1989-04-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table copies in both official languages oT the annual report for 1987-88 on the implementation of the final Western Arctic Inuvialuit Agreement.


REPORT PREPARED BY ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ADJUSTMENT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), I have the pleasure to present to you, in both official languages, the report prepared by the Advisory Council on Adjustment.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the fortieth anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which has been a cornerstone of Canadian foreign
policy for successive Canadian governments. What we celebrate is not only 40 years of uninterrupted peace in Europe but also the values which brought us together then and which still unite us today.
When he signed the treaty on behalf of Canada, the Right Honourable Lester Pearson stated:
This treaty, though born out of fear and frustration, must, however, lead to positive social, economic and political achievements which will extend beyond the time of emergency which gave it birth, or the geographic area which it now includes.

We must keep in mind the situation prevailing at that time: fully armed Soviet troops were still stationed in Europe; the West Berlin blockade was on; a Communist takeover had just crushed Czechoslovakia's nascent democracy; and the nations of Western Europe, barely through with the war, were openly threatened by a similar fate. There is a striking contrast with the prosperous times we are experiencing today and NATO has been and still is an essential instrument of such progress.
The unity and determination of the Alliance have often been put to the test: recurrent troubles in Eastern Europe, the uprising in Hungary, the Suez Canal crisis, the crushing of Prague's springtime demonstrations, detente in the Seventies, Afghanistan and the double decision. In every instance NATO came through stronger and more relevant.

Today NATO provides for the common security of over 600 million people in 16 nations on both sides of the Atlantic. The modern era is marked by conflict, yet Europe, the region with the highest concentration of sophisticated weaponry in the world, is enjoying the longest sustained period of peace and stability since the height of the Holy Roman Empire. That peace was made possible through NATO's persistent commitment to pursue complementary goals: first, to maintain adequate defences to deter aggression; second, to control and limit armaments through carefully negotiated and verifiable agreements; and third, to constantly promote dialogue with the countries of eastern Europe.

April 4, 1989
Statements by Ministers
Has the Alliance met the test that Lester Person set for it 40 years ago? Has it led to positive social, economic and political achievements? Is it more than just a military alliance? Clearly the answer is yes to all questions.
It was through NATO in 1972 that we and our Allies set down our objectives for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. Through that process, we have secured from the Soviet Union, and its East European Allies, real commitments in human rights, economic co-operation and military security. Today, in the East, there is greater respect for the rights of individuals, greater freedom to travel to visit friends or relatives and greater freedom to worship. That progress would not have been made without the tenacity with which the Allies pressed the East to extend to their publics the privileges and rights which we take for granted.
We are at an historic juncture now. The two superpowers have agreed to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Significant progress has been made on a treaty to reduce by approximately 50 per cent the size of their strategic nuclear arsenals. A new sense of purpose has been injected into their efforts to control and ultimately ban chemical weapons. And perhaps most important of all, new negotiations to reduce conventional forces in Europe are under way in Vienna. With imagination and good will on both sides we have every reason for optimism. President Gorbachev is claiming credit for much of this success and certainly he deserves a good deal of credit. After all, he is redefining the Soviet Union. However, it is important to remember that President Gorbachev has been responding to ideas and proposals originally made by the West. He has been responding to the unity and to the fidelity to western values which are at the heart of the success of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Every Canadian of good will celebrates the changes that are appearing in the Soviet Union and in parts of eastern Europe. They represent the kind of genuine progress toward the social, economic and political achievement that Mr. Pearson described. The challenge is for NATO to continue to bring down the tensions between East and West and to continue to build up confidence and co-operation. That will require the same unity and determination which have allowed the NATO alliance to contribute so strongly to the progress so far.
Some have suggested that Canada should step aside from the responsibilities of membership in this western alliance. Had we stepped aside before, NATO would not have been able to contribute as constructively to the progress the world sees now. Canada has many means to influence peace in the world. One of those, which has worked for 40 years, and is essential to continued progress in East-West relations, is the NATO alliance whose anniversary we mark today. NATO has been good for Europe, good for North America and good for Canada. This Government is committed to ensuring that Canada continues to play a full and leading role in NATO in helping to shape a new era in East-West relations.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House this morning on this very special occasion, the fortieth anniversary of NATO, with a deep sense of humility and pride; humility in the wake of the great architects of NATO, the men who had the vision to put it all together, and Canada had a great part in that; and a sense of pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate can take the time out to mark an organization that represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised.
I do not stand here a% an advocate for any partisan cause for the issues to which reference has just been made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). These issues, Mr. Speaker, are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan considerations. I hear in this House this morning on the fortieth anniversary of NATO the hopes, the aspirations and the faiths of over 600 million people in 16 nations on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
Unhappily, Mr. Speaker, I possess neither the eloquence of diction nor the brilliance of the metaphor to suitably convey all that NATO stands for, what it means now and what it has meant over the last 40 years. In the past, military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be the crucible of war. The utter destruction of war now blocks out this alternative. To preserve the peace, we must now synchronize our matchless advances in science, technology and all the other material developments of our time and combine them with a firm resolve of our human character. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.
As a country, Canada is the second largest in the world, but we are not, Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, second largest in resources, in particular military resources. Canada can neither independently guarantee
April 4, 1989

our defence nor isolate itself from events key to our frontier. Our security requires a stable and peaceful international order.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, our best defence in Canada continues to be collective defence.
As a recently uniformed member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I had the distinct privilege to serve NATO at work for over 30 years. I participated in major exercises involving over 1,600 ships and aircraft and hundreds and thousands of men and women from NATO nations, working proudly, diligently and effectively to preserve the integrity of the alliance and to preserve the peace. On this special occasion, Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to pay tribute to those men and women who have achieved this and in particular the men and women of Canada in uniform and civilians who make it work and who continue to "meet the test".
The preservation of peace over the last 30 years continues. Negotiations over arms control augur well for the future. We now have the opportunity to help put an end to the cold war and to continue to reduce that iron curtain which separates peoples and cultures. The time is now upon us. Let it now be said that the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization did not step aside. Let it now be said that we in Canada seized the opportunity to the advantage at this hour, and let it be said that Canada did its part. I can put it in no better words than a man who stood in this House, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said: "Did its part to help lift the shadow of war."


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by joining with my colleague in the Liberal Party in paying tribute to the men and women who over the years have done their duty as they saw it and are doing their duty as they see it today in Canada's contribution to NATO. It is important that we recognize Canadians who have been involved in that way for the work they have done. However, I also think that the fortieth anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an opportunity for us here in the House of Commons and in the country to reflect on what the Minister has rightly described as a cornerstone of successive Canadian governments foreign policy, an opportunity for us to reflect on NATO's past, on its present and its future. I will try to do this in the brief time allotted me to respond to the Minister's statement.
Statements by Ministers
The Minister began his statement with talk about shared values and ended his statement with a remark about those who have been critical of Canada's NATO role. I am sorry that he used the rhetoric of side-stepping responsibilities, because surely the debate within Canada has been about what is Canada's responsibility. It is not a question of someone wanting to sidestep responsibility and others wanting to live up to it, but of what indeed is the true responsibility of Canada in its foreign policy. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to reflect on the extent to which the debate about NATO in this country, precipitated in large part by the NDP, has occurred precisely because some of the values that Alliance members have been asked to share over the years have been arguably ambiguous,in other cases hypocritical, and in some cases morally questionable.
In other cases they have been morally questionable.
The willingness of NATO, for instance, through its doctrine of flexible response, to be the first to use nuclear weapons, to be willing to destroy the world for the sake of democracy while tolerating at times military dictatorships within its own ranks, certainly does not and has not advanced its moral credibility with a great many Canadians. Its failure to live up to the so-called Canada clause which the Minister quoted and which he wrongly assesses NATO as having lived up to, that clause by which NATO was to be more than just a military alliance, has also bothered a great many Canadians.
For many more, the expectation on the part of our American partners in that alliance that to be allied in Europe was to be allied everywhere, wherever and however Americans chose to defend or advance their interests, regardless of the circumstances, was and continues to be a problem. In this respect, I find a strange omission in the Minister's statement. A more insightful rendering of the alliance's history and those things which have tested it would have included Viet Nam as well as Afghanistan. Indeed, it was in 1969, at the height of the Viet Nam war, that the NDP first passed the resolution about Canadian withdrawal from NATO that the Minister, in other more partisan contexts, loves to refer to.
I also find the Minister's use of the notion of common security to be disturbing because common security is a concept developed by the Palme Commission which is to be seen as different from and opposed to the notion of collective security which is what NATO is and what the Warsaw Pact is. The notion of common security is a

April 4, 1989
Motions
notion which transcends this adversarial collective securities which we have had since the Second World War.
I ask the Minister to have the intellectual honesty not to co-opt language in the way he has done in this statement and not to use the notion of common security when what he really means is collective security. At least my Liberal friend was more honest in that respect. He spoke of collective securities.
The Minister refers to the INF agreement on intermediate nuclear forces and admits that this was done by the superpowers in the text of his own statement. That is precisely the point. What progress has been made in arms control has been made between the superpowers with NATO being a spectator, with NATO being simply a kind of a lobby for arms build-up rather than arms control and the superpowers from time to time coming to their senses, and we hope that they will come to their senses more often. To suggest that this has been the result of NATO, I think, is at least debatable.
The fact is that with respect to NATO, Canada has been and continues to be far too much a spectator to world events. I have gone to NATO parliamentary meetings. I do not know how many times I have heard NATO referred to as an alliance between Europe and the United States with hardly any recognition that Canada belongs to the alliance at all. It is no surprise because Canada chooses, as this Government does, to be a spectator to the debates that are going on in NATO.
One of those debates going on right now is the debate about modernization of nuclear weapons. Have we heard a peep out of this Government pro or con with respect to that debate that is very lively right now in Europe with people contending with each other about the pros and cons of modernization of nuclear weapons? Instead, we will wait until the decision is made somewhere else. Then Canada will blithely trail along.
That is part of the problem. The Minister says he wants Canada to play a leading role. Well, play a leading role. We are in NATO, do something about it, use it to advance the things that you say you want to advance and perhaps you would be better off in the eyes of many Canadians.
The notion of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, I think all of us hope, is a notion that belongs more to history than
to the future. We hope that events in the Soviet Union and events in the West are leading to a time when the disengagement of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, when the elimination of this Manichaean world of two alliances contending with each other for the possible destruction of the world, will be a thing of the past.
Canada does have a role to play. It is a role this Government is not playing. If it should choose to live up to that role, it would receive much better comment from this corner of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
He *	*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent to the putting of the motion I am about to read and voting immediately. Mr. Speaker, I would move:
That supply proceedings for the 1989 calendar year be subject to the following provisions:
That, when the House reaches Orders of the Day on Thursday, May 4, the House shall debate an Opposition motion, notice of which shall have been given the previous day, and no later than 5:45 o'clock p.m. on May 4, the Speaker shall interrupt debate and put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion; and then the Speaker shall put forthwith, and successively, without amendment or debate, every question that may be necessary to dispose of any motion relating to interim supply and for the passing at all stages of the bill based thereon, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House; and
That notwithstanding the relevant provision of Standing Order 81,
A)	There be 12 days allotted to the Opposition before Friday, June 16, for debate on Opposition motions, 6 of such motions to be votable, and a further 13 allotted days in the period following Labour Day and ending on December 10,1989 (4 in September, 4 in October, 3 in November and 2 in December) with 6 of these allotted days for debate of votable Opposition motions;
B)	Main Estimates for 1989-90 may be tabled and referred to the appropriate committees on any day but no later than Monday, May 1;
C)	Each committee to which such Main Estimates have been referred shall report them, or shall be deemed to have reported them, no later than Wednesday, September 27;
D)	(a) Not later than the third sitting day prior to September 27, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 54 of a motion to extend consideration of the Main Estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on "Motions" on September 26;
April 4, 1989

(b)	During the sitting of October 4, not later than six o'clock p.m., the said committee shall report or shall deemed to have reported the Main Estimates for the said department or agency; and
(c)	if the committee shall make a report, the chairman or a member of the committee acting for the chairman may so indicate, on a point of order, prior to the hour indicated in paragraph (b), and the House shall immediately revert to "Presenting Reports to Committees" for the purpose of receiving the said report;
(E) On Thursday, October 5, 1989, the House shall consider any opposition motion and any motion or motions to concur in the Main Estimates, notice of which shall have been given provided that, unless previously disposed, of at no later than 5.45 o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and shall first put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment every question necessary to dispose of any business relating to the Main Estimates for the current fiscal year or for any supplementary Estimates, the restorational reinstatement of any item in the Main or Supplementary Estimates or any opposed item in the Main or Supplementary Estimates and, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, for the passage at all stages of any Bill or Bills based on the Main or Supplementary Estimates, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House, brev


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this motion reflects the result of extensive discussions among the House Leaders. The purpose of it is to give to the Members of the House the time to which they would ordinarily be entitled to consider the Main Estimates and of which they would be deprived because of the date on which the House has been called back. It also restores to Members the full number of opposition days and gets us back in the customary cycle of consideration of Supply and Estimates that would otherwise have been pushed aside because of the recall of the House at this point in time. Because of the purposes of this motion we of the Official Opposition are ready to give our agreement to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with what the House Leader for the Official Opposition has said. We have had extensive negotiations.
I want to say that these discussions were necessary because of a number of legitimate timetabling problems which the Government was facing. There was a sense of negotiation where the Government said that if we would agree to some changes, the Government would be prepared to provide some opportunities that may not have existed for both opposition parties in providing us with a number of opposition days.
Petitions
In the spirit of co-operation I hope this is an indication of things to come, quite different from the last time we were all together.
We also concur with the special order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present four petitions from residents in my riding and the National Capital Region.

It deals with the proposed sales tax. The petitioners would like to ask the House to humbly consider their point of view that a sales tax on music lessons will hurt the average family for whom music education will become too costly. With sales tax on music lessons, Canadian children will suffer, talent will go undeveloped and the future of Canadian music both nationally and internationally will be jeopardized. Music educators are active participants in education in every province in Canada. Their knowledge and expertise provide students with the qualifications enabling them to enter our universities in faculties of music.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider music studies as an educational process and therefore exempt from the proposed sales tax.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to table in this House a petition signed by residents of Canada and Abitibi who ask the federal Government to pay family allowances at the beginning of September every year in time for the reopening of schools in Canada. This is to help families that have one or more children in school.

April 4, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have received several applications for emergency debates. I will hear first the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 I wrote to you requesting two things. The first was an immediate recall of Parliament which you declined, according to the rules within which you had to work. Second, I indicated that at the first opportunity I would be rising under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing aviation safety in Canada.
I think it was clear at that time, and since March 17 as well, that there is great concern over aviation safety in this country. A number of circumstances, including the very unfortunate crash at Dryden, Ontario, have left the public of Canada uncertain about safety in the air.
I urge you, Sir, to set aside an appropriate time so that we can have a full and helpful debate in this House.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could take my comments into consideration as well for the application that I have made for an emergency debate in an effort to save the time of the House.
I believe there is a crisis in the area of air safety at the present time in our country. There was a most tragic air crash in Canada on December 12, 1985, in Gander, Newfoundland. Since then the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has conducted an investigation into this, the worst air disaster in the history of our country. This particular inquiry has been divisive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of questioning the competence of the Aviation Safety Board investigators, but I must still point out that there was a great deal of controversy. . .

Over recent months the congestion at airports, the shortage of air traffic controllers, the judicial inquiry into the Gander air crash, and the judge acting as a consultant to review the Gander air crash, warrant two things I respectively submit. First, that you consider granting us an emergency debate. Second, I believe we should be hearing as well the resignation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Members have brought a matter to the attention of the Chair which is, of course, an important one. I know that they would both understand that I would want to reserve, at least for a little while, and consider the applications that have been made.
I have also an application from the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson).


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of a debate on a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
In view of the fact that the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) has deprived Parliament of our traditional right to debate and has not consulted with Canadian farmers before removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, we respectfully request that you allow an emergency debate in the House of Commons on this issue.
It is of the utmost importance that the Government of Canada stand by and support our Canadian producers and their marketing systems during this prolonged period of economic instability, and particularly at a time when oats have gained recognition as a human health food. To have removed this product from the jurisdiction of the most sophisticated marketing system in the world without consultation-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that the custom is to make the point to the Speaker but not enter into a debate. There is fairness in this. Obviously those on the other side of the particular argument will then feel that they have not had a chance to put their argument to the Speaker. These applications for emergency debates are not treated that way. The Chair hears one side and one side only. It is in the form and legal terms of an ex parte application. I know the Hon. Member will understand that. I have the Hon. Member's point and I will again reserve and consider it.
April 4, 1989

The Hon. Member for Skeena on a similar application, but not on the same subject.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 in relation to the Alaskan oil spill.
Two weeks ago the Exxon Valdez spilled 270,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound and no efforts were made to seriously contain the spill by Exxon or by the U.S. Government. It now covers some 2,700 hundred square kilometres and 1,200 kilometres of coastline. It is the largest spill in North American history and the twelfth largest in world history. It is a highly persistent and toxic oil, four times as hard to disperse as Alberta crude. Canadian officials have erroneously continued to state that the spill is 1,000 kilometres from Canadian territory. The oil is in fact now within striking distance of the Canadian transboundary rivers the Stikine, the Taku, and the Alsek Ihtsenshini.
Dr. Stephen Pond, an oceanographer at UBC has confirmed that the spill could enter Canadian waters.
The emergency debate is required for the following reasons.
First, Canadian resources are now being impacted: herring, salmon of Canadian origin, and halibut.
Second, Canada's state of preparedness is dismal, as was proven with the chaotic response to the Vancouver Island spill.
Third, we have no scientific team on site evaluating the present impact on Canadian resources, and particularly on transboundary salmon stocks.
Fourth, we have had no movement of spill containment or clean-up equipment to the Dixon Entrance area. Fifth, the water column and biology of Dixon Entrance must be monitored now before the spill gets into there.
Sixth, as was proven by the Grace Harbour spill on December 22, the "Don't worry, be happy'' speculation of the Coast Guard, both Canadian and U.S., has proven to be defective; 870 thousands litres ended up on our shores as a result of the December spill-
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Again I take the comments of the Hon. for Skeena very seriously indeed. I do not think there is any necessity to get into argument. The facts speak for themselves. I will again give this very careful consideration and report back to the House as soon as I can.
I should advise the House, and the public who are watching that, probably as a consequence of the long adjournment, there are a number of applications today that are taking up the time of the House, but they are all important ones.
I now want to advise Hon. Members that I have an application on a question of privilege from The Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and I will hear him now.
Jjc sfc *


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Having sent you notice of my intention to raise this question, I would like to place before you my argument as to why I believe that my privileges as a Member have been breached. I am raising this matter at the earliest possible opportunity since I did not become fully aware of this breach until I received my personal Canadian Crop Drought Assistance form, which application form I received on March 3. That was 71 days after the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) told me personally in this House, and I quote from Hansard of December 22, 1988 at page 622:
The forms are close to being ready for being sent out to the
producers. We hope that they will be out in the next week or 10
days. Everything is proceeding as it should, consistent with the
program that was announced.
Seventy-one days later I received my form. My intention though is not to draw from this evidence the conclusion that the Minister deliberately misled me, but rather to suggest that his remarks impeded my abilities as a Member of this Parliament to properly serve my constituents.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate very much to interrupt the Hon. Member because the matter he raises is, certainly in the mind of the Hon. Member and probably in the minds of some of his constituents and others, a grievance.

April 4, 1989
Points of Order
I am having some difficulty being satisfied that this is even getting anywhere close to a question of privilege, and I think that perhaps the sense of the Speaker is also reflected among other members in the Chamber. However, I will consider the points made by the Hon. Member and I will report back to him shortly. The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


NON-SMOKER'S HEALTH ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell(Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I know you have some difficulty with the name, it being a new riding.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have no difficulty with his name, and I have no difficulty with the name of his former riding, which was adjacent to my own, and I will have no further difficulty with his new riding.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise on a point of privilege. On May 31, 1988 this House passed Bill C-204, the Non-Smokers' Health Act. It is now Chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1988. It was a Private Members' Bill, initiative and Herculean task undertaken by the former Member for Broadview- Greenwood, Miss Lynn McDonald. The Bill passed on a free vote in this House. It was the first time, in my experience, where the Cabinet voted one way and we voted the other way and we won. It was unique. Royal Assent was given to the Bill on June 28.
The Governor in Council has failed to proclaim that Bill, although other Bills have been proclaimed. I have received letters from my constituents, including medical officers of health, asking why the Government has not proclaimed a Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member very properly brings to the attention of the House certain complaints that he has with respect to this particular Bill and perhaps complaints that members of the public have. However, there is another and more appropriate occasion for the Hon. Member to raise this matter, and I am sure, given the great skill for which he is known in this place, he will find ample opportunity to do so. I must say at the moment it is not in the view of the Chair a question of privilege, although it is of course a question of debate and and important question.


POINTS OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order. It is a brief point of order. I was intending to rise on a point of privilege, but I think more appropriately it is a point of order. I am referring to the Government's requirement to table with the House certified copies of Order in Council appointments within five sitting days of their publication in the Canada Gazette.
I am referring to the last session of this Parliament, and I realize it is doubtful whether it is in fact a point of order. However, I am primarily using it to flag the issue. The Government failed to live up to what is required of it in terms of tabling these Orders in Council appointments so that they can be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee in order that Members of Parliament can have a look at these and decide if they are appropriate. We were prohibited from doing that, Mr. Speaker. All Members present during the last session of this Parliament simply wish to call this error to the attention of the Government to ensure that it does not happen in this session.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am pleased to reply to this particular point of order. In doing so I would point out to my hon. friend that had those Orders in Council been tabled in the last session they would, under the Standing Order, have had to have been considered within a period of 30 days. Since committees were not struck, and there was the Christmas recess, there would have been no possibility of those Orders in Council being reviewed by the appropriate Standing Committees. What my hon. friend suggests we should have done would have been a subversion of the intent of the Standing Order which was to give the committees the opportunity to review the appointments. Therefore we will be tabling tomorrow the 1988 Order in Council appointments. I believe that they are already with the Table and that they just require the formal letter. The day after we will table the 1989 Orders in Council that we have ready in order to give the Standing Committees an opportunity to review those appointments.
In other words, Sir, had we followed my friends's suggestion, there would have been no opportunity to review the appointments. We felt we were honour bound to stand by the intent of the Standing Order. That is why we did it this way.
April 4, 1989

The Address-Mr. Richardson



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.\nThe House took recess at 12.30 p.m."]
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the Government's right to pre-judge in advance when Parliament will be sitting. The Standing Orders make it dear that the Order in Council appointments, once they appear in the Canada Gazette, must be tabled-not could be, may be, but must be tabled-within five days. All I am saying is that that was not done. The Standing Orders require that to be done. I am pleased that the Minister said that they are following the appropriate course of action now.
While I have the floor, I might simply add as well that one of the problems we face is that the Orders in Council appear in the Gazette often months after the appointments have already been made and that the people are involved in their duties. That makes the evaluation of the Order in Council appointment a little after the fact.
I simply encourage the Government to have these Order in Council appointments appear in the Canada Gazette as early as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) for the exchange. I am sure that Members on the government side will have taken into account the representations of the Hon. Member for Kamloops. I appreciate both interventions.
The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has a point of order. I will hear him.



Ian Gardiner Waddell: This week the Government appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Hon. Beverly McLachlan, to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We now have three women on the Supreme Court of Canada, including this outstanding woman jurist from British Columbia. I think all the Members of the House will join with me in applauding this appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have to make it clear to the Hon. Member that I do not think that that was a point of order. The comment has been made. I think there is probably a general feeling in the Chamber that the appointment does credit to the court and to the country. However, I would remind Hon. Members that there is another place, that is, Statements by Members, which is later on in the day and which is perhaps a more appropriate place to make such comments.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay my respects to the Governor General and to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election.
As one who has long been a student of this House and of our parliamentary traditions, it is with great humility, pride and respect that I rise to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a great honour and privilege for me and for the people of Calgary Southeast. I would like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet for recognizing a western Member in this way and for the efforts of this Government in the past four and one-half years to address the aspirations and expectations of western Canadians.
I was introduced into this House what seems like a long time ago when I first came from Calgary to serve as executive assistant to former Prime Minister John Die-fenbaker. My admiration for this institution grew under his tutelage. Although I had read much of this place I had seen little, except in photographs and on television. Other Members may have shared that sense of awe in arriving here for the first time. I remember once rushing out of my office to meet Mr. Diefenbaker and running smack into Otto Lang, Jean Marchand and Mitchell Sharp. I had seen them on TV and I was shocked. Excusing myself I continued down the hallway and thought: "Gosh, they're short". I had from afar an image of this place as being larger than life, and it is really not. It is a place where ordinary people try to represent their constituency, their region.
I return to Ottawa almost 20 years later as a Member of Parliament to represent my constituency, my region, my country. I am a westerner.
I do not want to be seen today as simply speaking for the West. I believe that in moving this address I am not only speaking on behalf of this House but I am speaking as much for one Canadian as another. I want to think that all Members without exception see themselves as standing for one Canada and speaking for every Canadian in every riding of this nation.

April 4. 1989
The Address-Mr. Richardson
It is quite wonderful to be a new Member. I have no callous cynicisms and fondly hope that they may never develop. I listened yesterday to the Speech from the Throne with growing excitement. The people of Calgary Southeast did not send me here for a visit. They sent me down here to listen for them, to hear for them, to report to them and, premised in large measure on what I hear, to speak for them.
I am well aware that Edmond Burke insisted that Parliament is not a Congress of ambassadors from different and hostile regions, which interests each must maintain. It is early in the day for me to challenge that great man. But there is a world of difference between our giant federation with its widely ranging interests and viewpoints and the unitary Britain of Burke's day. We are not, I hope, hostile regions. However, we are sufficiently different in our aspirations, opportunities, geography and environment that it is a constant and demanding task to educate our fellow Canadians in the valid expectations of our own region or province and of others.
As historian David Bercuson explains:
Western Canada was not settled through the steady movement of eastern Canadians pushing westward against an expanding frontier of settlement. It was peopled instead mostly by immigrants who had no knowledge of or connection with central or Atlantic Canada. It was natural therefore that the development of ideas, values and traditions in western Canada would not strictly follow the ideas, values and traditions that had already developed in central and Atlantic Canada. The West was to be different because its people were different.
The western Canadian character was moulded by experience acting on tradition. Immigrants brought the culture, values, language and religion of their native lands with them in their confrontation with western Canada's society and environment. Some were eager to embrace the ways of their adopted countries. Others clung tenaciously to their old traditions. All faced the hardships and trials of settlement in a new and harsh land far from home. The experience of settlement and expansion, of putting down roots and building farms and ranches, cities and towns, stores and factories, created a blend of individualism and co-operation among westerners. Theirs was a Canadianism with a truly western flavour. Homesteaders did not just believe in rugged individualism, they lived it.
In this way westerners developed a sense of community. They were separated from central and eastern Canada by distance and attitude. Their economy was based on the extraction of raw, unfinished products that were shipped elsewhere for processing. Policies which affected the daily lives of westerners were often made by a distant Government, controlled by those with little knowledge of or interest in the special problems and circumstances of westerners. Westerners, therefore, developed an identity based on individualism and a need for co-operation, on the very experience of living on prairie farms or in British Columbia mining towns. They were different because they felt themselves to be different.
This kind of attitude has resulted in our people having a very strong desire to influence their own destiny. We westerners have made decisions since we first came into this country. Westerners, to a considerable extent, have had an independent sense and a strong feeling that we do not want to be told to participate. We have been part of the process, we are part of the process and we have every desire to remain a part of the process.
You will never really understand the West unless you understand the populism, the very real and existing populism of the western Canadians. This populism roots very deeply in the early farmers organizations and the co-operative activities that were the source of joint effort, the source of development and the source of growth in the undeveloped communities of the early settlement years.
The drive for a reformed Senate emanating from the West can be understood in the context of western populism. A reformed Senate, an elected Senate, would address serious regional grievances in all parts of this country, but to westerners it is particularly appealing as another vehicle in which our voices can be heard. It is a great credit that this Government is the first federal Government to put Senate reform at the top of constitutional discussions. It is yet another example of the Prime Minister's responsiveness to the unique needs and desires of our region.
We in this House are on the cutting edge of political decisions, but that is all. Each of us, in every comer of this House, and those of us from the West, have behind us the firm strong record of a decisive people who are ready to sit with us and discuss one on one the manner in which this nation should be run.
April 4, 1989

It is not my aspiration to spend my time in public life as a message carrier for Ottawa. I could not have endured the role of a Liberal or NDP Member who had to carry the message during the bitter years when our western oil and gas resources were being arbitrarily expropriated, that it was "in the interests of the whole".
Our Party did not believe it was in the interests of the whole. We believe that we should listen to the local Government, the local people and hear their case. We did not believe the power of the majority should be used to override the strongly-held views of a minority region.
I hope it will never be said of me that I do not listen to the people of Calgary Southeast, just as I dare hope other Members listen to those who sent them. Listening gets a lot of lip service, but you cannot listen if you are not within hailing distance. The place to listen is standing on a constituent's doorstep, sitting down at the constituent's kitchen table or attending town hall meetings or community hall meetings.
The past mistakes of previous Governments are behind us, but when I listen, what I hear is a residue of western uncertainty and anger.
The most important step that this Government has taken to end western alienation has been the conclusion of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. For most of the last century western Canadians have demanded release from the shackles of central Canadian tariff policies. More than 100 years ago farmers in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories demanded free trade. They were self-reliant. They believed in the market economy. They wanted unfettered access to United States markets for their goods, and they resented paying high prices for goods manufactured in central Canada. Who could blame them? They had faith in their ability to thrive under free trade conditions. They were the true forebearers of today's westerners who are confident of their ability to compete in global and continental markets, confident of their entrepreneurial talents, confident that they can improve their prosperity and build a better society without government interference and regulation.
We westerners are a self-reliant people. We have been nurtured in the hardships of the pioneer immigrant experience. We have traditionally sought nothing more than equality of opportunity and equality of treatment with other Canadians. In giving us that, this Government has begun to address a century of grievance. The Free Trade Agreement has gone far toward that end.
The Address-Mr. Richardson
The Government must continue to reassure westerners that opportunities for new development will be equal across Canada. The Throne Speech holds out that promise with its commitment to "ensure that the benefits of liberalized trade and economic expansion are shared fairly by all Canadians". The message to westerners is clear. Only by an active and vigorous involvement in the political process can we protect our regional interests while at the same time contribute to the advancement of the nation as a whole.
We westerners have come far since 1984. The total isolation that was our lot under the Liberals has been dramatically reversed, but there is farther yet to go. It will take even more time and even more positive action on the part of this Government to reverse the damage that was done in 16 years of Liberal rule.
More so than any Government in recent memory, it is clear that this Government is genuinely interested in dispelling regional differences. No Conservative Prime Minister will ever ask westemers:"Why should I sell your wheat, your oil, your potash?". This Government, by its actions, has started to bring westerners, Quebecers and Atlantic Canadians into the fold to share the bounty of Confederation.
I welcome the Government's continuing commitment to the social programs that have a long time ago made Canada a "kinder, gentler nation."
That spirit of caring is deeply rooted in the western Canadian psyche. Westerners banded together in the face of hardship and for more than 100 years we have led the nation in innovative social and education programs. We believe in social justice, and we practice it. We are also a multicultural society, and have been since waves of immigrants settled the West, most from Europe and the United States, 90 years ago. The more recent arrival of peoples from Asia, the Caribbean and other parts of the world are a continuation of that process, a process that has built and strengthened the West and added to our pool of talent. Westerners are the sons and daughters of immigrants. We believe in multiculturalism, and we practice it.
Westerners applaud the actions that this Government has taken during the last four and one-half years to protect our environment. It is a remarkable record. Canada is a world leader in this area. Next month, the Geneva-based International Environment Bureau will present the Prime Minister, representing all Canadians, with its 1989 Environmental Achievement Award, a most prestigous honour and one in which we can take a great deal of pride.

April 4, 1989
The Address-Mr. Richardson
We in the West know our environment well. It has moulded our character. The self-reliance of our pioneers and homesteaders was borne of the physical separation of their settements, the long prairie winters and the unremitting toil of breaking prairie sod and forcing it to produce in abundance.
With the advances that modern technology has brought, we now live, work and play in that environment. We know that the destruction of the environment would ultimately be the destruction of ourselves.
In environmental protection this Throne Speech holds great promise for the immediate future, but despite this I say this Government should be on guard. We westerners will continue to demand action to protect the environment, but we will also continue to resent "experts" from elsewhere who would come to our beautiful parks and forests and tell us what we must do to protect them without regard to our needs, to our feelings or to the facts. Environmental protection is absolutely vital, but it must always be carried out with a view to utility. Westerners do not need lessons on the preservation and protection of our environmental heritage. What we do need is a fair chance to make our own case to other Canadians about how best to protect and enjoy the environment in which we live.
In 1984, there was one federal Cabinet Minister from western Canada. Today, there are ten.
In 1984, unfair freight rates remained one of the major grievances of western Canada about Confederation. Today those unfair rates are gone as a result of the National Transportation Act which came into effect into January of this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lee Richardson: In 1984, inflexible regional development programs meant that Alberta sometimes received no money from these federal Government programs. Now we have a new Department of Western Economic Diversification with its headquarters in Edmonton. Decisions for the West are being made in the West.
From 1980 to 1984, Alberta received one per cent of total federal job-creation funds. Alberta now receives 10 per cent of job-creation funds, which exceeds the per capita national average.
In early 1984, in rural Alberta, in what has come to be known as the "red barn speech", the Prime Minister, then Opposition Leader, made a personal commitment to get rid of the National Energy Program. Today the National Energy Program, the PGRT, and FIRA are dead and gone.
When the oil industry in the West was on its knees the Government responded with CEDIP and flow-through shares. When our agriculture industry was on its knees this Government responded with the Special Canadian Grains Program and drought assistance. Today this Government's energy Minister is a westerner. This Government's agriculture Minister is a westerner.
There is still more to be done. The Government must ensure equality of treatment of all regions of Canada. The Government must ensure that important federal agencies and contracts are assigned to those regions where they are best suited. As westerners we want to be full and equal partners in Confederation. Regional discontent will remain until we are.
We have made a great start. I am proud of the record of the Government. The Speech from the Throne raises the expectation of an even greater future.
Therefore, I have the honour to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau), that the following address be presented to Her Excellency, the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces Decoration, Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada:
May it please Your Excellency, we, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.


Ms. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of great pleasure and pride that I second the address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The clear and courageous vision expressed in the Speech from the Throne is an eloquent response to the expectations of Canadians.
April 4, 1989

On the eve of a new decade and, soon of a new century, Canadians look to the future with confidence.
When it came to power in 1984, our Government made those many years that were clouded by the mistrust and lack of understanding that poisoned federal-provincial relations and even threatened the unity of our country a thing of the past. It also made the important decisions and took the decisive action necessary to launch economic recovery and create the jobs that form the foundation of our prosperity. It has increased Canada's influence on the international scene and developed in our own country the kind of programs that guarantee genuine social justice.
In the last election Canadians again gave us their massive support and shortly afterwards, during the first session of this thirty-fourth Parliament, the Government asked this House to adopt the Free Trade Agreement with the United States which, while protecting two million Canadian jobs that depend on our exports to the United States, will open new horizons for Canadian business and industry.
Yesterday, the Speech from the Throne outlined the policies the Government intends to pursue during its mandate. Its priorities draw their inspiration from the new maturity and confidence that Canadians have developed during the past four years.
Canadians today are clearly aware they will have to put their shoulders to the wheel to support and develop our prosperity and to meet the challenges the future will bring.
Economic expansion is the only way to maintain the social programs we all want in this country, while achieving a better balance between expenditures and revenues is essential to economic stability and sustained growth.
Our country, which is still young, was built by men and women of various origins, united by the common goals of prosperity, peace and unity. We are all the grateful heirs of those pioneers who left us this magnificent heritage, this country which is Canada. Pioneer blood still flows through our veins. We too want to leave our children and our grandchildren a country that is even more prosperous, more open, more tolerant and more united.
The Address-Mr. Richardson
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to have the privilege of seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. In doing so, I support with enthusiasm the inspiring mission-on which this Government has embarked, which is to further develop Canada's prosperity and unity and prepare today for an even more impressive future.
I am particularly proud to take part in this endeavour as a Member for Montreal and a citizen of Quebec.
At the beginning of the 80s, Mr. Speaker, Quebec's outlook seemed very bleak indeed. The economy was at its worst, and we also suffered the supreme humiliation of being denied our place in the Canadian constitutional family.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec had been wounded in its honour and in its dignity and all its people deeply felt that hurt. Montreal, our. largest city, the heart of Quebec, was badly affected by those years of economic stagnation and political uncertainty. Everywhere the outlook seemed dark. Unemployment was rampant in almost every sector of the economy. Crushing interest rates were a source of anxiety for families and our young people worried about their future. Something drastic had to be done. What was needed was a new team of men and women determined to take their future in their own hands and to give back to the people of Quebec their hope and their pride.
This team gathered around a man who is proud of his native province, Quebec, and full of ambition for his country, Canada. Today, he is Canada's Prime Minister. After restoring harmony and prosperity to this country, he is now asking us to show, more than ever before, our dedication to our country and to the well-being of its citizens.
If we want to prevent the spiralling interest rates and high levels of unemployment we experienced at the beginning of the 80s, we must reduce the national debt burden. This debt, which previous governments allowed to reach dangerous proportions, is today a millstone around the necks of all Canadians.
In my own city of Montreal, the indications are obvious that the economy has recovered and that the men and women of Montreal can once again put their energies and creativity to good use.

April 4, 1989
The Address-Mr. Richardson
I was delighted to hear the 350th anniversary of the founding of Montreal mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
All Canadians who visit us in 1992 will share our pride in this event and see that Montreal has again become the vibrant and dynamic international city it is.
Recently, the Government announced it was establishing the Space Agency in Montreal, in recognition of that city's focus on aeronautics and aerospace.
The agency will be responsible for the civilian space program, whose budget for the next ten years will be nearly $3 billion.
It will also head the main international programs including Canada's contribution to the Radarsat space station, astronaut training and various programs of the European space agency.
In research and development, another major sector that is so vital to our future, the new legislation on drug patents has already led to substantial investments that will total hundreds of millions of dollars and create thousands of new useful, well-paying jobs.
Since September 1984, 125,000 new jobs were created in Montreal alone, and unemployment in that city went from 11.3 per cent in September 1984 down to 9.3 per cent today.
In Quebec, the unemployment rate which was 13 per cent in September 1984 has fallen to 9.1 per cent, and since that period, 344,000 new jobs were created in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, behind all these figures are families that have a chance to grow and develop. There are men and women who now have a chance to show their potential and make their dreams come true.
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers now have the means to build their future.
The Free Trade Agreement, so important to a Quebec that exports 78 per cent of its production to the United States, is our passport to prosperity.
The Government will help small and medium-sized business take advantage of new export opportunities that are emerging as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.
As for the Meech Lake Accord, it is our passport to unity.
Mr. Speaker, I referred earlier to that bleak period in our history when Quebec was excluded from this country's Constitution. That must not happen again. As a Quebecer, I know only too well how dangerous this could be for Canada's unity.
I earnestly hope that the two provincial governments that have not yet had the Accord ratified by their legislatures will do so as soon as possible.
Canada's unity is absolutely essential to this country's social and economic development.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware of what we have done to promote unity and prosperity.
They took a careful look at our record in November 1988 and decided they would let the Government continue its task.
The Speech from the Throne is a clear indication that we intend to do so with diligence and determination.
However, much remains to be done.
We have begun to free ourselves from the crushing burden of the deficits accumulated in the past. In four years, we have reduced the deficit by nearly $10 billion.
We absolutely must continue and speed up this rehabilitation of our public finances. The next Budget will show our determination to do what must be done in this regard.
We have also resolutely begun the urgent task of cleaning up and protecting our environment. This too will require energetic new measures and an overall approach. In particular, we have started a large-scale plan to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, as well as hazardous sites.
As was announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Government will present a new environmental protection plan to limit the environmental impact of toxic chemicals through the developement of regulations for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; to improve the quality of our water, through new legislation; to preserve the environmental integrity of our Arctic regions; to improve the quality of the atmosphere by
April 4, 1989

negotiating an acid rain agreement with the United States, by implementing the Ozone protocol signed in Montreal in 1987 and by puirsuing international efforts to control toxic emissions and to stimulate the evolution of international institutions in environmental matters.
To support its efforts for environmental protection, the Government has altered its operational practices and enlarged the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment.
The Speech from the Throne also pointed out the importance we give to social programs, especially those meant for the family, seniors and low-income people.
The Government has also restated its commitment to establish a national child care program. It will continue to fight family violence and child abuse.
We will also improve the Young Offenders Act so as to better protect the rights of society, while advancing the rehabilitation of young offenders.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have shown that they want to get on with the job ahead. They know that we still face formidable challenges as a society and as a country. Canadians also know that they can count on this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marie Gibeau: They know they can count on this Government to set the right course and to stick to it. The Speech from the Throne is a clear indication of our resolve.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a rendez-vous with the future. The Speech from the Throne shows us the way to go. I therefore enthusiastically support the motion by the Hon. Member for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson) on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments or a point of order?


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: I want to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, if that is within the orders of the House. I might say those were two excellent speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is agreement to call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 12.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the fortieth anniversary of the birth of NATO.
For 40 years the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has provided a forum for political and military consultation for 60 membership nations.
Today the 16 membership nations, of which we are one, are able to present a united front in the aim to defuse tensions and bring about lasting world peace. This is a far cry from the road we were on 40 years ago.
For the first time, last year France attended a NATO summit meeting. Spain is playing a bigger part in NATO activities. Greek and Turkish relations are moving in a positive direction.
Canada's role in NATO is not only military in nature, but it is symbolic of our close relationship with our European allies.
Our continued membership in NATO is therefore paramount to the success and survival of an organization that has played a crucial part in achieving political stability, global peace and security.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 1989, on the occasion of the National Film Board's 50th Anniversary, Mr. Marcel Masse, Canada's Minister of Communications, accepted an honorary Oscar granted by the Hollywood Academy of Arts and Sciences to the NFB's filmmakers for the excellence of then-productions.

April 4, 1989
The Minister was accompanied by Quebec producer Anne-Claire Poirier and Alberta filmmaker Colin Low, from the NFB. On that occasion, the Minister thanked the Academy both in French and in English on behalf of the NFB's 26 million Canadian owners.
Mr Speaker, let me congratulate all our Canadian producers whose talents have made the NFB one of the world's most respected and honoured institutions.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, eight native students on the thirteenth day of a hunger strike are in Ottawa to protest the Government's shortsighted approach to post-secondary education assistance for aboriginal students.
These are just a small number of nearly 15,000 aboriginal students now enrolled in colleges and universities across Canada. They fear that the recent cuts to student assistance will deprive them and potential students of the right to an education.
Over the past 30 years we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of native students entering the post-secondary level. Travelling from isolated communities where unemployment still soars over 70 per cent, these students depend on financial aid for their education.
After listening to yesterday's Throne Speech promising action on aboriginal rights, languages, and economic development, many Canadians find it a sad irony that the Government is actively discouraging this valuable tool of education for a new generation of aboriginal youth.
I call upon the Minister to meet with the students, listen to their concerns, and remove the economic barriers to higher education.



FISHERIES


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the crisis in the groundfish industry in Atlantic Canada.
During the last month three fish plant closings were announced in my South Shore constituency. We, of course, realize that the Government cannot create fish. Furthermore, I wish to commend and thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) for his active interest in this grave situation and for working co-operatively with both the Government of Nova Scotia and industry representatives in seeking solutions to this problem.
My major concern at this time arises from the fact that the fishing industry operates on credit. With our 300-plus fish plants in Nova Scotia operating at one-quarter of their capacity, survival is tenuous to say the least. Further increases in interest rates will be devastating.
Accordingly, I would urge the Government in establishing its budget and interest policy to keep in mind the potential impact of any further increases in interest rates on Atlantic communities dependent on the troubled groundfish industry.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are all too aware of the strike that is going on at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation involving members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. It has robbed Canadians of some of the best radio and television programming in the world. It has removed some of the most famous faces and voices from our midst, and it has delayed production of full programming at the CBC thereby depriving and jeopardizing the CBC's ability to provide quality Canadian programming.
Because of cut-backs at the CBC, morale there has never been lower because of no clear commitment from the Government to the CBC. Employees at the CBC are concerned about their future. They fear that perhaps the next round of cuts means an end to their jobs.
Employees at the CBC deserve better. They deserve better than this perpetual uncertainty that goes on. What they deserve is a clear commitment from the Government of support of the Canadian broadcasting system, not support just to pick up awards.
April 4, 1989



VIA RAIL


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, four and one-half years ago our Government came to power with a commitment to improve the quality of passenger rail service after it had been slashed under the previous Liberal Government. We honoured that commitment.
Many people in Atlantic Canada who live in small rural communities far from airports consequently have come to rely on VIA Rail as their major source of transportation to the rest of the nation.
In addition, the closing of VIA Rail in New Brunswick would place increased pressure on our already over-burdened Trans-Canada Highway system. Economically the bottom line in Atlantic Canada is that over 500 jobs will be lost if VIA Rail is dismantled.
I therefore urge the Government to continue its strong support for VIA Rail and give the company the autonomy it needs to become cost efficient and competitive.



FISHERIES


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we now know that the Government has agreed to allow French fishermen to overfish in Canadian waters for a three year period in return for an agreement to settle the Canada-France dispute over the south coast of Newfoundland.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have also been told that their former Fisheries Minister and newly anointed Premier is outraged at this action. The Premier wants to make it seem that he was not kept fully advised by the federal Government, that he was not on top of this issue. Perhaps this is yet again an example of the Government not keeping concerned provinces informed about issues affecting them.
Yesterday's Throne Speech waxed on about Canadians who fish for a living and are finding their catches reduced by predatory overfishing. How can the Government allow French overfishing in our waters while saying the opposite in the Throne Speech?
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be wondering why their Government has allowed French overfishing while seeing their total allowable catch reduced.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Ken G. Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, a full 31 per cent of federal government revenue now goes to pay interest on our national debt. Even if we were to keep our annual deficit at current levels, the total debt would continue to grow.
Where would we stop? Should we wait until we are paying more than 50 per cent of our revenues for interest costs as Members opposite might suggest?
No, Mr. Speaker. Now is the time to face the music.
In my riding of Macleod, consumers, homeowners, farmers, ranchers and others all pay higher interest rates in part because of the huge national debt. Since 1984 our Government has started to turn things around.
No family can live beyond its means, nor can any Government.
Canadians from all walks of life must work together to face this challenge.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker I would like to take this opportunity to recognize formally the Independence Day of the country of Greece which is observed throughout the world by people of Helenic origin and ancestry. On March 25 of this year, Greece celebrated its 168 years of independence from 400 years of oppression by the Ottoman Empire.
While the number of years that Greece has claimed independence is short, the legacy which its rich history imparts to the world is very long indeed. If we are gathered here today in this Parliament which forms the core of the democratic principles which we hold so dear, it is because the scholars and ordinary citizens of ancient Greece struggled so passionately to give birth to a system which we can now accept as our supreme right as citizens of Canada.
Lest we lose sight of the fact that the state of Greece is the cradle of western civilization, it is only fitting that we take this moment to acknowledge the anniversary of Greek independence.

April 4, 1989



S. O. 31 VIA RAIL IMPORTANCE TO ATLANTIC CANADA

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is important to the maritime provinces. The Atlantic Limited is the flagship of their operations there. Besides providing a means of affordable transportation and serving as a crucial link in Atlantic Canada's identification with the rest of the nation, it is a major employer with growing revenues and significant ridership.
Maritimers have well supported it. The Government should well encourage that support.
*	* 5js



THE LATE FATHER SEAN O'SULLIVAN

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay belated tribute to a friend, classmate, parliamentarian, and priest, Father Sean O'Sullivan, whose untimely passing last month left a nation in sorrow.
Father Sean's name was synonymous with courage. In his last fight with leukemia he certainly showed that courage, and in his political career he never hesitated to march to the tune of his own drummer.
Driven by idealism, Father Sean gave up the trappings and the so-called lure of politics to devote his final short years to God's work.
Sean's life was a life of vision and courage. As his friend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, it was a life of triumph.
I knew Sean not as a political opponent but as a classmate and friend. In my first political battle I ran against Sean as President of the Bishop Ryan Social Action Club. I must say that he beat me, trounced me soundly, and taught me a few lessons about politics.
Sean was always devoted to social change, to the betterment of the common person, and to a driving commitment to make his country, his party, and ultimately his church a more responsive and reflective agent of social change.
To his family, his parents Paul and Helen, his brothers, sister, and to his aunt Sister Joan, our heartfelt condolences; and to Father Sean, Godspeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that this country is now in the midst of an interest rate crisis, a crisis that will affect not only the farmers, workers, and small business community, but also people who want to buy homes.
You might recall, Mr. Speaker, that back in 1981 the Conservative Party was howling and complaining in the House about interest rates being much too high. At that time, the real interest rate in Canada was around 6 per cent. Now the real interest rate-the difference between the bank rate and the cost of living-is around 8 per cent, not 6 per cent. It is some 2 per cent higher.
In 1981 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) were saying that interest rates were too high, they ought to be brought down, and that there ought to be a new Government to bring them down.
I now call upon the Government across the way to stop hiding behind John Crow and the Bank of Canada,and to bring down interest rates in order that the ordinary people in this country have a fair deal.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the federally owned and operated Cape Breton Development Corporation and the International Association of Machinists have been involved in a long and bitter labour dispute. This dispute has gone on for eight weeks. As a result, 3,200 employees of that Crown Corporation are without employment, affecting communities across all of Cape Breton. It is causing havoc and disorder within those communities.
I believe very strongly in the collective bargaining process. However, I would like to ask that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil) and the Minister responsible for
April 4, 1989

this Crown Corporation consult with senior members of management in order to order them back to the bargaining table so that they can begin the process of resolving this long and bitter dispute which is not only affecting the lives of families and children but indeed of a community at large. I urge the Minister to take that action immediately.



LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He recently announced his intention of relinquishing the leadership of the New Democratic Party. I will do so with some moderation for the moment, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the fact that the Member remains at his post until next winter which will give us both ample time and opportunity to pursue the ongoing assessment of our respective merits.
I have learned it is also advisable to exercise prudence in commenting on a retirement from the leadership of a rival Party. Recent history has shown that an announced retirement is different from a real retirement.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I watched the Hon. Member for Oshawa tango at the Governor General's last night I can tell that you he didn't look like anybody announcing his retirement at all.
In fact it is much too early to imagine the Member, the very distinguished Member, in one of his radical chic leisure suits, puttering around in his Sandy Hill mansion, or blowing smoke from his famous Monte Cristo cigars while lounging on the beach in Rio after another exhausting meeting of the Socialist International.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I point out at the same time the Progessive Conservatives were meeting in Jonquiere.
However, I know that whatever the disagreements we may have in this place, and we have had a few, and I suppose we will again, the Leader of the NDP will always remain faithful to the principles that his whole political career has in fact exemplified. For that, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oshawa has earned the unanimous admiration and respect of all members of the House of Commons.
Tribute to Hon. Edward Broadbent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!.
[Whereupon the House stood in tribute].


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because the Member never wavered in his support for those fundamental principles of equality and justice on which this country was built, and because he defended them with passion and intelligence within his Party and throughout the country, he has made a singular contribution to our national life.

I daresay, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Leader already enjoys a special place in this history of his party, and that he greatly contributed to the development of our collective conscience.
It would be an insult to the New Democratic Leader's intelligence if I stated that I share all the positions taken by his Party, not to mention the fact that some Members of his caucus become quite susceptible when confronted with support from moderate quarters!
But when it came to major stakes involving our future, especially the absolute need for genuine national reconciliation in this country, the Leader of the New Democratic Party always put the nation's higher interests above every partisan or political consideration.
This, Mr. Speaker, has earned him I believe, the respect and affection of many Quebec men and women who, fortunately for me, were not concentrated in the same constituency.
I think there exists in Canada today a profound desire to get on with the job of preparing a better future for our children and their children. Canadians are no longer interested in fighting again the sterile battles of the past when the 21st century beckons.
This new spirit which we feel throughout this land, and throughout all political Parties in this Chamber, did not come about spontaneously. Nor is it the product of one man or woman or one political Party's action. It comes above all from a shared conviction that unity and harmony are the foundations on which we must build our future prosperity and strength.
Few people in this Chamber or elsewhere have contributed more to this new spirit, so beneficial for Canada, than the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. To you, Ed, and to Lucille, whom we all enjoy and admire, I convey the genuine congratulations of the Government of Canada and the warm good wishes of all Canadians from coast to coast.

April 4, 1989
Tribute to Hon. Edward Broadbent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I can break the rules at the outset, if I were you, Ed, I would take that as a prelude to an appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that politics is a rough profession; it is a tough game. The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that. Politics is also an honourable calling. The House of Commons is an honourable place. The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that as well.
I have always respected from the outset the Hon. Member's skill as a parliamentarian and his respect for this place. He is "a House of Commons man", if I can use that memorable phrase of John Diefenbaker, the ultimate compliment paid to anybody in this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Dirner@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) stands in the great tradition, the line of Woodsworth, Coldwell, Douglas, Knowles, and Lewis. He stands by his beliefs. He fights for his principles, whether they be popular or unpopular. He understands the modern techniques of politics and uses them well, sometimes too well for our liking. He understands as well that values, principles, and judgment are just as important in public life and leadership as those modern techniques.
Obviously I do not agree with the Leader of the NDP about a lot of things. For example, I am not about to take his retirement announcement as any precedent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am listening, Ed, but I am not quite paying attention. I worry, too, as did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), about praising my hon. friend too highly today, because even he has been known to change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member never forgot the people in Oshawa elected him, and those constituents remained very faithful to him over a twenty-year period. And the Honorable Member for Oshawa fully realized that Canadian political parties must be national in scope. For the first time in the history of that party, he bound ties with Quebec. But in spite of everything, he kept his sense of humour. He always studied the problems carefully. He also realized that his political opponents also may have deep convictions.

I had better be careful here, Mr. Speaker. Looking to my left again and to the Hon. Member, in a direction that makes a lot of my Members nervous, I see that a good number of the NDP Members are fidgety. They suspect that I may in fact be launching a "Draft Ed" movement here.
In any event, we are paying tribute today to a fine gentleman, to an outstanding Canadian. He has been and will continue to be, as long as he chooses to stay, an ornament to this House. I say to him and to Lucille that he carries the full weight of our Party behind him. To both of them together, I wish them continued success, continued happiness, and thank them for their contribution to this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is safe for me to say a few words on behalf of our caucus about the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), since I am not going to be one of those who will be running to replace him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I just want to make that clear. If I did not make that clear there would be a number of people behind me who would be poking me in the back. I can actually feel it now. I do not think they quite believe me.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) made some funny comments, attempts to embarrass to a certain extent our Leader. It is easy for them because they do not have to sit beside him for the next eight months.
I think it is fair to say that all Canadians see Ed Broadbent as a familiar face in their communities across the country, as a welcome face in their living rooms. I know we in the New Democratic Party see him not only as a great political Leader in the tradition of those who have gone before him but also as a great parliamentarian and as a great friend, because with Ed Broadbent, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, what you see is what you get. He says what he means and he means what he says. He believes that politics not only is a calling, and a very, very important calling in terms of it being a way to serve one's country, but should also be fun. Perhaps at a more appropriate time we will relate a number of occasions when Ed Broadbent had fun. Perhaps today should not be one of those days.
April 4, 1989

I want to say that the fact we are having a leadership race but do not have any runners indicates that we feel it is going to be impossible for anyone to replace Ed Broadbent and the kind of Leader he is. Today, Ed, we are paying tribute to you as a parliamentarian, as a friend of all of us here and a friend to all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that there is no Social Democrat like a dead Social Democrat.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the words that have been spoken today. I want the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) in particular to know I have considered very carefully what they had to say just a few minutes ago about the role I played in this country, and the importance of expanding our Party in the Province of Quebec as well as elsewhere, and I want them to know I have changed my mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: No, I would not do that. I did doubt what the Prime Minister had to say about my propensity from time to time to enjoy the odd good cigar. I think he mentioned something about my having a nice suit, smoking a cigar on a beach in Rio, and my house in Sandy Hill. I just want to say to the Prime Minister that the people of Canada did not pay for my house or for my cigar, or for the trip to Rio.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I did also notice those members of the Cabinet who were a little more reluctant than others to get to their feet, and I will keep that in mind in subsequent Question Periods between now and December. I carefully made note of that. It is on the visual record anyway. We can check those tapes.
As for the Leader of the Opposition, I noticed with a great deal of interest what he had to say about my decision. He said that he did not want it to be seen as a precedent. I noticed the reactions on the face of half his caucus members, and I would be happy to give him that list afterwards.
Tribute to Hon. Edward Broadbent
To be serious for at least a few minutes, on my part I do indeed appreciate the comments made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and of course my House Leader on behalf of my colleagues here in the House of Commons.
It has been an immense pleasure for me as Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada to fight strongly and to the best of my abilities for the principles of social democracy.

.. .especially to make a special effort to establish a party able to deal effectively with the Province of Quebec and Eastern Canada. I find it very important, in that context, to listen to leaders and also the opinions of others who recently wrote letters, such as members of this historic House. It is one thing to work very hard, but it is something quite different to obtain the respect of one's opponents. May I express my very sincere thanks for these moments!

In the days ahead, in fact starting probably in about three minutes, all the opinions I have had in the past 14 years as Leader will be brought to bear in the Question Period. I say to my fellow Members of the House of Commons who happen to be members of Cabinet, Ministers of the Crown, that my vigorous debate, my points of order, and my questions of privilege have absolutely nothing personal in them, but look out.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Grant Devine, Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan and Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Speaker:: Also I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jim McCrae, Attorney General for Manitoba and Minister for Co-Operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 4, 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Ttorner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ended the last session of this Parliament by selling out Canada to the United States. The Prime Minister began this session of Parliament by selling out the fishermen of Newfoundland to France. Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister really have the nerve to produce a Throne Speech which says that his Government will reduce "predatory overfishing" when his Government at the same time is giving France carte blanche to destroy our Atlantic fisheries by sanctioning overfishing by the French? Why this hypocrisy in the Throne Speech at the expense of the people of Newfoundland?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, presumably the Elon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to the agreement just reached between Canada and France which after 12 years results in the question of the territorial boundaries of Canada and France and St. Pierre and Miquelon being sent for final adjudication to an international court, a great achievement which has taken 12 years, Mr. Speaker, to accomplish.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been no sanctioning of overfishing in this Canada-France agreement. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the result on the south coast of Newfoundland in the disputed area of the 3PS results in France agreeing to take 10,000 less pounds of fish each year over the next three years than they had before announced they were going to take. These are disputed waters, not Canadian waters, Mr. Speaker. We have no authority over these waters until an international tribunal deals with the issue, and I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that we achieved an agreement that results in us having to agree to less quotas of fish for France in Canadian waters under the 1972 treaty of the hon. gentleman's Government; this the Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland had suggested we do when he said that we were offering unreasonably small amounts to the French, which of course is a comment that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition might check upon with the Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland.


John Napier Turner: I would have thought that the hon. gentleman would have been defending the fisheries of Newfoundland instead of trying to justify the diplomatic note sent to France which justifies and sanctions that overfishing in favour of the French.


HIBERNIA OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we all read the Throne Speech carefully. I wasn't able to find many of those "spending commitments", to use the term of the Minister of Finance, during May, during the campaign and endorsed by the Prime Minister during the campaign. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what happened to all those megaprojects which were announced that were supposed to help the various regions of our country, and specifically what happened to Hibernia which was supposed to bring untold wealth to Atlantic Canada?
Where is the deal that was supposed to be signed, sealed and delivered by March 31, and why is Hibernia not mentioned in the Throne Speech? Why is the budget of the Minister of Finance not being allowed to precede, or rather is being delayed until after the Newfoundland election? I will ask this of the Minister of Trade if he wants to answer on behalf of the people of Canada and the people of Newfoundland.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the right hon. gentleman in respect of Hibernia, keeping in mind his earlier statement when he was opposed to the megaproject, and I take it that he was also therefore opposed to Hibernia. That being the case, I want to inform the right hon. gentlemen that-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that on Hibernia I met with the sponsors of Hibernia shortly after I was appointed to this Ministry. We went through the various aspects of Hibernia. I pointed out the federal Government's ongoing commitment to the Hibernia project and the statement of principles. We examined the statement of principles whether we could sign them on or before March 31, 1989. It was agreed that the legal documentation as well as the testing of the equity market would take more time.
We did put forward a statement that the federal Government, the provincial Governments and the sponsors are committed to the Hibernia project and that the
April 4, 1989

date of 1995 remains operative and the statement of principles, and that is the position of the federal Government today.
In fact, I should tell the Right Hon. Prime Minister- the Leader-


An Hon. Member:: You were right the first time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I was right once but I was not right at the present time. There is a Prime Minister and he is not your Leader, and so what I say is this. There were certain numbers given to the Hibernia project.
Obviously as people have been looking at that project with new technology, that is, primarily the sponsors, there is a new examination of some of those numbers. However, the commitment on the project remains as it was before.


John Napier Turner: That answer is a far cry from the declaration of the Prime Minister in Newfoundland on July 19, when he said: "Today the dream has been realized". Where is that dream? There is no legally binding document. It has been postponed sine die.
Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I have always favoured the Hibernia project subject to a better return on royalties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


SITUATION OF THE DISADVANTAGED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the essence of this Throne Speech is that the Government wants to cut back on assistance to the most disadvantaged regions and the neediest Canadians. Why does the Throne Speech say that the unemployed, whose unemployment insurance benefits will be cut, will have to pay for training programs? Why should ordinary Canadians, need their incomes to support their families, clothe their children and pay the rent, have to pay for four and a half years of Conservative incompetence? Why didn't the Government make helping the most disadvantaged and neediest Canadians its priority instead of giving that priority to nuclear subs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wonders why the Throne Speech says that the unemployed and ordinary families and the needy have to pay the bill. The Throne
Oral Questions
Speech says nothing of the kind. It is a fabrication used by the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign, and I assume that is one of the main reasons why the Liberals are in the opposition and will probably remain there for quite some time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


UNIVERSALITY OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I may have lost some of my hair but I am still as strong as ever.
My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Throne Speech had a lot to say about social programs but unfortunately, there is no assurance that the universality of social programs will be maintained. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give the House the assurance today, here and now, that the universality of social programs will be guaranteed during the next four years?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the Hon. Member that we on this side of the House are delighted to see him back. It is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him on his new responsibilities and also to say that it is obvious from that question that he has lost none of his old vigour.

Mr. Speaker, the universality of social programs is a principle that is well accepted by the Government and by the people of Canada.


HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Today, unfortunately, the Minister of Transport said on one of the radio stations that his Government would have to reduce the deficit by five billion and that this would be at the expense of established programs financing. Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the health insurance, the hospital insurance program will not be cut in any way and that he will not make the provincial governments do the dirty work?

April 4, 1989
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Government is committed to ensuring that Canada's health care system remains the best in the world. In terms of what steps will be taken in the future, the Hon. Member will want to wait until announcements are made by the Government, if any are to come.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Following the signing of the trade deal, the Prime Minister said on behalf of his Government in terms of the Government's attitude toward workers who would be negatively affected by the trade deal that the Government would produce a massive adjustment program. In December, this past year, the Prime Minister said that the Government of Canada would ensure there would be in place, "the finest programs that exist anywhere'', to protect workers and communities affected negatively by this trade deal.
There have been two significant developments since then, the de Grandpre Report which produced no massive new adjustment program of the kind described by the Prime Minister, and yesterday's Throne Speech which targeted, of all things, the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada, thus negatively affecting the one program that might have been helpful to workers who could be negatively affected in the future.
Why this complete contradiction between what the Prime Minister promised would be put in place for workers negatively affected and what the Government is actually doing?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first I think it is important that the Hon. Member read what is in the Throne Speech in reference to unemployment insurance. I want to assure him that there is no indication in the Throne Speech that people on unemployment insurance will be negatively affected. People who need unemployment insurance will continue to get unemployment insurance.
The speech says that my Government will propose amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Program in order to improve the program's effectiveness and its fairness.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister confirmed the point. We in the NDP believe that all those eligible for unemployment insurance are the people who need it now and in the future. That is what we are saying.


REQUEST THAT BENEFITS NOT BE REDUCED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister.
Will she guarantee there will be no reduction in unemployment insurance benefits in the future?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that there are three objectives in what we are planning. First, Canadians who suffer job loss will continue to receive the financial support they need, whatever the reason for that job loss, as they have in the past. Second, people who are unemployed want to work. We want to better match their skills with the jobs that are available to them and ensure that they can take advantage of those opportunities. Third, as the Hon. Member has said himself, training is the key to bringing those two things together. Those are the three objectives as stated in the Speech and what our policy will be.


John Edward Broadbent: Once again, Members of the House, and especially Canadians outside the House who can be affected in the future, will notice that the Minister did not give a guarantee that there would be no reductions in the future unemployment insurance pay-outs to groups of Canadians who are now getting them. We know the agenda. It is up to the Government to come clean and tell the people of Canada what it really plans to do.


FISHERIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister, but since he is not answering I presume the Minister responsible for Newfoundland will answer.
The Government has given away to the French the right to fish excessively off the southern coast of Newfoundland. The deal the Government has entered into has been estimated to cost some 800 Newfoundland jobs. What plans does the Government have in place to compensate these 800 Newfoundlanders who will be negatively affected by this incredible deal.
April 4, 1989


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the only thing incredible is the hon. gentleman's allegations in his question. There is no sanctioning of overfishing by the French in Canadian waters or in disputed waters. The French are agreeing to reduce their catch in disputed waters by 10,000 tonnes a year, which is a considerable accomplishment, and to allow inspection by Canadian inspectors, 12 inspections a year, and for the first time to give accurate data on catches.
I want to refer the hon. gentleman to what was said by Richard Cashin, head of the fishermen's union.
We now have a settlement. It is probably the best that we could have done. We have, I suppose, the frame work before us now to ultimately resolve the very serious problem that affected fishermen primarily in the south coast of Newfoundland. . .nobody likes all the parts of it but I accept what Mr. Crosbie has said.
If it is good enough for Cashin, then it should be good enough for the Leader of the NDP.


FRENCH OVERFISHING
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade, my distinguished fellow countryman from St. John's West. As he is now painfully aware, the Government's knuckling under to a foreign country reached a new low last week with the fish agreement with France.
I ask the Minister, given that the French have flagrantly overfished in 3PS for the last four years ever since this Government took office and that the fishery on the South coast of Newfoundland is a wipe-out this year because of French overfishing, why did he agree to the cave-in to the French?
How can he say with a straight face that this deal is in the best interests of Newfoundland and Newfoundland fishermen? In short, why did he, the Minister from St. John's West, pawn his birthright over this issue and why did he put the shaft to 15,000 fishermen and plant workers on the south coast of Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this Government has acted to protect and save the fishermen of the south coast of Newfoundland. Once this matter is settled by an international tribunal, the boundaries will be set on the south coast of Newfoundland. The disputed zone will exist no
Oral Questions
longer. Canadian fishing laws and regulations will be in effect and their long term future will be secured because we have taken a long-term approach.
I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that in 1982 the then Liberal Government entered into an agreement with the EEC giving them 9,500 tonnes of northern cod for six years, 57,000 tonnes of northern cod they handed over to the European Community and 9,270 thousand tonnes of that went to the French. Where was the hon. gentleman then?
Mr. Clyde Wells said this on October 28, 1987:
The EEC is giving up their share, some 9,500 tonnes. That quantity can be used to bargain reasonably with France and give France a significant portion of that 9,500 tonnes and try and bargain reasonably without in any way impacting on the inshore fisheries or Canadian fisheries in the area.
When he said that, the Hon. Member was a member of his caucus and we never heard one peep out of him when he said that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can quote Comrade Cashin all he wants.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Comrade Wells?


Roger Simmons: Why does he not quote Buchanan who says it is a give-away, or temporary Premier Rideout who says it is a betrayal? Even his bosom pals in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are disowning this cowardly deal.
I ask the Minister from St. John's West how he can stomach the situation that his political masters have put him in. What-


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


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, why does he continue to hang out with this bunch of weak-kneed amateurs who could not negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag? Why won't he consider washing his hands-


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose there is a question there.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, I think I can discern at least an answer. Would the hon. gentleman explain to the Members of the House why in 1980 the previous Liberal Government entered into an agreement-

April 4, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -to give 20,500 tonnes of cod a year-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will move on. The Hon. Member for Labrador.


MINISTER QUERIED
Mr. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the silent Minister of Fisheries. I want to ask him, as a willing saboteur to this dirty deal done between Canada and France, and a willing saboteur-


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the Hon. Member for Labrador that, although no immediate complaint has been raised, the Hon. Member is getting awfully close to using unparliamentary language. I would ask him to put his question using perhaps a more favourable word.


Bill Rompkey: I want to explain to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries is an accomplice in the sell-out of the northern cod on the 40th anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation. We brought that stock into Confederation and the Minister was an accomplice in selling it out. I want to ask him, as a Minister of Fisheries who has now told Labrador fishermen that they do not count, that their future is immaterial to him, how can he stay on? How can he be the Minister of Oceans and sell out the Labrador fishermen, sell them down the river?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Labrador was seeking the floor on a point of order, and Hon. Members will realize, of course, that that is not done during Question Period. I will certainly hear him afterwards. The Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Which one?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen are trying to fight the Newfoundland provincial election on the floor of the House, and I have been delegated to answer this kind of snide and ridiculous question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have not finished my answer.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries who declined to answer my first question, who refused to answer my first question, is this. He has turned down two fishermen's co-ops on the coast of Labrador, the most disadvantaged fishermen anywhere in Canada. He has said, "No, you cannot fish northern cod". How can he do that and agree to give that veiy resource away to the French? How can he do that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for directing the question more specifically. If Hon. Members choose to listen, the Hon. Member knows that we have quotas of northern cod allocated to Canadian fishermen under our enterprise allocation scheme which his Government set up several years ago under which we do not allow new entrants piecemeal because that encroaches upon the quotas available to other Canadian fishermen.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's West has pointed out, the Government of which the Hon. Member for Labrador was a part allocated to France a significant portion of 9,500 tonnes of northern cod. We have reduced that amount substantially to secure a lasting and historic settlement of a festering boundary dispute with France.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the Coast Guard which is the lead agency for dealing with marine oil spills. Since the Valdez spill is now half the size of Nova Scotia, has spread over 750 miles of coastline and is now approximately 200 miles from hitting the most northerly part of the B.C. coast, would the Minister explain to the House why he has been unable to travel to view this largest spill in the history of North America?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend that, as of this morning, the reports we had from the U.S. Coast Guard are to the effect that the oil is still in Prince William Sound. It is just at the opening of the sound, at Cape Clear, 1,000 kilometres from the nearest Canadian border. The oil is moving away from the western part of Alaska toward the ocean and is not moving in the direction of Canada.

April 4, 1989

We must be very vigilant. The disaster is a terrible one and we are deeply concerned with it. We are exercising the utmost vigilance to make sure that the oil will not reach our coast.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the response we just heard was pathetic.


THREAT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA COAST
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I address my supplementary to the Minister of Transport. I confirmed with the Minister of Transport's own Coast Guard emergency officials an hour prior to Question Period that this spill is 50 miles south of Cordova, and for anyone who wants to look at a map it is 200 miles from the B.C. coast.
What is the Minister going to do? Is he going to move containment and spill clean-up technology to the north coast of British Columbia now while there is time to prepare, or will he wait until the oil hits our coast?


Mr. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Member is wrong. I prefer to use figures given by my colleague which come directly from the Canadian Coast Guard. It is not the time to play politics with those.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the threat of hard times ahead for Atlantic Canada implicit in yesterday's Throne Speech has unfortunately already borne fruit.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated yesterday to the Prime Minister from the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan, written on behalf of the Council of Maritime Premiers in which is raised the serious concern that the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program worth $90 million a year is about to be eliminated or reduced.
I quote Premier Buchanan in yesterday's letter: "According to a 1983 study in a worst case scenario, removal of the Freight Rate Assistance Program will result in job losses in the region totalling 12,100 and annual income losses to the region of $330 million".
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister has that letter in his hands today. Is he prepared to assure this House, and through this House, Atlantic Canadians, that the the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program will neither be reduced nor eliminated as a consequence of the budget measures expected shortly?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the concerns which the Hon. Member has read out as expressed by the Atlantic Premiers. The Hon. Member is raising a speculative matter. He can understand that it is not possible for me to comment on speculative matters. The question is directed at what or what might not be in the Budget, and the Hon. Member will have to wait until budget time before he can get an answer to that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am sending a copy of the letter to the Prime Minister from Premier Buchanan to the Prime Minister.


PROVISIONS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The matter is not speculation. Brian Wentzell, Chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, informed me an hour ago by telephone that he has met with the senior staff of the four Atlantic Ministers and the senior staff of the Minister of Transport and has discussed this matter. He informs me as well that he has been told that one of the reasons for the eliminationn of this $90 million subsidy is the Free Trade Agreement.
My question to the Prime Minister is the following. Given the Prime Minister's assurances during last November's election that subsidies to the regions would not be affected by the Free Trade Agreement, why is Premier Buchanan writing this letter? Why are senior staff of the four Atlantic Ministers and the Minister of Transport telling the Chairman of our transportation commission that the program is about to be eliminated because of pressure resultant from the Free Trade Agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the hon. gentleman is talking about. He refers to some private conversations apparently he had about an hour ago. I am not privy to those conversations. I will be happy to review that conversation with him.
Apparently his respondent indicated that it was because of the Free Trade Agreement, in which case I presume that he was consulting with the Liberals and the financial critic of the Liberals who said that should the

April 4, 1989
Oral Questions
Conservatives touch any programs the move will be blamed by the Liberals on Free Trade even if the trade deal is not to blame. "Every sparrow that falls is going to be blamed on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement", he said.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare on the crisis in child care in Canada.
Six months have passed since the election was called and the matter is urgent. Why is there no legislative commitment in the Speech from the Throne to child care, and will the Minister table a new Child Care Act tomorrow?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the Government made it clear that it had a commitment to the principle of child care. I suppose the Hon. Member can be excused because she wasn't here and that is why she doesn't recognize that it was the Liberal Senate which was responsible for not having child care legislation today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We would have had this legislation today if it were not for a Senate which my colleague refers to as a Triple L Senate: "Liberal, lazy, and light".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: You can't say that. Withdraw!


REQUEST FOR ACTION
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, there is a child care crisis in this country and the Minister is trying to blame it on on somebody else. The Government's previous child care strategy failed in most respects to address the reality.
Will the Minister assure us that he will introduce a Bill that is responsive to the very real legitimate concerns of Canadian parents and the needs of Canadian children? Will he do it immediately?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, elements of the child care strategy are already in place and are already working to aid Canadians.
Second, the Hon. Member should know that it was her colleagues in the House of Commons and in the Senate who are responsible for the fact that there is not legislation in place today.


AIR SAFETY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Canadians, particularly those in my community of Thunder Bay and Dryden, Ontario, know there is a big difference between theoretical concerns over air safety and the shocking realities of an air plane crash.
So far this Government has taken no steps whatever to deal with the crisis in air safety other than having those who pick up the pieces change the reporting structure.
Will the Prime Minister accept his responsibilty for over-all government policy, start the process of rebuilding public confidence in air safety by replacing the Minister of Transport with an individual who is prepared to take charge of his Department and this matter, and restore public confidence?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it will save a lot of time if I say it in both official languages: I have absolutely no intention of resigning.


Benoît Bouchard: I don't have any intention of resigning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I think we are here in the House to deal with questions in a substantive matter. If the Hon. Member has any questions about air safety, I would be glad to answer them. And especially since Canada is known the world over as having one of the best air safety systems in the world.
Last year, we had over 5,600,000 activities with a minimum of accidents. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada's air traffic system works well and that the level of cooperation is excellent.
I may add that since the Hon. Member was referring to the terrible crash at Diyden, I hope he will not try to play politics with air safety.
April 4, 1989


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. We were raising the concerns about air safety long before the Dryden crash. Any suggestion that we are making politics out of peoples' deaths is shocking.
Last week the Minister announced changes to the Aviation Safety Board investigation pattern. He made no announcement whatever about changes to prevent air crashes or air incidences in this country.
Since he seems to be prepared to stay on in the job and the Prime Minister is not prepared to get rid of him, I wish to ask the Minister when is he going to take action to deal with the preventive measures, and when is he going to bring forward a public inquiry into aviation safety in order that once and for all we can get at the root of the problem?


Benoît Bouchard: Last week, Mr. Speaker, we gave specific answers to specific problems concerning the question of Gander and the question of Dryden. We also announced a new bill on the control of air accidents, which I hope to introduce this week. I would suggest that is one part of the answer. Whenever an independent government agency will be in a position to guarantee normal operations.. . we do have a prevention mechanism. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I have at my disposal the resources I think are necessary. However, I made an announcement last week and on Thursday this week I will meet with spokesmen for the pilots, air carriers, controllers, and eventually inspectors, to decide if more can be done with the resources on hand, again with a view to avoiding such accidents as we had to cope with in recent days.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have what we need to proceed. There was a misunderstanding in an agency which does not come under the Government. This House set up the Aviation Safety Board and this House will replace it. As I said, all mechanisms, standards and regulations are available and we will continue to use them as we have done in the past.
Oral Questions


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine -Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The predecessor of the Secretary of State indicated that his Department would consider the special and unique needs of Alliance Quebec following the fire at its offices in Montreal on December 31, 1988.
Will the Minister be providing additional funding to Alliance Quebec to ensure that its operations can be restored?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State, I am fully committed to promoting Canada's linguistic duality and supporting our official minority linguistic communities. This is a personal commitment.
Organizations such as Alliance Quebec and the Federation des francophones hors Quebec have made a significant contribution to these goals and their communities.
I am therefore very pleased to be able to award a grant of $120,000 to Alliance Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: This will help with some of the expenses incurred during the fire. I do want to thank the Hon. Member for his vision and leadership-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk).


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT EFFECT ON AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and part-time Minister of Agriculture.
On November 25, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote: "I want to tell Canadians we shall ensure innovative and generous adjustment and retraining programs will be introduced whenever and wherever required."
In light of this commitment and the fact that the recent de Grandpre Report proposes no special free trade assistance, would the Minister assure the Canadian public that he will reject de Grandpre's "trust don't adjust" philosophy and set up the programs the Prime Minister promised?

April 4, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member in the following manner.
The de Grandpre Report has allocated a couple of chapters to the agricultural industry and of course the recommendations are being considered.
It is important for any adjustments that may be necessary to be made in full" co-operation with the industry. We have had ongoing discussions with the various marketing agencies, Agriculture Canada, and indeed with the provinces.
I welcome the Hon. Member's interest. I am sure that we will be pleased to invite his participation in this process as well.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the de Grandpre recommendations respecting agriculture are the greatest betrayal to our farming communities since Confederation.
Will the Minister not agree that the supply managed industries have been organized and comply well with GATT rules? Will he not today stand in his place and completely reject the recommendations as they relate to supply managed commodities in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I not sure what part of the report the Hon. Member read, or whether he understood the report. As I read it, the de Grandpre commission fully endorsed the concept of supply management, as we do on this side of the House and as we do as a Government. We have never deviated from that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You haven't read it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have read it. I have the two chapters right here in my hand.
The fact of the matter is that the supply management system is in place. What we have to do as a Government and as an industry is to ensure that the systems are preserved and enhanced to take into consideration the realities of the international market-place.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I met with refusenik, Mrs. Samoilo-vich, in Moscow. Her husband George, who is 66 years of age, is dying of cancer. The British Embassy in Moscow extended an invitation for him to be treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, but he still has not received his visa.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would intervene in this particular case with the Soviet authorities?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him why he made such a fallacious statement about the ridership on VIA Rail, and why did he want to mislead the Canadian public?


Benoît Bouchard: have to say about VIA Rail and what I have to say concerning the various Crown corporations and the decisions to be made is that they will come at the appropriate time.
[English |


FUTURE OF PASSENGER SERVICE
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Prime Minister would not want to answer, so I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Will the Minister now lift the veil of uncertainty from VIA which was created by the Prime Minister, and reassure the Canadian public that there will continue to be good, comfortable, and efficient rail service in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just told my friend that the decision will be made in due course, and that is still the same answer.



*
April 4, 1989


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the drought payment. The four provinces that are due to get the drought payment have been given very limited information. A drought map was produced which went out a couple of weeks ago, but there is no data going with drought maps to indicate what was the basis of the consideration, what was the average production considered for each township, and how the decision was made. This information is important not only for the Auditor General to monitor the program, but for the farmers to decide whether to appeal the situation that they have been put in with that map.
Can the Minister tell us whether the specific data will be made available, and when?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, to correct the Hon. Member, there are not four provinces eligible. There are five provinces eligible; the three prairie provinces, Ontario and Quebec.
Second, all the information that was put out in the form of the maps is preliminary. The basic information was all obtained from the provinces, so the provinces supplied the federal Government through their crop insurance agencies with the information on which those maps were based.
The information was based on a loss to coverage ratio through crop insurance records, which was exactly the procedure that we used in 1985 that people did not like.
The maps are preliminary. Once we have final data from the crop insurance corporations we will be in a position to issue final areas that will define how the full payment will be arrived at.


RELEASE OF DATA
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us how soon the information will be available? There are over 100,000 farm families trying to decide whether to appeal or not. The appeal boards will have to know where that data sits so that they can deal with the appeals. The bureaucrats will have to know what the numbers are precisely so that they can figure out what the payments are.
Air Ontario Crash
When will that data be available to the farmers, the appeal boards and the bureaucrats themselves, so that we will know how much farmers can depend on for this coming crop year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a good question. Let me try to provide him with some good information so in fact he can provide some good information to his own producers.
First, we will not have the information from the crop insurance agency until about the first of May. As soon as we have it it will then be made available through maps. There is no sense in applying for an appeal presently because everybody should know that the data on which the preliminary payments are made is just exactly that, preliminary data.
So, for crying in the bucket, tell your farmers, your neighbors, to wait until we get the final data because the program was designed by farmers. They wanted us to target it. They wanted us to be crop specific. They wanted to get down to the smallest possible area. That is exactly what in fact we are doing. It is a farmers' program, designed by farmers. It is going to be a good program once the Hon. Member sees the full details of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I understand that there has been an agreement between the Parties to pay certain tributes. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Energy to commence.


AIR ONTARIO CRASH
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government of Canada I would like to express my heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of those who died in the Air Ontario crash in Dryden, Ontario.
The crash showed to us as Canadians that ordinary Canadians are capable and willing to perform heroic acts. This was done by air flight personnel, as well as by those who attended the crash site. But air accidents also impact on families, communities and our country. It snuffs out the lives of those who were filled with hope and with anticipation. It affects communities and the leadership these individuals have given. It affects people at a personal level. It affects people whose only response can be the question as to why.

April 4, 1989
Air Ontario Crash
One of those families was laid to rest in my home community of Steinbach, a friend, a colleague, someone I grew up with. So I say to them and to all of those affected by the air disaster that our prayers are with them and with their families and that the Government intends to find out and answer the reason as to why.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Like my colleague, it is with sadness that I rise today.
On March 10,1989, at approximately 12.10 p.m. twelve residents from the City of Thunder Bay, four residents from the district of Thunder Bay, two residents from other parts of Ontario, two residents from Alberta, one resident each from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and one resident from the United States came to their tragic death as a result of the air crash one kilometre from the Dryden airport.
I refrain, Mr. Speaker, from mentioning their names in respect to the surviving relatives. I am certain that all Members of the House express their profound sympathy to the relatives and close friends of the victims and our hopes and prayers for a full and complete recovery of the survivors.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too want to join with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) in offering my condolences and those of my Party to the families, friends and neighbors of the victims of Air Ontario flight 1363.
Too often we think that events such as an air crash are something that happen in another country to somebody we do not know. As the word started to trickle through Thunder Bay on the Saturday morning, as the word got out as to who some of the people were on the plane who perished, who survived, one could feel the shock going through Thunder Bay. I know that the Minister of Energy spoke of a friend of his. Well, that friend and his family lived on my street. We were all affected by it.
Even those people who did not know anybody, and in a community of 120,000 people its possible that everybody knew somebody on the plane, came to the memorial services and felt the grief and wondered why. I think that as we all reflect on what has happened, our hearts go out to the victims' families, our heart goes out for the trauma that people have gone through in terms of the survivors.
Our thanks also go out to that wonderful little community up in the bush, Dryden, Ontario, whose people reacted so fantastically. To those who opened their stores to provide food and clothing, to those who looked after the people, to the fire crash rescue people who were on the spot in literally minutes, we say thanks for how you responded and how you opened your arms to your neighbors and friends.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to relate to you my feelings as the Member for Kenora-Rainy River. On that day, March 10,1 was sitting in my office. I heard that this accident had taken place. I was a little numb as to what to do. As a Member of Parliament, one gets a lot of requests and a lot of areas of concern brought forward, but never something of this nature. So I did what I normally do and went by my gut reaction. I flew to Dryden. On March 11 I went to the site.
I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House that there are no words to explain how miraculous it really is for those individuals who survived the crash. To those people who did not survive the crash and to their families, I offer my personal condolences and the condolences of the Members of Parliament here.
I would also like to take this moment to ask everyone here to give thanks to those individuals who used their swift action and cool heads to save more lives. Those are the individuals who had the ability to keep a cool head, to get out of that plane to help other people who were trapped and to get into the bush before the plane caught fire. I would like to thank those people who reacted so swiftly in that situation.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those volunteers who moved so quickly to try to save lives. It is something that I as a Member of Parliament will never forget. It is not something that I want to forget because as I do my job here for the people of Kenora-Rainy River, I will always remember that accident because I was there. When we talk about safety I think it will be something that I can easily visualize. I will have a better feeling for what it really means. I think we as parliamentarians should always remember what we are really doing here, that is, trying to protect the people we represent. We cannot do that if we lose site of what that really is.
April 4, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I think that it is probably appropriate if Members would stand for a moment's silence.
[Editors Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that I have several matters of privilege to hear. Then I will be answering to the House with respect to questions of privilege this morning and to two applications for emergency debate.
I will hear first from the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I believe is an important point of privilege, one potentially affecting all Members of this House. The issue is the immunity, if any, of Members of Parliament from giving evidence in civil trials against their will.
Your office, Sir, was provided with a letter and copies of relevant documents relating to a defamation action still under way, I believe, in the B.C. Supreme Court in Kelowna. That was at approximately 1 p.m. today.
May I immediately stress, Sir, that I am not raising this point because of any false notion that MPs are or should be above the law, in this case a subpoena, but because I believe strongly that what men and women tell us in confidence in our constituency offices, they do not believe that we are later going to divulge it in a court of law in a civil action. Our justice system affords privilege to most solicitor/client communication. Should we not afford as much to MPs meeting with Canadians?
As to the matter at hand, about two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, an out-of-province subpoena was authorized by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Patricia Proudfoot. A good deal of correspondence by fax followed which included a legal opinion from our parliamentary counsel, Mr. Marcel Pelletier, asserting my right to be exempt from attending as a witness in a court of law. On March 29, a letter faxed from one counsel to the action indicated that I was ordered by her Lordship to appear in person the next day in Kelowna.
Appearing in court as ordered, I attempted to convince Her Lordship that an irresistible force was colliding with
Privilege
an immovable object. The court eventually ordered me to be sworn, and thereafter in effect directed me to reply to a question to identify a number of individuals who had come to my constituency office in April of 1986.
The court adjourned for lunch when I declined to identify those persons. On reconvening, Her Lordship again indicated I should identify my visitors, but counsel for the plaintiff withdrew the subpoena, for which I am obviously grateful, just before the court ruled on the contempt citation. Her Lordship later said that she had intended to cite me for contempt.
The question in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is obviously unresolved at least in the Province of British Columbia and probably well beyond. It is important, I believe, for all Members of this House to know what the law is in this matter for all of the provinces of Canada. It is important that Canadians know that they can come to us in our offices and speak to us in confidence and not later have that matter in effect forced out of us in a court of law. I speak only of course of the civil actions. If you find, Sir, that there is a point of privilege, I ask that you would make the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I first of all want to advise the Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) that I have looked very carefully at the material which he filed with the Chair and I will consider the matter with considerable care and return to the House at the appropriate time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Chair could make copies available to us on this side of the House, we would appreciate having copies so we are aware of what is going on; indeed we are upset by this whole question.


Mr. Speaker:: I will arrange to comply with the request.


VALDEZ OIL SPILL
James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since Question Period, I have had the opportunity to speak with the Minister regarding motions, and there is an important matter of fact that I wish to address in terms of privilege. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard (Roberval)) referred to the figure provided, I take it, by the U.S. Coast Guard of the slick known as the Valdez slick as being 1,000 kilometres from the nearest point of British Columbia. I have here with me-it is not the easiest thing to use in the House, Mr. Speaker, but it is a Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch which includes all of Canada, but in particular-

April 4, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow the Chair to interrupt him, not because this is not a very serious matter, and I might suggest to the Hon. Member it can be discussed perhaps later, but I have to say to the Hon. Member that it is not a question of privilege, and I think that it would not be appropriate to continue at this time, and depending on what happens later today, I may hear the Hon. Member further.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, but keeping in mind what you said, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point clear because I think the Ministers may well want to respond to it because there are trans-boundary rivers-the Alsek, Tatsenshini, the Stikine which are in fact parts of-


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the Hon. Member's geography is exact and I can assure that those rivers are just where they are and I know exactly what the Hon. Member is worried about, but as I say, it is not properly a question of privilege. Perhaps the Hon. Member will have a chance later for further discussion.


Don Boudria: But it is a good point.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Milliken:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Period today, the Minister of National Health and Welfare in one of his answers, and I am sorry he has left the House, this is one of the problems of this rule, but the point of order must be raised after the Question Period-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Give notice, it works.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I did give notice. He left for a meeting, but I will raise the point and he can reply to it another day. He gave an answer to a question, Mr. Speaker, which in my submission violated Rule 18 of the Standing Orders which states that no Member shall speak disrespectfully of a sovereign nor of any member of the Royal Family or so on, nor use offensive words against either House or any member thereof. Mr. Speaker, in my submission the answer given by the Minister contained references to the other place which in my submission were contrary to the words and the spirit of Standing Order 18, and I would respectfully request that the Minister take the appropriate steps when he returns to the Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member and I am very familiar with the rule. Perhaps now that the Hon. Member has raised the matter, we will adjourn until we have a chance to hear what response there may be from the Minister. I thank the Hon. Member.


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I advised the House that I will return with respect to the matters raised this morning which received very careful attention indeed. This morning I received applications for emergency debate under Standing Order 52 relating to three separate items. I ask the indulgence of the House and I want to refer to the privilege motions first.
I have now had the opportunity to review the alleged question of privilege raised earlier this day with the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) relating to the fact that Bill C-204 has yet to be proclaimed. I am unable to find that the Member's privileges have been infringed by this circumstance. The Hon. Member may remember that I did indicate that at the time of his argument.
In relation to the alleged question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk) regarding the timing of drought payments, I will again reiterate the point I made earlier this day that while the Member may feel that he has indeed a grievance in relation to this matter, and I think at the time so may his constituents and others, I cannot find that his privileges as a Member have been breached. I therefore cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.
I point out to the Hon. Members, and to the public who is listening, that there is of course a difference between a grievance and a question of privilege. Privilege can only be sought and claimed when indeed something has been done which actually does impair the capacity of the Hon. Member to carry on their duties, and I find that in these cases that is not the situation.
As I started to say, this morning I received applications for emergency debates under Standing Order 52 relating to three separate items: The matter of aviation safety, the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez.
Let us deal first with the question raised by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on air safety.
April 4, 1989

First I should like to quote from page 18 of Hansard for February 18, 1972 when Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated:
I believe Hon. Members will recognize that it would not be easy to justify adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 at the very moment when we have before us the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. . .

The reason for this caution on the part of Speaker Lamoureux, and indeed other Speakers in the past, is that during the Throne Speech debate it is an easy matter for Members to debate subjects over a wide area and it is difficult, therefore, to meet the criteria required for an emergency debate under Standing Order 52(5) which states:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration,. . .the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means.

If I may repeat the last sentence, I must have regard, and I quote:
to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means.

In the case of air safety, and also the case of removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, where the matter may be brought before the House by other means, I do not find that the criteria of Standing Order 52 have been met, and I will not therefore allow an emergency debate at least at this time.
However, in relation to the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I do find the criteria of
The Address
Standing Order 52 have been met. The matter proposed for discussion does relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
I therefore set the matter of the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez down for debate at 8 p.m. this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The debate is therefore adjourned. SITTING SUSPENDED


Mr. Speaker:: An emergency debate will commence at eight o'clock this evening. The House will open tomorrow at two o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.45 p.m.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume B.]

Tuesday, April 4, 1989
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume A.]


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has granted leave to the Hon. Member for Skeena to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the oil spill which occurred outside the Port of Valdez. Accordingly the motion is as follows: Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Riis, moves "That this House do now adjourn".
I should say to Hon. Members and the public that in effect this is an emergency debate which has been applied for and has been granted by the Chair with respect to the oil spill in Alaska and its consequences, possible or otherwise. Accordingly that is why we are debating tonight when ordinarily we do not sit in the evenings. I recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important and timely emergency debate not only because of the pending problems that coastal life is having right now as a result of the Alaska spill, but in relation to a number of other spills that have occurred recently on the west coast of North America affecting British Columbia.
It is important to have an historical understanding of how the Port of Valdez came to be where it is and why the north slope crude is coming from there and on down the west coast of North America. It was in 1972 that this debate was really in full flight in British Columbia. Of course the consensus among British Columbians at that
time, including that of the then Premier of British Columbia, the present Hon. Member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), was that there should not be tanker traffic down the west coast of North America carrying that crude. There were other suggested means of moving that oil, rail being one example.
We know that at that time it was reported quite widely in Canada that the U.S. Coast Guard predicted that there would be two million litres of spills annually on the west coast of North America as a result of this route having been chosen from Valdez out of Prince William Sound, down the coast of British Columbia to the ports in the northern United States, in California, and some down through Panama. However, a decision was made to go ahead and construct the port and to start moving U.S. flag tankers. They move only under the Jones Act. These are American flag and crude vessels.
We have seen a series of catastrophes in the last 18 months. I think it is important that we have that in chronological context before dealing specifically with the Valdez spill.
The most recent and the worst is the Exxon Valdez spill. Prior to that there was a 186-tonne spill from the barge that was going into Grays Harbour on December 22, 1988, which ended up on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Prior to that, on October 4,1987, a vessel known as the Stuyvesant spilled 600,000 gallons into the water off the Queen Charlotte Islands, but it drifted westward and did not come on to the shores of the Queen Charlotte Islands. However, it is interesting that this this same vessel, the Stuyvesant, continued to ply those waters, and I quote from the material provided to me by the Library of Parliament:
For the second time during 1987, the U.S. tanker Stuyvesant sustained structural damage in heavy weather while departing Valdez, Alaska, en route to Puerto Amuerelles, Panama, and spilled more than 600,000 gallons of Alaskan crude oil into the Gulf of Alaska. This is the first time that a single ship has been responsible for the two largest oil spills off the U.S. coast in a single calendar year. It is also the first time that a single ship has caused two major spills in the same geographical region for the same general reason within a relatively short period of time-less than ten months.

April 4, 1989
The Government of Canada did nothing to respond to the crisis that clearly existed in terms of tanker technology. It is becoming increasingly clear, as I think Hon. Members will realize if they listen to me this evening, that some of the corporations which are involved such as Exxon, Sohio, Standard, and others, are doing little other than acting as corporate goons when it comes to their real concern about the environment.
Briefly on the Grays Harbour spill, the barge that was being pulled by a tug on December 22 hit a sand bar as it attempted to go into Grays Harbour, and the environmental protection people from the State of Washington ordered the tug and barge offshore. Rather than having it come in where it could be safely contained, brought on shore and pumped out, it was sent offshore. Rather than even taking the normal precautions that one would expect the U.S. Coast Guard to advise them of, which is to try to curl the slick into a containable area, they went in a straight line and almost the entire slick ended up on the west coast of Vancouver Island. This is where we started to find most clearly what I describe as the "Don't worry, be happy" attitude of the Government of Canada.
The Canadian Coast Guard and the Minister said: "Don't worry, be happy, the slick is going to go offshore," even while it was continuing to be monitored as moving toward one of our national parks, Pacific Rim National Park and Long Beach, where a very large chunk of it ended up. That slick is continuing to come ashore, as we stand here this evening, up as far as Nootka Sound.
That spill happened to be Bunker C which is not as toxic, bad and persistent as the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, but it has done considerable damage. It has killed thousands of birds and seals. It has damaged inter-tidal life such as clams and near-shore animals such as crabs. Eagles have died as a result of eating polluted and contaminated materials on the beaches.
As we found in that case, it was volunteers from British Columbia who did the majority of the work. Hundreds of them turned up, and I think the House of Commons owes them a debt of gratitude for having turned up in the numbers that they did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: We have to keep in mind that it is the federal Ministry of Transport which is the lead Ministry. It is the Coast Guard which is under the administration of the Ministry of Transport that is the lead agency in Canada for marine oil spills.
Of course, interestingly enough, just today, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) released the Maritime Pollution Compensation Fund report to which I will refer a little later this evening as soon as my friend digs it out of my material here.
The Coast Guard never actually co-ordinated anything, in my view. The Provincial Emergency Program, PEP, never co-ordinated anything. In the State of Washington, the U.S. Coast Guard got involved in what I describe as horizontal administration of the spill. It arranged for taxis, for diy cleaning, for hot food, and for training. It had plastic bags and all kinds of mobile equipment and so on. It had several thousand volunteers cleaning up the smallest part of the Grays Harbour spill that ended up on Washington soil. In British Columbia, there are still tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of it.
I held a task force in Vancouver just a few weeks ago and people came all the way down from northern Vancouver Island. They had taken days off of work. They had rented their own vehicles and bought their own equipment. In just one day they gathered 6,000 pounds of Bunker C off one little beach, and there were eagles flopping around in the bush covered with oil from eating contaminated foods. They could not fly. They were there to starve to death. That is the legacy of the Souse Brothers and the Coast Guard response and everyone saying "It's not really our jurisdiction; we can't really do anything".
I was appalled and continue to be appalled at how the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia responded to the real need to co-ordinate volunteers. Why were the 75 professionally trained Department of National Defence personnel from Esquimau not out there? Why did the Government never send them out?
Cleaning up oil spills is a tough, dirty job once it gets on the beach, and that brings me to the real reason for this evening's debate, which is what happened with the Exxon Valdez. It is something we have to look at very carefully. If we track the Stuyvesant we find inadequate, dangerous tankers going up and down our coast. The U.S. Coast Guard predicted an average of two million litres a year in spills during the lifetime of the Valdez traffic up and down our coast. We have to look carefully at that.
April 4, 1989

On March 24, the Exxon Valdez pulled loose. Apparently the captain was intoxicated. At least that is what has been reported. The man deserves a trial, and I assume he is going to get it fairly soon, as soon as the warrant is served and he is arrested. The third mate should not have been at the wheel.
The real environmental criminals in this issue are the ones who are at the top, Frank Iarossi for one. There need to be laws in this country, laws in the United States, and international laws around the world to deal with the Iarossi of this world.
For three days after the Exxon Valdez ran on to Bligh Reef nothing was done. I have spoken to oil spill experts. Frank Iarossi never picked up the phone and asked for containment booms from Canada, from Alaska, from Washington, from California, or from Hawaii where Exxon had another spill of 125,000 litres. There was another massive spill in Antarctica. Of course it is the B.C. coast that has been getting the most recent spills.
However, what did Exxon do? For three days there was no wind, no problem. The oil was still in Prince William Sound. That vessel should have had at least three containment booms around it and the slick lickers should have been operating around the clock cleaning up the oil. That spill is now 2,700 square kilometres, which is half the size of the Province of Nova Scotia. It is a monster and it is starting to come out of Prince William Sound. Prince William Sound is basically contained by islands, but the oil is now pushing its way out through Montague Strait passed the Bligh Reef. As it moves out, pieces of the spill are peeling off and are moving south westerly, according to Exxon this evening.
A northerly wind is blowing over the height of land from Cook Inlet down toward Prince William Sound, keeping the oil from going on to the coast. We now have 750 miles of coastline either dead or dying. The seal otters are dying. The seals are dying. The whale pods are moving through and the blow holes are polluted. The herring are contaminated. The crabs are contaminated, and then there is our halibut, the eggs of the halibut. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the eggs are laid on the ocean floor of the Queen Charlotte Islands. They hatch and go up and live as worms near the surface of the ocean. They drift up into the Panhandle of the Gulf of Alaska. They live near the surface.
An oil slick that size is killing hundreds of millions of juvenile halibut. Our dungeonness crabs, which everyone from the State of Alaska to British Columbia loves to eat, live as juveniles in the surface waters and float along on those currents that move up along the Aleutians and with the Kiero Shield current down of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Death and destruction is massive.
I am serious when I say people like Frank Iarossi are environmental criminals. They are the ones who should be before the courts, not Mr. Hazlewood. Exxon knew he had a drinking problem. Why did Exxon have someone with a serious drinking problem at the head of VLCC carrying that kind of uncontainable damage and destruction if it ever got into the west coast and its environment?
My friend reminds me of something. Why wasn't there a pilot vessel guiding the tanker out of Prince William Sound? Why? It is always the bottom line for the big tanker companies and big oil companies. Why wasn't the Valdez guided out to clear water? Why was the third mate there? The captain was below deck, possibly intoxicated, because Exxon management did not have the kinds of enforcement mechanisms in place to make sure something like this did not happen.
I come now to one of the discouraging parts: how our own Coast Guard and our own Ministry of Transport, the lead agencies, have handled the situation today. We have now heard, almost on a daily if not an hourly basis since March 24, "Don't worry, be happy. The spill is 1,000 kilometres from Canadian territory". As I pointed out today, every Member of Parliament gets an atlas sent to his or her office. There is a map in it from Energy, Mines and Resources. As I pointed out, the mouth of the Alsek River is 200 miles from where the slick is as it comes out of Montague Sound. One would have to be a highly suspicious person- and, Mr. Speaker, you know I am not-but some gerbil somewhere decided "Well, let's keep the public calm. Tell them it is so far away it is out of mind. Nobody needs to worry about it". That is amazing. I know that British Columbia exists at about the latitude 54. If I had been alive in 1903, the Panhandle would have been part of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: I da not know why the 1,000 kilometre figure continues to be used. It was used right until today. We know that it is not even 100 kilometres from Montague Sound to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I do not know where this mysterious 1,000 measure comes from. I do know that 750 miles of coastline is now covered. The distance to British Columbia from the slick, where it is starting now to purge itself out of Prince William Sound and out of Montague Sound, is 200

April 4, 1989
miles to the Alsek River. We can do something to protect the Alsek River. This should be done now, not when the slick hits the mouth of the Alsek. You have containment technology now in case there is a glitch, a hitch, a windy day, or somebody gets sick. We have to plan so that we can deal with containing these kinds of things. The Alsek should be protected. The Tatsenshini should be protected. The Taku should be protected. The Stikine should be protected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: We also have a military base at Massit, a Department of National Defence listening device. We should be stockpiling some equipment there. We should be stockpiling it at Prince Rupert where there is a Coast Guard base. We should be ready because the vital, determining factor as to whether or not the largest spill in North American history ends up on our coastline in British Columbia is wind, w-i-n-d. The current off the mouth of Montague Sound and Prince William Sound moves upward and along the Aleutians. The Kuro Shio current below that comes across from Japan and brings debris like glass and garbage to the coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Wind is the important factor. Exxon, the Coast Guard and everybody else want to say that wind is not the factor, but what happened on the fourth day after the spill, March 28? The wind was blowing at 100 knots, 100 kilometres an hour, at the site of the spill. If a northwesterly or a northerly wind picks up, which is very frequent at this time of year, and sustains itself not for weeks but for a matter of days, parts of that oil slick can and will reach parts of British Columbia. There is no use in then having the Minister of Transport phoning Vancouver saying: "Send a ship". It is 500 miles to get to the Queen Charlottes, and it is another 400 miles to get up to the Alsek. We are talking about considerable distances, and planning is required. We can hope the wind does not start blowing that material up on to our shores.
Many things need to be done. Some are very serious and some involve technical planning. It is reasonably clear with the amount of tanker traffic-Valdez tanker traffic, traffic in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, traffic into the Vancouver and Victoria harbours, traffic into Prince Rupert, traffic on the east coast where there is far more tanker traffic, hundreds and thousands of large freighters and tankers, transit off Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec every year. We need a royal commission to look into the safety of tanker traffic and to find out whether or not our regulations are the best they can be and whether or not the proper enforcements are there. We know they are not there right now. We need to have that done. We need to evaluate the present impact on Canadian resources.
As I said, Canadian resources are being affected now, today. Canadian salmon from our transboundary rivers are being affected now. Herring stocks upon which they feed are being affected. That situation needs to be evaluated. We need a scientific team. We need to evaluate potential areas in the track of the spill. This means the rivers I have enumerated, plus the Queen Charlotte Islands and the coast to the South. We need to prepare and move the clean-up and containment equipment about which I have spoken in the transboundary rivers to the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert.
We must take steps now that we began in 1972 to stop Valdez tanker traffic. What was said in 1972 is true today. There will continue to be spills of this size according to the trajectories projected by the U.S. Coast Guard 17 years ago.
How do we go about that? It is going to mean some difficult and costly decisions, but intelligent people and intelligent legislators take those types of steps. Tightening of regulations and enforcement for a system that is clearly out of control are obviously on the list.
I hope later this evening to speak about an even broader issue, the whole issue of the use of fossil fuels in North America. The whole of North America has 5 per cent of the global population. We consume 25 per cent of the fossil fuels consumed on the planet. The U.S. and Soviet Union together produce 50 per cent of the greenhouse gasses on this planet.
If we are to maintain the atmosphere and the environment that we have and have had for geological time, we have to reduce greenhouse gas by 50 per cent. Perhaps the Valdez spill is a signal to us to shut down these types of developments and get on with energy efficiency and conservation programs in order that we have a habitable an liveable planet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 4, 1989


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is timely and appropriate that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has urged upon you a special debate regarding this very serious tragedy which occurred in Prince William Sound as a result of an oil shipment from Prince William Sound to the southern states of the U.S. It reminds Canadians, Americans, and British Columbians particularly of the tremendous responsible that we all have to ensure that in a society where we all depend on oil and energy in one form or another there are great risks associated with the transport of this energy. We must have confidence in the systems in place and assurance that the precious natural habitat and amenities of nature are not threatened by a tragic disaster of this magnitude.
To put this spill in context with another recent spill, the Grays Harbour spill as the Hon. Member for Skeena referred to it, this spill is some 50 times larger in magnitude, and it amounted to only about a fifth of the total capacity of this vessel being spilled in the early morning hours of Good Friday about ten days ago.
As a British Columbian, and as the Minister responsible for Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that we are not merely standing passively by and watching. We are certainly concerned. I would like to think Hon. Members opposite are as concerned as their spokesman was in his lead speech a moment ago. There is no monopoly in this House on concern for our precious habitat and for the necessity to ensure that this type of accident shall never occur in British Columbia coastal waters.
We have to be precise when we are discussing this very serious issue. I know there is room for a lot of emotion. In particular, I am concerned about the possible threat to our own British Columbia fisheries and marine mammal stocks, if this spill were to move in a direction where it might endanger the biological species and the precious values that we cherish so highly in British Columbia.
The Hon. Member for Skeena does the House a disservice when he makes statements, as he did in his letter to you this morning, Mr. Speaker, which are not true. It is important to recognize that at the present time, based upon the advice of our best scientists, oceanographers, and meteorologists, the oil spill is not moving toward Canadian coastal waters or the Canadian mainland. In fact, at the present time, the oil spill is moving to the southwest out along the Aleutian Peninsula and into the high north Pacific. I know that it is a great concern. We are all concerned that the 750 miles of
shoreline within Prince William Sound has been hit with this disaster. We do not like to see the pictures of sea otters, marine mammals, and birds coated with oil and dying.
If we are going to assess this tragedy and learn from it, it is important that we tell the facts as they are. The Hon. Member for Skeena in his letter to Your Honour this morning stated: "the oil spill is clearly moving toward Canadian waters and the Canadian shoreline". It is important in the House that we give the facts accurately, and in fact that is not true. He further asserted in his letter to you that we must "mobilize the Canadian response to this spill as it damages our resource and moves toward Dixon Entrance." These statements are not true.
I can assure Canadians, as the Minister responsible for the Canadian Hydrographic Service and our Ocean Sciences Divisions that based on their direct observation and aerial surveillance-and I have full confidence in the accuracy of these facts when they were relayed to me-the oil from this tragic spill is not moving toward Canadian waters or toward our shoreline. I repeat, the oil from the tragic Valdez disaster is not moving toward the Canadian shoreline.
The oil spill from the Exxon Valdez has spread very predictably following the known current patterns, and as it has emerged from Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska it is moving westward. I am sure the Hon. Member for Skeena and all Members opposite are familiar with the shape of the movement of the oil as of yesterday to the West.
Initially the spill spread generally southwest with the outflow within the Sound. Once it escaped from the Sound it was caught up in the large circulation which is characteristic of the northeast Pacific at this time of year. It is counter-clockwise, moving from east to west along the northern edge of the gulf.
I am not trying to dimmish the problem. I am just trying to underscore the facts. It is imperative that Canadians be assured at this time that on the basis of all our best scientific evidence the spill is not moving toward the Canadian shoreline. Indeed, the predictions that have been made are holding true. The oil is presently due south of the west edge of Resurrection Bay. There are no signs of any oil west of that point. In consequence, I can say with full confidence that the oil is moving to the west and not toward Canadian waters, nor toward Dixon Entrance which is in fact more than 1,000 kilometres away.

April 4, 1989
I also want to make an observation on the intervention of the Hon. Member for Skeena. It was a legitimate and appropriate observation to make in the House this afternoon when he suggested that the spill might be a cause for concern with respect to the Alsek River. I am not sure if the Hon. Member for Skeena knew where the Alsek River was before. It is in the extreme northwest corner of the constituency of the Hon. Member. It is a short river with a bay called Dry Bay within the Alaskan Panhandle on the northeast Pacific. This river extends across the narrow section of the Alaskan Panhandle into Yukon and into northwestern British Columbia, and it splits into two rivers.
There is no evidence that the spill is moving in the direction of that river. The Member says that it might, and I grant that there is always a minimum probability of anything. The officials, the scientists, the officials of the Coast Guard, and the Department of the Environment who have advised Ministers are quite convinced that it is highly improbable that this oil spill will move in that direction toward the Alsek River.
It is important to understand that transboundary rivers such as the Nass, Taku, and Stikine, contain migrating stocks of salmon. In the mid-summer to the late autumn, adult salmon return to those rivers. Should there be an accumulation of oil in the mouths of those rivers, which are in American territorial waters, there would be a possible damage to such salmon stocks, some of which return to Canadian headwaters and spawning grounds. They are the property of Canada. This is not August, September, or October. That does not give me any more comfort in respect to the spill, but there is no immediate danger to returning Canadian salmon stocks, nor is there a danger to the young fiy that have been hatched in the upper waters of those rivers. I am told by our best fishery biologists that the young fry will not migrate down toward the lower reaches of the river and the salt water until at least July.
I am not diminishing the significance of the issue the Hon. Member has raised. I am suggesting that to focus this matter as a crisis because there is an assumption the oil is moving in the opposite direction to which it is moving is irresponsible.
As to the response of the Government of Canada to this environmental tragedy, I can assure Canadians that our response to this date is exactly what they would expect from a Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Members opposite are accustomed to taking half sentences and interpreting them out of context.
Canadians would expect a Government to place the highest priority on protecting our natural resources and environment. That was the message of the Throne Speech yesterday, and it is a strong commitment of this Government.


An Hon. Member:: All words, no action.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The action is ongoing and has been since the early morning of Good Friday, ten days ago. We are extremely concerned about the spill which has occurred in Alaska and the environmental consequences on the people of Alaska, on the marine life they enjoy and depend on, and on the wildlife of the area. We British Columbians share with our Alaskan neighbours a very real sense of loss and of alarm. We certainly would not want to allow a situation where such a spill could occur within our own coastal waters.
Second, I can assure Canadians that their Government is now and has been, since the disaster was first reported, vigilant in monitoring the efforts of U.S. authorities who are responsible for controlling the spill; vigilant in monitoring the oceanic and climatic factors which can affect efforts to control the spill; and vigilant in tracking the movement of the oil. I can assure Canadians that we are in a state of readiness to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I can assure them, and the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) will add further evidence of this-


An Hon. Member:: He is in pretty good shape.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They choose to be sceptical. The facts are that we are equipped to respond and, if need be, we shall respond to any necessary measures. I should point out that we have offered and given assistance to the Americans in the clean-up of Prince William Sound. We have offered and delivered assistance toward that end.


An Hon. Member:: You haven't invoked the treaty.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member will take his opportunity-
April 4, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I do want to restate that the reason we are having this emergency debate is that there is a matter of great urgency. I know that all Hon. Members would want to hear from all those who wish to contribute to this debate. I am sure the Hon. Members would want to extend the appropriate courtesy to the Minister who is responding to the Hon. Member for Skeena who led off the debate.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think all Members will want to be attentive through the entire evening, and I appreciate the co-operation of the members of the Opposition.
We are prepared to take whatever steps may be needed to protect Canadian waters and shorelines if this oil should move toward us, which it has not.
We have provided the services of our respected herring biologists to assist the United States in planning measures to protect the herring which spawn in Prince William Sound. We have provided technical devices to help the United States track the presence of oil in the waters throughout the threatened area. We have provided the authority needed to bring oil-soaked otters from Alaska. I personally signed the authorization last Friday to bring oil-soaked otters to the Vancouver Aquarium to be treated and rehabilitated. This was a request received from wildlife officials in the State of Alaska. We are sending our specialists in this very sensitive discipline to Alaska to assist in saving as many marine mammals and species as possible.
We have taken these actions-


An Hon. Member:: Did you give them an air ticket?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Obviously opposition members do not want to hear what the Government is doing. They are just trying to exploit a situation for cheap political reasons that we all very much regret.
I can assure the House that this Government stands ready to deliver additional assistance as is required and to ensure the protection of our own coastal habitat.
In response to some points the Hon. Member for Skeena has raised, our scientists advise us that our herring stocks live very close to shore and do not migrate north into U.S. waters. Our scientists advise us that the salmon fry in Canadian waters are not at this time endangered in any way. They acknowledge that halibut spawn and that similar groundfish species and pollock which reside along what is called the margin of the Gulf of Alaska Continental Shelf may, as they mature, swim into Canadian waters. If the oil spill were to remain in
the Gulf of Alaska for an extended period of time, there might well be some damage to the halibut stocks which eventually will become part of the Canadian fishery.
We were assured by our scientists that our marine mammals, our seals and sea otters and sea lions from further south that live in Canadian coastal waters, would not be affected by this spill. We are certainly concerned about the whale populations which do not respect international boundaries. They are so precious to the people of British Columbia, in particular our orcas and grey whales. There is an absence of scientific knowledge on how these species travel and how they would be affected by surface oil slicks. We are certainly vigilant. This is an unprecedented situation, never before encountered in this magnitude. We have a great deal to learn. I acknowledge that to the House.
If the oil which is not now moving in our direction were to change course and to threaten our shores, I can assure the House, and Canadians that we would act efficiently and quickly in accordance with a well thought out response plan, which the Government has developed and which other Ministers will describe later this evening, to respond to this kind of emergency.
Oil spills occur from time to time in Canadian marine waters, to our great sadness, but we are a nation which depends on oil. I do not imagine there is a Member opposite who will not return to his home tonight without using a little bit of hydrocarbon to get there. My Department's roles during these kinds of emergencies emanate from my responsibilities; first, to protect fish, marine mammals, shellfish and marine plants, and their habitat. Second, they are to ensure the wholesomeness of the fish products. Third, they are to provide scientific information and advice relating to the marine environment. Key actions taken by Fisheries and Oceans at the time of any spill are numerous and varied, but we are always on the scene as quickly as we know that there is a need to be there.
Under the National Marine Emergency Plan, co-ordinated by Transport Canada, we provide the on-scene commander appointed by Coast Guard, forecasts and climactic information on the physical state of the ocean, advice on oil spill movement, and on trajectory and revisions to trajectories based on currents, tides, waves and winds. We also provide the location immediately of critical fisheries resources and the timing and location of fishing activities that have to be taken into consideration.

April 4, 1989
My Department also can conduct emergency resource surveys and analytical measurements of oil, as well as the measurement on site of tides, currents, waves and temperature. We ensure that adequate ship facilities are provided to all agencies involved in the emergency operations which require it. We always have a Fisheries and Oceans vessel on site wherever there is any cause or need for them to be present.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister who is first to respond to the Hon. Member for Skeena. We are bound, of course, in this place by rules, and there is a time limit. However, if it is the wish of the House to allow the Minister to finish, of course we can do so.
I think the Minister can continue.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the Hon. Minister of Transport to describe the form of action planned with respect to containing and ensuring vessel traffic management to protect Canadian shores from a spill of this sort. I want to assure all Canadians who are watching this debate that they can have full confidence in their Government, that the Government is prepared to respond appropriately, and that in my area of responsibility we provide the scientific and resource assessment services that are required immediately.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian people once again, that there is no evidence that this spill is moving toward Canadian coastal waters. There is no evidence at this time of any significant impact of this horrendous event on our own coastal species of fish, of marine mammals, and of other living things. I trust, as the days go by and as we watch these events unfold, that we will continue to have the confidence that Canadians should have in the ability of the Canadian Government to lead and to respond to protect the interests of all Canadians in such circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John  N.@: Mr. Speaker, this is a timely motion. I welcome, as do we all in our quarter of the House, the relevancy and the urgency of this debate. In particular it is an urgent question on the west coast of Canada, particularly in those waters on the west coast of northern British Columbia bordering on the Alaska Panhandle and on the sovereign State of Alaska.
I must say that we expected at the outset to hear from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). He was not
here. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) got up, but after listening to the Throne Speech yesterday wherein one and a half to two pages was dedicated to environmental matters, the new environmental priority, the new environmental preparedness, I think the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) should be here to respond to this issue tonight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What we have is an environmental disaster of monumental proportions on a world scale, something we have never seen not only off the west coast of North America, the west coast of British Columbia, but something we have not seen since oil has been transported by sea. Because of the so-called environmental concerns of this Government, the Minister should have been here in the House of Commons. He was here this afternoon. He should have replied.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Believe me, it is with great regret that I rise on a point of order, especially considering the fact that it is the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition who (Mr. Turner) is speaking at this point in time. However, I cannot honestly let go the comment that he has made on the absence of the Minister in the House when in fact the Minister will be here to speak on this very important issue and when in fact the Member, and all Members, know very well that such a remark is against the rules. I want to point out clearly and unequivocally that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) will speak on this issue tonight in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could respond to the intervention of the Hon. Minister. I know that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will not take it amiss if I suggest to Hon. Members that the Hon. Minister has stated the rule. Whatever doubt anyone may have had about the concern of the Hon. Minister, it has certainly been replied to by the Minister who said that the Hon. Minister of the Environment will be in the Chamber to speak this evening. I would ask Hon. Members to remember that all of us sometimes have to be elsewhere than in the Chamber.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are living here, and I will say this to the Hon. Minister who could better spend his time at the Dubin inquiry-
April 4, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am going to say to the Hon. Minister that this is not a presidential style of government when Ministers come in at their own pleasure in their own time. This is a parliamentary Government in which the Minister should be listening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If he had any other engagements this evening he should have set them aside. This is an environmental tragedy and this Minister should be here to listen to the Members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I do not usually draw attention to the absence of Ministers, or even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he has important issues of state-


Jean J. Charest: Or your own absence at one time.


John Napier Turner: When I have to be here I am here, and on an environmental occasion this Minister ought to be here.
It is quite clear that this is not the first time that this has happened. On December 22, we had an oil spill off the State of Washington. There was damage then to birds and to sea life and the coastline of Vancouver Island. At that time, despite the meagre entreaties of the Minister of Fisheries-and we will wait to see what the Minister of Transport has to say, and if the Minister of the Environment shows up, fine-there was no action by the Government of Canada at all. It was not prepared. If it had not been for the residents of the area that would also have been a disaster, and they know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries made a very complacent speech. He said that on the basis of the current winds and the current tides we have nothing to worry about. I would far rather rely in this instance on the first-hand knowledge of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who is there, who knows the geography and who is relying on the maps.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Dirner@Vancouver Quadra: I happen to believe that if there is a change of wind and if the tide were to compound with that wind that spill could seep across the Panhandle on to the west coast of British Columbia,
down through the Prince of Wales Islands off the Alaska coast and into the Queen Charlottes. That is not beyond the realm of possibility, dealing with the amount of oil that we are dealing with in this current spill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I will rely on the fact that this is a threat. Anyone who has had the opportunity, as my wife Geills and I have had, as have many British Columbians including yourself, Mr. Speaker, to visit the Prince of Wales Islands and the Queen Charlotte Islands, to see what a priceless asset we have in this country, knows that this is where some of the greatest aquaculture of the world is found.
I have been fortunate in my life to have visited up and down the west coast of British Columbia and Alaska to veiw that spectacular coastline. It is one of the world's environmental treasures. There are limitless nesting grounds for hundreds of varieties of birds. There is a spectacular diversity of marine life. It is home to a dozen species of whale, as well as to the Stellar sea-lion. The fisheries are unbounded. It has been the home for 6,000 years of the Haida nation, the Haida people, decimated as they were in the mid-19th century by smallpox out of a voyage out of San Francisco on the way to the Alaska Panhandle. In any event, this is something that is worth protecting. This is something that Canadians consider important. This is something that is apt and just to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons this evening, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we all seek economic benefits. We all seek good jobs. We all want to develop the resources of this country as best we can. I think the lesson of this debate is that we are not going to have economic growth if we poison our fish, destroy our salmon, and contaminate our herring. We are not going to have tourism if our waters and our beaches turn to sludge and scum. The environmental imperative, the idea of sustainable development, is one that despite the rhetoric of the Throne Speech I believe all of us in the House of Commons accept.
Any Member of this House knows the terms of environmental imperative which I quoted on several occasions. I had an opportunity three or four years ago with Geills at a potlatch, illegal under the Indian Act, of meeting with the four chiefs of the Haida nation.

April 4, 1989


An Hon. Member:: You were there?


John Napier Turner: I was there. We spoke. An expression the Haida people have said for
6,000	years stayed with me and I put on my Christmas card: "We do not inherit this land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children." That is the whole purpose of this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I do not hold the Government responsible for every environmental disaster every place in the world, but I do hold the Government responsible for failure to act on the problems upon which Canadians must have a say. I think that we cannot judge what is going to happen as to the negligence aboard that ship. It is not for me to make a final judgment of where he was. He certainly was not on the bridge, and there was an unqualified person in charge of that ship at the time of the accident. I am not going to cast any judgment there.
I followed the reports in the The New York Times of the response of the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska has enjoyed in recent years a boom in terms of the oil that it has shipped southward to the lower 50, so that almost 75 per cent of the governmental revenues of the State of Alaska now depend on oil. However, in the review conducted by The New York Times, inquiries of the Governor's office, and the inquiries of the environmental protection office of the State of Alaska, it appears that over the last few years all the emergency equipment, all the emergency teams, all the emergency procedures have been allowed to lapse and in some events disbanded.
That is the situation we face in dealing with ouf American neighbours, and we are not going to make any judgments at this stage. I will have a few suggestions to make at the end of what I have to say.
Yesterday's Throne Speech was laden with fancy phrases about the Government's commitment to environmental protection. I have heard it all before from this Government. It is not good enough to say you care. Everybody cares, but not every Canadian has the opportunity to do something about it. The Bouchard twins have the opportunity to do something about it, and I have not seen any concrete action on their part.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Nearly five years ago the Conservatives promised the following in their election manifesto, and I want to read from it: "A Progressive
Conservative Government will make transboundary pollution problems the Government's top environmental priority. Instead of relying exclusively on diplomatic initiatives by the Minister of the Environment, a PC Government will also engage the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs on top level efforts."
What happened in this particular instance? I suspect precious nothing. I have heard that President Bush sent a couple of members of his Cabinet and a couple of secretaries at the secretarial level to the scene of the accident. I want to ask the Government: Has the Prime Minister called the President of the United States about this issue?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Have they discussed it? Have they brought it to the level that the election manifesto of the Conservative Party five years ago said they would elevate this issue to? Now we see the Minister of the Environment here. I will give him credit. He is looking intense. Somebody must have tipped him off to come back into the House-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I would stay low because we are going to get at you in due course.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: I can't wait, John.


John Napier Turner: We will reserve an opportunity for the Minister so that he can star and shine in his own orbital light. All we have seen for four and a half years since this Government took office is cuts to the environmental budget.

And now that both Ministers are here, now both Ministers claim that environmental protection is a priority. They did not say in the Speech from the Throne that they wasted four or four and a half years, that they cut Environment Canada's budget and that they massacred the national parks, that they eliminated scientific personnel who did tremendous research that was to Canada's intellectual credit. No, no, there was no mention of that in the Speech from the Throne.

As long as environmental issues are trendy, the Prime Minister is all for it. As long as a la mode, the Minister will be for it. As long as experimental issues might win a few votes and provide good photo opportunities, the Conservative Cabinet is all for them.
April 4, 1989

But we cannot protect our environment only when it is fashionable. We cannot support sustainable development only until the newest trend emerges. We cannot be concerned about oil spills only when they are on the national news. We cannot only be for environmental issues until they conflict with multinational interests.
Canadians have a reason to be concerned. If it can happen there, it can happen here. We want to know how well the Government is prepared. The Government has a lousy record on the environment. We have no faith whatsoever that it has studied the issue. We have no faith whatsoever that it is prepared for the impact that this catastrophe will have and could have on our west coast.
There are about 50 supertankers a day plying those waters, Alaska to the U.S. mainland, hundreds of smaller tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Strait.
The Minister of Fisheries said: "it is unpredictable, we never know it could happen". Experts have always told us it was just a matter of time before something like this would happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: When we had the
responsibility of office we were always cautious of the potential danger of oil spills on the west coast. In 1972 we imposed the moratorium on exploration and development off the west coast. In 1977 we signed an agreement with the United States to keep tanker traffic well offshore. In 1984 this Government, lobbied by the industry, recommended that we allow exploration. Since the accident, of course, the British Columbia Government has extended that moratorium another five years.
Contingency plans always look good on paper. Exxon told the residents of Valdez and Cordova that it had such plans in the event of an emergency. Those residents of Alaska are now asking what happened, why didn't those plans materialize, why wasn't the State of Alaska ready, why wasn't the Coast Guard ready, what had happened to the oil consortium mobilizing that pipeline and moving those millions of barrels of oil down the West Coast, where was the strategy? We are asking our Government the same questions. What are the contingency plans if it happens at or near our coastlines, east, west, or north?
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said once again that it is unprecedented. In 1972 the U.S. Coast Guard report, five years before the Alaska pipeline was completed, predicted that there would likely be an accident once a year in Prince William Sound. That was the view of the Coast Guard of the United States years before this movement of oil started.
The Canadian Government is not even sure how far away the oil slick is from Canadian waters. I ask the Ministers concerned what evidence they have that our coastlines are protected. I believe we can learn not only from the current disaster. We may have some lead time to prepare ourselves for the impact on the Canadian coastline.
We have committed ourselves to the concept of sustainable development. It is in the Throne Speech. The Minister of the Environment has a very important charge in his hands now. That commitment is being tested. I say to him that there are great dangers for us. We need now high level negotiations with the United States on how we will transport oil out of the northern slope.

It is not just a question of alliances, it is not a question for the head of state. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) is not the head of state, but he thinks that he is. In any event, he is the head of government.
Now is not the time for general conversations and for paying each other compliments. It is time to ask the President of the United States how he can mobilize the U.S. Government and the Government of Alaska, as well as the federal forces on the West Coast of the United States, to coordinate their efforts. All the reports in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times-and I have read them all-agree that the U.S. Federal Government efforts were not sufficient, that the State of Alaska was not prepared, that Exxon was not prepared either to contain the effects of the tragedy.
Now, we are neighbours, we are good neighbours. We share their coasts, their waters. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to telephone his friend, Mr. Bush, and say, "Mr. President, the consequences for both of us are quite serious and worrisome. We must now coordinate our efforts."
That is why I respectfully make some suggestions, Mr. Speaker.

April 4, 1989

We will have to look at a number of things. First, we should consider the possibility of reducing the traffic. Is the volume too high? Some 25 per cent of all American domestic oil now comes from Alaska, so much so that the price of world oil was affected immediately by this oil spill. We have a very vulnerable situation.
Second, should we reduce the size of the tankers to limit the damage potential? Third, should we ensure that the shipping channels are as far away as possible? The 1972 agreement with the United States put that limit at 125 miles. Is that sufficient?
Fourth, should we allow winter traffic with all the risks as outlined by the Hon. Member for Skeena of tide, wind, storm, and unpredictability?
Fifth, is there a possibility that we should extend the moratorium on exploration and development off the west coast? These are issues that the Minister of the Environment should treat seriously. This is the first test of his ministerial responsibility. It is not something that he can duck.
This is an issue about which all Canadians are concerned. He knows as the rest of us do, even though we do not take polls at government and taxpayers' expense, how important the environment is to the ordinary Canadian who is worried about his children and family. We are the most fortunate nation on the face of the earth.
We are a nation dictated by geography. We are a nation governed by our environment. We are a nation that still has an open frontier. If the Minister and the Government do not understand that they do not understand the force of this debate. I am asking the Minister to act now, before it is too late.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by discussing the measures taken by the federal Government following the Alaska oil spill. I will not try to use the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) because I believe the matter is too important to try to play politics with. It is something about which I believe every Canadian is very sensitive tonight.
I agree with the points raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I believe that, once again, from St. John's, Newfoundland to Vancouver, British Columbia every Canadian is worried about the environment.
Personally, as the Minister of Transport, I am very proud to be responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard which I believe has done a wonderful job in the circumstances. My remarks tonight are more to give Canadians information about what can be done and what we have done in the circumstances. The federal Government has reacted immediately.
My colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), the other twin, and myself announced that the federal representatives would monitor the situation closely in order to ensure that appropriate measures would be taken in those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to state again, for the information of Canadians, that Valdez is 1,000 kilometres from the nearest point on the Canadian border north of British Columbia.

This means that the oil slick would have to travel 1,000 kilometres to reach Canadian waters. Initial assessments indicate that oil will not reach our shores. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard has requested that both Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans keep it appraised of the trajectory of the spill. In addition, we have a Coast Guard observer permanently on the scene.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard also has an information office on the spill in Vancouver where information can be obtained at all times.
Since then, ongoing evaluation has indicated that it is and remains very unlikely that the spill will have an impact on Canadian waters. Based on ocean currents and seasonal climatic models, the Canadian Hydrographic Service predicts that the spill will continue to move west and southwest towards the Aleutian Islands. The spill could reach Canadian waters only in the event of 20 days of steady northwest winds.
Mr. Speaker, we have also taken the following action.
At the request of Exxon, the Canadian Coast Guard has made available a number of special systems for the recovery of hydrocarbons, with their operators. Equipment from the depot in Tuktoyaktuk includes 1 skimmer, 1 Framo ACW 400, 2 oil slick removers with spare parts, and from St. John's, Newfoundland, 1 skimmmer, 1 Framo ACW skimmer, 1 oil slick remover, 1 GT 185 Destroil skimmer, 1 Mark V slick-licker and 1 Swed-trawl.
April 4, 1989

Mr. Speaker, other measures have been taken as well. For instance, External Affairs Canada has asked the U.S. Department of State to keep it fully informed of further developments and of any possible impact on Canadian waters and resources.
The Department of National Defense will provide additional flights for pollution surveillance, if necessary.
Canadian industry, with the approval of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration, has made arrangements to have the Beaufort Sea equipment operated by the Sea Oil Spill Cooperative shipped by air to Valdez, Alaska.
The Canada-U.S. emergency plan for water pollution is now in effect in order to facilitate transborder shipment of clean-up equipment.
Mr. Speaker, on site in Alaska, Exxon is now transferring the remaining cargo to three ships that will carry it to U.S. ports. The Exxon Baton Rouge has taken on
463,000	barrels, Exxon San Francisco 400,000 and Exxon Baytown will take the rest. It is expected that operations will finish today.
Undersea tests suggest the ship can be salvaged. The intention is to refloat the Exxon Valdez.
Mr. Speaker, the ship's side is intact, but there are still concerns as to the impact of unburdening on her overall stability. Other undersea tests are underway to determine the hull's integrity and the ship's stability. A restricted traffic zone and a control zone have been established in the area. Exxon is now concentrating their efforts on the protection of fish spawning areas.
Mr. Speaker, resources now in place in Alaska include 884 personnel, 100 ships, 49 helicopters, 2 airplanes, and anti-pollution equipment totalling 1 223 tons.
I would now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a number of systems that have been developed and located on the West coast to ensure the safety of bulk oil transport. These are:
a)	Sophisticated maritime traffic management systems using radar and radio communication systems to monitor and guide the movements of ships in heavy traffic ports and areas of high tanker traffic density.
b)	On the West coast, Mr. Speaker, it is excessively important that Canadians be aware of the following rules-on the West coast of Vancouver Island, a special zone has been set up from which tankers are excluded, in
consultation with the industry, to ensure that tankers ply well off the coast. Those arrangements provide that tankers keep 125 miles off the Canadian coast at the Northern tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands, some 60 miles off the North coast of Vancouver Island and some 25 miles off the coast for those entering the Juan de Fuca Strait.
c)	A system of navigation lanes in the Juan de Fuca Strait, jointly controlled by the American and Canadian Coast Guards, ensures the spacing of in- and outgoing ships, which also are monitored by radar.
d)	Mr. Speaker, long-range navigation aids are jointly offered by Canada and the United States to ensure that ships off the coasts can pinpoint their position at sea, and the Coast Guard radio station network broadcasts weather forecasts and nautical safety bulletins to all ships.
e)	Upon entering Canadian territorial waters, these ships use the impressive system of short range navigational aids and a compulsory pilotage system which provides local navigational data.
The Pacific Pilotage Authority, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for pilotage in all Canadian waters in and around the province of British Columbia.
The Authority's Regulations establish five compulsory pilotage areas, namely:
1)	The Fraser River;
2)	The East coast of Vancouver Island and the West coast of the continent between Pine Island and Race Rocks;
3)	The West coast of Vancouver Island, from Race Rocks to Pine Island;
4)	The West coast of the continent, from Pine Island to Stewart;
5)	The waters around the Queen Charlotte Islands.
All ships that are over 350 gross tons are subject to compulsory pilotage except Canadian or American ships which are employed in the coastal trade between British Columbia, the State of Washington and Alaska.
Pilotage missions are carried out by pilots employed by or under contract with the Authority. The pilots board the ships by launch or helicopter when they arrive off the coast of British Columbia and leave them in the same way. The launches and the helicopters are under the control of the central pilotage services in Vancouver or of its regional offices in Victoria and Prince Rupert. The

April 4, 1989
pilots are sent on their missions by dispatching units which work around the clock in Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert. The whole operation is run from the head office in Vancouver.
When there is a major spill from a sea-going vessel, its essentially up to the Canadian Coast Guard to tell the polluter that he has to clean up the polluting agent and control the operation. Should the polluter fail to take appropriate action, Coast Guard officials step in with pollution-fighting equipment and direct cleaning-up operations with the assistance of such support agencies and organizations as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard keeps stand-by pollution-fighting equipment in 50 warehouses throughout Canada, including on the West Coast at Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with previous speakers that the Government acknowledges that we must not spare any effort to be in a position to intervene in cases of oil spills in Canadian waters, particularly when oil tankers are involved. All told the Canadian Coast Guard has 16,000 feet of ocean booms and 150,000 feet of retaining booms in various warehouses, including the 1,400 feet of ocean booms and 52,000 feet of retaining booms already on the spot in British Columbia.
We also maintain in Victoria the complete equipment required for emergency unloading of oil tankers, and ten other pumping systems are kept in Coast Guard warehouses in British Columbia. And perhaps still more significant, Mr. Speaker, 24-odd units for recuperating floating oil are available. Besides that we have 17 boats, barges and special vessels for emergency maritime operations, and such varied support equipment as generators, compressors, radio equipment and flat-bed trucks already in Coast Guard warehouses along the Pacific coast, and we can have. . . Earlier my colleague from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said it is important that people be aware of the equipment we have. This gives an idea of the size of the systems and equipment available.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all Canadians I hasten to point out that this list refers only to the West Coast. In its 50 storage facilities throughout the country the Canadian Coast Guard maintains something like $35 million worth of pollution-fighting equipment, including
166,000	feet of oil recuperation booms, six units of special equipment for emergency unloading of oil tankers, 156 systems to recover floating oil, 150 small craft and other essential tools such as tar shovels and forks.
Mr. Speaker, the entire Coast Guard-boats, helicopters and staff-is ready to provide assistance in case of a major spill in Canadian waters, and a good many Coast Guard officers have the necessary training to direct the operations.
Mr. Speaker, we always need more equipment and we must continue our work to improve our systems and facilities. First and foremost-and here I agree with the Leader of the Opposition-we have to prevent accidents. Canada's reputation in these fields is second to none, but we must remain vigilant.
I would like to conclude by stating that I believe we have clearly demonstrated the Government's response to this tragic occurrence, as well as our readiness with respect to oil pollution incidents in Canada.
In my comments I have emphasized the following. The actions initiated by this Government on the Alaska spill, our safety prevention systems, are in place. Our pollution countermeasures and equipment resources are ready and available to be used in the very unlikely event that they are required.
I conclude by stating that an extensive Canadian response to the Valdez spill has been mounted.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the length of the applause on the government side of the House will do nothing to substitute for the lack of content in the so-called responses we have heard from the two Ministers involved in this issue.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in his most recent rantings on the issue sounds more like an apologist for Exxon than a Minister of a Canadian Government which is supposed to be protecting the interests of the Canadian people. I would suggest to him that if a similar spill had occurred in the St. Lawrence River outside the City of Montreal or in Lake Ontario outside of the City of Toronto, this Government would have declared a national emergency instead of simply ignoring
April 4, 1989

the issue as it has because the spill occurred off the west coast of Canada.

I am still waiting for the answer from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard, (Lac Saint-Jean)). We have heard from the mini-Bouchard, the mini-mouth, and we are now waiting to hear from the big-mouth. As a novice perhaps is he afraid to speak. But then I too am a novice in environmental matters, and yet I am not afraid of saying that, if the same environmental problem happened in Montreal, in the Saint Lawrence River, or in Toronto, in Lake Ontario, a national crisis would have long been declared. But in this case, we cannot even find the Minister of the Environnment to have him come in this House to speak precisely about the environment.
We have heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) who is directly concerned by this matter. We have heard from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard, (Roberval)) who is also concerned as the spokesman for the Exxon corporation which he mentioned several times. But we have not heard a single word from the Minister of the Environment.
Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the Minister of Transport telling us what is available in Canada to clean up this kind of mess.

Let us look at the Canadian record. The Minister of Transport has just spent several months extolling the equipment the Canadian Government has made available by way of the Coast Guard to assist in the Exxon clean-up. We have not heard a thing about the kind of international discussions or compensation that should be taking place. We have not heard a thing about a moratorium or about winter shipping that should have been discussed when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States met very recently and environment was supposed to be the number one issue on the agenda.
In the Liberal Party we suggested that the Prime Minister might take some lessons from the example of the Vancouver Island oil spill. He might start to undertake some international negotiations to set limits on the kind of activity that takes place not only off the west coast but off our other coast.'He might put specific provisions in place to compensate those individual fishermen and other individuals who derive their livelihood from the fishing industry and whose livelihood is now being destroyed by the incompetence, negligence and
criminal activity that we have seen take place regarding this particular spill.
Let us look back at the Canadian Government's record in the spill that occurred recently on Vancouver Island. We spoke just today with Maureen Fraser, no relation I presume to be the Hon. Speaker, is she?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I feel compelled to indicate to the Hon. Member that she may not be an immediate relation, but she is most definitely from the same clan of which we are very proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I do not want to put the Chair in the awkward position of having to declare a conflict of interest, so I shall just say a spokesman for The Friends of Clayoquot Sound which was very directly affected in the recent oil spill off Vancouver Island. We saw the great network of environmental concern as expressed by the Canadian Government in that particular spill. That left the effort to volunteers to clean up the beaches. What is the situation months after the situation that occurred off Vancouver Island which has a very direct threat to the residents of British Columbia? Most areas within reach of volunteers have been cleaned.
We will not find signs of oil in the areas that have been touched by volunteers, but there is still oil lying under the surface which is coming up in small globs. The volunteers are cleaning that up now. There five-foot coves along the rugged coast which have not been looked at or cleaned up. Scientists cannot predict how long oil will continue to wash up. Scientists cannot predict the extent of damage to birds or to sea life. The grey whales have been moving up the coast to Alaska, and now we know what the grey whales will be facing in Alaska. The research into the affects of the Vancouver Island spill will be compounded by the oil spill off Alaska and its affect on the whale population.
But what do we hear from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard)? He is continuing to study the affects of the spill.
Let us talk about the actual equipment which the federal Government has available at its disposition. According to the Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, there is no ability by the Canadian Coast Guard to recover oil in heavy seas or strong currents such as those that already exist in the Juan de Fuca Strait which is already being used as a traverse area for the tankers coming through from Alaska because we do not

April 4, 1989
have sophisticated equipment like airborne, multispec-toral equipment which can track slicks from the sky.
The last time we needed that kind of equipment we had to borrow it from the Americans. None of our equipment nor the depots that are currently available to handle a spill could ever handle a spill the size of the Exxon spill of 240,000 barrels. Furthermore, the Minister of the Environment and the Government do not have an active procurement policy to make sure that the newest, the latest and the best of technology for the cleaning of oil spills is available.
Instead they wait until equipment becomes antiquated or irreparable before purchasing new technology. We are left with the situation where, even though environmentalists have for two decades as we now know predicted a disaster similar to the one we have now seen taking place in Alaska, to date the federal Government has refused to commit itself financially to upgrading the kind of cleaning equipment and new technology that must be available if we are to continue in the development of fossil fuel as a fuel energy source, which is obviously been the path of the Government.
Not only has the Government completely abrogated and neglected its responsibility in developing the technology to clean up in that area, but at the same time it has drastically slashed, devastated, annihilated, massacred and completely abolished the funds that had been available under past Liberal Governments for the development of alternative fuel energies.
Fossil fuel is not the only answer to the energy problems facing Canadians. As long as the Government refuses to examine in an intelligent way the alternatives available to fossil fuel, we will continue to see ourselves at risk by the kinds of human error, criminal negligence and the oil spills we saw most recently in Alaska and prior to that on other occasions off Vancouver Island.
Instead of developing an intelligent policy for the development of alternative energies, what we have seen is a Government that has cut and slashed in every area of alternative energy sources, and instead has literally put all its eggs in the fossil fuel basket.
The Prime Minister is prone to hyperbole, and we heard some of that hyperbole only one short day ago in the House of Commons regarding the environmental imperative. I am sure when the Minister speaks that we
will hear he is very concerned. He has been very concerned about every environmental issue that has crossed his plate since he became a Minister. I remind the Minister that three months is long enough for the Canadian people to wait for some answers, and concern is not enough.
The Prime Minister has stated the world itself is facing an environmental challenge of unprecedented magnitude. "Recognizing this my Government..and on and on goes the verbiage. At the same time the same Government slashed the budget that was available under previous Liberal Governments.
In 1984 spending on intelligent alternative forms of energy, including renewable and energy conservation programs, stood at $405 million. It was not enough, but it was a start.
What is the current spending level five years after 1984, five years after the Government has doubled the national debt? The current spending level for renewable and energy conservation programs is $76 million, and it is due to be cut back to $39 million by 1993.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Friends of the Earth found it passing strange that the International Chamber of Commerce, that well-known friend of the environment, joined hands with other converts to the environmental issue in awarding the Prime Minister some kind of award on the issue of environment. I cannot go into it much beyond that because frankly I was appalled. Environmental groups were certainly appalled. When one looks at the Prime Minister's record on the environment, it does not hold water. It does not stand up to public scrutiny. In these areas it does not hold water, it does not hold oil; it is a political slick that the Prime Minister has been prone to use merely for re-election purposes.
It made me a little ill too when the Prime Minister came to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in my own community during the election where he made a great announcement: $125 million to clean up the hot spots in the Great Lakes, and also from most recent studies this week, the St. Clair River, the Niagara River, and Lake Ontario. They go on and on. He announced a $125 million package. The price tag for cleaning up the Hamilton Harbour alone is $120 million. Who is he trying to kid? He talks about the environment, but he is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
April 4, 1989


Mr. Friesen:: We don't have any.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member states that we do not have any money. In the time that it took for this Government to slash the budget by about 66 per cent for renewable energy, for alternative energy sources, for solar energy, and for other types of energy sources that are not subject to the vagaries of oil spills and to the dangers of the seas, it was in the process of doubling the national debt. In the last four years the national debt in the country has doubled. When the time was there, when the economy was ripe, when the Government could have moved in and done some things for renewable energy, instead it frittered it away on millions of dollars in by-election buy-outs and all manner of other things. I know the that Minister will not want to comment on by-election buy-outs because he comes with a fairly heavy price tag.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: Cheap, cheap!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member states that I am cheap. I would like to say to the Member that the people off the British Columbia coast would like to know from the Government, in a little more detail, the specifics of just what kind of contingency plan we have in place to protect the aquaculture, to protect the beautiful park land, to protect the beautiful oceans, and to protect the Queen Charlotte Islands, about which my leader spoke so eloquently, from the potential devastation that is about to be wrought by the movement of this slick away from Alaska toward British Columbia.
During Question Period I heard the Minister say that allegedly, according to his figures, the spill was supposed to have been 1,000 kilometres away from Canada. I also heard the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who has some passing knowledge in this area, state to the House of Commons that his information from the Canadian Coast Guard suggests that in fact that particular spill is 200 kilometres from the Canadian coastline.


Iain Francis Angus: Miles.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Miles. You have not yet converted in British Columbia!
The Hon. Members states 200 miles; the Minister says
1,000	kilometres. I would like to know what contingency plan the Minister of the Environment has in place to protect not only the economy of British Columbia but that precious potential for future generations that is embodied in the kind of beauty that we have seen in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
I have not heard anything from the Minister. I do not know if he is afraid to speak. I do not know if he wants to be able to hear all the critics and all the criticism before he stands in his place. I do not understand why he sends in a pinch-hitter who is an insult to the people of British Columbia, by way of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) who was not able to give a single substantive contingency plan to at least assuage the legitimate fears and concerns of the people in British Columbia. All we heard was the Minister of Transport claiming that the Opposition is trying to make cheap political points.
In February, before this latest devastating oil spill occurred, we in the Liberal Party wrote to the Prime Minister, who sold away the country by way of the trade deal. It was about time he should cash in his chips. He must have got at least a couple of chips from that sell-out: friends in American Express, friends across the border, hands across the border. The time has come to cash in those chips. We have asked the Prime Minister, and that was again articulated tonight by the Leader and the very able Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner).
What we have asked of the Prime Minister is that we get an international agreement to lay down the law on the specifics of the transportation of this dangerous and potentially lethal oil from Alaska to the United States, and specifically that there are some regulations about when the oil can be transported, under what conditions it can be transported, and under whose captainship it can be transported. We have not received sufficient answers.
Another very direct concern of the fishermen who have already lost millions of dollars as a result of lost catch, and who are facing the potential of losing further millions of dollars, is the question of compensation. If the Canadian fishing industry is going to be hurt equally as bad as the fishing industry in Alaska, or if there is an ancillary devastating effect on spawning of new stock that will be the life-blood of future fishing generations, who is going to foot the bill?
What I heard tonight was the Minister of Transport stating that the Canadian Government is offering Exxon a couple of ships and a few dinghies to get out there and fight this massive oil spill. Only 5 per cent of that oil has already been collected. Some 95 per cent is floating out in the high seas and eventually will find its way either into the sea bed, into the Canadian aqua system, or definitely it will be felt through the food system.

April 4, 1989
We have seen in the case of caribou the effects of the oil making its way through the food chain. Who is going to foot the bill? What kind of criminal charges in the United States courts and in the international courts will be faced by the company? It is not enough to say that an individual who was off the ship or on the ship, who is turning himself in as responsible, was employed by a company. That company also was working with another company which had a legal, moral and ethical responsibility to ensure (a) there was a system in place to prevent the kinds of spills we have seen and (b) if a spill should occur that there should be an immediate system in place to tty and clean it up. Five hours later they didn't even have a boat on site. That simply is not good enough.
What we have seen from the Canadian Government tonight, from the absence of the Prime Minister, from the Minister of the Environment who still has not spoken, is excuses, back-pedalling, and basically singing the company line. The Minister of Transport sounded like an apologist for Exxon. It is about time we got back to the central issue of the last election campaign.
Who is going to speak for Canada? Who is going to speak for British Columbia? Who is going to speak for the fishermen? Who is going to speak for all those residents who see their life-blood and their children's future threatened as a result of absolutely no systems in place by the Canadian Government?
I am sorry if the Members from British Columbia do not appreciate the assistance of critics from other Parties on an issue that is of national importance. If you see this simply as a British Columbia issue, maybe you are a B.C. rump.
I believe this is an issue of national importance. I do not think it should simply be a British Columbia issue. That is why I was most happy to rise and stand in my place and ask the Government and the Minister of the Environment to stand up and speak for Canada, to start bringing in some specific legislation. Get the Prime Minister to pick up the phone and talk to the President of the United States and agree on a bilateral treaty that will deal with these very crucial issues. Extend the moratorium off the coast of British Columbia and start dealing with facts and actions.

It is not enough to say: "I am concerned". I have had enough of expressions of concern. What I want now is action. We expect action from the Minister and we of the Liberal Party are ready to support the government if ever it decides to react.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I believe we have a point of order. The Hon. Member from Kamloops (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This unquestionably is one of the most important debates of this session of Parliament.
It is common knowledge that we regularly change our regulations and Standing Orders to facilitate the business being done in the House at that moment. The Standing Orders will sever this debate at twelve o'clock. There are 32 Members of Parliament from British Columbia and many others who will want to participate in this debate. Under the existing rules fewer than 12 will participate.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would not seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow Members to speak on this very critical issue and important debate and not see the clock hit twelve o'clock so that each Member be allowed to express their views on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that Hon. Members and the public watching will understand, the Hon. Member for Kamloops has asked for unanimous consent to extend the hours of this debate beyond twelve midnight.
Under the rules, we are bound to close the debate at twelve midnight unless another motion is put between eleven and twelve o'clock for an extension of the debate. If it is opposed, it must be opposed by 15 Members rising. However, the Hon. Member for Kamloops has risen and asked the House for unanimous consent to agree to extend debate beyond the twelve midnight deadline. That is the issue before the House.
The Hon. Minister was seeking the floor.


Jean J. Charest: Might I suggest that the proposition put by the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) is a bit premature. He refers to the fact that we have until midnight to debate this issue and that there are Members in the House who do want to speak. We are more than two hours away from midnight. I am not saying that we will exclude it. We may want to entertain some accommodations.
April 4, 1989

I would suggest that the Hon. Member present his proposition or motion again around midnight, and we can at that time better appreciate whether it is pertinent for us to pursue it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to participate in this exchange. I gave you a list of Liberal Members of Parliament who would like to speak in this debate. I know and everybody in the House knows that we are getting about an average of three Members to speak per hour. It is impossible for the 12 Liberal Members that I have on the list to be able to speak if we do not shorten our speeches. It is just physically impossible. I would suggest to the Government that they be open and receptive to the recommendation made by the NDP. For the mover and his Party only to get three speakers in a four-hour period seems to me unreasonable. I hope that some compromise could be reached and that we can agree to shorten the speeches to ten minutes. It would allow Members on this side and on the government side to express themselves freely and democratically.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments. I see that the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) also wants to make some remarks and perhaps this is a situation where Hon. Members should probably consider having among themselves, and then afterwards. . .

It would be appropriate for Hon. Members to address the Chair if some agreement can be made. I put that forward as a suggestion. I know that while we are negotiating across the floor, which is something we probably should not do too often, it is also taking up time. However, if the Hon. Member for Kamloops wishes to assist the Chair, I certainly recognize him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the point. We have heard from the Liberal Party, and its Members are anxious to continue the debate. We have heard the words of the Deputy House Leader that he would like to give it some more thought and consider whether or not we should have an opportunity for all Members to participate. I am prepared to hold back and move this initiative at the appropriate time in the hopes that we will have co-operation from all sides of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I reiterate to Hon. Members and to the public watching this debate that the House can do almost anything if it is unanimous.
On the other hand, it is often helpful if Members from all Parties have some discussion among themselves and then bring back the consequences of that discussion to the Speaker. In that regard, I am more than prepared to co-operate.
However, I think that keeping an eye on the time, unless some arrangement is made among Members or unless the order is followed and not objected to, the debate will end at midnight. I think we should proceed. I now have the duty to recognize the Hon. Minister of the Environment.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we must undoubtedly recognize that the situation which exists now in Alaska is extremely serious. There is no reason for any of us as leaders to shirk our duties in any way, and one of these duties, I respectfully submit to you, Sir, is to view the situation we are faced with in a responsible and sober fashion. To view it in a responsible fashion is to avoid falling in the trap of petty politics. Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian public is expecting from us tonight is to describe the situation as it really is and demonstrate that we are going to fully assume our responsibility with determination no matter the cost.

We all know that Parliament is sometimes a forum given to exaggerated rhetoric and intemperate partisanship. However, the environment is an area of public policy in which neither is appropriate. The stakes are simply too high given the extent to which humanity is undermining the health of our planet. We owe the people of Canada and future generations not rhetoric nor partisanship but a healthy environment in which to live.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the usual unfounded complaints and attacks against the Government. It is not possible for anything to occur in environmental matters without the opposition trying to suggest that the Government does not care for the environment. Yet, it has failed to demonstrate. . . Let us review the facts, Mr. Speaker. We have before us quite a number of people who, while sitting as front benchers in previous Govern-

April 4, 1989
merits, failed for years to recognize the importance of the environment and to act as their inflammatory rhetoric of tonight would suggest, Mr. Speaker. I think they are being unfair to this Government by ignoring what has been done over the passed four years.
Mr. Speaker, whatever they may say, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will have had the privilege of heading a government that during the past four years has done more for the environment than all previous governments put together. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was this Government that passed our new legislation on the environment, one of the strictest in the world. It was this Government that initiated a program to prevent acid rain in Canada, a program that by 1994 will have reduced Canadian acid rain by 50 per cent. It is this Government that will get an agreement with the United States on acid rain. It was this Government that intensified efforts to clean up the Great Lakes and that set up a fund of $110 million to clean up the St. Lawrence. On the international scene, it was this Government that initiated the signing of the first world protocol to protect the atmosphere: the Montreal Protocol. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition would rather not be reminded of these facts.
The Opposition prefers to say that the Government does not care about the health of Canadians or about what will happen to future generations. However, it overlooks the fact that this is the Government that will abolish lead in motor vehicle emissions within the next few years.
Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is incredible, and I think we should get back to the subject at hand. In the past few days, Canadians have witnessed a terrible accident, an accident that, we might as well admit, could have happened here in Canada, in the waters off Toronto or Montreal or 10 kilometres off the coast of British Columbia. We know that, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians are worried and rightly so, but that is no reason to put the blame on the Government. What do we do in this type of situation? What can we do?
Most of the Members opposite have been on the Government side before. They know that in a situation like this, the first thing to do is to keep a clear head and make sure everything has been done that is humanly possible to prevent this from occurring here in Canada. It also means making sure that if it does, we are able to take action quickly, effectively, and without flagging. That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. In the past weeks, we in Canada have been confronted with two
incidents that will be a valuable lesson to us. We did not cause them nor are we in any way at fault. Both the accident that occurred in the State of Washington a few months ago at the end of December and the recent accident in Alaska took place outside Canadian territory. No Canadian is involved in it. But that does not mean that because we are not involved, because it happened elsewhere, we do not have to be concerned. On the contrary! Because we know that we too are vulnerable to that sort of thing. No country in the world is exempt from that kind of disaster. So it is no use shouting and throwing stones. Canadians do not want to hear such things. They have enough of that kind of politics. What Canadians want to know is what can be done in the future and what action can be taken.
What we did in the Vancouver spill, for example, from the first days, Mr. Speaker, from January 3, the day the first oil slicks hit the beaches of a national park, we had Parks Canada people there with volunteers to begin operations. We mobilized considerable resources. We are asked what we would do if there were such an oil spill. Of course, the one that just happened in Alaska is some 50 times bigger than the one that affected us in early January. But still, the one in early January was considerable. In a single day, we were able to mobilize up to 350 people to work on cleaning up the beach, up to ten vessels patrolling the waters near the beach, a dozen helicopters and so far, 370 tonnes of oil and debris have been removed from the water.
I just heard rumours that there was still oil washing up on the beaches. According to the reports we have received the cleaning operation of the Vancouver beaches was completed a few days ago and we have now entered a supervising phase to make sure that no new spill is occurring, which will eventually lead up to an assessment phase of the operations we have already carried out. Therefore, the process which was implemented over there has now been completed successfully. Unfortunately, the fact remains that we were the victims of a terrible accident which will leave indelible marks. It is clear that we just cannot assess for the time being the impact it will have on the various forms of marine life. Nobody knows for sure what happens when oil deposits fall to the bottom of the sea. We know that problems will rise, but a compensation scheme has already been implemented. We have set up an organization to help Canadians seeking damages and we have already registered 29 claims from people who are suing the carrier. And we are making every effort to help them in this endeavour.
April 4, 1989

Also, there will be eventually an economic damage assessment and we will follow through with the proceedings we have already started with the U.S. State Department in this respect. We are going to learn a lesson from this mishap. We are well aware that what we did in Vancouver was not perfect. We know we can do better. It is very important to recognize this, Mr. Speaker. The Government has no intention of playing this old political game by claiming it has done everything right while the opposition maintains it has done everything wrong. It is necessary to recognize that it is always possible to do better. Human behaviour can always be improved. We are going to learn a lesson from what happened in January as well as from the unfortunate and painful experience our American neighbours are making in Alaska. It would be awful if we could not learn anything from such tragic events. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Canadian people that we are going to assess what happened both on Vancouver Island and in Alaska and that we will draw some important conclusions. What will we do with them? We devised some ten years ago a series of rules which govern shipping on our Canadian coasts as well as in the major international waterways.

Those rules have been set for the St. Lawrence Seaway as well as for the oil traffic offshore B.C. from Alaska to Cherry Point at the beginning of the American territory. Those rules are very rigorous. They have been made, as far as the West is concerned, through an exchange of diplomatic notes in 1979. They are very comprehensive and very tough.
We must admit that up until now they have been efficient. It is a very complex network of bilateral communications, checkpoints and rail use facilities. Nevertheless, we know that this is an occasion for us to assess those rules, to examine them and to see if it would not be possible to improve them and strengthen them. This will be done. It has begun in our different Departments.
If we find out that we can improve them, of course we will improve them. Of course we will say to the Americans that we need to improve those rules. We will come back to the table. We will look at them and we will tighten them because that is in the interests of Americans and Canadians-of people all over the world. Of course this will be done, Mr. Speaker, if it needs to be
done. It is the same thing for the response. There is prevention, which is the best thing to do, and there is response. We know that the response must be swift. It must be tough, diligent and rigorous. If we do not act immediately we can lose control of the spill, and then it will be very difficult.
It is the case in Alaska. We know, all of us, that within five hours of the accident, it has not been possible, because of the magnitude of the spill, to control and to contain the spill, and now the spill is going away in the western direction in the ocean. Eventually we might think-well, this is the opinion of our scientists-that it will break down and dissolve in the water, in the ocean, and we do not know with what bad consequences, but it is easy to imagine that there will be consequences, but we know that the first thing to do if there is an accident is to react swiftly within the first hours.
So we will examine the plans which have already been set up for such circumstances, and if we find out that we must upgrade the equipment, that we must improve the swiftness of the reaction, we will do it and we will report to the public. We have nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: The environment is a priority. While our friends are always contending that we do not treat the environment as a true priority, I challenge everybody to read the past Speeches from the Throne of this country and to see, in any Speech from the Throne delivered before yesterday in the history of Canada, if one Government has put such an emphasis, such a pre-eminence on environment. It is the first time that such emphasis has been placed on environment, and if you look at what is there, it is a plan of action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is not a miracle. It is not a piece of cake. It is a document which honestly tried to frame what should be done during the next four years by this Government to cope with environmental problems and environmental concerns of Canadians, and I can tell the Speaker and Canadians that this plan will be realized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: What plan?

April 4, 1989


Lucien Bouchard: It is a very well balanced plan, a very well balanced set of measures, legislative, clean-up operations, new policies which will allow Canada to stay in the forefront of pollution combat in the world.
I am always pained, Mr. Speaker, sincerely pained, to hear speeches like the one which has been delivered just now ridiculing the Prime Minister of Canada for having been honoured in the world for his record in environment. This is so mean, Mr. Speaker. It is so mean because if you travel all over the world-I just came back from The Hague, and there were 24 countries all over the world meeting in The Hague, and I could see that all those people consider Canada, our country, as one of the leaders of the world as far as environment is concerned, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: And I am sure that our Canadians are proud, too, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that all Liberals, all NDP Members are proud, too. It remains for the leaders of those Parties to be proud equally.
There are some prestigious leaders of the world like Mrs. Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway. She has signed the famous report on sustainable development. She developed the concept with a team of people, and among them a Canadian who more or less wrote the report himself, with Mrs. Brundtland chairing the commission. It was in The Hague with all those people from Europe and Australia, Japan and New Zealand, Francophones and Anglophones all of whom paid tribute to Mr. Mulroney, and then when you come back to Canada, you hear strange things.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we will go through the Alaska crisis. We have offered our help to our American friends. We are ready to help them to step in as much as they want. We have already provided them with a lot of equipment, people, surveillance, expertise. We are ready to do more. We are very proud to do it. I feel no humiliation in helping the Americans to fight this pollution problem. It is a duty for us because it is a problem for Canadians.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who is going to pay?


Lucien Bouchard: I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am sure that Canadians reject partisanship in environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: I would like to live to see a joint effort from all Canadians, Liberal Members, NDP Members, Conservative Members to fight the good cause, the cause of environment for Canada and for its future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I won't keep the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), who got up simultaneously with me, from speaking for very long. I just wanted to report to you and to the House that after some brief discussions with representatives, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), we can agree immediately. I am happy to report that we could agree immediately after the speech from the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca that the Members should start making speeches of 10 minute duration. That way we can get as many speeches in as possible. We have not yet dealt with the issue of going past midnight, but, Mr. Speaker, we will pursue our discussions. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that an agreement has been reached among Members concerning the continuation of the debate.
Is there agreement to the proposition put forward by the Hon. Minister?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I understood the Minister correctly, the offer is that we reduce the speaking time to 10 minutes, and that is it. We would be agreeable to extending that agreement past midnight, particularly if the Minister would be so nice tonight and agreeable that he would agree to go past midnight. That way we could plan.


Jean J. Charest: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start negotiating on the floor of the House but I would just-


Jean J. Charest: Yes, to be of service to the Hon. Members from both Parties what I am able to say now, without excluding the possibility of going beyond midnight, is that we can start, right after the speech from the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, having 10 minute speeches from Members, and I think that is some progress,with a view to getting in as many Members as possible, and that as soon as we have had other discussions, we will be able to determine whether it is possible to go beyond midnight.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I made a proposal to you.

April 4, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister for his proposal. I think we still have a problem. Maybe. . .
Perhaps during the speech of the very distinguished Member, a former Premier of my province, the Province of British Columbia, representatives of all Parties could again consult and come back to the Speaker with a proposition which includes all of the considerations that seem to be bothering some Members. I now wish to move on with the debate. The Hon. Member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett).


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to take my place in this debate. Quite frankly, however, I would have preferred this debate never to have occurred in the House. All of us would have wanted to avoid the consequences of an oil spill, and certainly we want Government action and response to it.
Tonight, three Government spokespersons have attempted to patronize, not only the Opposition but Canadians, with sophomoric speeches, without any mention of the real problems that exist with this crisis on the waters bordering Canada and British Columbia.
When a Member stands for the House of Commons and hopes that his or her Party will form a majority government and he or she may be asked to be a Minister of the Crown, they assume a responsibility with that ministerial position. Tonight we are debating an emergency motion moved by my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Fulton). We are debating the issue of an oil spill. I am not questioning the Minister's sincerity, but others might. Had he been aware and sincere about this, and had he been alert, he would have been in the House yesterday to make a ministerial statement about that oil spill. No one would have turned that down. If we are to believe that the Government is truly concerned, the Minister could have come to the House today and asked leave of the House to make a ministerial statement. He did not do that. He had the nerve to come here and plead for understanding from the House and Canadians, after he was forced to make a statement as a result of a motion by my colleague. It begs the question: What have you been doing? Do you not understand this problem? Why have you not come to the House? Why have you not dealt with this issue?
This is not a new issue. It is not fortuitous that this is an accident that has repeated itself in 90 days. It is tragic. We, along with a government Member, went up to the coastal waters of offshore British Columbia. We saw the damage. We held a press conference.
All six New Democratic Members from Vancouver Island held a press conference on January 25. It was a very modest press statement in which we did not blame the Government. We stated that in order to learn from this experience there should be a public inquiry so that we could follow, step by step, what action was taken by the Government, the Coast Guard and volunteers, and determine what went right and what went wrong. Such a report could be tabled before us so that we could learn from this tragedy.
The Minister responsible pleads for understanding in this House. Just so that we understand exactly where this Minister stands when he makes the amateur appeal that it is not the Government's fault and we should keep a cool head and learn from these things, let me point out that on January 31 this year, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter) wrote a letter to the Minister.
I must say it is a modest letter because she is a new Member. I would have been far more strong in my words. However, she was polite, modest, thoughtful and caring in an attempt to get some action. I would have simply kicked the slats out of you. I will do it tonight because you deserve it. More than anyone else in the Government you deserve it. You deserve the slats kicked out from you.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether the Hon. Minister deserves that or not, the Hon. Member will have to address his remarks to the Minister through the Chair.


David Barrett: I would never remove the slats from the Speaker's chair. I want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker.
I want to quote from the body of this letter addresssed to the Minister on January 31: It reads:"I along with other Members of Parliament from Vancouver Island call for an immediate public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the oil spill and the resultant response. Clearly there must be a comprehensive examination of the facts to determine how and why this happened, how and why the federal Government took so long to respond and how we can ensure a quicker and more efficient response in the event of another oil spill in the future".

April 4, 1989
The Minister talks about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) being recognized around the world as an expert on preventing pollution. We heard a technical response tonight concerning the number of boats we have that do not have holes and are available to do the job. We are told about equipment in various warehouses. This letter was not even acknowledged by the Minister.
For the Minister to get up in the House and give that pious, sanctimonious camp in front of all Canadians and expect us to believe that he understands what this is about is nothing more than straight hogwash. I wish I knew how to say that in French, but it is hogwash. You are a failure, Mr. Minister. I say that through the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister should resign or be fired immediately. If there is to be any confidence left in the Canadian people that the Government is serious about dealing with oil spills, let us get a Minister who understands something more about an oil spill. The only slick he knows is on his pillow when he gets up in the morning.
The Minister stood here tonight and gave us a catalogue of actions that should be taken. He said there was an immediate response to the little spill on Vancouver Island to which he referred. The troops at Esquimalt Base were ready to go up there on the coast. They were waiting for the call from the Minister and the Government, but no call came. Seventy-five troops could have been on the ground within 48 hours, but no call came. Tell us why. We had to rely on volunteers, and they were treated very badly.
Let the Minister tell us about his trip there. Tell us how you spent time walking on the beach as the Minister symbolically representing the Government, showing yourself and letting people know you were concerned about that oil spill. Tell us how it struck you deep in the heart and how.it concerned you so much that you asked for an inquiry. The Minister has not done a thing about it.
Furthermore, there is a joint contingency plan with the United States. There is already in place an international agreement. The United States Coast Guard was ready, on call, and willing to help with all its mobilized equipment, talent and skill. It never received a call from the Government or the Minister for the help it was ready to give.
The case against the Minister is concluded, in my view. If Canadians had a vote about it, the Minister would be guilty as a failure. There is not much point talking to him about this, even through you, Mr. Speaker.
Let us go back into some history. There are some Members in the House tonight who were here in the late 1960s. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was one of those Members. The Alyeska-Alaska pipeline was the subject of a major debate in those days. One of the few Members in this Chamber, along with other Members of the New Democratic Party and a certain Member from Vancouver South who cannot be named, understood the dangers of moving that oil down the coast. One of those Members was the former Minister of Finance in the Liberal administration. He acknowledged publicly that there was serious concern about shipping oil off that coast. The Member for Vancouver South acknowledged that. However, they were not persuasive enough to stop the Government of the day from agreeing to that coastal shipment of tankers. However, both those Members had foresight. They expressed and put on record their concern, and I double-checked that.
When there was the expectation of a spill, most people said that it was just scare-mongerers who were suggesting that. A few Members including the two I have mentioned said that it is more than a scare. This is the one time I am sorry history has proved that those two Members were right, along with NDP Members.
At the same time there was a debate happening in the British Columbia legislature. We begged, we literally begged the federal Government to oppose the oil tankers travelling off our coast. We were challenged as a Government to come up with an alternative in response. We did. We suggested that the oil be moved by rail. We called in Cecil Law of Queen's University, an expert on ground-guided transportation, and we developed and proposed a plan and I went to Washington, D.C., to sell it. It was laughed at by all except for a few Members here. It is gone, it is over. It is one of those situations in which I can honestly say, I told you so.
But that is history. We must understand that history to know that there were voices in this Chamber who warned some 22 years ago that this exact thing would happen. Now we are struck by the fact that we are having an emergency debate on the very accident some said could not happen.
For all this pious claptrap from the Ministers who say, "Our experts tell us this and our experts tell us that," the Exxon experts told us this could not happen. I saw the first interview of the Exxon president on United States public television. He was saying that this did not happen, he does not believe it, it could not happen. It did happen and it will happen again.
April 4, 1989

With all this pious nonsense about greater technology, greater ability, greater surveillance, the fact is that I spoke to Mr. Smiley in Washington, D.C., the Exxon spokesperson on this particular spill, and I asked him what can be done. He said it is too late to bum it, it is too late for chemicals, it is out of control and we cannot do anything more than we are doing now. So what is this stuff from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) saying we have 24 depots with generators sitting there and we have straw and we have these winches and we have all this stuff ready to go? It is pious nonsense.
It would have been better for the Canadian people to hear the Minister and a government spokesman say, "Look, it is a disaster, we are incapable of dealing with it and we are committed openly to having a public inquiry, not just on the West coast spill, an opportunity we have lost, but a public, open inquiry right now in front of all Canadians so that step by step we can find out what went wrong and do everything humanly possible to see that it does not happen again."
I would expect to see this Government immediately launch criminal proceedings in the United States against the perpretrators of the spill in Washington State that damaged the West coast of British Columbia, immediate legal proceedings. I would expect that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), who is concerned with protecting the Canadian people, will announce that if one square inch of Canadian territory is affected by one oil blob, there will be legal suit against Exxon and those perpretrators of this oil spill.
It is not enough to talk about sending 15 otters down to the aquarium in Vancouver as some kind of humanitarian gesture. I can see all the Ministers going out to Vancouver now for photo opportunities, rolling up their sleeves and scrubbing a little otter, saying, "This is my share of cleaning up this mess." I do not want to make light of the damage to the otters, but that is hardly worthy of a Government whom we expect to protect the environment.
Mr. Smiley, the Exxon co-ordinator of spill management, also acknowledged that, to his knowledge, at no time has the Canadian Government invoked its part of the joint treaty on this current spill and asked that it be not only just an observer there but that every piece of equipment that it claims it has be on site and helping. They have never even asked for that and yet it is part of the agreement.
This emergency debate is important, not only because of the oil spill. It is important for the Canadian people to understand that the same falsehoods told to the Canadian people during the election campaign only to be ignored after the Government's re-election show the same pattern of behaviour on the part of this Government when it comes to the pronouncements it has made on the environment.
Was it four months ago or six months ago that we heard those pious statements, "Vote for me and I will be angelic. Vote for me and I will do all of these wonderful things"? The newspapers coming out lately are saying, "Oh, well, we have to scrub all that stuff we promised. We did not tell you the truth then, there will be tough times now." I approve of tough times. Let us get tough with the oil companies, not with the people of British Columbia.
No one has a monopoly on what is good or what is decent. No one expects the Government to be responsible for everything. The Opposition's responsibility is, of course, to attack the Government. We are not blaming the Government for the oil spill, but we have every right to condemn the Minister for the inaction after the oil spill took place.
What is the alternative plan of the Government to appeal to the Americans to avoid these spills? Will it demand that the International Court at The Hague provide that no tanker leaving any port anywhere in the world will ever leave again without a certified pilot at the wheel and that it would be criminally responsible of the owner of the tanker if one did? Would they be prepared to go to the court at The Hague and assure us that when every tanker comes back into Canadian waters, there is a pilot on board?
Many Hon. Members here do not know beautiful British Columbia. They think it is some distance away and that it is such a vast coast that nothing could hurt the area. My good friend, the Hon. Member from Hamilton, talked about this happening in Toronto or in the Seaway. Let me ask this rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. What if it happens at Cherry Point 30 miles south of Vancouver in the Strait of Georgia out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a contained oil spill that would destroy fisheries, feed stock, herring and the fry coming down from major river estuaries to feed our commercial salmon industry? I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what a disaster that would be, but that is where the next spill will happen, and it has already happened there once. We had high school youngsters on the American side of the border cleaning up that spill a few years ago.

April 4, 1989
This is a very serious matter. It is not the Government's fault, but the Canadian people expect action, not nonsense and pious statements. The first and best action would be to fire the Minister of the Environment who has completely failed up to this point. As for the Minister of Transport, let him explain how he has cut back in his Department. He says, "Our ships are ready to go," but how many ships does he have?
The last great amount of shipbuilding in this country has been on the East coast and it has been for Canadian frigates. It was promised four years ago that a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Polar 8, would be built off the British Columbia coast. They have not even laid the keel yet. Is there a suggestion that perhaps Quebec will get that contract? I do not want to believe that, but if they are building frigates on the Quebec coast, they can at least complete that extra Coast Guard ship that has been killed month after month by this Government. If the Minister truly believes that he is committed to developing a Coast Guard, why have not we had that Polar 8 contract granted to the Province of British Columbia?
Do you not know where we are, Mr. Speaker? We are part of Canada too. We belong to the family of Canadians. We do not make any special appeal. We do not demand something just because we are where we are. But when something happens to us, we expect fairness, decency, responsibility and understanding, and we sure as heck have not seen that from this Government when it comes to the oil spills off the West coast.
I want to conclude by just making a few remarks about the results of the election in western Canada and the election of a Reform Party candidate who is sitting over there. Yes, there is just one Member. Yes, it is just a little rump group. It is the voice of the West, along with other election results, saying that this federal Government is a failure. Right wingers voted for reform candidates. They ignored the Liberals. The centre and the left voted for New Democrats. There are 19 New Democrats here from British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Do not think it is an isolated provincial Party after the next federal election. Unless this Government moves there will be dozens more NDPers right across this country, including the Province of Quebec, where you have been a failure, Mr. Speaker.
The politics of pollution know no provincial boundaries. I warn you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia and the people of western Canada expect more from a government, more than what this Minister has shown. I am proud of the Hon. Member for Skeena forcing this debate. I am ashamed that the Minister had to respond in this debate instead of leading it with a statement long before today.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting listening to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett). I am very pleased he was not blaming the Government for the oil spill because having listened to some of the debate earlier this evening I think those Canadians who were listening to it might have had the impression the opposition Parties were somehow blaming us for a very tragic event that took place near Valdez, Alaska. Certainly it is not the Government's fault that it happened. That is not, of course, to underestimate the great concern we have as Canadians and as a Government about this very tragic incident. What is particularly of concern in my mind is that obviously it appears as though it were the result of human error. It was not an act of God. It was not necessarily weather conditions, it was what appears to be the possibility of untrained or improperly trained personnel taking the ship into an area where it should not have gone.
I guess as a Member from British Columbia and having represented Capilano-Howe Sound for the last five years I can assure my colleagues of the great concern that I and my colleagues from British Columbia have about environmental issues in our province and particularly the oil spill in Alaska and the earlier oil spill that took place off the West Coast in January. I think that tonight during this debate we want to let Canadians know what happened, what actions are being taken, and also to discuss what might possibly be done in the future to prevent these kinds of tragedies taking place. As my colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) have said, first we have to recognize that it is extremely unlikely-although nothing is impossible from all of the evidence we have at this point-that any of the oil from this recent oil spill will actually hit the coastal waters of British Columbia and have a direct impact there.
April 4, 1989

Again, that is not to lessen the impact the spill will have in the Alaskan area and on some of the fish and the wildlife of that region. But there is work going on now by the Coast Guard and the Fisheries Department. They are tracking the oil and maintaining constant vigilance on what is occurring to weather, wind and wave conditions and the direction in which the oil is going. If, for example, either at this time or in the future there is an oil spill or if oil should come into Canadian waters I think Canadians want to know whether we are prepared. The Ministers of Transport and Environment have talked tonight about plans in place. They are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. I worked for a number of years in the Beaufort Sea and worked on oil spill plans and environmental issues.
I know that all of the efforts that the best brains you can find can put together do not necessarily work under all conditions. That is one of the reasons you spend a lot of time on research and you go through exercises to work out different kinds of situations and simulate those kinds of exercises. I want to say as well, as the Associate Minister of National Defence, that if an incident such as this were to occur, the resources of my Department are on alert and would be made available. We have provided offers of helicopter and surveillance assistance in Alaska as we did on the West Coast, and additional resources can be made available if they are requested.
What potentially is the impact of this oil spill on Canadian wildlife or fisheries resources? The Minister of Fisheries has referred to this. We do not know the total answer to that yet. We know that in Alaska volunteers are working with the help of Environment Canada on many of the birds which have been oil soaked. That is a very tragic circumstance but in terms of our own fisheries resources, the information that we have at this time is that for the salmon, the salmonid and the herring, Canadian resources will not be affected, partly because of the time of the oil spill and the timing of the salmon runs. Nevertheless, we will be monitoring those kinds of situations very carefully.
I would like to assure Canadians at this point that with the information we have now and the continuous monitoring that is under way it does not appear as though there will be any adverse impact on our own fisheries and wildlife resources. Can these incidents be prevented in the future? I was heartened by the Minister of the Environment and would take issue with my colleague
across the floor, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, because I do not think he listened to the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps he has not been listening and reading what has been emanating from the Environment Department and the kinds of commitments this Government has to the environment. As the Minister has said, we have to review, as is done on a continuous basis, response plans. One of the lessons learned from this particular incident is that you have to respond quickly in the first 24 hours. That means resources have to be available. The human planning, something with which we in the military are very familiar, has to be in place so that there is an automatic response. You have systems set up. You do not have to wait for telephone calls or for people in authority. This has to be worked on.
I know that in the Beaufort Sea, as the Minister indicated, the resources that we have could be made available. This kind of exercise and simulation has been under way for years. We hope we never have to use it but you need to have that kind of plan and exercise going on in order to be prepared.
The development of technology is another point. Some people I have heard tonight have said that technology cannot assist. I disagree with that. There is oil spill containment technology on the market which is being developed. Again, depending on the particular weather and wave conditions this can be very effective. Skimmers and booms obviously have to be used in the right kind of conditions. But in many oil spills we have had in the past those things have been used. The development of those kinds of technologies has to take into account the scale of the incident. In this coming year B.C. will be hosting a major show on environment and technology which will provide the opportunity for a showcase of the kinds of technologies and the kinds of expertise available. This show is coming up in Vancouver. We need to do more work with the private sector in this area.
The Minister has indicated a review of the tanker traffic should take place. I know when I worked in the North there was talk about the possible development of an oil pipeline, but there was much opposition to that idea. In retrospect perhaps it is too late now because the resources in Alaska may not last long enough to make economic sense, but perhaps in other situations we should be looking at the alternatives to tanker traffic, and that pipelines can be a more appropriate response.

April 4, 1989
For example, I look at the proposed Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. When it is constructed, that will provide an alternative to bringing in the bunker fuel tankers to Vancouver Island, traffic that in itself has potential for hazards. Training of personnel is something that came to light in the American jurisdiction, and we obviously always need to be looking at having properly trained people in charge of our ships, and rules and regulations which would ensure that the types of incidents, the use of alcohol, which should be totally prohibited in those situations, would not occur in British Columbia, or in our Canadian waters.
It has been mentioned several times by other Members that perhaps we should be looking again at the offshore drilling off the coast of British Columbia, and the maintenance of the moratorium. It is my understanding that the Province of British Columbia and Premier Vander Zalm have indicate that they wish to retain that moratorium. In light of some of the recent incidents, that may make very good sense.
Canada's continued opposition to the Arctic natural wildlife refuge, and the proposed drilling in Alaska is something that both our External Affairs Department and Environment Department have been vigorously opposed to because of the concerns, the fragility of the environment in that region, and again the potential for environmental disasters is also something that needs to be looked at.
Finally, the Minister of the Environment briefly talked about the Speech from the Throne yesterday, and the type of commitments to the environment contained in that Speech from the Throne, a commitment that was not new to the Government, a commitment to sustainable development. If we look at the root causes of some of those reasons, it relates to our heavy dependence on fossil fuels, the types of lifestyles that we live, and the fact that in the past we have not looked seriously enough at the alternatives. Some of those alternatives are now coming within the possible horizon of realities, whether it is fusion or fuel cell technology, which perhaps in another generation can be a reality and provide substitutes for fossil fuels so that we will not be as reliant on them, or not be as much at risk from the types of accidents that have occurred most recently.
That is the commitment that this Government has made. It has established a centre in Winnipeg, the ongoing programs of our Minister of Environment to encourage Canadians to use environmentally safe products, and a whole variety of measures that we will be undertaking in the future. The Member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), rather than criticising the efforts of the Government, should be applauding our Minister of Environment, a Minister who has stood up for the environment both here in Canada and internationally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: The Hon. Member should also applaud the record of the Prime Minister who received an award recently in The Hague, and I know that he will soon be receiving international awards for the commitment to the environment and the leadership role that this country has taken.
That is the type of leadership and commitment which I can assure the members of the House and Canadians who are sharing this evening with us will be continued, a commitment not only from the Minister of the Environment, but from all Departments, a greater sensitivity to environmental impacts of all decisions of government, whether it is in my own Department of National Defence, or in my colleague's Department of Transport. Throughout the Government every effort will be made to prevent the types of incidents which have occurred in the last few months, for example, the Valdez oil crisis, and build up and improve our capability to deal with incidents of this nature, a capability of which I am very proud.
We have done perhaps better than any other nation in the world at this point, but it is not yet at the level which I think we will probably need in the future just to ensure that level of comfort. In my own view prevention is worth a pound of cure. That will be the emphasis of this Government, this Department, and this Minister.
Our speeches have been cut back in the second part, and we will not have an opportunity to go into some of the details in terms of fisheries and wildlife that I know others will talk to a little later.
In conclusion'I would like to say that the incident in Alaska is a tragic incident. We know that the impact on the people in that area, and the impact on the wildlife is extremely unhappy. I have worried when I see school children, as we had on the West Coast, with otters or sea birds that have been impacted by this oil spill, or perhaps have been killed by it.
April 4, 1989

However, we have to learn a lesson from all this, and find ways that it will not be repeated, whether it is through changes in response, developments of new technology, improvements in the way that tankers are operated through our waters, and a whole increased sensitivity to these issues on the part of the Canadian public and on the part of all of us in the House. That is an assurance that I know I can give on behalf of our Government and on behalf of my colleagues tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.


Jean J. Charest: I have not had an opportunity to speak with my colleague, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, so I will speak slowly and maybe he will have a chance to hear me verbatim. I have had a chance to speak with a representative of the Liberal Party. If it is agreed, and I think you will find that that is probably the case, from now on the House would entertain a change in its proceedings to 10-minute speeches, and beyond hours until the last person has spoken. All of this is in recognition of the importance of this issue for the House of Commons and for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the Minister agreed to this type of arrangement. I take it that there will be no objections at all from this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps you can just clarify for me, Mr. Speaker. I just came through the lobby and I know that the House Leader is not here at the moment. I understand he was involved in the discussions.


Jean J. Charest: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed.
The Hon. Member for Kent.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the emergency debate on the Valdez oil spill. As my colleagues on this side of the House have stated, the worst spill in U.S. history will prove to have devastating effects on the economy of Alaska and most certainly the wildlife of the West Coast.
It will also force a serious re-examination of the policies governing the transportation of oil, and force us all to re-examine the question: "At what cost development, at what cost to our precious environment?" We must face the issue of sustainable development head-on.
Forty-two million litres, 270,000 barrels of oil, have been spewed by a supertanker that ran aground two weeks ago. Fishermen fear for their livelihood. They fear for their future. Alaskans are asking why it happened, an accident that could have been prevented.
We praise the massive community effort to skim their waters with equipment at hand. Exxon officials seem to be more interested in their public relations and profits than our environmental safety. Environmental groups say that the oil industry has been misleading the North American public for years about the dangers of shipping oil, and being utterly and hopelessly unprepared for this catastrophic environmental disaster.
Ecologists have been saying for years that supertankers used should be specially built for the unique and risky job in that area of the world. The oil industry has constantly and consistently refuted that argument and saying "Everything is fine". No one thought a spill of this magnitude could even happen.
Even Jacques Cousteau has said that the ships currently in use are time bombs. For 30 years Mr. Cousteau has been pushing and pressing for reform of security standards for ships of this type, and better training for sailors and officers.
It is clear that Exxon and the American oil industry were entirely unprepared for a spill of this magnitude, in spite of their words of assurance.
We know that employees working for the Alaska Pipeline were fired when they complained about cutbacks in its program to clean up oil spills. Let this be a message to the Canadian Government, "Cut-backs are dangerous!"
A six-volume environmental report prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior in March, 1972 predicted that oil spills were inevitable. It stated there would probably be more than two million litres of oil spilled along the West Coast. So even then we knew the dangers, and Exxon took the risk without being prepared.
My heart goes out to those fishermen and conservationists who must now face the destruction of the Alaskan habitat and live with the spill's long-term effects on wildlife. I come from an area of Canada where an appreciation and a love of nature is paramount. I live alongside a native reserve where fishing and trapping is a way of life. Even in my riding, spills of another kind have had a terrible impact. Watching the scenes of wildlife devastation on the nightly news shows us how fragile our

April 4, 1989
environment really is. We can never assume the strength of Mother Nature.
In closing, let me say as associate Liberal environment critic, we have heard all the dramatic and emotional aspects of the oil spill here in this emergency debate. But the question that Governments seemingly never ask: "Why do the efforts to control these disasters always have to be so disorganised and impromptu?"
As a recent editorial in the Montreal Gazette stated, there are no "Red Adairs" for oil spills. His sort of specialisation is absent when a tanker leaks. Then, relief operations are almost always "seat-of-the-pant" affairs. Experts often are sent too late-and they are not truly experts. I join with the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) as we support the call of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) that the federal Government launch high-level talks with Washington on better ways to control West Coast supertanker traffic.
This oil spill is a disaster of deadly proportions for the delicate environment of the Pacific coastline. As the assault on the environment continues, it seems that most of us are powerless to do anything, but our Government isn't. Canada should accelerate its fight against U.S. plans to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge near the Yukon border.
Environmental groups say that if drilling were to go ahead there, thousands of caribou that migrate across the border each year would die, and a way of life for native Canadians in the region would be jeopardised.
We must all ask ourselves as Canadians, what price do we pay for economic development, and at what cost to the environment? Human error and incompetence have caused decades of devastation. The Valdez oil spill should never have happened.
Our environment has been neglected, taking a back seat to many other issues. This spill graphically illustrates that a concern for the environment should be first and foremost in our minds. How many more spills like Valdez do we need to make us take constructive and long-term measures rather than defensive, short-term measures?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for permitting me to make a brief contribution to this debate. How easy it is for all of us to be caught up in the emotions that are associated
with an accident of the magnitude that we are discussing tonight.
Perhaps at the end it would matter little whether this accident occurred in the South China Sea, whether it occurred off the coast of Alaska or off the coast of Canada. The emotions we feel here tonight are associated with watching nature as it reacts to the damage that humankind has once more inflicted upon it.
I am very angry and saddened about the fact that people charged with the steering and operation of such large systems can be so careless of the discharge of their responsibility, how people can be so careless and how they warrant being charged with the sensitivities of a system that is bound to fail when humans fail. I am angry about our inability to do something about this disaster now.
The fact is that no matter what we talk about here tonight and whom we attach blame to, when an accident like this happens, when nature decides to take over and you have three-metre waves, there is no effective response. I am saddened we did not respond in the first 24 hours when there was a calm sea, when the oil could have been contained around the immediate area where the accident took place. I am saddened and angry that the people responsible did not have the facility in place. Yes, I feel the kind of anger that comes with having to stand by, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has to do and others who were on the site, helplessly watching as dead animals are being washed ashore.
I wonder if anyone has ever seen a bald eagle thrash around in the bush after it has digested the cadaver of a dead animal which is polluted with oil? It makes you very emotional and angry.
There is another thing that makes me angry tonight. I am reminded of the scene of an accident that I came upon, a head-on collision between two cars. There were two people lying there bleeding out of every pore, every bone in their body broken. Nobody knew whether one or both were dead. There were two people standing there fighting about whose fault it was. That is what the Opposition is doing here tonight. They are standing here attaching blame. They are arguing about whose fault it is instead of arguing about what we can learn about this megadisaster, arguing about what we can do to avoid these kinds of things from happening in the future.
April 4, 1989

Yes, I too was here when we discussed pipelines. The shrillest voices came from the red rump over there. Those were the voices against pipelines in the North and the options to transport oil. Yes, we talked. I remember sitting in the committee.
You people are primitivists. You shut it all down. We all live by a lake somewhere in a log cabin, the smoke curling to the sky. We do not need any more fossil fuel. We do not need any more power dams. These are primitivists sitting over there. They were up on the north shore of Alaska saying you cannot build a pipeline here.
I recall sitting in the committee. There was a very arrogant, aloof witness who pointed out these tankers going up and down the coast. They were talking about the strategy of getting oil down to the lower 49 states. They were worried about not being secure having a pipeline through Canada; so they would rather have tankers going up and down the coast. As if that was a strategic system. Can you imagine, if we ever got into a conflict, how easy it would be to blow these tankers out of the water and mess up all of the coast and the rest of North America? The reason they did not have any trust in us is because of these primitivists who had ideas that you should not be harvesting oil in the north, that you should not bring it down.
I would very much prefer to sit down and talk about the alternatives that we have. There are those who say in ten years from now you will be driving your automobile up to a service station or to a grocery store and purchasing a solid hydrogen fuel cell which you plug into the side of your car and which allows you to drive for two or three weeks. These are all things that are perhaps 50 or 75 years away.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That will require research.


Frank Oberle: We are now speculating about nuclear fusion at room temperature. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what that will do? Yes, even the Hon. Member from Hamilton will perhaps in her lifetime see where oil and fossil fuels will be used for synthetic conversion and no longer be burned up in our smoke-stacks where they pollute the environment.
The fact is what could we do tomorrow. What have we omitted to do in the last 10 years, and what can we do in the next 10 years? Let us pull out the old plans. The former Premier of British Columbia did go to the United States. I recall the headlines. He was promoting a railway to Prudhoe Bay,-tank cars. My God, I suppose there would have been little platforms for moose to get on and take a little hop to the next pasture. It was a
haywire idea. Nevertheless, I give him credit. He did fight the tanker routes, as we all did at the time.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that from 1968 to 1972 Conservatives were not in this House. It was the New Democrats and the Liberals who made all these plans and all these agreements. Now they are blaming us for it.
The fact is that this is an accident of monumental proportions. It is an accident from which we can now do nothing but learn lessons. This is an accident as a result of which we should all get together. When an accident occurs, when an airliner crashes, be it a Soviet airliner, a Korean airliner, an American airliner or be it an earthquake that occurs, we get together to pass a unanimous motion to send aid. We do not worry about whose fault it is or what the consequences are or could have been. The feeling is: "Let us go to see how we can help". Let us go to see how we can help. Let us have a debate, as we are having tonight, in a rational and reasonable way and take politics out of it.
The resignation of a Minister will not scoop up one drop of oil. It will not save the life of one muskrat. It will not save the life of one fish. The Minister had nothing to do with it. If anybody is to blame, it is those people who laid these great designs and schemes in the past. Let us not worry about the past. Let us worry about the future. There are alternatives. By being reasonable and by offering to debate, as we have, and by meeting with people and doing so in a rational and responsible way, we may convince our neighbours that we have a common coast to protect, that we have an attachment to our environment that is part of our Canadian psyche, part of our Canadian culture. We have the right to protect it. We have the right to have it respected by our neighbours.
Our neighbours are just as concerned about the environment. It was said by our friends here today that they were much more active in cleaning up the Grays Harbour spill on their own coast. They are just as concerned as we are. The fact is that we are tied to this source of energy. It represents 20 per cent of the entire needs of the United States. It is strategic to them. They will have to get this oil down there. Let us offer some alternatives. Let us sit down to work out new guidelines.
I recall that when we talked about these tankers, there was this arrogant person I was telling Hon. Members about who was sitting there. When I raised the issue, there was this sort of aloof smile as if to say: "How can this lumberjack from British Columbia know about all these satellite guiding systems that would be steering these tankers? There would be no room for human error. It just would not be possible with all this new technology that we have guiding these systems. Do not worry". We all know that accidents do happen, that

April 4, 1989
systems fail, that humans fail and when it does happen we are saddened and angered by it.
I know that there are alternatives to securing the energy requirements for ourselves and for our neighbours in North America. I know that all of us must work hard to develop alternatives to the system to which we are tied now. Our scientists are working hard on that. Let us not be naive to think that we can do it next week, next year or even 10 years from now. For some time we will be tied to the system that has been built over the last 100 years. We will be tied to develop the best possible technology to make sure that these accidents do not happen. Yes, I will be the first to speak anywhere in the country, here in the House and in Cabinet to make sure that we learn a lesson from this accident, that we will discuss what we have learned with our neighbours and insist that the system be improved to the point where a disaster of this magnitude will never happen again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to state tonight that I bet the people of the United States are saying no to the Chairman of Exxon and his apology that he splashed over every American newspaper on Monday. Buying full page ads does not compensate for anything.
The day after the spill occurred and the Alyeska pipeline was closed, the oil price went up and Exxon actually made a profit. What about the rest of us? This is the largest oil spill in North American history. It has serious implications for Arctic regions around the world, for much of the western coasts, for marine life and its food-chain, and for oil and gas activities, particularly in remote and sensitive regions such as the region I represent. This is not just a simple error by an insignificant company as a result of which a few Americans, some birds and some fish have been victimized.
As the Member for Western Arctic, I can say that this tragedy has a direct bearing on the region of Canada from where I come. I want to tell the Members what has taken place in the Beaufort Delta since the accident on Good Friday and the contribution which Canada is making to its neighbours which closely borders my riding. Four Hercules planes have been expedited from Yellowknife and Inuvik with equipment to help with the clean-up of the Valdez tanker spill. Last week I attended a meeting in Calgary of the Arctic Institute of North America of which I am a board member. The oil industry people who were present there led us to understand that
the members of the Beaufort Co-op, which consists of Amoco, Gulf and Esso, offered their oil spill equipment and Exxon refused any assistance until Tuesday, five days after the catastrophic spill. They simply did not move fast enough.
Mr. Speaker, 240,000 barrels of oil had spilled from a tanker which had gone aground due to human error and gross negligence. The company said that it would manage on its own. From all indications it has not managed at all.
Another week later Exxon accepted the Canadian offer and the Beaufort Co-op sent miles of fireproof booms, igniters, heli-torches, storage burners and saci burners from the Canadian north to the Port of Valdez. Three Canadians have gone with the equipment to help with the deployment and mobilization. These three people have worked in the North quite extensively. One comes from a community in my constituency, a man by the name of Jack Goose from Aklavik. It seems remote. It seems out of the way and maybe insignificant-perhaps not even possible-but these people in the North have something to contribute.
I want to talk briefly on the comparisons of this spill with the oil and gas activities taking place in the Beaufort Delta region. I recently submitted an intervention to the National Energy Board on the applications by Esso, Gulf and Shell to export gas from the Canadian Arctic. Thus I feel close to the subject. I have some knowledge of it. As well, I was living in Tuktoyaktuk near the Beaufort Sea on the Arctic coastline in the mid-1970s when industry began its offshore activities in the Beaufort.
I am originally from Fort Norman, a small community near Norman Wells, site of one of the first oil discoveries in Canada in 1921, and which is now in production with a pipeline which was constructed in the early 1980s from Norman Wells to Zama, Alberta. Therefore I am familiar with what happens when a small traditional community whose residents basically depend on hunting, trapping and fishing is faced with large scale development. I remember when the Alyeska pipeline was being constructed from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. There was a lot of controversy, but in particular the people in Valdez did not want a major oil tanker port being built in their area. Valdez is a marine sanctuary like no other in the world. Sea otters, which are a threatened species, live in the waters of Prince William Sound, the water next to Valdez. There are only 12,000, and as the number of dead otters increases, this has implications for their population world-wide.
April 4, 1989

A pod of killer whales had been sighted going through the water where the oil lies, birds and fish are dying, and yesterday a dead deer was found on a nearby island with its intestines contaminated. Deer are at the top of the food chain. That means that not only animals which are covered with the oil are being affected, but those which depend on other animals in the chain for food are impacted as well.
There are 6,000 Alaskans in that region who depend on the fishing industry for their livelihood. There are two industries, oil and fishing. Why Mr. Exxon thinks he can compensate those residents is ludicrous.
The oil that has spilled from the tankers is thick and waxy because it has been highly heated to flow through the pipeline. Therefore is going to stay in that water and along that coastline and have devastating effects for years to come. Those fishermen cannot be reimbursed by a cheque from Exxon. Those people cannot be compensated for a way of life gone bad.
Exxon, one of the largest multinational and powerful companies in the world cannot right this tragedy. They have done virtually nothing to mitigate the impact on the wildlife or the people.
There was an individual who under unfortunate circumstances brought about the spill. I think it is up to the Government to take some action. The man in charge was a third mate who did not even have proper qualifications. He was 10 miles off course. The Exxon Valdez tanker was two years old, and was supposedly of a state-of-the-art design with the latest navigation equipment, but was not even double-hulled. The best tanker that Exxon has in its fleet did not have the technology in the place where it truly counts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: We need high level international dialogue to deal with this devastating situation. Since Valdez opened in the early seventies, over 5 billion barrels of oil have been shipped from that port, 2 million barrels per day for one quarter of the U.S. consumption, and Exxon cannot invest in proper equipment, trained personnel or come up with a half decent contingency plan. I hope that we have learned from this.
President Bush sent his personal advisers to Alaska to get a first-hand look at the catastrophe and they returned to Washington within two days to report that all was well. I hope Canadians will never be overpowered by a giant corporation like Exxon which has abused its power in the United States. Despite this and without a review of the entire event, President Bush says he will continue with plans to drill oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge. This attitude shows absolutely no care and no stewardship for the environment that we as Canadians need to consider. This crime against the people of northern America and the environment adheres to no man's laws when things go wrong. The kinds of situations that arise adhere to no man's laws. They adhere to no man's boundaries. International agreements have to be struck. There has to be high level international dialogue to deal with this problem and it has to be done now. Thank you very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hour is late and I do not want to repeat some of the very excellent comments made by my colleagues in the House this evening or to be redundant, but I think some of their insights bear some repetition.
There are times when the adversarial nature of the proceedings in this House are sadly inappropriate. By tradition the distance between the two sides of this House is two sword lengths, but tonight it might as well be a million miles. We are discussing the tragedy that concerns all of us, but the opposition Parties cannot resist creating conflict where there ought to be common purpose.
I believe the Canadian people want to see co-operation in responding to the issues raised by the Alaska oil spill. They are impatient with shrill partisanship and a holier than thou posturing. What the opposition Parties have given us tonight is a depressing mixture of distortion, cant and selective amnesia. Some of my colleagues have already stated a proposition that runs counter to the natural reflexes of the members of the Opposition. That proposition is that the Government of Canada did not create the Alaska oil spill. It should be obvious, but you would never know it from the tone of the Opposition. I think it is important to reflect on the moral premises underlying much of their commentary this

April 4, 1989
evening. There is something wonderful about the spectacle of the members of the Opposition distancing themselves from industrial society.
The Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) talks about the need for alternate means of transport for Alaska oil, but it was his colleagues in the NDP who opposed a pipeline to transport that very oil which is now transported by tanker. Of course they have the luxury of never having to make difficult decisions about how to get Alaska oil to markets. They can be purer than pure, but their leader comes from a riding that earns its wealth from the production of gasoline burning automobiles. Are the NDP prepared to say to Bob White and his auto workers that they oppose the internal combustion engine because the transport of oil creates an environmental hazard?
The Right Eton. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) takes equal advantage-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Kim Campbell: I am delighted to have awakened the Opposition from their torpor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Kim Campbell: I wish they could have done the same for me.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition takes equal advantage of the luxury of powerlessness, but he did not always have that luxury. He was a member of a Government that was so concerned with the provision of gasoline and heating oil to central Canada that it enforced a policy supported by the NDP that expropriated over $1 billion in wealth in western provinces.
Would the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition be prepared to tell the people of central Canada that they cannot use natural gas or heating oil because of the perils involved in their transport are so high? I think not. We all live in an industrial society, and we collectively bear the responsibility of reconciling the imperatives of that society with the survival of our planet, but it is that responsibility which is embodied in the concept of sustainable development which is the foundation of our Government's commitment to environment in the Throne Speech.
As my colleague, the Associate Minister of Defence, has pointed out, that commitment in the Throne Speech is a very specific and constructive one. The Minister of the Environment has spoken of the honouring of Canada and of the Prime Minister by countries at The Hague conference on the environment. It is sad to see how partisanship can blind the Opposition to the genuine respect earned by our own country on this issue. This does not mean that we are perfect. It means that our efforts in technology and policy are admired around the world. Much reference is made in environmental circles these days to the Brundtland Report which defined the concept of sustainable development. No indoor station is of more value in environmental circles these days than the benediction of St. Brundtland of the environment. Yet Norway is the second worst polluter of the North Sea. Much of its wealth is earned by offshore drilling for oil. Mrs. Brundtland has given no indication that Norway plans to abandon this important economic activity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are in the wrong Parliament.


A. Kim Campbell: This is in no way to diminish the achievement of the Brundtland Report, but simply to point out that the task of translating environmental enlightenment into policy is not easy.
I think it is also unfortunate that members of the opposition seek to take ownership of concern on this issue. The concern is that of all British Columbians and of all Canadians. The Member for Skeena in his opening statement refers to the Nustuqua spill and its effect on Vancouver Island.
No one has a monopoly on concern about that event. My family were pioneers on Vancouver Island. I am the fifth generation of my family to live there. The clients of my ministry have been there for hundreds of generations. I do not think there is any difference in the depth of our concern and our horror, and the sick feeling one has when looking at the effects of that oil spill on Vancouver Island.
I went to Vancouver Island to see the site of the oil spill. While I am not permitted to mention whether the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is
April 4, 1989

present in the House, I can say that he was not present at the oil spill on Vancouver Island.
I remember standing at Long Beach, talking to the volunteers who were working in a biting cold wind. I spoke to two people from Vancouver Centre who were there as volunteers, like so many others, because they cared so much about the environment. Our trip was arranged courtesy of the Speaker of the House of Commons and included Members of the New Democratic Party as well. We took a helicopter up to Nootka Point where we heard of the concern about the possible peril of the sea otter colony.
One of the impressions that was most vivid for me from that trip was the reality of the British Columbia coastline, the coastline on the east side of Vancouver Island and the difficulty of tackling an oil spill there, with the realities of the weather.
The Hon. Member for Skeena referred to the fisheries and the halibut. My first job as a student was in a fish-packing plant in Prince Rupert. I have seen the halibut up close and, quite frankly, I still cannot eat them.
The fisheries are extremely important and we are all concerned about this industry in our province. The Nestucca generated a vast and concerted effort to monitor and protect our important fisheries resource. Before there was agreement between the Parties in the House to reduce our speeches to 10 minutes, I had a very detailed statement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to attend to the concerns of the fishery as a result of the Nestucca spill.
After my visit to Vancouver Island to observe the spill first-hand, I was in constant contact with the Department of the Environment co-ordinator in Tofino.
I can tell you that there was a very concerted effort by a large group of dedicated professionals who were monitoring the fisheries. Some of the fisheries were closed. Ongoing research, both from ships and by divers was carried on. This kind of effort is not very appealing when it comes to headlines. It is not suitable for 35 second clips on the evening news. However, the impression given by Members of the Opposition that there was not a concerted effort to contain the effects of the spill,
to monitor it and protect the fisheries is very unfair and very incorrect.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) said that we have learned very much and will continue to learn from the Nestucca oil spill as well as from the Alaska spill. Among those lessons should be a realism about human efforts. No amount of technology, no number of volunteers or others involved in cleaning up oil spills in an area like the east coast of Vancouver Island or the coast of Alaska will ever be able to turn oil polluted beaches to what they were before. Only the long term efforts of nature and cleansing actions of the sea can do that. Even then we do not know how successful that will be in the long term.
We must understand the limits of human effort in dealing with those environmental events. Another lesson we should learn from these spills and our efforts in dealing with them is the futility of moral posturing. We are all citizens of an industrial society, as a number of my colleagues have stated this evening. We all take our cars home from a long day in the House and heat our houses with fossil fuels. It is of no gain in dealing with this issue about the future of our planet in posturing and suggesting that somehow we are not part of the problem. We are all part of the problem.
Perhaps it is too much to ask the Member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) to avoid appealing to emotions of resentment and rivalry between regions of this country, but that approach is not only fruitless, it is counterproductive.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate the appeal of the Minister of the Environment for an end to partisanship on the issue of the environment and the fulfilment thereby of the expectations of the Canadian people.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I was astounded to hear the conclusion of the Member's speech, when she asked for an end to partisanship on the discussion of this issue. I suggest she read the first part of her speech. She will notice the inconsistency in her statement. I do not believe the Member contributed anything to this debate.
I think it is worth while for us to return to the original proposal by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I congratulate him for introducing this proposal to the House. Given the severity of the oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which affected my riding substantially and the riding of my colleague, the Member for North Island-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and given the severity of the oil spill on the West Coast, I like

April 4, 1989
the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) thought we would have been looking into solutions to this problem and ways to prevent the problem from happening again. I believe that problem solving was the reason the Member for Skeena brought this issue up in the House in the first place.
The first experience we had with an oil spill on the coast was in October last year in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It created serious damage throughout the Strait and the lower end of George's Strait east of Vancouver Island.
Another spill occurred in December, 1988, which spread up the West Coast of Vancouver Island, affecting the whole West Coast. My family has been four generations on that coast, and values that coast and the environment very much.
We have the further oil spill taking place off the coast of Alaska, which could possibly threaten the coast of British Columbia and the area represented by the Member for Skeena in particular. All of these spills have taken place on the West Coast of Canada. Apparently the Government has not learned how to deal with them, how to prevent them or take significant action to prevent them. Therefore, I think the Opposition has to be concerned.
I would have thought the Government would have brought the issue up in the House, would have developed a program to deal with the issue. Had it done so, it would have received unanimous support from Members of the House to bring the issue forward.
A few months ago my colleague, the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), requested an impartial commission of inquiry into the Vancouver Island oil spill. Its purpose is not necessarily to establish blame, although it should do so if it is evident. It would also help Canadians and the people of the West Coast and Members of the House deal with oil spills in a quicker and more effective way than we did with the oil spill on the West Coast.
The Government knew that the spill would happen. It knew that damage would take place. It knows about the currents, winds and wave action on the West Coast as will be explained during the debate. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) knew about the wave and current conditions on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. He knows about the wind conditions.
His staff has testified about those wind, wave and current conditions in other disasters, such as the Ramsey Isle disaster. Fisheries and Oceans officials
testified that they know the currents in that area so well that they could have predicted where a ship would go if lost at sea, as well as where oil would go when it is released at sea and drifts north along the coast of Vancouver Island. That whole disaster would have been predicted and could have been controlled early in the game. We would like to see an inquiry that would tell us why the Minister failed to act and why the three ministries involved failed to act in such a way as to prevent the kind of damage that did take place on Vancouver Island.
I certainly do not fault the Hon. Member for Skeena for bringing up this issue in the House today even though the oil has not touched the coast of Canada. I am amazed at some of the responses he is getting from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). They are precisely the same responses we got in the initial stages when the oil was initially released off Grays Harbour.
The Washington Department of Environment told the Sause Brothers to take that barge 38 miles out off the coast, and they said the oil would drift out to sea. Anybody who knows the current and wave conditions off the west coast of Washington State knows that the oil will not drift out to sea in that area, it will drift north along the coast of Vancouver Island. Anybody who is familiar with wave, wind and current conditions in that area would have known that for certain, especially this Minister, and especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) who has been involved in previous actions and coroners' inquests looking into precisely that kind of problem when it involved ships adrift at sea.
The Minister said to my colleague from Skeena that the winds are going in the wrong direction and the waves are going in the wrong direction and this oil will never come ashore. That is exactly the assurance we got from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and from the Minister of the Environment at the time of the Nootka spill, and it was completely and totally wrong. That is why we have been asking, along with my colleague from Saanich, for an inquiry into this situation. We want to find out why our projections were wrong in that case, who was at fault for those projections and who was at fault for telling the tanker it had to be dragged 38 miles out to sea off the Washington coast, knowing that that oil was going to drift ashore to Canada.
We have heard some very defensive speeches. None have been as defensive as that of the Hon. Associate Minister of Indian Affairs, but there have been some

April 4, 1989

pretty defensive responses from Ministers in this House. I am surprised by that.
The Minister of the Environment talked about their newfound concern for the environment and pointed to the sections in the Throne Speech that deal with the environment imperative. He said that there has never been a Throne Speech like this in the history of Canada. There was one that just came out from the Government of British Columbia, and in fact, I thought it was a direct copy. The Government has established a task force on environment and the economy. As well, the national round table on environment and the economy has been established. I will tell Hon. Members what the British Columbia one is worth. It is worth nothing, absolutely nothing.
Nobody believes Vander Zalm is going to do anything on the environment, and nobody believes that anything will be done of substance by this Minister either. What disturbed me most of all is that at least Bill Vander Zalm, the Premier of the Province of British Columbia, in his Throne Speech, mentioned the oil spill off the West coast. At least he attached some importance to it. I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that nothing in here relates to environmental issues on the West Coast.
The Minister talks about cleaning up the Great Lakes, cleaning up the St. Lawrence River, cleaning up the Arctic regions. There is nothing in this Throne Speech that suggests any concern about the environmental damages that were caused by the spillage of oil off the west coast of Canada and the west coast of the United States on three separate occasions over the last year. Why did this Minister not draw that to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when drafting this Throne Speech in the first place? Why did the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) not emphasize to the Prime Minister that this very important problem should be included in the Throne Speech so that they at least would demonstrate some concern about the environmental quality and the vulnerability of the environment on the west coast of Canada?
There is no concern on the part of this Minister of the Environment about the west coast of Canada, and that is why the issue of the oil spill does not appear in the section of the Throne Speech dealing with environmental issues. That is why we in British Columbia simply do not trust that Minister. We cannot trust that Minister. We feel that he just does not have our environmental concerns at heart.
That is why we are up on our feet in the House of Commons tonight. It is to bring to the House that concern that has been brought to us by our constituents through thousands and thousands of letters and telephone calls from constituents concerned about the oil spill that took place on the west coast of Vancouver Island, the oil spill that took place in Alaska, the oil spill that took place in the lower Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Straits of Georgia. That is why we are on our feet now.
We are not talking about some kind of superior moral view. We are talking about a concern of tens of thousands of our constituents over what is happening to the environment. They know that the spill that took place off the West coast of Vancouver Island-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Phinney) has the floor.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I particularly wanted to speak tonight because of my personal experience with the Vancouver Island oil spill earlier this year. Although I recognize the difference in size between the two spills, the frustrations of the residents are very similar.
Last January, like many Canadians, I was shocked by the television newscasts of the residents of this area trying to clean up globs of oil before it managed to seep into the sand. Particularly heart-rending were the scenes of volunteers trying to clean the oil off dying birds and off the sea otters covered with oil crying on the oil-slicked rocks.
Each day we heard more and more news about the frustration of the local people and the possible longterm effect upon the area. While these volunteers were working tirelessly, the federal authorities were slow in getting organized.
Once the authorities were eventually organized, the official report said that there was no serious problem. The conflicting reports coming from the Government and the evidence we were receiving through the media convinced me that the only way that I could know the real facts about the situation was to go out there myself and help clean up the beaches.
May I read from an article that I wrote four months ago in the Hamilton news describing my experience? This will show how frustrating this experience was.
Working my way along the beach, picking up dead birds and platter-sized globs of congealed bunker oil, I could not help but wonder what we would do differently if we had an oil spill in Hamilton Bay or along the coast of Lake Ontario or in Halifax or along the Labrador coast.

April 4, 1989
This oil spill along the western coast of Vancouver Island may not be one of the great marine disasters of this decade, but it has, however, already done considerable environmental damage. Thousands of sea birds have died because some of the oil is sinking. Wildlife that feeds off the bottom such as whales will be in danger. The area's entire bald eagle colony and the colony of sea lions are in danger.
The livelihood of the inhabitants of the area is being affected. The federal Fisheries Department has banned shellfish harvesting. Groundfish, herring and other seafood could also be at risk. A booming tourist business in the area is threatened by the spill; 80 to 85 per cent of the economic base is from tourism and the fishing industry.
The instant the locals saw the first oil globs on their beaches, they mobilized. The federal Government took several days to react. The volunteer dispatch centre sends out teams each morning to areas that have been identified as having had more oil washed in by the tides during the evening. These people work all day collecting the oil in garbage bags and leaving them at drop-off centres where they are picked up by helicopters. These bags are being stored while a decision is being made as to what to do with them.
Most of the supplies, including garbage bags, rubber gloves, rubber boots, overalls, food and the use of telephones, et cetera, has been provided by the local residents.
The work was physically demanding and emotionally draining. Although I worked only one day, it was exhausting and depressing. My boots, gloves and clothes were quickly covered with oil. There was no equipment on this beach for clean-up, just volunteers with garbage bags. Where was the federal Government? It was frustrating, Mr. Speaker. These volunteers were doing their best but they needed money, equipment and manpower. More important, they needed support from this Government.
That was four months ago. We are now hearing the same pleas from the residents in Alaska. They want action. Canadians want action. This particular spill, the experts tell us, is not likely to reach Canadian shores. However, they do caution us that there is a possibility, if only a slim one, that the Canadian coast could be tarnished by this spill.
There are yet unanswered questions about the Vancouver oil spill. According to coastal residents to whom I spoke today, oil was still washing ashore 10 days ago. Our federal Departments of Fisheries and Environment are still doing studies to try to learn what the long-term effects there will be on our natural resources. Our salmon supply, the food stock of many residents of Vancouver Island and the source of many jobs, may be threatened.
Has the Government learned from the Vancouver experience? Has it learned from this Alaskan experience? If the worst happens and our shores are affected by this new spill, for the Government not to be ready is not acceptable. The consequences are too great. We have people trained to fight floods and forest fires. The equipment is also available to fight these disasters. What do we have in place to fight oil spills? Where is this equipment? Where are the experts? Who is responsible? How long will it take Government to mobilize assistance next time? Is there a telephone number Canadians can call in case of another oil spill to get immediate action? How many fish beds have to be destroyed? How many small towns have to be economically devastated?
How many Canadian families will lose their livelihood before the Government takes necessary action?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears the debate will go on for some time. Maybe we in the House could dismiss the Pages so they could go home and get ready for their classes tomorrow.


James Ross Fulton: I think that is appropriate, Mr. Speaker. I think if we need coffee or anything else we can arrange it ourselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, the Pages are dismissed. The Hon. Member for Fredericton (Mr. Bird).


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: sort of real politics and theatrics which some of his colleagues and others have displayed here tonight, (on the other side at both ends.)
I would like the people of Canada, particularly those in B.C., the people of Alaska and the rest of the United States to know that this problem is shared by all Canadians, certainly by those from the Atlantic provinces, particularly New Brunswick from where I come. It is not difficult to imagine what such a spill as the Valdez disaster would entail if it were to have happened in the Bay of Fundy or in the Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland. As a former Minister of Natural Resources in New Brunswick, I can comprehend, so can the citizens of our province, what such a tragedy would do to the migration of the Atlantic salmon and the impact it would have on the generations of fish for years to come. It is not difficult to imagine the unimaginable. We can understand the grim reality that such a spill does impose upon the natural sea and coastal resources of Alaska and the northern Pacific coast.
We can and do sympathize with the people from those areas who have suffered. We do understand and share the concerns, the fears and the worries of our fellow citizens in British Columbia.
Like Chernobyl, and Bhopal, the Valdez spill has put the priority of the environment into stark perspective. It makes us realize how much we have to accomplish here in Canada and in North America as well as throughout the world. This debate has also put the subject of the environment into a political perspective in this House.
It seems that we have two choices about the environment in political terms. We can idealize, dramatize and harangue for resignations, as the Hon. Member Esqui-malt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) did. In my opinion, invoking vulgarities almost in his slang in his attack on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) is unbecoming of a former Premier of a province such as British Columbia and it makes it difficult to understand that he would really be concerned about anything but the theatrical opportunity this debate represented.
The second choice we have is to acknowledge, as the Minister of the Environment said, I thought sincerely and humbly, so genuinely beseechingly to all Members of the House, that the environment is a special priority that transcends partisan politics. We can acknowledge that we are all part of the environmental problem and we can understand that we must all be part of the environmental solution.
I think that if we were to take the context of the remarks tonight of the Hon. Member for Skeena and
the Hon. Minister of the Environment and remove partisan politics we would find that they have collectively made a contribution in this debate about a disaster that does not really even involve so far Canadian soil or water. It does not matter whether it does or not, for the debate is well merited. The interventions sparked by the Hon. Member from Skeena and the Minister of the Environment taken collectively do constitute a contribution in addressing the subject of the environment in the broad context, and one from which we all can learn.
I hope we can learn in this House to approach this subject (Environment) in a collective concerned fashion with criticism, of course, with examination and a healthy debate, but with the goal of sustainable development always before us. Sustainable development will be difficult to achieve. There are great risks to be assessed. There are great trade-offs to be made. There is reality to address.
I believe the Government has been clear before the Valdez disaster. At the Hague conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of the Environment demonstrated in a world context the priority of the environment to the Canadian Government. I believe that yesterday's Throne Speech has also been a very clear and strong statement in that same direction. I urge all Hon. Members to take the perspective of constructive debate and the goal of sustainable development for our environment as the cause for all of us. I believe that we shall be successful in making progress toward that elusive objective of sustainable development in this country, and we shall be an example to other countries of the world to follow.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of the evening here is the suggestion that politics should be removed from the House of Commons. It is an interesting and intriguing approach.
I always used to think of politics as the process of allocating scarce and valuable resources and to do just that. There are differences of opinion, debates, and different points of view.
The people who live on Vancouver Island and particularly on North Island-Powell River do not believe that the government allocated sufficient resources to protect their environment in last fall's oil spill. If one goes to any single community, it can be found that those people fault this Government for an inappropriate response. I simply convey that message to the House.

April 4, 1989
I have here a letter addressed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) from the Tahsis Chamber of Commerce, to which I do not believe he has replied, which simply states that the Government failed. It states that a public inquiry is needed now after 20 years of complacency, after changes in technology, and huge increases in the volume of fuel moving up and down that coast. They reiterated on January 31 the point made by my colleague the Hon Member for Saanich- Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter) on January 29 that we need a public inquiry.
The issue of politics in here tonight is that the Government does not want a public inquiry. There are things that are going to come out that will not be very complimentary. The speech given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in the House absolutely displays incompetence, because they were not able to do a thing in that oil spill. They were negligent in their initial handling of it. They were negligent at every stage in the clean-up. The people who live there know this. It is not a secret. Therefore, the issue tonight in the House is a public inquiry. That coast is in danger. Those communities are in danger.
It is interesting that many people out there told me that the 875,000 litres that washed up the coast of British Columbia were in fact a gift. They do not look at it as a tragedy. They look at it as a gift. Out of this process they learned how hopelessly inadequate the state of preparedness and the state of operating this entire system is. The Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Fisheries in everything they said tonight gave no indication that this Government is moving to prevent the next spill, the larger spill.
We are saying that the only way to get back the confidence of people is appoint Judge Dubin or somebody of his stature and put them to the task through a public inquiry of determing what the state is and what we need to improve. We do need a public inquiry to look at the terms of reference of our international agreements with the United States. Those resources have got to be delivered. They have to be triggered the minute the spill is in place, and they have to be delivered jointly. Both our areas are at risk.
We also have to look at the threat. There have been substantial changes in the transportation, storage, and handling of fuels on the coast of British Columbia and elsewhere. We need to look at what the threat is to that coast. There are some areas today where tankers are going and where oil is stored that should never be used. The environment is too sensitive and the impact will be too destructive. It applies to supertankers, small tankers, barges, fuel lines, oil storage dumps. A public inquiry would look into that threat and determine the magnitude of response necessary to meet it without wholesale destruction of the environment.
We also must have a look at the whole business of transportation of fuel. A supertanker is incredibly dangerous to all our welfare along the coast here. If one equates a supertanker to a 747, a 747 has a crew of three or four people, each one of them with back-up systems in terms of technology, and careful operating procedures where one has to reinforce the activity of the other. With this particular system a captain under the influence of alcohol can go below while sailing through extremely treacherous waters where an accident is predicted, and a third mate, not qualified, can wind up sailing a ship like that. Those procedures are hopelessly inadequate.
There was a suggestion that a pilot actually took a freighter, the Lee Wang Sing and sent it along a coast where it hit a reef and lost all hands. There was a pilot on a vessel in Vancouver Harbour which vessel ran into the Second Narrows Bridge. A judge such as Judge Dubin ought to look at those operating procedures and they ought to be changed. Such a judge would also look at legislation and regulations. Those should be changed. He should be looking at our clean-up, inventory, procedures and locations. He should be looking at technology and making recommendations to the Government for research areas to follow through on, inventories of clean-up materials to be purchased and acquired, and distribution of that material.
The other thing that is really necessary is the volunteer groups. There were people who came from right across Canada to work on the west coast of Vancouver Island on that spill. It was absolute chaos. When they tried phoning the Coast Guard, they could never get anyone to talk to. They would never get a call back. When they asked them to walk certain beaches that were definitely exposed to oil, they would not bother doing so. There are
April 4, 1989

still bags of oil lying on the beach to be picked up. Who knows when that will happen. Those volunteers spent thousands of hours collectively and were not given so much as a thank you. They were not given support necessary to make their efforts successful.
Many of them still believe that that oil spill in the volume of 875,000 litres spread across hundreds of miles of the West Coast was in fact a gift because it showed them how inadequate the system was to deal with. Yet we had been lulled into 20 years of complacency by the Government saying that everything is fine. Modern technology is there, and we have great inventories.
It is interesting that nobody in this day can clean up an oil spill on the high seas. That does not exist at this point. I have seen a model built by an individual named Bill Wylie who lives in Courtenay that in fact appears that it will clean it up. He suggests that seiners on their drums should be carrying a boom, and that those booms on the seiner drums should be deposited in every port up and down the coast of British Columbia. The minute it is time to go, a seiner captain picks up a couple of drums, drops the booms in the water around the spill and waits until the hardware can be brought to the place.
The interesting thing about him is that he has been snubbed by every Government Department responsible for seriously looking at this issue. To this point in time it appears to be the only thing that I see that works. It works in wave action, in wind situations, and it actually recovers the oil and puts it into a caisson which can be drawn back off into a tanker. It is not burned and it does not sink. It is basically a good idea that nobody will listen to.
Back we go even further, Mr Speaker. I know that we will not have a public inquiry. The Tories do not want it, and it is a political issue. I appeal to every municipality on Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia to co-operate in sending a delegation to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to demand that it happens. Eveiy regional board, every Indian band, every tribal council on the coast of British Columbia should be pressing the Prime Minister to do the responsible thing, call that public inquiry so that we are not trying to solve these problems in the House of Commons, that we can work from a base of knowledge that would be produced from that inquiry and the recommendations from it, and that collectively we can work in the House together to protect that coast, to prevent spills, and to clean them up efficiently when it happens.
The way to end partisanship is to appoint somebody of the quality of Judge Dubin to head a public inquiry,
provide a chance for everybody affected to have a say, and bring forward decent recommendations from technical experts who will let us do our job in this House.


Benno Friesen: I would like to begin my remarks by urging Members to read and reread the remarks made by the Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin). There have been some good speeches made tonight, but I think hers above all others was eloquent. The whole speech deserves attention.
I do not mean to avoid the body of her speech that dealt with the preservation of the environment and the culture in her region of the country but I want to focus on the first two points that she made. One was that she attended a board meeting in Calgary where evidence was presented that a consortium of companies in Calgary offered in the first two days to help Exxon clean up the mess in the first two days, and the company refused it. If that is true and she has evidence to lay on the table, the company ought to have charges laid against it for refusing help like that.
Secondly, I wish members of her own Party and members of the New Democratic Party would listen to what she said when she gave an inventory of the things that the Canadian Government and the Canadian people did regarding the Valdez spill, just out of one location, and that was Yellowknife. She gave a complete inventory of the aircraft used, the equipment on board, and the people who flew to Valdez to help in the clean-up.
The next person speaking for that Party ignored this information and said the Canadian Government should have done something. Talk about a dialogue of the deaf! They do not even hear what their own Members are saying. So I hope Members will again refer to the remarks of the Member for Western Arctic.
I want Members to know that the people of Surrey-White Rock understand what it means to experience an oil spill. Eighteen years ago there was a small accident at Cherry Point. The bunker crude oil from Cherry Point refinery washed up on the beaches of White Rock.
I was amazed at the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) who mentioned that oil spill and complimented the American kids who helped clean up the mess in the States ignored totally the Canadian kids from White Rock who were organized by the teachers in the schools to go down to the beach and clean up the mess. For once, that New Democrat praised an American; but in doing so, he annoyed and ignored the

April 4, 1989
Canadians. This symbolized for me the debate tonight- the total rejection of anything good that the Government or the people of Canada have done. The Opposition refuse to see anything that is good.
So I say that the people of White Rock understand something of a spill. They know in a small measure the tragedy that we are experiencing in the Gulf of Alaska.
As the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca spoke, I said to myself, the spill in White Rock was in the early months of 1972. Within six months he had a chance to do something about accidents like that, because at the end of August, 1972, he was elected Premier of the Province of British Columbia.


An Hon. Member:: Three long years he was there.


Benno Friesen: They were three long years, dry years.
So I sent to the Library of Parliament for the Ministry that the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca appointed when he became Premier of British Columbia. The Premier was the Minister of Finance. We have a Minister of a travel industry; industrial development; recreation and conservation; agriculture; petroleum resources; highways; labour; education; commercial transport; health services and hospital insurance; Minister of Public Works; rehabilitation and social improvement- the guy who lost $200 million-Minister without portfolio. In the whole Ministry there was not a Minister of the Environment to be found. But there was a Premier who sits here tonight and uses phrases, referring to the Ministers of the Crown, such as "pious", "sanctimonious", "cant".
Talk about pious, sanctimonious, and cant. When he had the chance to do something, he wouldn't. Then he comes into this House and berates the Ministers of the Crown for not having done enough. He says "pious nonsense". He says the Ministers of the Crown have a special responsibility. "What have you been doing? Don't you understand the problem?" he asks in this House. That's the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. During the three years he was Premier of the province, he did not even appoint a Minister of the Environment. The lights were out. The elevator did not go to the top floor. When he had the chance, he did not take it.
Is it any wonder we pay no attention to what those people say? They have the most responsibility when they are not responsible. Oh, they are so responsible when
they have no responsibility, but they are totally irresponsible when they have the responsibility.


An Hon. Member:: That is why you are in the Cabinet.


Benno Friesen: And you never will be.
This is too serious a debate to be berating each other.


An Hon. Member:: What a hypocrite!


Benno Friesen: I am quoting the record, Sir.


An Hon. Member:: You are a bag of wind.


An Hon. Member:: Talk about the spill. Thlk about your Government's-


Benno Friesen: All right, let's talk about the truth. Where is this spill? The Member from Hamilton says that there should be a state of emergency. Since when does a sovereign country declare a state of emergency in another sovereign country?


An Hon. Member:: Ask that of the Liberals.


Benno Friesen: That is true. That is their nature.
They say: "Why didn't we do something when we could?" The oil started coming down the coast of British Columbia all during the years when the Liberals were in office. It wasn't until 1979 that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, signed the agreement to regulate the traffic through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and through the Haro Straits to make sure that there was the least opportunity for an accident to happen in those vulnerable areas. That's what gives a little bit of protection to the coast of British Columbia, not the cant, not the wind, not the accusations, but the action of a Government when it came into office in 1979.
So I say to the Members here tonight, you can accuse all you want. I know that you will not believe the Ministers of the Crown. I know that you will not believe the members of the Government. But believe the Member for Western Arctic and others who are willing to put it on the record. Let us quit the rhetoric, and let us protect Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for making this debate possible here tonight and for the opportunity to put forward thoughts on all sides of the House and to deal with what seems to most of us to be the major facets of this issue. To me, the facets are the question of prevention, the question of international standards and regulations, the issue of imposing moratoria, and finally, the most diffi-
April 4, 1989

cult issue of long-term energy policy and our dependence on oil.
Before I go into that, I would like to draw to your attention a curious pattern which develops whenever the Conservative Government finds itself in trouble in matters related to the environment. It conveniently hides behind three claims. The first one, and we have heard it many times before in other debates, and it is the most ludicrous of them all, is that everything that is positive in the environment achieved by Governments began in 1985.
Second, when the heat gets a bit too high it trots out this new element of the Prime Ministers of Canada being hailed abroad and receiving awards. That helps enormously.
Third, when that fails to make an impression on this side of the Elouse, it comes up with this beautiful convincing item saying that Canadians do not like partisanship in the environment. We must all say the same thing. We must unite. We must be supportive of the shortcomings and the failures of this Government. Tonight, two hours ago, the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) followed the examples of his two predecessors and did exactly the same thing. What a sham!
The question is what are the steps, the substantial steps, that the Government has taken to ensure that our own practices and regulations at home and those of our neighbors are taken into account and enforced so as to ensure prevention. The question here is a very crucial one because prevention is much more important than reaction. Even the most speedy and quick reaction which the Minister of the Environment invoked in his intervention is not as good as prevention. He will agree with that.
We must find ways of increasing this prevention. How this Government can increase prevention when it has over the years lost its main muscle financially to maintain in the Department of the Environment 330 people which it has lost over the last four years, and with a budget that has not been able to keep up with inflation, is hard to understand. In other words, one can prevent if one has the budget available to carry out that prevention. If one is losing ground to other Departments and to inflation, then the instruments available to Ministers disappear as well. That is what struck me as the weakest measure, the
weakest part of the ministerial interventions here tonight.
The problem with the Conservatives is that they are still part of the problem. They are strong on rhetoric but they are weak on substance. When they cannot maintain the strength in their own Department of the Environment, and in Departments that are allied to it, in preventive measures in our marine environment, then one can only react. The necessary preventive measures cannot be taken to be ahead in this game.
There were some interventions tonight also on the matter of international standards for pilots and for the prosecution of companies. It is ridiculous to see in the situation of Exxon that the person who has to pay is the captain and not the company. It is ridiculous to see in the case of Exxon a situation whereby highly qualified, trained pilots are not in charge of the supertanker. Evidently there is something in this whole industry that must be established that is missing.
We must learn from the aviation industry, borrow from the standards that have been established there, and move very quickly internationally to ensure that the marine pilots are of the same competence as the pilots in the air and that those who are guilty of offences, the companies that are guilty of offences, are prosecuted and not the individual.
The lesson is that prevention requires budgets. The Conservatives are part of the problem. With respect to the same steps that have been taken in Washington to which the Minister alluded very vaguely tonight, it is not known what they are leading us to.
What has been done in Washington since this spill on the West Coast is something that the public should know. That should also be debated here so that we can intelligently participate in the building of these new approaches which are so badly needed.
We must also call on the Government, as have others, to hold a public inquiry into Canada's ability to deal quickly with major spills in our water. That is an aspect that also should be made public in the interests of the public and in the interests of all those fine environmental principles which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) invokes when he goes abroad but which he seems to forget when he comes back to Ottawa.
It seems to us also that we must put on hold future offshore exploration projects until the results of such an inquiry are known. It would be a wise course of action.

April 4, 1989
It would also be desirable to impose a moratorium, possibly in perpetuity, on offshore oil exploration in the Hackett Strait and in the Dixon Entrance for very well known reasons that could be defined if time were available.
It would be desirable to impose a moratorium, possibly in perpetuity, on tanker traffic in Lancaster Sound and in the Northwest Passage. This could happen to us as well one day. We do not want one day to have our fragile Arctic ecology damaged by the movement of tankers through the Northwest Passage and through Lancaster Sound. We have the opportunity now in the light of enormous public pressure and intense public opinion to move on this desirable front.
Finally, as others have before me, we are brought to ask ourselves whether the time has not arrived for us to discuss our long-term energy policy and the fact that we can and must find ways of using more efficiently our oil resources globally, in North America to begin with, and also find ways of developing alternative sources of energy so that we will not depend on oil that has to be shipped from the northern regions to the southern markets.
I see that my time has come to an end. I would like to conclude by saying this. As the proverb states, an ounce of prevention is much more effective than a pound of reaction. The Minister of the Environment, I am sure, would want to have the budgets at his disposal to be preventive out there on the West Coast of Canada as it is desirable for him and his Government to be. We are looking forward to seeing what the Budget will contain to provide this Minister the tools that he needs. We can assure him that if he gets the tools he needs we will support him and applaud him. If he does not get the tools he needs then we will know that on the Conservative side of this House what is being said on the environment is rhetoric, not supported and followed up by substance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a few geography lessons given in this House today and I trust that the Minister of the Environment will take notes on those lessons, given. What we have heard from the other side of the House has not assuaged any of my concerns. There is a crisis of confidence in this Government's ability to address the concerns of oil spills and other environmental disasters which have devastated the West Coast. That crisis of confidence has just increased through this emergency debate.
I commend my colleague from Skeena for pushing this debate, but it certainly has not given me any reassurance that things are going to improve. This Government has shown a pattern of trivializing this type of occurance. It did not respond to my letter of January 31 when I asked for a public inquiry, and now we are hearing criticisms that we are being partisan. All we are doing is acting as responsible members of the Opposition and pointing out that we-and acting for our constituents, those volunteers that went up to the West Coast to clean up-that we want assurance from this Government that there are structures put in place so that it will not happen again, and if it does happen how we can most efficiently clean up the mess and get back to living our lives.
The response from the other side of the House gives me no confidence that they are even willing to put the resources in to do that. What it demonstrates is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. It also demonstrates that this Government, as was indicated from the Speech from the Throne, is going to be following its corporate agenda. It is going to be hand in hand with the large corporations like Exxon not to put any regulations in their way, not to get in their way of making big profits.
I think that in today's Globe and Mail one of the columnists said it best. He said, insofar as Governments are concerned, there are important reasons for having them share in the responsibility of the prevention of oil spills, in the preparation for their clean-up and in the clean-up itself. That is all we are asking for, that our Government be responsible, be prepared and start acting for the interests of Canadians.
What we have heard tonight is that the Government wants to take pot shots at those of us who are criticizing it, and what I think is demonstrated over and again is that there is an abdication of responsibility, and that is what we are critical of. It is very interesting that it took my colleague from Skeena to push this debate, although there is a growing crisis on the West Coast, and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) was not even sure of his geography even though this issue has been in the papers for weeks.
We want a public inquiry. We want allocation of national resources to address this problem. We want to make sure that it is not just the poor people, the workers and the Coast Guard, that are taking the flack and the criticism. We want the criticism to go where it is most effective to make real change, to make real changes so that the people of Canada can be assured that their Government is acting on their behalf. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
April 4, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Al Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard is lead agency for all marine source spills. As soon as the first site of the oil spill was discovered in the Nestucca incident, the Coast Guard mounted a full operational response. This response included all of the relevant federal and provincial organizations. Altogether over 350 people worked at the peak of the clean-up. This comprised the largest team of environmental and scientific operational personnel ever assembled on the West Coast to address the clean-up operations and the environmental impact assessment. The primary clean-up was undertaken by the ship owner's contractors under supervision of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Under both Canadian and American law, the polluter is responsible for all costs, expenses, and direct damages associated with the marine oil spill. Supporting the response was a team comprised of federal and provincial agencies such as the Department of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans. The military assisted by providing helicopters and aircraft support.
At the peak of the clean-up operations responding agencies in the contract deployed up to 10 vessels, 13 helicopters and surveillance aircraft, command posts and various other resources. To date over 370 tonnes of oil and oil-related debris have been recovered, most of which is stored at the interim site at Cassidy. Operations were completed on March 19, and the monitoring phase commenced on March 20.
In response to marine pollution accidents, the Canadian Coast Guard has a multilevel contingency plan in place which deals with incidents on a local, regional and international level. In conjunction with the supporting Departments, the Coast Guard conducts exercises to evaluate these plans and to provide training for the multi-disciplined teams, and in the Nestucca incident the joint marine pollution contingency plan was invoked. The Canadian Coast Guard also maintains depots of pollution counter-measures equipment at 50 locations across Canada. This inventory valued at $35 million is available for deployment to any location.
Mr. Speaker, as permanent environment damage is a great concern, a multi-disciplined team of federal-provincial experts was involved throughout the Nestucca response in assessing the spill impact. The scale of this impact assessment exceeded any other previously mounted, and will provide valuable information needed to assess long-term effects.
Mr. Speaker, it is the polluter's responsibility to settle any claims arising out of a spill directly with the claimants. To assist with the processing of claims, the Canadian Coast Guard established a claims assistance office to provide help and advance to potential claimants. The process for documenting claims is based on a system developed following the Kurdistan incident in 1979. Our lawyers are also actively studying every angle of Canadian and American law, to pursue Canadian claims for assistance. In addition the Government is attempting to assist in this process by establishing an appropriate procedure with the polluter for the processing of claims.
Mr. Speaker, the principle that the polluter is responsible for the damage caused by this spill also applies to economic losses. Moreover, as a last result, the Marine Pollution Claims Fund may also be available for economic loss suffered by fishermen.
In conclusion, following every incident a review of the response and operation is undertaken. Incidents such as the Nestucca are unfortunate and we all recognize the need to work hard to prevent reoccurences. In assessing the response and identifying areas for improvement, we are provided with the opportunity to improve our response.
Mr. Speaker, our Government cares, and in times of disaster we will respond to the best of our ability.


Mr. Jack Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, as the only new Member of Parliament in Parliament here, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Inuit of Nunatsiaq and as a representative of the northern people. I am pleased to speak tonight, although it pains me that it had to come to this point before we were able to speak on this issue. This is a disaster of very large consequences and it is part of our land because Inuit occupy a circumpolar world all across from Alaska to Greenland to Canada and to the Soviet Union. So we consider the North as part of our land, and we don't define any international boundaries between the people of the various international regions.

April 4, 1989
The Valdez spill disaster must cause us all to think about the environment and the costs of such accidents.
As a northerner whose people depend to a large extent on the land, the ocean and its resources, the possibility of a spill like this in the Canadian Arctic is extremely disturbing. The North cannot afford such a disaster.
The North wants and needs development but not at any cost. The National Energy Board will soon begin hearings on applications by Shell, Esso, and Gulf for 20-year licences to export natural gas from the Mackenzie Delta to the United States. A pipeline will be necessary to transport that gas if the applications are approved.
Although times have changed since the Berger Inquiry, and land claims are close to being achieved for the Dene and Metis of the western Arctic and the Inuit of central and eastern Arctic, and the Innuvialuit claim was settled in 1984, there is still the concern that development will proceed. I reiterate that we are not against development to the extent that we can be sure it will be safe for all the people of the Northwest Territories and Alaska.
At the same time, the President of the United States has been considering development or exploration in an area known as 10.0.2 at the Alaska-Yukon border. This land covers the grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd. President Bush has indicated that the Exxon disaster does not affect whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be developed because that disaster was likely a result of human error. Most developmental disasters are a result of human error, and I beg to differ with President Bush on this issue.
The full Congress has yet to make a decision on this development. However, there has been much discussion on the issue and it is likely that exploration on this development will begin. If passed, the legislature would be giving its stamp of approval to the opening of the coastal plain of the refuge to environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration, development and protection. As we all aware, however, no development is safe from
disaster, whether it is through human error or other means.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will visit President Bush in the near future. His trip will include environmental discussions, including initiatives for the Arctic. The Prime Minister will also receive an environmental award from the International Chamber of Commerce on May 4. I question the merit of this award, based on the slowness of the Government's response to the Exxon Valdez disaster. We have been told by various Ministers that the effect of that disaster is not approaching Canadian waters. The animals in that area, whether it is the seals, whales, salmon or any other wildlife, know no boundaries.
While the Government of the Northwest Territories has approved in principle the building of the pipeline because of the need for economic development in the North, it is qualified by the fact that environmental concerns must be safeguarded.
As the only Inuit Member of Parliament and representative of the true North, which is supposedly strong and free, I have very grave concerns about the whole issue unless there are stringent regulations in effect.
Our people are taught by our elders early in life that above all we must honour the lands, the water, and all that is within them.
The straightforward lesson is communicating to one and all, for our people know that we have survived for thousands of years in all types of conditions because we valued, respected, and honoured all that was around us. We came to understand that rather than forcing the environment to conform to our needs, we developed behaviour that adapts to our environment. How incredibly it is sad that I stand here tonight, believing as strongly as I do in the wisdom of the Inuit elders, and see a situation in which our man-made systems and processes have dealt such a painful life threatening blow to this fragile and unique part of the world. I know that native people in Alaska must share a similar philosophy. They surely must be shaking their heads as they watch the events that are unfolding in their land.
They have lived through various occupations in their land and have seen a steady stream of visitors come to dabble with technology that they swore was failure-proof in an environment in which man can never and should never attempt to rule.
We hear stories of carelessness, recklessness, over confidence, alcoholism, debauchery and gross ignorance
April 4, 1989

on the part of tanker crews and carpet-baggers at Valdez. How must native people feel, along with non-native Alaskans who live off the land and water, being forced into a situation where all the boastful experts were suddenly rendered powerless and ineffectual, drowning along with wildlife in their own technology?
If we are going to develop the North, whether it is in Alaska, Canada or anywhere else in our circumpolar world, we must take finto consideration the people who have lived there for thousands of years without any man-made disasters. It is because they know how to live off the land. People must listen to them rather than making decisions in the boardrooms of America or southern Canada. If they are not heard, I predict more disasters of this type as a result of the carelessness of the developers.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we would do well to listen to the voices we have heard tonight from Canada's aboriginal people as represented here in Parliament.
On November 21 the people of Victoria and Vancouver Island voted for strong, effective, and progressive voices in Parliament. They voiced their deep concern especially with the issues of the environment. We have in today's emergency debate had a clear demonstration that indeed Vancouver Island and Victoria have finally found their full voice in this House of Commons.
It is really a profound shame that this debate is taking place. If anything good comes of it, it may be that, finally, this Government will get the message that the West Coast exists, that we have real problems and that we will insist that these concerns are addressed in Parliament.
The Speech from the Throne contained many words about the environment and many noble intentions of the Government. A closer reading, however, indicates that the central Canadian perspective of the Government is fully heard in the speech. For example, it contains no reference whatever to the Alaska oil spill, the worst oil spill in the history of North America. It contains no reference whatever to the West coast oil spill that occurred in December and January.
The oil spill we are debating tonight is in fact the twelfth worst oil spill in the history of this planet. I have here a list of the other oil spills. Many of them are common knowledge including the Torrey Canyon, Amoco Cadiz and others.
Despite the fact that this is the worst oil spill in North American history, there was not one word in the Speech from the Throne about it. There was not one word in it about West Coast oil spills. There was talk of cleaning up the problems in the St. Lawrence River. There was talk about cleaning up the problems of acid rain in the Great Lakes and the problems of the Arctic, but there was not one word about the environmental concerns of the sensitive ecological system on the West Coast.
There was not one word in the Speech from the Throne about another subject, forestry, the Carmanah Creek and the Carmanah Valley, the crisis in our forest industry, the overcutting, the problem of job losses in Fletcher Challenge and elsewhere. However, because of the initiative of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and your response, Mr. Speaker, we are having this important debate.
It is worth while to notice that Ministers of the Government have participated in the debate, a healthy sign that they are finally at least forced to explain themselves on the floor of the House of Commons.
I want to put a series of specific proposals to the House. First, I propose that there should be a formal public inquiry into oil spills on the West Coast. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) said that as a result of the oil spills this was the occasion to examine the response of the Government. He said, "of course it will be done." What we say to the Minister is, do not make it an internal departmental inquiry. Instead, make it an open, public inquiry which environmental groups and experts have an opportunity to attend. Give them an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Provide them with some resources so that their views can be heard on this very important issue. This is one way to begin to restore some confidence in the whole system of government and in its capacity to respond to the perceived dangers on the West Coast.
Second, we call for an immediate statement as to which Department of Government is responsible for dealing with oil spills. We hear from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). He has not found it possible, I gather, to attend all parts of this debate. I hope he is listening. The Minister of the Environment seems to take a lead. We hear from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and from three Ministers of State from British Columbia. It is not clear who is in charge of

April 4, 1989
this problem nor was it clear who was in charge when the west coast spill occurred in December and January. Reports from the front indicated all kinds of chaos, confusion, and disarray. In fact, there was said to be a bureaucratic war going on as to who was actually in charge. The time has come to make it very clear publicly who is accountable for responding to oil spills.
Third, we ask for thorough consultation with environmental and municipal people on Vancouver Island.
Fourth, we ask that there should be compensation for those in the tourist industry and in the fishing industry who have suffered damage from oil spills. It should not be the responsibility of individual Canadians to pursue costly international litigation. The Government should provide immediate compensation and then undertake the litigation itself.
Fifth, we ask for a moratorium on offshore drilling. Sixth, we look to the Government to give some genuine attention to research and development in this area. There has been in my own constituency of Victoria the development of OSCAR. OSCAR is a process for responding to oil spills. It uses quite a different technology from the skimming process that has been used. It is a development which is being pressed by people with long experience in the oil industry and in the marine industry. It is Canadian technology. It is endorsed by private users. We see this as an opportunity to develop Canadian technology, to use Canadian brains and responses to deal with these very difficult environmental disasters, and we would ask the Minister to give this very thorough and independent consideration.
Seventh, we ask that there be imposed standards and controls on all tankers and barges using our territorial waters. Part of the problem we face in Victoria, for example, is that four to six tankers are going by the Straits of Juan de Fuca within just a few miles of Victoria, and these are aging tankers. They are a moving ecological disaster waiting to happen. It will happen, as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) said, unless this Government moves promptly to impose standards and controls.
Finally, we ask the Government to review the recommendations of the tri-level task force which reported in January.
The Valdez and West Coast oil spills are a warning to the people of Canada, indeed to the people of the world, of what we are doing to our environment. The issue here
is not just oil spills. The issue is what we are doing ecologically to this planet.
Once again, people are ahead of their Governments. They are demanding, and we endorse and put forward that demand in the House of Commons, that we treat the challenge to our environment as the fundamental issue of our time. Time is short. We must move to develop alternative energy sources, and a revolution in our way of approaching transportation and fuel. We have to look at new ways of conservation. We must develop a completely new way of addressing the problems that we face.
This has been an important debate. I urge the Government to endorse the ideas put forward.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, during the last 90 days in my riding, I spent hours and hours talking to many of my constituents, and the number one issue on their agenda was the environment. There is a passionate view, not just in my riding but I believe in all ridings across Canada, that we have a very special opportunity here to set an international standard, an international model, in terms of following recommendations from the Brundtland Commission.
When I came back here on Monday and I listened to the Speech from the Throne, I was really excited. I heard words like, "Canadians possess a unique sense of their relationship to the land whose rich, vast diversity has shaped their values and experience and throughout the regions and across all linguistic and ethnic communities there is a shared concern that we protect our environment for generations of future Canadians," and on it went in the Speech from the Throne. "The national round table on the environment and other initiatives are part of a new environmental agenda which will also include commitments to certain things," and on and on it went. I left the Senate Chamber feeling very excited.
As the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) noted earlier tonight, probably never in the history of a Speech from the Throne have we heard so much in terms of a national Government's commitment to the environment.
We love our country and we all have a vision of it. I believe on this issue the challenge is to take this vision and this feeling we have all talked about and turn it into reality. Earlier tonight the Minister spoke about a non-partisan approach to the environment. I think that is a great way to go in this issue. Again, that statement must become reality. How does that non-partisan approach work? I just do not understand the logic. If we
April 4, 1989

are taking a non-partisan approach to the issue, then why would we not have this formal public inquiry? What is wrong with having a formal public inquiry? It does not make sense to me when we follow the logic of us all working together.
Here we are less than 40 hours after the Speech from the Throne and I am concerned that we are going to be following into the trap of the "mad" treatment, the maximum administrative delay. I say to the Minister he cannot fall into this trap on this issue. This is an issue where we must move with all of the political will of all of the Parties in this House. I am not really sure that we have done our best on this. I am not really sure nor am I convinced that the words of non-partisanship are really as genuine as they sound. I think this issue is a terrific example and an opportunity for us to begin turning those words into action. Even here tonight the Minister can pre-empt me and say I have no problem with a formal public inquiry.
This incident is in the United States but this issue is a global environmental issue. This Minister of the Environment has an opportunity to set a world-class example. There is no one in this House, there is no one in this country who will not back him on this issue as long as we are all working together and as long as we are achieving the common future. I believe that if we are going to get this session on the right foot, we should begin by focusing on the words "let's turn vision into reality". Here is an example where we can show not only Canadians whom we are encouraging to get involved in this issue but we can set an example for our American friends, for our friends all around the world that we are serious, that we will collaborate with them because even collaborating on this issue will be helpful to us, God forbid, should it ever happen in Canada.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister to make sure that the words in the Speech from the Throne are not words that are diversionary, they are not words that are just rhetoric but words of substance and words of action.
As my colleague from Davenport said earlier this evening, if the Minister acts on these issues in a straightforward manner without an administrative delay approach I know he will have the support of my colleagues.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a particular interest in the urgent debate so appropriately brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). In this debate I am talking not
only about a community far away, Valdez, Alaska, but my neighbour Alaska. Many of us in the Yukon, in my riding, often visit Alaska. I have visited Valdez on numerous occasions. It is a beautiful community. To see the effects of what has happened with this oil spill is very close to me and close to people in my riding, to all northerners as some of my colleagues from other northern areas have explained, and also to my colleagues from British Columbia who have so recently at first-hand felt the effects of a serious oil spill.
The questions of oil and gas development and its ramifications, good and bad, on the northern economy and the environment are issues that are extremely close to home. It is impossible to live in the North and not be keenly aware of the fragility of the environment. For those of us who have participated in the past in pipeline hearings on the Beaufort Sea, all of the questions that are now coalescing around the Valdez oil spill and its ramifications not just for the United States but also for Canada really bring back memories of those discussions, and in many cases arguments about the feasibility of tanker travel in the North. There were many presentations made about the dangers of this, about the difficulties with shifting sea ice, with icebergs, and exactly the kinds of concerns that, alas, have been exemplified by the Valdez oil spill.
Once again in the North we will be into hearings on gas exports in the coming weeks and again the same issues of weighing the environment, the natural resource, the benefit, the revenue and the expenditure will become before the Canadian public.
Two of my colleagues have mentioned the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a transboundary park in northern Yukon and Alaska. That happens to be the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd. That region was set aside because it is the calving grounds. The Porcupine Caribou herd represents not just 150,000 animals but a national and international treasure and a non-renewable resource. However, we see that the American Government is beginning to reconsider its position and is beginning to look at possible drilling on these lands. The Americans are weighing this drilling against the non-renewable international heritage-what are best estimates of the amount of oil recoverable from the lands as being an oil supply of two years for the United States. This is two years of oil versus an irreplaceable international treasure which also happens to be part of a very viable economic system for at least 12 or 15 aboriginal communities.

April 4, 1989
Those are the kinds of questions that the spill in Valdez again brings forward to our society and asks us to question what we value, and what kind of a system we have created and what some of the ramifications of that system are.
During many of the environmental hearings in which I have participated in the North the question has always come up about the possibility and risks of any kind of development. Some of those will be deemed to be acceptable. That is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker. Economic development, the use of natural resources for all Canadians and northerners, is an important consideration. But the risks are often calculated on a very interesting basis. They are calculated on the risk to the investor, often the oil and gas developer. Rarely are the risks identified. In many ways we have not been able to identify in a realistic and calculable way the risks of exactly the kind of oil spill that has taken place in Valdez.
Earlier someone referred to the Amoco Cadiz case in France off the French coast in 1978. That tanker spilled 200,000 tonnes of crude oil. What were the costs? The French Government in that particular case had already spent $36.7 million on clean-up but could not even estimate the long-term effects on fishing and tourism. We are in exactly the same position, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues have spoken about the possible effects of this spill as it moves towards the West Coast on the Tatsenshini and Alsek Rivers. Those two rivers supply subsistence fishing for many residents in the area, a commercial fishing industry, tourism, and a very vital environmental wilderness area that is part of the ecosphere and the fundamental environmental basis of the air we breathe and the waters that we drink.
We expect our Governments to act to protect us in these cases. I would like to support two things raised by my colleagues. First of all is most certainly the call for a public inquiry. Any Government, any Parliament, any group of politicians, and indeed citizens who believe what has become almost a cliche, sustainable development, and we should also be talking taking about sustainable environment, must have the opportunity for full and open inquiry when such an event as this happens.
We know that there is no quick fix solution. We know the Valdez oil spill has pointed out to us that the technology does not exist to do the clean-up required. In fact, taxpayers who often pay to encourage that development end up paying a second time to do the clean-up that might occur as a result of accidents such as that at Valdez. Clearly, the taxpayer has a vested interest in
such a public inquiry, not only for now but for the future and the long-term consequences for our children and grandchildren.
The previous speaker referred to having to examine the life-style that we have created and become dependent upon. When there was that little blip about the oil scare, Governments were encouraging alternate energy development. The programs of Energy, Mines and Resources in that regard have been cut back to nothing. The programs through Environment Canada to encourage conservation and to look at alternate energy resources in a long-term energy policy have been cut back to virtually nothing.
Canadian taxpayers have a right to know whether the Government is only talking about rhetoric when it comes to the environment. Both members of the Elouse and the Canadian public will therefore be looking very closely to the Budget to see if the Government is prepared to take into account seriously the long-term needs concerning the environment of this country, and indeed that of the international issues.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit some puzzlement at the obviously defensive attitude that appears to have been taken by a number of the speakers and Ministers opposite, in particular the Member for Vancouver Centre (Ms. Campbell).
This debate tonight is not about the Vancouver Island oil spill. It is not about who or what caused the Valdez oil spill, or is it for the wringing of hands with respect to the tragic aftermath of these spills.
This debate is an alarm bell for all Canadians. It is an alarm bell that signals that Canadians do not have confidence in the ability of the Government to prevent an oil spill of significant size such as occurred recently, nor the confidence that the Government has the ability to clean and limit an oil spill such as occurred recently. It is a warning bell not only of that perception, but also that we are not prepared.
We have heard tonight from the Ministers responsible that we have equipment, we have manpower, and we have know-how dispersed across the country, dispersed strategically waiting for the next emergency to occur. That is exactly what we would have heard from Exxon two weeks ago. It would have said exactly the same thing. What did that get for our American neighbours at Valdez? It got them nothing.
We have heard the same rhetoric here today as the Ministers have read from their Ministry briefings listing the many tools, devices, know-how, and skills at our disposal to deal with these things. We know, and Cana-
April 4, 1989

dians know, that we have not done enough. The proof is in every successive oilspill. They just keep on coming. Every spill and every sea-life kill proves that we still have not yet done enough. That is why we have a crisis in confidence, and that is why we have the debate tonight.
We also know that we do have ways and means to improve. We need vastly improved standards of navigational safety, and we need vastly improved standards in international shipping and international agreements governing the transport of oil.
Why have the Ministers here today, the Ministers who purport to represent all Canadians in matters such as this, Transport, Environment, and Fisheries and Oceans not discussed the improvements that we can and must make? Why has there been no mention of these? It is because they are not there, and that is why there is a crisis in confidence.
We have heard the ministerial rhetoric, and we have heard the travelogues about the beautiful B.C. coast, but that does not get us improvement. We have Armed Forces that have said to us time and time again in this changing world where the Armed Forces will do more than simply shoot bullets, to tell them what to do, give them the tools and they will do the job. Still I see nothing on this.
We have areas where international agreement governing the transport of oil and other commodities could improve the safety conditions, because it is not only rules that prevent these spills, but will assist in preventing these types of spills.
It is my hope that the Ministers opposite will not continue to be blinded by their own rhetoric and the rhetoric of their Ministries that they have done enough and we are ready. I will not permit the Ministers or the Government, and my Party will not permit them to be trapped by the rhetoric of their Ministries. If anything is to be gained from our debate here tonight it will be a recognition by Canadians that the Government of today realizes its own weaknesses in this regard, both real and perceived, and believe me they are perceived, and that the Government will take concrete steps to resolve those weaknesses and thus help to prevent absolutely another Valdez spill.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me to have to stand in the House today and speak on this issue, because it is a sorrowful
day for this House and Parliament to have to debate this issue. As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier tonight, it has come to this-after 22 years of warnings of environmental catastrophe, predictions by environmentalists and previous provincial administrations of looming environmental damage to the West Coast of British Columbia, of requests that supertanker traffic not be allowed to move throughout the waters close to the inter-tidal zones of the B.C. coast, the inevitable has finally happened.
There is a tendency for the Members in this House toward hyperbole. Sometimes the Members tend to embellish their arguments. In the discussion here tonight that has not been the case.
The issue tonight is truly a disaster of international and global proportions. With the accident at Valdez, we have let loose an ecological and environmental time bomb that we cannot control. We might have controlled it had there been immediate action taken by both the U.S. Government and the Canadian Government before the high-end distillates left the oil mass to create a sticky, globular mass half the size of Nova Scotia, 2,700 square kilometres of sticky, gooey, oily mess adrift on the high seas. No one can predict, certainly not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) because he cannot even predict when planes will come in on time at the Toronto airport, what will happen to that mass as it drifts on the high seas in the winds and the tides.
The argument with respect to the direction that the oil mass will follow is simply conjecture.
I say to the Minister of the Environment that there is no way he or anyone in the Government can guarantee the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada that the drifting mass of oil will not impact on the B.C. coast at some point in the future. They cannot predict what will happen, and because of that the environmental integrity of the B.C. West Coast is in jeopardy at this very moment.
I want to talk for a moment about the Queen Charlottes, islands that are well known to people in British Columbia and people throughout the globe. It is a surrealistic place that is separated from the B.C. mainland by 100 kilometres of open water. It has been a refuge from the full impact of the last Ice Age. The islands house a unique ecological system, self-contained flora and fauna. It contains the world's largest black bear, the world's second highest eagle nest density, otter, wandering shrew, sea lion, seal, harbour porpoise, per-

April 4, 1989
egrine falcon, migrating whales, deer, elk, muskrat, raccoon, and the list goes on.
With spring and coho salmon fishing off the coast of Masset and Skidgate Islands, the Charlottes are truly an environmental heritage for British Columbia and for all of Canada, a way of life for the Haida nation. The area is a veritable treasure-house of environmental and tourist-related activities. To give you an example, people will pay over $2,000 for a boat trip around South Moresby Island. The people who visit these islands are the same people who go trekking in Nepal or on safaris in Africa. They are world-wide travellers, and they are flocking to the Queen Charlottes because of the pristine beauty and unspoiled wilderness that is offered there. These islands have won international recognition as an invaluable environmental and recreational resource. The United Nations has claimed a portion of the islands in the South Moresby area as a world heritage site. Our own federal Government has realized the value of the islands in its negotiations with the Province of British Columbia to make the South Moresby area a national park reserve.
I want to read a quote from National Geographic, 1987, that said:
The Queen Charlotte Islands cradled off British Columbia's West Coast are among the globe's rare jewels. A dagger-shaped assemblage of 150 islands, the Charlottes are a wilderness of the first rank abounding in treasures.
This jewel of British Columbia's north coast is threatened by a needless tragedy. That tragedy as a result of the oil spill at Valdez may well threaten the sensitive and fragile environmental and ecological systems that are on that island. When you look at the map, you find that the first land mass south of the Alaska Panhandle that the oil could possibly impact is the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Fifty million litres-half the size of Nova Scotia- I say to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), the devastation that has been created, if it impacts on those islands, could be felt for years or decades. If this spill is allowed to foul the shorelines of the Charlottes, we will not only witness the widespread devastation to marine life but also the devastation to the economic and recreational resources of those islands. Who is going to want to fish on an island that is awash in oil? Who is going to want to visit it?
The impact of a major spill on these islands could wipe out a growing tourism trade that is only starting to be
realized and felt in its true potential. To give you an example, a recent travel survey in British Columbia has shown that the most frequent, single, main purpose of trips in northern B.C. is touring. In the northwest section of the province, which includes the Charlottes, touring was preferred by 70 per cent of the respondents. The cruise ship trade now nets British Columbia about $70 million a year with coastal runs up to Alaska. It carries about 15 per cent of the 2.3 million passengers that are cruising annually world-wide.
We have a major resource in our tourism right throughout the coast. The entire tourism industry is threatened by this drifting mass of oil. I say to the Minister that this Government must act now. It must act immediately to avert further environmental catastrophe. We cannot afford to make the same mistake that was made on the West Coast. This Government's inaction toward this looming disaster has been embarrassingly inadequate. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and this Government must get off their duffs and develop an appropriate response to this and future environmental emergencies, because there will be future environmental emergencies.
We demand a full public inquiry into the West Coast oil spills and an inquiry into the inadequacies of this Government's response to those emergencies; the development of effective emergency response mechanisms for the containment of such toxic spills and the consideration of a moratorium on supertanker traffic in the immediate vicinity of Canada's inter-tidal waters; and lastly, a renewed commitment to the development of alternative emergency sources that will lessen the environmental impact on the use of fossil fuels. The people of British Columbia and the people of Canada deserve no less than this action from this Government.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here now this evening for the last five and a half hours or thereabouts and I have been struck with sympathy for my colleagues and their concern over this tragic incident on the West Coast of Canada. I need not remind this House that Canada is a three-ocean country and, indeed, I am sure our dimensions will extend in those directions.
April 4, 1989

This tragic oil spill on the West Coast that has sparked this debate hardly needs review here this evening. It has been mentioned many times. Reviewing it from the perspective of a sailor, we are talking about the grounding of a vessel in good visibility, in reasonably good weather. We are talking about a large vessel. You would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it is three times the length of a football field. When the captain decides he wants to stop it takes between two and three ship lengths depending on what speed that ship is going at. It is very difficult to manouvre. In fact, it manouvres in a turtle-like manner when everything is working well. But when the red flags start to go up things look worse and worse and worse.
We are looking at a situation in pilotage waters where ships are traditionally in danger and where every single precaution has been taken. Those precautions do not seem to have been taken in this particular instance.
These kinds of accidents are not confined to pilotage errors. They are not necessarily confined to errors in pilotage waters, that is, entering or leaving a confined harbour. There are other sorts of accidents, some that unfortunately put the Valdez oil spill well down, as was suggested earlier, in the world list in size. These accidents are not confined to the Pacific. Let me just relate a few.
Not too long ago four million barrels of oil from two oil wells spilled in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Persian Gulf. About 10 years ago two million barrels spilled as a result of a collision at sea between two supertankers near Trinidad and Tobago. I regret to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and this House that the record of the day was the Torrey Canyon which a few years ago sank off the coast of England and which spilled almost one million barrels of oil. I further regret that it was reported that the various emulsions used and sprayed on the water to contain this oil spill did more damage to the sea life and marine life than the oil spill itself.
In the case of the Exxon Valdez it involved, as we have been told this evening, 240,000 barrels. It has a potential effect on 800 fishermen in season and about 400 tourists, to say nothing of the tragic and decimating effect it has on the marine life and the sea life, and all the other kind of life in that area.
I have would just like to pose a question here this evening to all of us. What happens if there is an oil spill disaster resulting from our Hibernia project off the coast of Newfoundland when it comes into effect? We are looking at an entirely different dimension. We are looking at a lot more than 240,000 barrels of oil. We are
looking at a lot more people and a lot more marine life. We are looking at 25,000 fishermen and 6,000 people involved in tourism. We are looking at $350 million in tourism alone. We are looking at the possible disastrous effect on the northern cod which terminates roughly on the Nose of the Bank, the possible decimation of the salmon species, the capelin species, and many other species of fish which abound off the coast of Newfoundland.
Let me not forget the Arctic. My hon. friend from Nunatsiaq referred to a spill in the Arctic, the Northwest Passage. There was a spill recently at the other end of the globe down in the Antarctic. I need not remind anyone here this evening of the disastrous effect that might have as well.
I had the unfortunate personal experience as a young commander to be involved in the clean-up of the Arrow disaster which took place in Chedabucto Bay in Nova Scotia in the spring of 1970. It was not a pleasant experience. It was not a rewarding task. It was impromptu and it was ad hoc. I remember saying to myself at the time: "Please, God, if this ever happens again let us be prepared".
I am concerned that the oil spill severity off Vancouver Island was underestimated. I am referring now to the January spill. It was underestimated to the point that it took government workers from three to five days to become seriously involved. In the meantime, exasperated citizens, most of them volunteers, had already begun the clean-up work. In the case of the Exxon Valdez clean-up efforts I believe the Governor of Alaska referred to the clean-up methods as slow and inadequate.
Why do these efforts to contain disasters of this nature always have to be disorganized and impromptu? We should be ready. We know it is not a question of if; it is a question of when. In 1973 the statisticians said the probability of a big Alaska oil spill was 50 per cent in 20 years. It turned out to be 100 per cent in 16 years.
I submit there is an urgent need to bring all our national resources to bear. There is a need for contingencies. We need more research and development in this area. We need better international arrangements. We need a military-civilian contingency plan to cope with these things. We need better national regulations and stiffer penalties for those who ignore them. We are going to need money. I see no reason why we cannot demand that the oil companies which are making the profits put up the money right now.

April 4, 1989
In conclusion, this giant tragic oil spill now washing ashore possibly on the shores of Canada, on the West Coast of Canada, reveals the vulnerability of our three oceans to the risk of tanker transport of oil. We live in a three-ocean country. We need a three-ocean perspective which will include a three-ocean oil spill contingency plan now.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the opportunity of speaking to this House again, and I am just unhappy about the fact that we do have to speak about such a disaster as we have been witnessing. I think about the geography of my riding, which is bounded on the north by the Fraser River, on the west by the Straits of Georgia, and on the south by Boundary Bay, and across Boundary Bay we have the Cherry Point refinery which was referred to by the Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) and this is of course one of the termini of the Alaska oil that we have been discussing tonight. All the west side of my riding is very delicate from a natural point of view and we have the whole Fraser estuary there that is very sensitive to any spills or whatever may happen to it.
During the years I have had the privilege of working out on the West Coast in many different areas. I have worked from Carmenolite in the south up the Markley Sound where the recent oil spill was. I worked up into Niska Sound and into the Patsino area. So I am very familiar with what the terrain is like, and I can really understand what happened with the oil spill on the West Coast in January. I have also had the privilege of working in Fort Simpson which is the last Indian reserve before the Alaska Panhandle and the village of Metlakatla. I have seen the isolation, I have seen the desolation and I have seen the beauty of the West Coast of Canada and would submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have a real disaster at this time in the Alaska Panhandle and in southeastern Alaska. It is an ecological disaster. It is of a magnitude which I think most of us cannot understand. We have never envisioned it. We have not seen it and so I think that we can only go by pictures and our knowledge of the geography of that area. But I think we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this was in American waters.
It was an American ship. It was handled by American people and I do not understand how the Opposition today have been trying to make political gain from such a
natural ecological disaster. They have been asking for a Minister's resignation. The Minister had nothing to do with it. It was a different country. It was an area over which he had no control whatsoever. They have complained about the lack of government action, and yet I believe that the Government has done everything that it possibly could do in both of these disasters on the West Coast.
I think we need to ask the question, what could the Government have done that it did not do? First of all, we have been criticized because we did not rush in with extra equipment, with manpower, with ships, and then we have to recognize that indeed these were American waters and we must recognize American sovereignty. When we offered help and it was accepted, then we moved in to do what we could do. It was mentioned that we could have supplied them with booms. Yet we recognized that once that oil had escaped from around the ship and was out into the open ocean and the winds picked up to 100 kilometres an hour, the oil booms were completely useless in that type of situation.
We have been talking about chemicals and we have just mentioned, or the Opposition has just mentioned, that the chemicals did more damage than they do good in many situations. They have been criticized because we did not use mechanical skimmers and again these were not asked for, and we recognized that with the mehanical skimmers that they did have, that they were only able to salvage approximately 3,500 barrels of oil out of the complete spill. I think what we need to recognize is the tremendous magnitude of the spill that did occur and the necessity, as soon as something like that does happen, of attacking the spill with energy, and because this did not happen in Canadian waters and because it was well away from population centres, this was unable to be done as well as this Government would have liked to have had it done.
I think we need to recognize the geography of the country and. the sparseness of the population. The ruggedness of the coastline makes it just impossible to clean the beaches, to cleanse the birds, to clean up the messes that were there, and again we recognize the part that the weather had to play in this disaster with winds that blew the oil around, that prevented the skimmers and everything from working. It is something that has to be experienced to realize the strength of the winds and the tides in that particular area.
April 4, 1989

I think what all this points out to us, Mr. Speaker, is that the most important thing in an oil spill is prevention, and I think that if anything good does come out of this debate tonight, it is the fact that we may be able to develop some better methods of prevention. I think the reason is obvious why we need to do this. With the size of the tankers that are economically essential in this day and age, an immediate response is necessary.
Perhaps we should be considering making double hulls mandatory on all tankers that are plying our waters. Perhaps we should be discussing having mandatory blood tests for all those in command of ships, and we could well imagine the shouts of disaster and infringement of civil rights that we would be hearing if this indeed were passed into law, and we know very well where the loudest protests would be coming from.
Perhaps we need to examine the traffic patterns of shipping off our coasts. As I mentioned, my riding is particularly sensitive, and perhaps we do need to re-examine and make sure that those traffic patterns that we have for our shipping lines are the best ones that are available. Perhaps the time has come to re-examine the use of pipelines in place of ships, the tankers that we are using at the present time, and as I mentioned, perhaps again we need to consider changing our regulations for ships that are using Canadian waters.
I agree that we must make those corporations that are responsible for these types of spills and disasters accountable for the damage which they have done. I think also that we need to conduct more research. We need to make our navigation safer. We recognize again that the ship had the best navigation aids available, but because of true and human error we still had the accident that occurred. We must continue to do research and clean up. We must continue to do research in our shipbuilding. Can we build these tankers to be more safe so if they are punctured in some way that they will not create the pollution that this one has created at the present time?
In summary, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that indeed we have a disaster. I think that again it will be a long time before we can fully comprehend the magnitude of that disaster, and I think that one of the best things that we can salvage from this thing is knowledge that we can use to prevent it from happening again.
I have extreme confidence, one hundred per cent confidence in our Ministers and in our Government. I can see no reason whatsoever to call upon the Minister of the Environment to resign. He did everything that he possible could in this situation. I can see no reason why our Transport Minister should in any way be under a cloud. He did everything that he possibly could, and I think that our Fisheries and Oceans Minister again was fully aware at all times of what was happening during this whole disaster and that the whole government ministerial staff operated without fault. I cannot think of any areas where they should have moved and they did not, and where they should not have moved where they did, and I think again that the Throne Speech that we have heard just yesterday emphasizes this Government's role in improving and helping our environment. I think that the world will unfold in its proper order and I believe that, because of this, Canada will be a better and safer place. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, but I believe that the emergency debate which we have been involved in this evening is one of the most important debates to come before Parliament in the 10 years I have had the honour of representing the community of Burnaby.
On Friday, in Vancouver, my colleagues and I from the New Democratic Party announced at a press conference that we would be calling for an emergency debate as soon as the House was back in session the following Monday, which was yesterday, and that this would be a top priority for us as New Democrats.
I want to pay tribute to the work done by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), our spokesperson on the environment for the New Democratic Party, in successfully persuading the Speaker of the vital importance of this question not just to British Columbians but to all Canadians.
In calling for an emergency debate we are focusing on two fundamental questions, questions which are inextricably linked. One was the response of the Government of Canada to the oil spill off the west coast of Vancouver Island, which occurred on December 22. That was a spill of some 175,000 litres.

April 4, 1989
Of course, the primary focus of our concern at this time is the disasters off the coast of Alaska in Prince William Sound on March 24, the disaster of the Exxon Valdez with a spill of over 50 million litres of oil.
I say that these two spills are linked because the reality is that we are dealing with a system in which global oil companies have only one objective, that is, the maximization of their global profits. In attempting to maximize their global profits they have, time after time, displayed utter contempt for the environment of this fragile planet.
When we talk about the importance of bringing to justice those who were responsible, both in the criminal courts and in the civil court, I say that the ultimate responsibility for this corporate negligence, for this corporate murder, lies squarely in the boardrooms of Exxon, with the corporate directors who have shown such utter contempt for our environment in their desire to maximize their corporate profits. They must be brought to justice. They must be charged criminally if there is to be any justice at all in dealing with this terrible ecological disaster.
In early January I visited the west coast of Vancouver Island. I visited with a number of my colleagues, including the Speaker of the House himself. I want to thank the Speaker for having organized the particular visit. While I was there I spoke with volunteers who were working against incredible odds. They were volunteers from my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, as well as volunteers from literally right across Canada. I met with workers from the Coast Guard, and I want to commend both the volunteers and the workers from the Coast Guard who put in hour after hour of dedication and energy.
However, I also want to ask the questions in the House that they were asking. The volunteers were asking on that beach, as they were struggling to deal with the devastation of the environment, why they struggled alone. Where were the Canadian Armed Forces? Why were they not called in by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) or by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to assist in this clean-up at the earliest possible opportunity? The volunteers who were there were asking these questions.
I believe the only sensible response to that and many other questions that arise from the west coast oil spill is to heed the call not just by New Democrats, but by environmentalists, native people and many other Canadians, for a full public inquiry into all aspects of this terrible tragedy. Native people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, native people on Haida Gwaii on the Queen Charlottes and elsewhere have warned us for years of the dangers of an oil spill of this nature.
Indeed, I remember a beautiful sunny day in late January standing on a beach on the northern coast of Haida Gwaii of the Queen Charlottes and looking across Dixon Entrance with a number of friends from the Haida nation. We spoke of the disaster off the west coast of Vancouver Island. They asked me to imagine the terrible tragedy if there were ever to be a similar oil spill from the Alaskan tankers which daily ply the coast. That imagined scenario is now a reality. That is what we New Democrats are pleading with the Government to recognize as well.
I was shocked when I heard the speech of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), saying that there is no conceivable way that this spill can reach Canadian waters. I was shocked when I heard the Minister of Transport today saying that it is 1,000 kilometres away so we need not worry about it. I looked at a map of that area, and I know that the Minister of the Environment has looked at the same map. I would hope that they would recognize that if there is any change whatsoever in the winds or the currents this could pose a serious threat to the environment of Canada and the rivers that flow very close to that area. All of them are threatened.
If there is to be any possible risk that this spill will in fact move into Canadian waters, this spill which many of my colleagues have reminded the House is half the size of Nova Scotia, we are simply suggesting that the Government take steps to be ready.
We failed miserably to take those basic steps in dealing with the oil spill off the west coast of Vancouver Island. We stood by, believing that it would not come and would wash out to the ocean. It was too late when finally the oil started to wash up on the shores of the west coast. I have hiked the west coast trail. I have kayaked in Nootka Sound. I have camped at Long Beach. To see firsthand the results of that devastation was very painful for all of us. We do not want to see that again.
I plead with the Minister of the Environment to take the steps that are necessary. Have the containment booms in place. Have the contingency plans available for
April 4, 1989

clean up. Do the testing now of waters in that area to ensure that we know the base levels so that we are ready in the event that disaster strikes.
As well, we should surely recognize that the call by some for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge must be stopped. If ever we have a lesson to be learned it is not to allow that drilling to take place. I was very saddened to hear President Bush insisting that it was going to go ahead. Again, that mindless drive for profit at all cost must be resisted.
I listened to the eloquence of the Elon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak), the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin), and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin). I have spoken with Norma Kassi, the MLA for the area who has been so clear and forceful in expressing concern on behalf of native people in that community. I have talked with those who have asked why there are at least no double bottomed tankers to ensure that the transportation is a little safer.
In closing, I want to reiterate our call for a full public inquiry into both the west coast oil spill and the events surrounding the Government's lack of effective response to the Alaskan oil spill.
I recently met with a group of children, grade three students, at Stoney Creek Elementary School in my constituency, and student after student asked me why did it happen, how did it happen. I say that our Government owes the people of Canada an explanation, and I want to plead again with the Government to allow that inquiry to take place. Let us ensure that those children who ask those questions and their children inherit a planet, a country, a province, which respects the environment and does not destroy it.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this most important debate, this emergency resolution on the Alaskan oil spill. To me, the discussion tonight points out clearly the contrast between how Members on this side of the House would deal with an issue like this and how Members opposite would suggest they would handle the issue.
We have on the one hand the attitude of Members opposite and the pious and patronizing attitudes of the Ministers and their comments. On this side of the House, I am proud that it is the New Democrats who have raised this issue, and particularly the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who has spoken so eloquently on this issue and who I think has the admiration of all Hon. Members for speaking so clearly and for explaining to all of us how important this issue is. We appreciate his attendance here tonight.
I think the Minister should have provided leadership on this issue and should not be running to try to catch up. In fact, government Members have been running in the last two days since this session began. Yesterday, they fumbled with the Throne Speech, and tonight, they have fallen on their face in their participation in this debate.
I want to respond just briefly to some of the comments raised by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) about the Government led by the now Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), a Government that introduced milestones in environmental protection. I am talking about the environment and land use committee and about the agricultural land reserve, policies that took a leadership role in that time, in that province and in this country today.
There was talk from Hon. Members opposite about how wonderful this Throne Speech was in its comments about the environment. I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying that there was not a single mention in it of our greatest environmental heritage, our forests. I challenge Hon. Members opposite to read that Throne Speech and to see if forestry is mentioned once. There is not a single mention of it.
Despite promises after promises, and after two elections now, for a commitment to legislate a full Department of Forests, there was no mention in this Throne Speech about that most important goal for British Columbia and the Government. Six forestry agreements expired across Canada on April Fool's Day, and that makes some sense for the Government across the way. There is nothing for forestry and there is nothing for the environment.
I remember the debate 22 years ago about the oil tanker traffic and oil moving down the coast in the tankers and the threat to the environment and the comments made by people to those who were concerned

April 4, 1989
about the environment. Of course, it is trendy now to talk about the environment, but there were people then and there are people now, perhaps on both sides of the Elouse, who are concerned about this issue.
We raised those issues then because we suggested and the evidence pointed out that a spill such as that which has happened in Valdez would happen either there or off Vancouver Island or in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and it has happened. We are dealing with a tanker that was supposed to be of the latest technology. There were people on the bridge who, as far as we know and from all of the news reports, were not supposed to be there. Oil companies have given commitments that they have not lived up to. This has pointed out to Canadians and certainly to Members of the House that this Government, in its failure to respond adequately to the oil spill off the west coast of Vancouver Island, and certainly in speeches and comments from Ministers tonight, is not prepared now to deal with a massive oil spill if it should happen off the west coast of British Columbia again or in the future.
Our debate tonight is to point out the need for the Government to plan. We have not blamed the Government for the oil spill as some Hon. Members and in fact some Ministers have suggested. What we are calling for is an inquiry to look into the issues that have been raised tonight, and the very fact that the Minister has failed to respond to the letter of Januaiy 31 from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), about an inquiry, gives us an indication of the concern that this Government has over the threat to our coast from oil spills. Our call is a responsible one and one that can benefit all sides of the House, the Government and the Opposition and particularly the people of the Province of British Columbia and the people of Canada.
I want to sum up with the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson) about the Hon. Members from B.C. who who have raised this issue and made it an issue in the House. We appreciate the support from Hon. Members across Canada who have spoken on this debate tonight. We look forward to that debate continuing and to their ongoing support as we continue to press this Government, and we trust that it will hear our pleas and will act urgently on this matter.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, it is two o'clock in the morning, but I have been known to put on some of my best performances after midnight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Worthy: The situation in the Gulf of Alaska is one that has been portrayed tonight by both sides of the House as a real disaster. It is that. I do not think a single Hon. Member has risen who has not concurred with that.
Even though my riding does not bound on any of the ocean waters-Cariboo-Chilcotin is large but it does not reach the coast-people there are also concerned, though not the environmentalists, not people you would expect to be hearing from. The last call I received was from a secretary in one of the mills. She explained to me that she did not know what I could do about it, but she hoped that there was something that I would be able to contribute. She expressed frustration, she expressed concern and I think it is probably typical of so many of the people who live not only in the Cariboo but of course all over British Columbia and right across Canada.
Why do they see this as such a disaster? Anybody who has sailed the coast of British Columbia, has dug for clams or shucked oysters in one of the Salt Spring Islands, or has had the fortune I had of working years ago when I was a youth and stopping in at all the ports along the west coast of Vancouver Island, would recognize that it is not just the Gulf of Alaska that they are thinking of. It is the proximity of that spill to the previous one off the coast of Washington which of course did impact on some of the British Columbia coast. It is a spectre. Any thinking British Columbian recognizes that with those oil ships plying our coast, that spill could have been in our own waters. We all recognize that that would have been a disaster that none of us would want to face.
We have recognized tonight from all those who have spoken that none of the three parties have a comer on concern about this environmental disaster. I do not think anyone should try to make a political comer out of this. I think the sensible speakers from all Parties have tended to agree that this is a common concern, that we should be looking at this in a positive manner, and that we should be taking from it what we can and coming out stronger.
The emergency debate tonight recognized by the Speaker as being necessary is, in my opinion, probably one of the best things that could have happened now. I was surprised to see that a matter of this much urgency to Canadians was recognized by this House and spoken to as it has been for most of the evening with three to five Ministers in attendance right through. I am impressed with that.
I think the immediate situation with the Alaska spill has been addressed by many Members from both sides of the House. We recognize that there are only certain
April 4, 1989

actions that can be taken. The responsibility for the accident was outside Canadian hands. We recognize now that if there is any potential for harm to Canadian waters or Canadian land we have to be prepared to act. We have heard our Ministers address that. They have gone further than that. That is really what concerns us here tonight. It is not the immediate spill but the spectre of what could have been. We want to know that we are prepared.
We have heard our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) indicate that he is prepared and will conduct a full review of all of our procedures and regulations to ensure they are adequate to a potential situation that we all fear. I do not want to repeat what everyone else has said, but the Government has placed the environment as its top priority in the Throne Speech and some of the programs that were implemented in the previous session have been mentioned.
We did adopt the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which is considered to be a leader in environment protection in the world. Within three years, we will virtually eliminate all leaded gasoline, and in five years the industrial sulphur dioxide will be cut by 50 per cent. By the end of the century we have set the complete elimination of chemicals that affect our ozone layer. We have doubled the federal contribution for cleaning up
the Great Lakes and of course, as has been seen by so many reporting in the press, we have become one of the world leaders, if not the world leader, in pushing for environmental reform.
I think this debate tonight emphasizes the priority the Government has placed on the environment. I am proud to say that I am part of the Government that has been taking the action it has and will continue to take the action that will be required by all Canadians.
I would like to close on a positive note that if we took the essence of most of the speeches tonight and consolidated them-I suggest the Ministers might get their staff to do that-the essence of the discussions will form a very valuable contribution to the environmental program that our Minister is contemplating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 52(12), I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.06 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 5, 1989