter.
Furthermore, on March 13, a few months later, Mr. Conrad sent a telex to the Minister's office pointing out in detail the discussions that took place on January 7 in the Minister's office with Mr. Conrad. In detail-it is a long telex-he pointed out all the things they talked about. Nowhere in the telex from Mr. Conrad to the then Minister dated March 13, 1987, is there any reference whatever in way, shape or form to contaminated fuel, let alone the possibility of contaminated fuel coming into Canada.
We go a little further. On May 20, a very nice day-it happens to be my birthday and I want Hon. Members to remember that because it is coming up soon-Mr. Conrad gave testimony to the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee. It is fairly long testimony on fuel. I did not figure out how many hours but it is hours of testimony filling about 40 to 50 pages. There is not one reference by Mr. Conrad or by anybody else in the committee hearing regarding contaminated fuel, let alone the possibility of contaminated fuel coming into Canada.
Finally, although Mr. Conrad has said that he did talk to the then Minister about this on January 7, it is very strange because we find confusion in Mr. Conrad's statement. I guess all Liberals seem to be confused and it seems he falls into that category. One day he said that he did discuss the matter with the Minister on January 7, and this morning on Canada AM and I quote: "When referring to that meeting with Mr. MacKay, Mr. Conrad said, well, the meeting focused primarily on tax evasion so we didn't deal explicitly with the toxic contamination". "We did not deal explicitly with the toxic contamination", so there you have it, Mr. Speaker. The first time anything came to my attention in a documented way in hard evidence where Mr. Conrad is concerned about contaminated fuel was today when a copy of a letter dated May 11, 1989, arrived.
We have already said that we have been aware of allegations of contaminated fuels since last Monday. This letter dated May 11, 1989, was signed by Mr. Conrad, the executive director of Petroleum Marketers Association of Canada. It is a Dear David letter, the David he is referring to is David Peterson, the Premier of the Province of Ontario. I will not read the whole letter,

May 12, 1989
Supply
but Mr. Conrad states: "Dear David, you know of my strong support for you and the Liberal Government, but you have a serious problem and I would like to offer a constructive suggestion". He goes on to say,
"My frustrations and those of the industry and environmentalists is that your officials in the Province of Ontario, both in the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Environment, have repeatedly stonewalled all suggestions and recommendations from this association. Jim Bradley is only damaging the reputation of Government when he says he has the answers when he doesn't. David, your officials don't have the answers. They are the problem, not the solution.".
This is the first time any hard evidence has come to our attention that Mr. Conrad is really concerned about the environment or about contaminated fuels. We have dug through other files including the files of the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) when he was Minister of National Revenue and talked to the people who were at the meeting with Mr. Conrad and the former Minister of National Revenue, and as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) would say, not a twitter or twaddle of evidence is there that there was ever an indication by Mr. Conrad to suggest that he was concerned about contaminated fuel, let alone the importation of contaminated fuel into Canada. Let me just say, so much for Mr. Conrad and his allegations.
We are being told that we are not moving fast enough or in a co-ordinated way. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Timer) this morning in Question Period said that Ministers do not talk to each other. He may think that because Members on his front benches do not talk to each other, the same is true on this side. It of course is not true.
As soon as this matter came to our attention through the story in The Globe and Mail on Monday, all appropriate Ministers not only talked to each other but met on a regular basis with officials to bring together a co-ordinated program. In Customs within the Department of National Revenue, immediately upon finding out that there was an indication of a concern, we developed a national sampling program which was implemented on May 10 this year. All Customs operational service
managers have been notified that these inspections will be carried out across Canada.
Canadian importers dealing with these companies have been identified. Lookouts against these companies are now in our automated system and the details of any shipments involving these companies are being immediately sent to Ottawa and shared with the RCMP and the Department of the Environment. A national print-out of all importation of oil and gas products has been forwarded to Environment Canada and is being shared by the various Departments associated with this problem.
Today the Minister made a four point announcement, and the part of it that will affect Customs Canada is the reduction of the number of border points across Canada so that we can direct tanker traffic into certain border points where we can be in a position, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and the various provinces in utilizing professional customs officers within the Department of National Revenue, to make certain that the best and fullest possible tests on fuel will take place.
At this moment my officials are working on an implementation plan and they will continue to work until that plan is ready. Once that plan is ready, customs officers will be notified. The plan will be implemented and an announcement will be made accordingly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Let me conclude by saying that the Government has acted. It is the responsibility of Members of opposition Parties to question and to criticize, there is no doubt about that. During my few years in Opposition, from time to time I did it once or twice myself.
However, opposition Members should not try to mislead inadvertently or to confuse or bring fears into the minds of Canadians over things that are not true or that do not exist. There is no evidence, there is no evidence. As George Bush would say, read my lips, there is no evidence that contaminated fuel is coming into Canada. There is no evidence at all.
We do not mind the questioning. We welcome and encourage it. We do not mind criticism. However, opposition Members should be honest with themselves and should not confuse or scare people. They should come up with the facts, and the facts have been stated clearly and succinctly and we will continue to conduct
May 12, 1989

ourselves in the way we have been conducting ourselves, in a co-ordinated, straightforward, co-operative, fair and proper fashion.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, much like the Minister of the Environment seems to want to leave the impression on the record, and he concluded his remarks by saying this, that there is absolutely no evidence of any poisoned fuel coming into Canada. Perhaps the Minister could respond directly to what appeared on the front page of The Globe and Mail of May 9, 1989, something which has not been challenged by the Minister. The article reads:
In Buffalo, at least three oil companies have blended chemical wastes into fuel products over the past four years and sold them in Canada-
That is a pretty blunt statement. It goes on to say:
- and Western New York State, police, tax investigators and participants in the scheme said in interviews over the past five months.
It notes in the same article that over 50 interviews were taken.
In The Globe and Meal of May 8,1989, an article reads:
Bootleggers that sold some of the tainted fuels in Canada -Ebony Oil and J.R. Oil Sales-were in the waste-oil business at the same time.
The key words there are "Bootleggers that sold some of the tainted fuels in Canada".
I do not think the Government is dealing responsibly and appropriately with the evidence that has been put before the House that the Canadian public has a right to know about. Premier Peterson was interviewed for an article in The Ottawa Citizen of May 10. The article reads:
But he also said federal officials had been told about the tainted
fuel.
"I'm told by some that they were (told)-that they were a part of
some of these investigations. The question you want to ask is why
didn't they tell their Minister".
Then another veiy long piece appeared on the front page of The Globe and Mail of May 8, 1989, which lists the companies involved including American Continental Oil Inc., Erie Petroleum Transfers Inc., Welch Energy Inc. and Envirosure. Those companies are all listed as companies that sold; not companies that may have sold, may have smuggled, could have smuggled or considered smuggling. It is very clear that the reporters who looked
Supply
into this, the police and the tax investigators have said this.
Is the Minister suggesting that the police and the tax investigators are wrong, that all of the people who have been investigating are wrong, that only he and the Minister of the Environment are right and that the Premier of Ontario is wrong when he says that federal officials were told? The Minister is saying that they were not.
Could the Minister be very specific about the September 11, 1987, meeting at Revenue Canada headquarters in Toronto? Is the Minister today telling the House that the matter of poisoned fuels was never raised at that meeting?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that the Government does not make a habit of responding to any or every newspaper story that may or may not be factual or may be speculative. We deal with facts. That is number one. The RCMP is investigating this whole matter and that is another situation. I suspect, believe and understand that the RCMP is looking into any allegations that are made in the news media or elsewhere. I am not sure, but I understand that that would be the case.
Inasmuch as we in the Cabinet are concerned, we have to deal with the facts that are made available to us. We have Departments that are run by very professional people who look into the situation in a very clear and succinct way. We follow up on the information that has been given to us in a open and professional manner. We would be in a shambles as are the two opposition Parties, if we had to respond in a quick kneejerk way to any suggestion or any newspaper story that may or may not come up on any given day.
As far as the September 11 meeting is concerned, the Hon. Member asked me a question which I will paraphrase. I think he said: "Is the Minister saying that at no time in that meeting was there any mention in regards to contaminated fuel?" I did not say that there was not a mention in respect to contaminated fuel.
What I said was made very clear on numerous occasions. The meeting came to my attention two days ago. The earliest opportunity for me to respond was yesterday, at the beginning of the sitting of the House at 11 a.m. I rose on a question of privilege and I said that according to our information and our sources who were at the meeting-our officials spoke to all seven people

May 12, 1989
Supply
from Revenue Canada-the meeting was held because of tax evasion concerns with which we were dealing in conjunction with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the U.S. Internal Revenue Department. An informant alluded to the fact that a truck driver in the United States told him some time ago that perhaps there was some questionable material put in his fuel tank for transportation to another state in the United States. There was no suggestion and no hint of any contaminated fuel coming into Canada.
I understand and I am led to believe that that is the reason revenue officials at that meeting-there were seven revenue officials, five from Customs and two from Excise-did not report that statement from the informant to higher officials in the Department of Revenue was that there was nothing in that one brief statement or two; I believe he referred to the truck driver twice. There was no evidence nor indication that this questionable substance that went into that one truck driver's fuel tank would be coming into Canada. In fact, the statement was made that that fuel tank would be transported from one state in the United States to another. There was no discussion about the possibility of it coming into Canada.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister passed comment earlier to the Minister of the Environment on the number of border inspectors available across Canada. I think the number was 3,000.
Has this number increased or decreased over previous years? What is the role of these inspectors with regard to inspecting for hazardous wastes or inspecting fuel? Do their duties relate to the issue that is under discussion today and has been throughout the week?
The Minister of the Environment referred to 34 new inspectors. I presume those are environment inspectors. What arrangements are in place for the co-ordination of their activities with the officials of the Minister's Department, particularly with the Customs officials at the borders? What particular training do these Custom officials have in the detection of hazardous wastes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Member, but I think so far we have about three questions and the time has almost expired. I will let the Minister answer.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tty to answer as many questions as possible.
First, on the quantity of custom officers, there is an ongoing effort to try to make better use of officers. It is true that there has been a reallocation of some Custom officers over the past few years. The fact is that there are approximately 3,000 professional Custom officers working on behalf of Customs Canada at every border crossing in the United States. There are times when others are brought in to assist during peak periods of tourist traffic and so on.
What is the co-ordination between Custom officers and environment? Whenever there is a check on toxic substances, whether it be in contaminated fuel or anywhere else, obviously Custom Canada officers must be there to co-operate with environmental officials.
I will repeat what I said earlier. At this moment officials of Revenue Canada, Department of the Environment and other Departments are working together to create a plan which we hope to implement at the earlier opportunity, whereby we will reduce the number of border points for traffic of liquid fuels. At such points there will be both Custom officers and environment officers, hopefully with the co-operation of the provinces as well, to make certain that we will be able to inspect and check as many, if not all, the fuel tankers coming into Canada as possible.
As the Minister of the Environment said earlier, there are never enough resources available. We wish there were more. The number of experts in the Department of the Environment has increased. There is co-operation and co-ordination between the Department of Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Transport, the appropriate Ministers, and the Department of National Revenue. We are currently developing an implementation plan to put teams at those border crossings that we feel are the most appropriate to deal with the situation. That is the action plan we are taking, despite the fact that to date there is still no evidence that contaminated fuel is coming into Canada from the United States. The Minister of the

Environment outlined this morning that the tests taken thus far prove that there was no contamination. We are taking the precaution because we are the responsible Government. We are consistent, and we are dealing with this as effectively and efficiently as possible.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the issue being debated today is a very important one. I want to assure the House and Canadians that this Government regards it as seriously as any other Party or any other group of individuals.
A great deal of attention focused during the course of this week on the stories which appeared in The Globe and Mail beginning on Monday. As Parliamentary Secretary I have had the occasion to be present during most of the meetings which have taken place during the week. Clearly the Minister of the Environment stated before the House on numerous occasions that he learned of the allegations only when he read the newspaper account on Monday. A great deal of debate during the course of the week has been focused on what may or may not have occurred rather than on what should be done. We could waste a great deal of energy and time in the House focusing on the past rather than focusing on the future.
If all Members of the House are as concerned about the environment and the health of Canadians as indeed I think they are, then I would suggest that it would be most appropriate for the House to use the time and energy remaining in the debate today and lying ahead to try to address the concerns of Canadians which exist. It would be appropriate to put them in some sort of proper perspective and to ensure that proper procedures are put in place so that we can assure Canadians wherever they may live that they need not fear for their future when they use the petroleum products on which we in Canada so heavily depend.
I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to talk about the petroleum industry because it is a very, very important part of the whole process. Certainly there has been a great deal of discussion about the the role of Governments at both levels and interested individuals. The petroleum industry is one which must be a very integral part of the process. It must be a very valuable partner if we are to make sure that the measures that
Supply
need to be in place are there, and if we are to reassure Canadians as we would wish to do.
To be realistic, I think there is a certain tendency in Canada on frequent occasions to malign industry, particularly if it happens to be big industry. Perhaps we are all somewhat guilty of that. I would suggest that the petroleum industry in Canada has in recent years spent vast sums of money, millions of dollars, upgrading its facilities to ensure that its products are as protective of the environment as they possibly can be.
It has demonstrated its willingness to be part of the process, to confirm the recent announcement of the Minister of Environment that the use of leaded gasoline will be banned by December 1, 1990, a full two years sooner than had originally planned. It has indicated its ability to co-operate with that deadline.
I am certain no one more than that industry has been alarmed by the reports in The Globe and Mail during the course of this week. Certainly anyone who has read them cannot help but be disturbed by them. There have been allegations that tainted fuel has been coming into Canada. Perhaps this is a fact. We have to remember that these are allegations rather than proven facts. There is also the allegation that there are connections with organized crime, which of course alarms us all.
One of the reasons we are so concerned is the fact that any talk of PCBs is alarming to us all, particularly those of us who are lay people and may not even understand the nature of PCBs, let alone what their impact on the environment or on individuals could be.
Earlier this afternoon we heard a debate within a debate about how the science community is reported to have responded to PCBs and about the concerns of other members expressed at those reports.
I am afraid I left my chemistry back in first year university, but what is evident is that it is very difficult to dispose of PCBs. They must be burned with great care. They are very persistent and therefore a tremendous danger to our environment.
When we talk about tainted fuel, we must first of all appreciate the fact-and this has been said here on several different occasions this afternoon-that there is as yet no evidence discovered by the many people who are now part of the process. There has been no evidence found of tainted fuel. As I say that, I do not dispute the allegations in what is obviously a very well researched series of articles in The Globe and Mail this week,

Supply
indicating that there has been a number of investigations, that a number of samples have been taken at the border, and that to date there is no evidence of PCBs being found.
We would perhaps be naive if we were to sort of hang on to that as evidence that there need not be reason for concern. It is important to remember that we are dealing with the fact that the evidence has not yet been found. It may indeed well be found.
The question which the motion before the House addresses, is important. It deals with how the Government has responded to the crisis that has emerged, how the Government has responded to the concerns which have been expressed. I would suggest that the Government has responded exceedingly well this week, bearing in mind that there has not been a lot of hard information, there have been rumours, and there has been fear expressed.
The Ministers within the federal Government immediately began to correlate their activities among themselves. I saw several meetings of Ministers take place this week, those who have a concern-Customs, Revenue Canada, Health, Transport, and Environment. At the same time meetings were set up and contacts were made with counterparts in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I attended briefly a meeting this morning at which there was a Minister from the Province of Alberta. I know that communication is passing from the federal Government to all other provinces.
In addition, there was a meeting last night between representatives of the petroleum industry and officials from Energy, Mines and Resources, from Environment, from Health and Welfare, and from Customs and Excise, to review what is known and to plan for the future. The emphasis throughout the course of the week has been on the need for government at all levels, the industry, and the interested parties to work together in a co-operative manner in order to plan for the future and to address the reported problems.
If indeed we are considering what is good for the country, what is good for Canadians, and what is in the interest of those who are here and those who are watching on television, I would suggest that the emphasis should be on what is needed to address the possibility of
tainted fuel coming into Canada. It is far more important to plan and work together in co-operation than it is to launch allegations back and forth across the hall, back and forth across the House or on television with respect to who said what to whom at what particular time, or who did not say what to whom at any particular time.
I believe there is a message for us as parliamentarians in the polls, in the sense that public opinion polls have told all of us who are interested in listening that the environment is a very major issue in the minds of Canadians, that there is a great deal of concern of people of all generations.
There is this interest in the environment and this fear for the future. Recently I came back from Helsinki where I attended a follow-up conference to the Montreal Protocol meetings, and it was evident that there were far too many CFCs in the environment than we would wish. What is particularly distressing is that the CFCs which are there will remain there regardless of what we do by way of reduction of emissions for a hundred years.
I think the public is now beginning to tell us as politicians and as parliamentarians that the problems of the environment are far, far too important to be diverted by partisan differences and partisan debate within the House of Commons. If indeed there is an issue before this House which deserves and needs the attention of the House in a non-partisan manner, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members of the House that that issue is the environment.
We may often disagree in terms of what is needed to be done. We may disagree on who is most capable of doing it. However, surely, we should never disagree on the importance and the difficulty of the task which lies ahead. While we can afford our partisan differences, and while perhaps they are a necessary part of the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, I believe Canadians are telling us pretty loud and clear that they do not want politicians spending an entire day in the House of Commons trying to score political points. What they really want are politicians to work together in order to develop a strategy that will ensure that the gasoline we buy in the pumps when we go home for the weekend, regardless of whether we buy it from an independent or we buy it from one of the major suppliers, is what it is
May 12, 1989

purported to be and that the air we breathe is as free of contaminants as we can conceivably make it.
If we are to achieve that objective, we must keep our partisan considerations at least to a minimum. We certainly would have to be exceedingly naive if we were to assume that they would ever disappear. I see an Hon. Member across the hall who sat with me on the Agriculture Committee in the past. One thing that always pleased me about the Standing Committee on Agriculture was that I think we were essentially as non-partisan in that committee as we could ever be. We recognized that the problems in agriculture did not all originate within Canada. They could not all be blamed on the Government, or government at any level even though there is sometimes a temptation to do that.
If we were really to develop policies to assist the Canadian farming community, we realize that it has to be done in as much of a spirit of non-partisanship as possible. I believe we came admirably close to that objective.
I suggest that members of the Standing Committee on Environment take up the task of examining all the information that is before us this week. That would be a very appropriate challenge for that committee.
I believe the most productive way, for all of us who are sincerely concerned about the environment, to address the issue is to focus on what is needed in the future rather than on what may or may not have occurred in the past.
It is essential that the industry be considered as a partner in that process. That is why I believe it was extremely important that the industry met with officials last night. I hope it has the opportunity to meet with provincial officials as well in the near future. It is important that they have agreed to meet again.
I had the opportunity to attend a meeting this morning. While I sat in the room I did not think about the politics of the people there. It was only after a few moments that I realized that the Minister of the Environment who was chairing the meeting, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and their counterparts from the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec were not of
Supply
the same Party. Of course, that is true for the Minister from the Province of Alberta as well.
The fact that they were not from the same Party was not relevant to the discussions that were taking place. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from the interaction of officials. There is a lesson to be learned from the interaction of Ministers, which all of us in the House of Commons could learn particularly with reference to environmental matters.
Canadians are telling us that this issue is the most important one in Canada today. It is the most important issue for the next decade and perhaps the next century. PCBs last for a long time. CFCs last for five generations. We are talking about a problem that has great significance for Canadians for generations to come. That is why it is essential that we work together to devise a strategy to resolve the problems at hand.
Today the Minister of the Environment dealt with proposals for the future and the possibility of adding more toxic substances to the Hazardous Waste Act. That is why I stress it is important to look to the future and keep our differences to a minimum so we may concentrate on what is needed for the well-being of the country in the years ahead.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that the Government is responding exceedingly well to this situation. The fact is that the Government has shown an appalling neglect to this situation.
This morning on a television program broadcast across the country, Mr. Daniel Green, the Montreal environmentalist, was asked: "Can you tell us what you told Canadian officials in Switzerland earlier this year?" He said:
I knew what was going on. I informed Canadian officials of my concerns. I specifically talked about my concerns dealing with the use of fuel oil being used in industrial boilers and greenhouses, oils being imported from the States used in my province in Quebec.
When I spoke to government officials they seemed very much concerned. I was relatively specific in my allegations.
When I spoke of course to the Minister's office and to the Minister of State for Transport and her assistant, being less technical people, I wonder today if they really understood the whole implications of the environmental implications of burning tainted fuels, burning them improperly and contaminating Canadian environment.
This was brought forward this morning on television.

May 12, 1989
Supply
If someone with credibility came to the Hon. Member two months ago to express concern about the use in industrial boilers and greenhouses of fuel oils tainted with PCBs, oils being imported from the United States and used in the Province of Quebec, what would we have done with that information?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton West concerns what I was talking about during the course of my speech, and the task of going back and trying to create what was said or not said.
I too listened to Mr. Green on television this morning. I heard him use the term "relatively specific" as the Hon. Member quoted. I have to ask what the words "relatively specific" mean, particularly bearing in mind that earlier this week Mr. Green was quoted in The Gazette as saying he had not talked about this in specifics, but talked about toxic waste in general.
We should be debating today what has transpired since Monday. It was on Monday that the Minister of the Environment learned about the crisis which may exist with the movement of tainted fuel into Canada. I say that to the Hon. Member with as much certainty as I am capable.
I believe the Minister is sincere. I may say in passing that I suspect that he will prove to be one of the most effective Ministers of Environment we will have.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: What would you have done?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Let me say that I reflected very carefully on everything that was said to me in Helsinki last week to ensure, quite frankly, that there were no casual conversations of which I was a part and may not have fully understood as a lay person. There are many such casual conversations, the scientific significance of which I may not understand.
In a situation like that which the Hon. Member poses, I would have to evaluate it based upon its meaning to me.
The Minister of State for Transport is obviously the object of the questioning directly. She said that she ensured that the professionals who were about her, of which there were many, informed their superiors here in Ottawa. If I recall correctly, the telephone call was made to Ottawa at 5 a.m. She knew then that the appropriate thing had been done.
Last week in Helsinki, if I had talked to Dick Buxton, an internationally distinguished expert on CFCs, and he made a contact back to Ottawa to his superiors, I would have assumed, based upon my knowledge of the issue, that he had done the right thing.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister earlier this afternoon said that there is absolutely no evidence of any contaminated fuels crossing the border.
I assume that this assertion is being made on the basis of the results thus far from the sampling that was undertaken in a remarkably prescient border blitz from April 11 to April 13, given that the Government claims to have known nothing of this matter prior to last Monday. However, serendipity does work in human affairs.
As I understand it, during this blitz on April 13, 383 trucks were checked from which 113 samples were drawn. Of these some 30 to 35 were samples drawn from fuel trucks.
According to The Globe and Mail this morning the results of the testing of these samples have been received from the Ontario Government for 12 such samples. Certainly, less than half of all the fuel samples taken is a statistically insignificant amount.
I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary has some other sampling on which to base his contention that there is no evidence, or if perhaps he has received more samples than have thus far been publicly reported. Perhaps he is jumping the gun just a tad in this instance, rather as the Government did in the matter of the Budget leak, where in the 24 hours immediately following the leak, there was absolutely no question that the leak was but a consequence of theft. There was no question that it was undertaken by a criminal. These are judgments which seem since to be somewhat tempered.
I was wondering if his assurance in this instance might not become similarly tempered over the next little while.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the latter part of the question posed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), he suggests that we are guilty of jumping the tad?
May 12, 1989


Ross Harvey: Jumping the gun a tad.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Jumping the gun I am familiar with. I would have thought given the tenor of questions in the House in the last four or five days that that is the last thing that we would be accused of. Surely, we have been accused of the very opposite throughout most of the week.
What I have said and what others have said is that based upon the test results that have been completed-


Ross Harvey: Which are how many?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I cannot answer that. I did not do the testing. I am repeating information given to me by officials. There is no evidence that PCBs have been discovered. That is not to say that I am suggesting to the Hon. Member or to anyone else that we could ignore blithely the rather remarkable articles which have been published in The Globe and Mail. I do not discount that possibility. In fact, I worry about the possibility, which is exactly why there have been as many meetings and as many conferences for as many hours as there have been in the last five days. In that activity the Government shares the concern of the Hon. Member and the concerns of others.
We are simply repeating what the facts are at the moment. The facts are that there has been no evidence of PCBs having been found. I am happy if that is the case. However, I would not go out and bet the farm on the fact that that will always be the case.
I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever of irresponsibility in the manner in which we have responded during the course of the week. My defence of what we have been doing is a very acceptable defence, going back to the starting point. That is to say that on Monday of this week the Minister and many other Ministers realized there was an extremely serious issue of tremendous concern to us, to Members opposite and to all Canadians. That is why, as I have said, the steps have unfolded as they have, and why they will continue to unfold until we have convincing evidence.
The preliminary evidence that is there now I would not pretend for a moment should be interpreted as convincing evidence. Nevertheless, it is the evidence which is available to us.
Supply


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate. During the past week Members of the House have expressed their concern about the performance of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). Some have even called for his resignation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has responded by singing the praises of his Ministry and calling on the entire House to support his efforts in protecting our environment and the health of Canadians.
When we look at the record of what has been happening in the Ministry of the Environment, we see the tanker problem on the West Coast. The wildlife there is suffering. The whole environment of the West Coast has been attacked. According to the Ministry, no one could foresee that everything was not safe and all right.
Here we have a situation in the United States where it has been identified that from state to state there is a problem. Both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of National Revenue did not see forward enough to feel that possibly these types of things might be taking place in Canada. That is not acceptable.
The Minister has praised the Environmental Protection Act. I would like to speak about that Act. I wish to look at the administrative duties, especially with regard to what is expected of the Minister. The Act states that the Minister should take both preventive and remedial measures in protecting the environment. He should take the necessary steps to protect the environment while making social and economic decisions. He should endeavour to act in co-operation with the Governments of the provinces to protect the environment, and encourage the participation of people in Canada in making decisions that affect the environment.
He should facilitate the protection of the environment by the people of Canada, and endeavour to establish nationally consistent levels of environmental quality. He should provide information to the people of Canada on the state of the Canadian environment, and apply knowledge, science and technology to resolve environmental problems. He should endeavour to protect the environment from the release of toxic substances, which is what we are talking about here today. He should endeavour to act expediently to assess whether sub-

May 12, 1989
Supply
stances in use in Canada are toxic or capable of becoming toxic.
At the very least the Government should come forward immediately and start to test all greenhouses in Canada. It should take samples from their oil tanks to ensure that there is no toxic material to be found.
At this time of year greenhouses are producing vegetables which will be distributed throughout Canada and planted in our gardens. If the fuel being used is toxic and these young plants are being distributed across Canada and planted in our gardens, then I think the Canadian people should know.
If such a situation has been taking place for two years in the United States and the Government has said it has checked since Monday then, my goodness, once the word is out we cannot expect those oil carriers to cany this toxic fuel into Canada anymore. The Government should at least make some checks across Canada in various areas. It knows where these greenhouses are. The oil tanks in these areas could be easily checked. It would give us some idea that the Government is ready to take some action.
I want to speak for a minute if I may about the Environmental Protection Act. I think it has some very serious loopholes in it. I have in my riding a small community called Elko, British Columbia. The citizens of that community have been subjected for the past three months to one of the most blatant and underhanded uses of the burning of waste chemicals from a pulp mill. The pulp mill is operating under outdated technology which is its right under the Act since it was built before 1971. This company, Crestbrook Forest Industries, is now in the process of trying to establish a new pulp mill in Alberta to the tune of $1.3 billion. At the same time that this is going on, in the small community of Elko it is being allowed to take caustic chemicals from its pulp mill to an open, outdated beehive burner and bum them into the atmosphere.
No one knows the ramifications of this process. For the past year this community has been fighting that process through the waste management branch. It has spent $17,000 of its own money. When a company comes forward with an idea such as this, there are no provisions for the people involved to have some revenue to fight
this big company, and to identify their concerns. What will happen when this chemical comes out of the stack and into the grass and the cattle eat it. This has never been done in North America before, and it is something that is very serious to them.
Early in March I met with people from the Department of the Environment and brought this issue to their attention. To date I have not received a response from that Ministry with regard to the serious problems that could be caused from that type of activity. Elected representatives from the State of Montana, approximately 20 kilometres away, object to this process. The residents in the community object to it. The Ministry has not even shown the courtesy of conducting a simple test to assure the people that they are protected, or that there are serious problems concerned with it.
Because of the fight by the residents of Elko, and because of the representation we have made, with support from the State of Montana and the people backing us there and the workers in the mill, the company has decided to withdraw and quit. However, it was not because of the efforts of the Ministry of the Environment. It was because of the efforts of those individuals who put forth their own money, time, and effort to ensure that their environment was protected.
We have a very serious problem. We have a Minister who talks about the environment, but does very little about protecting it. When we are faced with even the possibility of poisonous materials mixed in with gasoline and fuel oils, the people of Canada deserve to know that the Government would go back two, three, or six months to check that fuel in various areas of Canada to ensure that it is clean. If it is not clean, then definitely the Department should do some checking as to the effects of those plants on the environment, or the people involved with it. It is a very serious matter, and one that we must deal with, and deal with now.
Members of the Government state that members of the Opposition do nothing but oppose. We have called for an all-committee investigation of this matter, but the Government does not want an all-committee investigation. It knows if members of the two opposition Parties become involved the truth would finally come out and the people of Canada would finally know what has taken place with regard to the Department of the Environment.
May 12, 1989

It is not good enough for us to have to identify the problems on the West Coast with regard to oil tanker spills and the damage to the environment. It is not good enough when we identify those subjects that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rises in the House and praises his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). It is not good enough that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) should rise in the House and state that his Department is quite clean, it has done its duty and carried out its process. That is not good enough. The Canadian people want more.
I have petitioned my constituency with regard to the environmental problem that we had in our riding. I received one of the biggest results in return with regard to the issue of burning those chemicals in an outdated burner. The Government had better start to address the environmental problems. It had better start now, and not only do it by attending conventions in Europe or in other countries, but start addressing the problems in Canada both with regard to the handling of dangerous chemicals, the effect it could have on our population, and with regard to the individual's right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
If the Government is going to act responsibly with its Environmental Protection Act, it should also include a section stating that when a company applies to carry out a project that could result in some environmental damage, and people want to attend a hearing to express their concerns, that that company should supply some funding in order that the people would be able to attend a hearing to express their concerns and conduct the research needed to address the problem that the company is trying to impose on them.
If the Government was acting responsibly with the environmental Act, it would place into the Act a provision that some funding would be made available in order that the respondents, the people who will be affected, will have an opportunity to receive funding to do the research to counteract what the company is saying, and to use that research in a responsible manner.
In this way we would all know that both the company and the residents who are living in that area will be protected and will feel that they have had their say, and that it has been conducted in a responsible manner with research required to be able to combat that type of a procedure. That is what must be done. It makes me mad
Supply
when I see the Minister of the Environment rise in the House and tell us what a great job his Department is doing.
I wrote to the Minister with regard to these problems. On March 9 I met with an official from the Minister's office to request that his Department test effluence from a pulp mill that was burning waste chemical products in an outdated burner. I had the samples with me and I was told that the samples could not be used, they would get their own, and that they would get back to me.
One month later, on April 3, I received a letter from the office of the Minister acknowledging that the meeting took place. I know that the meeting took place. Imagine writing to me and acknowledging that the meeting took place. It took one month to acknowledge the meeting, a meeting that was very detrimental to the area. The residents wanted some answers and they continued wait.
On April 25 I wrote to the Minister to update him on the situation and explain the growing urgency. This time I received an acknowledgement of my letter, and nothing more. The residents had waited with agonizing patience, and on May 4 again I wrote to the Minister and have yet to receive a reply. The Minister tells us what a great job his Department is doing. I told him where the problem was. I had the sample with me if he needed it, and to date I have not received an answer. The people in that riding stood up and fought to stop the project taking place. I am proud of the efforts of the citizens in the riding. However, I want to say to the Minister that he better start addressing the question, and he better start addressing it now. His Department had better start recognizing that it has a responsibility to the people of Canada.


Mr. TVemblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dedication and enthusiasm with which the Hon. Member approaches this problem, but there is one specific point: my colleague mentioned the propriety and even the need for this issue to be debated in the Environment Committee. The Deputy Prime Minister answered a similar question today, saying that he was quite willing for the Hon. Member to bring this question before the committee. So I wish the Hon. Member would be consistant and do just that. What is his problem? The Deputy Prime Minister opened the door for him to bring

May 12, 1989
Supply
the issue before the Committee, and now he accuses the Government of refusing to do so.


Sidney James Parker: We are looking for action. We are not looking for a study. We in the official Opposition want to be part of the discussion with the Government. We want the Government to take some action, action such as I have suggested. Let us have some recommendations to test some of those tanks in various areas, especially in the greenhouse areas. I ask the Member to make that suggestion to the Minister. Check the fuel oils and the tanks in some of these areas. At least let the citizens of Canada know that the Minister is prepared to do something, not on Monday because he only knew about it on Monday, according to him. We know this sort of thing has been taking place in the United States for over two years. We know that trucks have been coming back and forth across the border.
It would seem to us in this Party, and I am sure to those in the Liberal Party, that the right thing to do would be to do some testing. This testing should not be done at the border because the culprits will not be there tomorrow or the next day, we can bet on that. They are going to hide somewhere. These people are experienced enough to know that. But let us do some spot checks in the storage areas and let us check some of these tanks. But if you look in areas where you know you will find nothing of course you will find nothing.


Mr. Milliken:: Something is better than nothing.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. At the same time, I want to raise with him the following proposition which I was hoping to raise earlier on with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek), who is responsible for Customs and Excise. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so as a result of time constraints.
However, I do think that the House should be aware of what I am going to raise and I will ask my colleague to respond nevertheless.
In the constituency that I represent the port of entry is at Cornwall, Ontario, at the International Bridge. It is a very busy port of entry, not in terms of its volume
compared to others, but in terms of the workload of the staff. As a matter of fact, one day last week there were no less than five runs at the port. In other words, people stop but when an officer asks them a question they floor the accelerator and leave. That happened on five different occasions in Cornwall on May 3, Mr. Speaker.
The staff there have been informed, and have told me, that there will be cut-backs at that particular port of entry of no less than five people.
What does my colleague think of that kind of dedication by the Government toward protecting the port of entries? Given these cut-backs at busy ports of entry and the ports of entry where the staff cannot manage or do a thing about the situation, would it not be the right and better thing to do to increase staff, to give better protection instead of cutting back, particularly at times when we hear about inappropriate products entering our country?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the question, which is a very important one. If that is what is taking place, there are very serious problems with regard to other things such as drugs, immigration and so on. If those kinds of haphazard activities are taking place at the border then it is no wonder we are being faced with these kinds of problems. This is the problem with a Government that believes in cutting back, hacking away at various programs, doing a lot of talking but doing very little. I think you have identified a very serious area and it is one that I hope the Government will do something about.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member agree that the announcement today that fuel tankers coming into Canada will be permitted to enter at only 50 locations instead of the 150 or so currently in place would be an appropriate way to ensure that the accuracy of the testing and the flow of traffic is more carefully monitored?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with that at all. To say that you are going to block off certain areas is saying that you want to cut back. The staffing requirements have been cut by such a degree that there are not enough people to carry out the inspections needed.


Don Boudria: You cannot do the job. It is an admission of failure.
May 12, 1989


Sidney James Parker: That is precisely why we have the problems we have today.


James Ross Fulton: There are as many people giving out parking tickets in Ottawa as there are inspectors across the country.


Sidney James Parker: My colleague tells me that there are as many people giving parking tickets here in Ontario as there are inspectors at the borders across Canada.
My answer is no, definitely not. The Department has to get on with the job and do the job with adequate numbers of people in areas where they are required. In all sincerity I do not think that honest truck drivers and honest people in the transportation industry should have to go extra mileage to cross the border because of this Government's attitude toward inspections. Inspections should be taking place. If we have crossings, we should have people carrying out duties to make sure that Canadians are adequately protected. I cannot agree with the Hon. Member at all.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, fortunately debate has just arrived at the point in which I am particularly interested. The question has been raised this afternoon as to whether the Opposition should be opposing or not. Perhaps it is worth while to remind Members opposite of the reason in our parliamentary system that this side of the House is called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is called that because the role of opposition is fundamental to maintaining and protecting the rights of the public to know. It is also to ensure the accountability of the Government to the public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Write that down folks. That is important.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, a key question is whether the Government in fact is continuing to provide the resources necessary to ensure the health and safety of Canadians as well as giving them adequate services.
For two weeks we have been talking about how, where and with what effectiveness this Government uses the resources of Canadians to provide services to them. Throughout the last few months in looking at the kinds of cut-backs that have taken place in the Public Service, in the allocation of human resources to the provision of services mandated-may I remind the Government-by this Parliament to Canadians, we have identified that cut-backs have led to deterioration in air safety, in the
Supply
inspection and certification of carriers and pilots operating in this country while the number of people and planes flying has increased. We have identified that decreases in the numbers of inspectors and lack of adequate training has led to the deterioration in the protection of the food supply coming into Canada. We have identified, as substantiated by the Auditor General's report, that there is inadequate inspection to secure the health and safety of Canadians regarding pesticides and other food additives. Now we see the same thing occurring concerning the protection of Canadians from the entry of contaminated goods into our country.
The Minister of Revenue spoke about reallocation and about making better use of resources. What he did not tell us is what those resources are and to what extent they have been cut. The Minister mentioned that we have 3,000 inspectors. That is quite true. That is approximately 600 less than we had a few years ago. I notice from the Estimates Part III with respect to this Department that in response to the Government's request to downsize the Public Service it will yield savings of 954 person-years between 1986-87 and 1990-91. That is approximately a 10 per cent reduction in the staffing of the Department which is now supposed to be responsible for protecting Canadians from the entry of contaminated fuel.


Don Boudria: More cut-backs.


Marlene Catterall: Let me quote from Part III:
Emphasis is on achieving reductions without compromising service
levels, government revenues, or the safety and security of the
Canadian public.
That is exactly what I want to speak about this afternoon.
The result of this downsizing in this and other Departments is overwork, lack of the specialization required to handle problems like this, cut-backs in the number of border inspections, cut-backs in the efficiency of inspectors, and increases in overtime and therefore costs per inspector. Rules and regulations have changed at the border to try to accommodate this reallocation of resources. This has resulted in the kind of confusion that led a Customs inspector, not two months ago, to let into Canada a shipment of meat in the same truck as, and unprotected from, hazardous chemicals. It has led to cut-backs in the standards for inspections from 20 per cent of shipments to in some cases only 5 per cent of

May 12, 1989
Supply
shipments coming in. That is what improved services with the same resources has meant to Canadians.
In air safety there has been a total shift from preventive regulation to enforcement after the fact, after accidents, deaths and injuries. If emphasis is being put on the inspection of fuels coming into Canada, from where will those resources be drawn? Just how much more can a reduced number of inspectors be asked to do at the border? They are being asked to implement zero tolerance with respect to drugs entering Canada. That is the priority for this year in the allocation of Customs officials. Now there is a new priority to inspect every tanker coming into Canada. This will add costs to the industry doing business in Canada by having them go hundreds of miles out of their way to go through another port because we do not have the resources to put inspectors at the most convenient border points.
We now have two high priorities because they are public issues. Where are the resources coming from? What kind of inspections will suffer? Will there be fewer inspections of food? To what extent was the inadequacy of resources responsible for the fact that when the Government of Canada was invited to participate with Ontario in the sweep inspection for hazardous wastes crossing the border it refused? The sole extent of its co-operation with the Government of Ontario was to allocate space at border points. Is that a positive response to a hazardous situation?
Just for the information of government Members, out of the 383 trucks that were stopped and tested during those four days of stepped up sweep, 18 charges were laid, not counting charges that will be laid out of 113 samples that were taken and were considered sufficiently questionable to have to be sent to laboratories for analysis.
The cut-back in resources is already having an effect that will be exacerbated by a new priority with no new resources. I would like to refer to a couple of situations that have come to my attention. At the Port of Niagara, there are line-ups of one to one and a half hours. Tourists and Canadians returning to Canada are being inconvenienced to that extent. Tourism operators at a number of border points are complaining about the effect this is having on tourism. Customs officers are being asked to work overtime and to work on a rotational shift that was abandoned in 1974 because it was considered inefficient and inhumane. Businesses in other areas are being affected.
There is a loss of revenue to Canada resulting from the lack of resources. More is being lost than anything that is being saved by reducing the number of people that are provided at borders for inspections.
Businesses are experiencing delays and difficulties in getting their goods released because there are not enough inspectors. Goods are being released without being inspected by commodity specialists and are therefore being undercharged on duty. The taxpayers are paying the cost of that.
We have heard a lot of talk this week about what Mr. Green had to say. One of the things he said was that what was required for inspectors at the border was training in the detection of hazardous wastes, and that is why I asked the Minister that question. Apparently there has been no contact with the union responsible for Customs and Excise inspectors at the borders, either in early April, when we were aware of additional inspection activity in the Province of Ontario, or since. There has been no attempt to solicit the co-operation or advice of the union on how an improved inspection process could be implemented.
Another concern arises out of this. For three years now, there has been a much more intensive investigation of fuel coming into Canada, not out of concern for the health and safety of Canadians or for the risks to the environment but out of concern for revenue. For three years, inspectors have been checking every shipment aside from those of major, well-known oil companies. Any independent truck coming into Canada has been tested to make sure that it is shipping home fuel and not diesel fuel when that is what it claims it is shipping. Those tests are still being carried out by border inspectors.
Have the border inspectors been warned that that testing may in fact be hazardous to their health? I can tell Hon. Members that they have not. Have we shown any concern for their health and safety at any time in the three-year period or at any time since whenever it was that Ministers of the Crown became aware of the potential risk? We have not. This is just one more incident that demonstrates that there is a very cavalier attitude toward the men and women who perform responsibilities on behalf of the people of Canada as directed and resourced by Parliament. We are not giving them sufficient resources or sufficient training. We are
May 12, 1989

not giving them adequate protection from the health risks involved in their occupations.
We are asking them to take on crackdowns on drugs, new regulations under the Free Trade Agreement, reduced inspections, increased inspections and changed working conditions. We are not giving them the resources to do the job and now we are asking them to take on one more priority. I challenge the Government, if it wants that to happen, to give the people the resources to do the job, give them the training to do the job, and protect their health and safety while they are working for the people of Canada.
This has been a long debate, but I think it has been a worth-while debate on behalf of the people of Canada. I think that the Opposition, I say in all modesty, has admirably done its job in holding the Government accountable in this debate.


Mr. Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would take exception with a few comments. The debate certainly has been long, but little new information has been added. We have seen a lot of politics played at the expense of the environment. The Hon. Member who just spoke mentioned that government inspectors had been concentrating more on finding revenue rather than, as she alleged, protecting the health of Canadians and that they have been inspecting fuel products crossing the border to discover those which are attempting to escape taxation. At the same time, the Hon. Member is going on about not having adequate resources applied to the inspection routines.
First, does she not understand that we need to examine all possible sources of revenue coming into this country and that if we have shippers coming in who are escaping taxation, they should in fact be made to pay? Is that not a legitimate purpose of the inspection?
Second, with a country that is going $80 million a day into new debt, from where exactly is the Member going to get the moneys that we need? Where exactly are we going to cut back? How exactly are we going to hire all these new people to fulfil this? Do we not have a responsibility to our future which is twofold, that first we
Supply
must pass on a clean environment to our children and that second we need to stop polluting and have a better Canada? At the same time we cannot pass on a country that has a crushing debt load to its future citizens who will face nothing but an erosion of their personal income, plus a major decline in services we are able to provide. If 30 cents of every dollar is going to interest now, and if it will be 50 cents of every dollar in two years, where does the money come from? I am interested in knowing what the Member would like to say?


Marlene Catterall: I return the challenge to the Member. He is a member of the Government. I suggest he look at the Budget, look at the Estimates, and look at what are the sacred cows that were not touched by his Government. What are the major programs that were not touched and whom do they benefit? The Government should have a look at those figures rather than ask the opposition Party to govern the country on its behalf.
The Hon. Member has raised a couple of questions. Yes, of course the people of Canada want to get as much revenue as they are legitimately entitled to. Two objectives can be accomplished very effectively. If oil is being checked in any case to increase revenue, it might as well be checked for hazardous waste at the same time. That would be a very efficient use of government resources.
It is not efficient when the Government reduces staffing to the point where, under the Government's own 30-day rule, goods coming into this country are released to businesses without adequate inspection to make sure that they are paying the proper taxes. That is what is happening at a number of entry points. It is not in the interests of the people of Canada for the businesses of this country to be carrying additional expense because Canadian Customs does not have enough people to inspect and release goods within a matter of days rather than weeks. That is a cost to business and that is a cost to all consumers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We have roughly one minute remaining. We will divide the minute in half: 30 seconds for the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere, 30 seconds for the Hon. Member for Ottawa West.

May 12, 1989
Supply


Mr, Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, you could not have done better because all I need is 30 seconds to ask her the following question.
The Hon. Member of the Loyal Opposition is highly critical, so perhaps she might explain how it was that four years after her Government passed the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in 1980 we still had no regulations, there were no inspectors, nothing at all four years after the adoption of the legislation. How do you explain that?


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think the question belongs more properly to the Government that has just passed an environmental protection law about which it bragged quite extensively throughout October and November. It has not put in place any regulations nor resources to enforce that Act. It does not even have within the Act itself the mechanisms of enforcing what it bragged about so loudly, so well, and I must say so convincingly. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am finding a bit tiring is this political revisionism where the Government pretends that it is not responsible for what is happening to the Government of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3.15 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 15,1989