1989-06-20

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the Government pursuant to Standing Order 110(1). These will be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the First Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
With the consent of the House, I would like to move adoption of this Report later today.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes & Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle and other animals).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Bill to amend the Criminal Code in respect to cattle and animals. It has been drawn to my attention that in many areas of the country, dogs have been running at large and attacking livestock. This Bill simply constitutes a lawful excuse for a person to protect his cattle or farmyard animals.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have permission to revert to Tabling of Documents. I inadvertently neglected to table the reply, in both official languages, to four petitions. If I could have that permission I would be prepared to do so now.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Minister. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for me to put the following motion immediately and for it to be voted upon without debate. On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) I move:

June 20, 1989
Petitions
That the Speaker of the House of Commons convey to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate, of the Congress of the United States of America, the good wishes of the Canadian House of Commons on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of the Constitution of that Republic.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we support this motion unanimously.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent initiative of the Government. We just hope that at some time in the future it will do the same for France which is celebrating its two hundredth anniversary also.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: When?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I wish to thank my hon. friend for the suggestion and I will check that out immediately.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, given the love shared for the Americas, I would hope that the Government will use this resolution as a jumping off point for some support for the quincen-tennial of the arrival on this continent of Christopher Columbus. The United States Congress has already set a committee to do something about it. They are doing something in several other countries of the Americas and we are doing nothing.


Mr. McDermid:: He missed Canada by a few thousand miles.


Mr. Dick:: We don't have Columbus Day here either.


Mr. Speaker:: I am always, of course, in the hands of the House. Christopher Columbus' arrival was a very important event, as are some other things that have been mentioned, but I think perhaps we should have such a discussion in another place or we may be going on for quite a long time this morning. However, as I say, I am prepared to extend regards, felicitations and congratulations to anyone that the House asks me to do that for.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments regarding Christopher Columbia. However, I simply want to remind the House that the first Europeans to this continent, of course, were the Vikings and I think we ought to speak of the role that they played in the exploration of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg Trans-cona (Mr. Blaikie) is not in the House this morning, but if he was I know that he would rise on a point of order and point out that while the Scots have welcomed a lot of people, nonetheless we could not have the country without them.
Does the Hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the First Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
languages, presented to the House earlier today, be adopted.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of Kamloops residents who are dismayed that the Government is changing the Unemployment Insurance Act to require that financing for training be taken from unemployment insurance funds.
June 20, 1989

They are also concerned because this means that higher premiums will have to be paid by employees as well as employers. I do not think we have seen the end of the impact that this change will have on the small business community of the country. The petitioners are calling upon the Government to come to its senses and back off from this regressive step.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out their concern regarding the Government's support for the growing militarization of our economy. They go on at some length to point out the details of their concern that we seem to be moving our economy to one which is tied more closely to the American military complex.
The petitioners call upon the Government to back off from this involvement and to encourage the diversion of military spending to socially important areas which create jobs while strengthening Canada's commitment to peace.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on behalf of approximately 18,000 Canadians. These 18,000 Canadians recognize that the Carmanah Valley, approximately mid-way along the West Coast Trail, is carpeted with an ancient forest of cedar, hemlock and Sitka spruce, the spruce especially being outstanding examples of their species including the tallest in the world and the tallest known tree in Canada, a tree 312 feet, taller than a 30-storey building or the Parliament Buildings.
The petitioners submit that in order to preserve the Sitka spruce ecology in perpetuity their entire natural forest valley habitat must be protected, for logging in the watershed will increase run-off erosion and open up the tall trees to the force of the wind which inevitably causes the ancient trees to be blown down.
The petitioners therefore ask that a full assessment of the ecological significance of the Carmanah Valley be undertaken by Environment Canada, including the merits and values as a tourist attraction with extended trails from the West Coast Trail and that pending the results of these studies the federal Government enter into negotiations with the provincial Government to protect and preserve the entire valley as an addition to the Pacific Rim National Park.
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 45 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 45 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	For each of the past five years for which data is available, has the government provided money to companies for the exploration or development of oil and, if so (a) under what programs (b) in what amounts?
2.	In each of the past five years for which data is available, has revenue been foregone by the government by way of tax breaks to companies for oil exploration and development and, if so, in what amounts?
3.	In each of the past five years for which data is available, has revenue been foregone by the government with respect to companies engaged in energy conservation or renewable energy research and, if so, in what amounts?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a very short point of order before we get on with some very important legislation.
I simply want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the House that having had a chance to read the report of Question Period in yesterday's Hansard, I noted that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Redway) referred to the infrequency with which the Member for Surrey North (Mr. Karpoff) raised questions regarding the housing crisis in the country. If we had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that we would be asking questions every day of the Minister of Housing because of his abysmal showing as the Minister of that portfolio. I simply wanted to correct the record in that respect.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity today to speak on second reading of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This Bill will correct an unfortunate drafting error which is in fact holding up Canada's participation in the fight to protect the ozone layer.
As we all know, CEPA became law on June 30, 1988. That legislation was designed to protect the health and environment of Canadians. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides the legislative basis for coming to terms with the complex issues of air and water pollution, toxic substances management, waste disposal, acid rain and climate warming.
The new Act embodies an ecosystem vision of environmental protection. It addresses pollution problems on land, in water and through all layers of the atmosphere. The Act recognizes that ecosystems extend beyond national borders. It provides the legislative basis to enable us to control international environmental degradation through restrictions on the import and export of dangerous substances and through the regulation of Canadian sources of transboundaiy air pollution.
The Act deals with organic and inorganic substances, the products of biotechnology, emissions, effluence and wastes. It gives the Government the authority to impose strict controls at each stage of a toxic substance's life cycle.
The Act is designed to protect against environmental contamination from toxic substances. According to CEPA, a substance is toxic if it threatens human health or the environment. The Act adopts a two-pronged approach to managing toxic substances. First, the regulating of those substances now in the Canadian marketplace, many of which we know little about. Second, controlling the introduction of substances that are new to Canada.
Once a substance is found to be toxic, an order is made to add this substance to Schedule I of the Act. The order is effective on the date a regulation pertaining to the substance takes effect. Regulations may address any aspect of the life cycle of a substance, including manufacture and import, storage, handling, packaging, distribution, transportation, sale, use, release and disposal.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act builds on earlier environmental statutes. These include, among others, the Clean Air Act, the Ocean Dumping Control Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act.
CEPA incorporated the various regulations developed under these laws; regulations dealing with lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, and asbestos in air emissions; with phosphorous in detergents; with lead in gasoline; with PCBs, mercury and mirex. These regulations were intended to be applied upon promulgation of the Act on June 30, 1988 in accordance with the CEPA enforcement and compliance policy.
At the same time, many of the substances dealt with in the regulations were included on the list of toxic substances in Schedule I to the Act.
There are nine such substances, PCBs, mirex, polybro-minated biphenyls, CFCs, polychlorinated terphenyls, asbestos, lead, mercury and vinyl chloride.
June 20, 1989

It is in this process of listing, on Schedule I, substances found to be toxic which concerns us here today.
To be clear, Schedule I identifies those substances which can contaminate the environment and thus should be controlled. Listing a substance allows us to strengthen the earlier regulatory requirements and/or develop further controls as necessary.
On that basis, the Government ratified, within hours of the promulgation of CEPA, the so-called Montreal protocol for the protection of the ozone layer. On that basis as well, the Government announced on February 20, 1989, a national program to eliminate CFCs from Canada within the next 10 years.
Unfortunately, the basis for those actions has been compromised. According to our legal advice, the inclusion of a list of toxic substances in Schedule I in CEPA, as passed, was not appropriate. The Act requires that substances be added to the Schedule only through an order of the Governor in Council. Orders are based on evidence of the toxic effects of the substance in question. They take effect once regulations are developed. Thus, the nine substances, to which I have already referred, because of the absence of such an order, probably had no legitimacy.
This created several dilemmas, not the least of which was a regulatory hiatus, where the current regulations dealing with the nine substances in question may have been unenforceable.
Faced with this advice, the Government took immediate steps to address this situation. Earlier this spring, the Government republished the regulations in the form of interim orders under CEPA. By virtue of Section 35, interim orders have the effect of a regulation but for a lifespan of only two years.
The Government also reviewed the various options for correcting the list of toxic substances and, in particular, ensuring that we could move ahead to meet our national and global obligations to further control CFCs.
The most obvious option was to complete an assessment of the environmental and health impacts of each of the nine substances. Using existing scientific data, both Canadian and international, the Government could prepare assessment reports, publish summaries of these findings, consult with various stakeholders and develop the appropriate recommendations for a Governor in Council order. We could then publish regulations for
Environmental Protection
comments. The difficulty with this approach was and is its timing. We are already seized with assessing 44 existing substances recommended as priorities by an independent advisory panel. We are also completing our assessment work done on dioxins and furans. We are assessing benzine, waste oils and polyaromatic hydrocarbons among others.
We hope to finalize the assessments of at least nine substances over the next few months and to publish regulatory controls as appropriate.
Quite frankly, we would prefer to concentrate our efforts on evaluating the new or the unknown, rather than reinventing the wheel on those substances already deemed to be toxic enough to justify regulation under earlier laws.
Our preferred solution is the one presented here today, that of amending the legislation to modify the effective date of an order adding substances to the Schedule, in effect, removing the link to the publication of regulations. This change, once approved, would allow the Governor in Council to make an order creating the list of toxic substances and thereby providing a basis for the regulations in effect prior to June, 1988, under earlier legislation and for any new regulations relative to the nine substances which I have already identified.
Quick consideration of Bill C-22 will allow us to persevere in our efforts to develop controls for additional substances. Quick consideration of Bill C-22 will also allow us to meet the July 1, 1989 international deadline for action to protect the ozone layer.
Many of us, and perhaps most of us, in this House share the growing concern about the changes taking place in the gases which make up the earth's atmosphere. In particular, we are monitoring the disappearance of the ozone layer which protects the earth from the impact of the ultraviolet rays of the sun. The international scientific community has concluded that CFCs, a synthetic chemical developed in the 1930s, are responsible for modifying the ozone layer.
Canada acted in the mid 1970s to reduce the use of CFCs. Using the formal Environmental Contaminants Act, Canada developed regulations controlling the import, use and manufacture of CFCs. As of June 30,1988, those regulations were to have been transferred and applied under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. CFCs were included on the list of toxic substances under the Act.

June 20,1989
Environmental Protection
We now need to move ahead and strengthen our control of CFCs and in fact eliminate them altogether. As I have described, the legislative basis for these actions has been questioned. We propose, through Bill C-22, to correct that.
This Government's commitment to protecting the well-being of this planet is strong. We believe in strong domestic action to control toxic contamination. We believe also in the need for strong international action. The fight against the depletion of the ozone layer is a case in point.
I ask the House, therefore, to approve Bill C-22 and to correct the legal technicality now inhibiting Canada's actions to control CFCs. Parliamentary study and approval of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, was exemplary in terms of the co-operation and the positive contributions made by all Parties to improve the legislation. I would ask this House to continue that tradition in approving this amendment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Clark) has not put this government foul-up in context. According to a phone call the Minister is here in Parliament. I do not know why he is not here to speak on his own legislation. On February 20 the Minister issued a major press release in which he stated:
I am tomorrow issuing draft national regulations to curb CFC use.
When the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act was introduced, it was condemned widely by environmentalists as being badly worded, bewildering, and confused.
The very wording problem that has been exposed and is now to be rectified as a result of the amendments under Bill C-22 was applauded by the then Minister of the Environment. Several groups and organizations appeared before the committee and pointed out that if the wording in the Act were not cleaned up we would see a situation where a number of specific improvements could not be applied.
What did the then Minister of the Environment have to say about that criticism? During the course of the committee hearings the then Minister, Mr. McMillan, said:
We do not have at present, under either of these bodies of law or under any others authority to control, cap or reduce production, prohibit new production facilities or control imports of ozone-depleting substances from specific countries, for example, nonparties; nor do we have the authority to control exports to Pacific countries.
We will have all those powers under CEPA if Parliament passes it as it is.
That was a statement made by the Conservative Minister of the Environment a year and a half ago when we were asked to pass the badly worded Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the House.
We now see that the Minister has recognized the folly of his own legislation and has brought forward amendments to attempt to address the specific shortcomings of the chlorofluorocarbon regulations.
In February presumably, if we take him at his word, the Minister did begin examination of the regulatory process. I cannot understand why he did not discover at that time that because of the wording of the Act we would not be able to meet our obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Our obligations under the Montreal Protocol begin in approximately 10 days. Now we are being asked in a shoddy, haphazard effort similar to the effort that was not shown, in so far as cleaning up the original wording of CEPA, to pass this new regulation change with very little involvement or assessment by the 1,800 environmental groups across this country that have a particular interest in what CFCs are doing to the ozone. In particular, the Minister is ignoring the suggestion by the Liberal Party that while we are moving to implement a cut-back in CFC use as agreed by the Montreal Protocol we should be examining the use of CFCs and their disposal in relation to refrigeration.
As we speak there are approximately one million refrigerators produced by General Electric, of which
25,000	are being produced in Canada by Cameo in Hamilton that are being repaired because of a faulty manufacturing process in relation to the CFCs. They are being drained irresponsibly and with great damage into the environment.
June 20, 1989

The Minister would have us believe that Canada is at the forefront of reduction of CFCs in the world. Yet, he brings forward an amendment which, albeit we will support because it should be supported, should have been brought in three months ago at the time when the Minister first discovered this gross error in drafting perpetrated on Parliament by his own Party.
He should have brought this amendment forward and he should have permitted a full public examination. Instead we are being told that we must pass this Bill by tomorrow or the next day because if we do not the Minister will not be able to have a press conference announcing that he has met his obligations under the Montreal Protocol. If the Minister is going to start doing and stop talking-he has been Minister for almost six month-he should start examining in greater detail the implications of the unfettered use of CFCs in relation to refrigeration. In particular, he should know that industries, private individuals, in fact anybody, can drain CFCs directly into the atmosphere at the moment with absolutely no federal regulations to govern that situation. What kind of a climate are we actually creating?

Despite the Minister's lavish comments on the Montreal Protocol, Canada is currently welcoming to its Eastern Townships second-hand refrigerators that are being off-loaded in dumps all over the place and are draining CFCs into the atmosphere, in absolute contravention of the Montreal Protocol. And the Minister was asked when he would be making changes in the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act-why isn't he introducing regulations governing CFCs in refrigerators?

The Minister has the power. Why does he not exercise it? He has the power under Section 35 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to determine that the absolute negligence of companies that are prepared to allow CFCs to leak into the atmosphere should be the subject of an environmental emergency. We are talking about the coolant of one million refrigerators being leaked into the atmosphere, yet the Minister of the Environment refuses to do anything. The Minister would have us believe that he is very determined to meet his obligations under the Montreal Protocol. What has the
Environmental Protection
Minister been doing since February 20? What has the Minister been doing since he stated:
I am tomorrow issuing draft regulations to curb CFC use by more than 85 per cent.
Instead at literally the twelfth hour-that is 11 days before the date of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol-we are being told we have to pass this Bill today no questions asked.
In a report Greenpeace had a few things to say yesterday about CFCs. It gave a fairly damning indictment of the activity or lack of activity of the federal Government in relation to CFCs. What Greenpeace said bears repeating. Friends of the Earth that also has a non-governmental, non-biased, objective assessment of the federal Government's environmental record today is saying that the clock is ticking in relation to the hundreds of thousands of refrigerators. The clock is ticking in relation to the fact that as a matter of public policy the Government is creating a situation where we are being asked to welcome with open arms used, broken down, and leaky refrigerators from the United States.
Surely, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been drafted in such a way to permit the Government to act, not only in relation to our obligations under the Montreal Protocol but in particular in relation to our obligations under the Government's much vaunted commitment to the environment.
The Government and the Minister like to say that they play a leadership role. In early May of this year the first meeting of the Parties at the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol were held in Helsinki, Finland. One of the issues discussed was a rapid phase-out of CFCs. They also looked at the specific issue of how to help developing countries in reducing and eliminating their use of CFCs.
We in the have countries have created many of the problems, and we are now putting a stop to the expansion of the manufacture of things like CFCs at the same time that the have not countries are saying "hey, wait a minute. You created the problem. You put the holes in our ozone layer, and now you are telling us that we cannot have the same kind of progress in relation to our Gross National Product as you have had". The have countries have milked the earth, and now we are telling the have not countries, the Third World countries, that it is their turn to bring forward regulations. That will obviously cost money.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
At that meeting in Helsinki, Mostafa Tolba, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, suggested a specific initiative which would have created an international climate fund to assist developing countries to meet their obligations imposed on them by developing countries, for the most part under treaties and agreements like the Montreal Protocol.
As a result of that conference, Norway immediately offered to spend 0.1 per cent of its Gross National Product, approximately $105 million, on the international climate fund to save the world and to give developing countries the capacity to impose regulations that we want to impose upon ourselves. Why did Canada refuse to follow Norway's lead?
Let us examine the funding for CFC regulations that were gazetted on April 22, 1989. How much has the federal Government committed to spending on efforts to combat CFCs here in Canada? Is it in the millions? Is it in the billions? Is it half a million? It is a paltry, pathetic $223,000 from a Government that until a few short weeks ago was prepared to spend $10 billion on nuclear powered submarines.


Mr. Manley:: That's even less than Marcel's book.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is right. It might be a bit more, unless the book goes into repeat copies, but that is not likely to happen. It is approximately the combined cost of the appearance of the Minister of Communications at the Oscar ceremony and the cost of his book.
In my opinion and in the opinion of the Liberal Party, the Government is not committing funding and it is in fact cutting funding to CFC reduction and other specific strategies to clean up the environment because of what it has stated.

On a number of occasions during the election campaign the Prime Minister himself stated that the environment was the Tories' No. One concern. But then you look at the amount of money allocated to meet our obligations under the Montreal Protocol and it's $233,000 annually. That's laughable, Mr. Speaker, it's practically an insult. This government was ready to spend $10 billion on nuclear submarines, but it's going to pay $233,000 to meet our obligations under the Montreal
Protocol! And now here they are urging us to pass this legislation right away, without any debate, without hearing from any groups like Friends of the Earth, who are currently busy exposing the complete bankruptcy of the federal government's environment polity. The government doesn't want to hear from Greenpeace either, which just yesterday announced that they were completely opposed to the Conservative policies, which talked a lot about the problem of CFCs but did very little.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that all this wearies the Hon. Member for Brampton (Mr. McDermid). He isn't interested in the fact that the ozone layer is in the process of being eaten away. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many thousands-and even many millions-of Canadians would like to be able to breathe good Canadian air 50 years from now. They would like to be able to live in a country that was not overheating. And at the present time our own manufacture of products like chlorofluoro-carbons, for example, is destroying the atmosphere's ability to absorb distant light, Mr. Speaker. We are going to create a situation where in 75 years this planet, including Canada, will be overheated to crisis point-we are seeing that already when every summer the earth heats up another degree or two or more. We are seeing-

It is the dog days of summer. They are increasing by leaps and bounds. It has very little to do with natural climatic change but has very much to do with the damage we are inflicting on ourselves.
If the Government is really serious about a major assault on chlorofluorocarbons, it should do more than it has. It has brought amendments before us which are mere housekeeping amendments to resolve a situation the Government created for itself by asking Parliament to pass a poorly worded and indefensible amendment to the Canada Environmental Protection Act. If the Government is truly serious, it should couple these amendments with other specific initiatives relating to refrigerants and CFCs escaping into the environment on a daily basis. Frankly, I doubt that the Conservatives will move in such a direction. As far as they are concerned, the philosophy of their Party and their Government is that everything is driven by the almighty buck.
June 20, 1989

Let us go back for a moment and examine statements made by various Conservative Members at a time when we were in a position to bring forward strong and specific legislation relating to CFCs and refrigerants. The then Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, in a debate on a motion held on March 8, 1988, had the following to say about the fact that were killing ourselves with our own CFCs:
Certainly, research is fundamental to getting environmentally safe substitutes to market. But given the potential profits, is this not an activity that would be best left to the private sector?
The private sector means companies like General Electric, a company which is right now in the process of leaking CFCs from one million refrigerators into the North American environment. If the private sector can do this cheaper and without the added expense of environmental protection laws, what incentive would there be for it to do it in a way that would be environmentally sustainable? The private sector looks for the bottom line.
Speaking of specific research, a representative of the Government of Canada, when confronted with this absolutely scandalous corporate behaviour of leaking CFCs into the environment, said that no technology exists which can actually effectively recycle CFCs. That is an absolute falsehood.
I do not have the resources of a multi-million dollar Department at my disposal. I have three people working in my office in Ottawa and two working in my office in Hamilton, and it did not take me that long to get in touch with Roger Dumais, the regional sales manager for ThermaFlo in Springfield, Massachusetts, a company with capacity to reclaim and recharge chlorofluorocar-bons. This company recycles chlorofluorocarbons from used refrigerators to other units.
Notwithstanding the Government's claim that no technology exists, the brochure of this company says that now it is easy to recycle refrigerants, protect our atmosphere and, according to the brochure, save money. This company has developed the most effective, low cost, portable CFC reclamation and charging unit on the market today. It can be used in automobiles with air conditioners, buses, trucks, room air conditioners, refrigerators, commercial chillers, and virtually any refrigeration system utilizing CFCs as a refrigerant. At the moment this very company is in discussion with companies such as General Electric, so the technology exists. How can the Minister possibly justify a statement by his own Department that
Environmental Protection
no specific technology exists to reclaim chlorofluorocarbons? That is simply false.
It is no wonder that the public confidence in the political process is undermined when we have a Minister of the Environment who is essentially the head of the Department that is spreading falsehoods about the capacity to reclaim chlorofluorocarbons.
When the Minister comes before the House, as he has by way of his Parliamentary Secretary today, and asks us to pass those specific amendments with respect to CFCs, we say yes. We want to support the Minister, even though it took him approximately three or four months to find out that his own legislation was not up to scratch. If he is to introduce specific legislation in relation to CFCs, surely he should deal with the over-all objectives of the reduction, not only in the manufacture and new production of CFCs but also in the recycling of CFCs as they are currently being used by millions of Canadians.
That is why today in committee we have suggested that in the course of approving this legislation we would like to hear from groups such as Greenpeace, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canadian Environmental Network, and Friends of the Earth to see what suggestions they may have to improve and ameliorate the legislation before us.
I must say again that I do not know to whom the Government is talking and with whom the Minister is consulting. He certainly does not seem to be consulting very much with environmental groups. If he had consulted with them, he would have known that according to a release which came out this morning from Friends of the Earth the technology is currently available to cut production of CFCs by over 60 per cent in three years and eliminated by 1995.
As we have stated both in committee and in the House today, the Government also has the capacity to use its emergency powers under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ban CFCs in aerosols, rug underpadding, and foam packaging immediately. The capacity is there. It is a fraud to state that the Government is not able to proceed in this area. The Government could move immediately to ban CFCs in polystyrene foam insulation, solvents for metal cleaning, and flexible foam by July 1, 1990. It would still have the capacity over the next year to move into other areas. The Government has the capacity to ban the use of CFCs in new air conditioners which are not hermetically sealed. If they are not hermetically sealed, they will leak, and leak they do.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
If the Government moved immediately, using its powers of emergency under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to ban the use of CFCs in new air conditioners which are not hermetically sealed as of the 1991 model year, it would begin to address the problem that it states it wants to address. It could ban CFCs used as solvents in the electronics industry and those used for sterilization by July 1, 1991.
Refrigerators are being brought in by the thousands and are finding their way into dumps all over the Eastern Townships. The Government must require recycling, recovery, system modifications, and selective replacement with alternative chillers by 1992 in the area of refrigeration.
Without those specific initiatives which are within the purview of the Minister under the specific emergency powers that are accorded him under CEPA, without those specific changes we are talking about merely window dressing. That was pointed out very specifically in the brief which was released on Monday by Greenpeace. That particular brief was made known to a Government that obviously does not appear interested in knowing about environmentally safe alternatives for CFCs, and that reduction in a major way is certainly not only feasible but possible and should be done if we are to deal with the problem of ozone depletion. If we do not, we will not be able to breathe.
The Government is talking about phasing it in in a gradual way. The Government is refusing to assist Third World countries by specific financial obligations. It is setting aside a paltry sum of $220,000. It is a farce and a joke.
The Government wants Canadians to believe that its number one priority is the environment. Yet, it is allowing CFCs to escape into the environment on a daily basis with no specific legislation to prevent it. Not only is the Government letting those CFCs escape, but it is actually setting up a situation where, under the almighty dollar of the Conservative philosophy, we are encouraging companies to import refrigerators into Canada for disposal. Whether or not the refrigerators are imported,
CFCs will potentially escape into the atmosphere unless Governments globally deal with the issue of recycling as well as manufacturing.
I thought, until I started to examine the dossier a little more closely, that the statements of concern expressed by the Government were a forerunner to specific urgent and emergent activity of the Government. Instead, it seems that it never wants to act until it is dragged pushing and screaming into making specific changes.
The Ontario Government made its most recent announcement on February 16 with respect to a plan to phase out CFCs. The British Columbia Government followed suit on the same day as the federal Government. Once again, the federal Government did not take the lead but merely followed.

And I think that the Minister of the Environment, who's supposed to care about the Montreal Protocol- he's an example of complete bankruptcy as far as the environment is concerned. We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that it's in the Minister of the Environment's home province that all those refrigerators imported from the United States can be found. It's in the Eastern Townships where there are at this time thousands of second-hand refrigerators, brought in from the United States and dumped here.
It's the Minister himself who claims he's proud, oh so proud, of the Montreal Protocol, and who said in February that he would lead the world in reducing the use of CFCs everywhere on this planet.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the reason why he is not here in the House to discuss his own plans with respect to CFCs is because he is ashamed that he cannot-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) on a point of order.


Mr. Marin:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with our colleague who for the past twenty minutes has been discussing the importance of the environment. However, perhaps it would be best if she stopped making political hay of this issue and directing unfounded accusations at the government and other agencies.
June 20, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I'm not making political hay of this issue. I'm sorry but I'm a politician!
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not I who mentioned the Montreal Protocol. Unlike the Minister of the Environment, I have not claimed since February to be deeply concerned about this issue, so concerned as to move quickly to draft amendments respecting CFCs to ensure that our obligations under the Montreal protocol were met. It was the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) who stated to those willing to listen that his primary consideration was his and Canada's obligation with respect to the Montreal Protocol. It's now- What day is it today?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: June 20.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's now June 20. February, March, April and May have come and gone. Now five months later, in June, all of a sudden the Minister discovers just ten days before he must meet his obligations under the Montreal Protocol that he does not have the means to do so because the legislation was poorly drafted in the first place. We commented on this fact when the legislation was drafted in 1987 and 1988, but the former minister insisted that we meet all of our obligations along with the passage of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister himself wants to show that he is truly concerned about reducing chloroflurocar-bons, as he has stated on numerous occasions following the signing by Canada of the Montreal Protocol, why is he not prepared at the same time to introduce amendments respecting the chloroflurocarbons in refrigerators currently found in the Eastern Townships? Why is he not prepared to ban their use under section 35 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? He has the authority to take this kind of action. He has the authority to move immediately to prohibit one million refrigerators, including refrigerators in the United States- General Electric is currently repairing 25,000 of its refrigerators at its CAMCO subsidiary in the riding of
Environmental Protection
Hamilton. General Electric is repairing these refrigerators without realizing that CFC leaks are occurring. Ours planet's ozone layer is endangered. If asking the Environment Minister to protect Canada's climate and atmosphere is viewed as making political hay of this issue-


An Hon. Member:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will continue to make political hay of this issue because personally I'm not convinced by the Environment Minister's nice Words. Despite the statement made by the Minister on February 20 and his other statements in which the environment has been made the number one priority, the only way the Minsiter can succeed in convincing me is by taking concrete steps to reduce the use of CFCs in Canada.
We are seeing no evidence of this today. On the contrary, the Minister himself did not get involved in the matter until the eleventh hour, just before the Montreal Protocol was set to come into force. He arrives here in the House claiming that the legislation must be adopted as is or Canada will not be able to meet its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. I am willing to go along with the proposed amendments, but I think they should be adopted along with others that would provide greater environmental protection in Canada and would touch on international issues.
We know that following the signing of the Montreal Protocol, a meeting was held this spring in Helsinki to examine how developed countries could help developing nations to meet their obligations respecting the production of CFCs. Norway suggested that all countries contribute 1 per cent of their Gross National Product to an international climate fund.
Mr. Speaker, CFCs pose a threat to the whole universe. When CFCs leak from a refrigerator in Canada, our countiy is not the only one to be affected!
What we are considering, really, is the whole planet's atmosphere and, for that reason, Canada has a vested interest in helping under-developed countries to meet their obligations concerning CFCs as well as their obligations under other protocols dealing with climatic issues. But Canada has refused to give so much as penny and Mr. Wilson's last budget shows that the government is even reducing aid to Third-World countries.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
Canada, as a developed country, has contributed to the problem in a big way and a lot of the CFCs in the environment come from Canada and the other developed countries. Now that our economy is developed, we would ask the Third World countries to stop developing, but we are not ready to assist them financially. That is another question that could have been raised when the Minister came to the House and asked us to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. He could have raised the question of financial aid to the Third World.
He could also have raised the matter of research, because as far as research goes, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the Conservatives' policy is that everything must be done by the private sector. We have even seen, since this government has taken power, thousands and thousands of dollars for research on alternative energy forms being cut. We have witnessed, two or three months ago, the closing of all the offices with responsabilities in the area of alternative energy forms in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. At the same time, the Minister of the Environment comes here and asks us to meet our obligations under the Montreal protocol while his own government is cutting funds for research on alternate energy forms. How can we then believe what the government says on this matter. Why not ask the advice and support of environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth? Why not ask Greenpeace for expertise?
Why, for example, do we not ask the Thermaflow Company, from Massachusetts for their expert advice. Why not launch an appeal to all the stakeholders in the country? Why were we forced into a situation where we now have no choice but to say: "We are not in a position to speak with anyone because the Minister has not done his homework. He has not been doing his job since February 20th. If he had, we could have held these discussions in the month of March, in the month of April, in the month of May. We were available, we have been sitting and discussing the environment every week. But we have not heard a word from the Minister before the month of June. On May 31st, there was an urgent meeting in his office but, after that, we waited 20 days before the Bill was discussed in the House.
We would like to work with the groups that are the most knowledgeable in these areas. Yet all we see, is a
Minister who's quite willing to make speeches, who's quite willing to hold cocktails to show off everything that he's been doing about the environment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. She has but one minute left. I would appreciate it if she would wind down.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was wound up.
In closing, I must say that we certainly intend to support this legislation. We are very disappointed that the Minister failed in his responsibility last February to bring this matter properly to the attention of the House by way of a full Bill.
However, in the meantime, cognizant of our obligations under the Montreal Protocol, we hope to have a chance to hear from Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Canadian Environmental Network, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and others in advance of the passage of this legislation within the next few days.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-22. I share the concern on this side of the House that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) could not be here to speak to Bill C-22. I think the House and the country would like to know what kind of regulations and enforcement actions the Minister is proposing.
I know we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, but the issue is of enormous import not just to Canadians but around the world. The holes in the ozone are growing and certainly CFCs are one of the most serious problems in relation to those holes. We know from scientific evidence that even if all leakage of CFCs into the environment were stopped now it would take several centuries for the ozone to return to a stable situation. It does not belie well in the House that the Minister did not come to talk about what steps he and the Government of Canada intend to take to move forward the date at which all CFCs will be removed from our environment. We have not heard yet from the Minister, even his own dedication on the concept of zero discharge of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone depleting chemicals.
June 20,1989

We particularly have not heard from the Minister or the Government about what kind of enforcement or plan they have in relation to CFCs. We have not heard of an action plan to advise the public so they know about refrigeration systems, about the air conditioner in their car or in the tractor, as my colleague reminded me, or the refrigeration units in freezers and refrigerators on their own property.
We also have not heard from the Government about what kind of steps are planned to be phased in so those who most often come into contact with CFCs, particularly those who are in the repair industry, whether it be motor vehicles, tractors, refrigeration units or some of the larger units that contain large amounts of CFCs, know that in fact there are enforcement and regulatory processes in place to make sure that those repair persons and those assembly plant workers where CFCs are still being used have absolute state of the art technologies to remove CFCs from old refrigerators before they go to the dumps and from cars before they go to the junk yard or are repaired. There is no enforcement process across Canada.
The Minister is really blowing in the wind when he talks about the need for this technical amendment when there is not a comprehensive plan in place. In fact, many people believe that CFCs could be dramatically reduced and, in many cases, removed from utilization in Canadian society by the year 1992. This is such a serious global problem in which Canada should take a lead.
I think it is unfortunate that the kind of steps necessary to lead us to zero discharge are not being implemented. Refrigerators are still going to landfills and dumps. Repair people are still venting what is left of the CFCs in tractors, refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners simply into the atmosphere when they could have containment equipment on site to hermetically seal them prior to and after dealing with them and then properly dispose of those CFCs or recycle them into equipment on which they are still working as we head toward zero utilization of CFCs in all forms in our environment.
Environmental Protection
There are two notes which I believe are important for the record. One is an information note provided by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) to me. Having learned in the past that there are sometimes problems with information provided by the Government, I intend to put it on the record in its entirety. It states:
Information note.
Issue: Amendments to Sections 33 and 34 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Background:
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act received Royal Assent on June 30,1988. Section 34 of the Act provides authorities to regulate toxic substances there added by order to Schedule 1, the List of Toxic Substances. The Act as passed in 1988 contains a List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 that were added by Parliament, not by order.
As a consequence, regulations developed under the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act and consolidated under CEPA were found not to be enforceable.
In addition, the current wording of S. 34 makes it impossible to develop additional regulations for the toxic substances that were listed by Parliament.
Existing regulations therefore were temporarily brought back into force by the use of Interim Orders.
Although the Act provides that Interim Orders are effective for two years or until replaced by regulations, the replacement regulations cannot be made without amending S. 34.
More importantly, Canada's commitment under the Montreal Protocol on the Protection of the Ozone Layer to Regulate Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by July 1, 1989, cannot be met, since CFCs are already on the List of Tbxic Substances in Schedule 1.
The amendments to Sections 33 and 34 correct the wording error by removing the need for an order to be made to add a substance to the List of Toxic Substances before regulations can be made in respect to the substance.
That is what the Minister's note says.
Let me quote what the Library of Parliament has to say in its June 8,1989 note to members of the committee:
An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, notes on Bill C-22.
Bill C-22, which received first reading in the House of Commons on June 1, 1989, would amend sections 33 and 34 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, (CEPA), as proclaimed into force on June 30, 1988. The Bill, composed of two clauses, can be best described as housekeeping in nature. It would remove certain anomalies found in sections 33 and 34 that pose problems in respect of the regulation of toxic substances.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
In order to regulate a toxic substance under CEPA, the substance must first be placed on the List of Toxic Substances found in Schedule 1 to the Act. Section 33 currently provides for the inclusion on or deletion of a substance from this List.
A substance is added to the List by order of the Governor in Council, but the order becomes effective only when regulations affecting the substance made pursuant to section 34 of the Act come into force, (subsections 33(1) and 33(2)).
Clause 1 of Bill C-22 would amend section 33 of CEPA by repealing subsection 33(2) of the Act and by making a consequential amendment to subsection 33(1) to accommodate the deletion of subsection 33(2). The effect of this amendment is to allow an order of the Governor in Council placing a substance on the List of Toxic Substances to take effect when it is made rather than when the regulations in respect of the substance are made. A considerable amount of time might pass between the making of an order and the coming into force of regulations during which the substance would technically not be on the List.
This amendment would ensure that the status List of Toxic Substances is not dependent on whether regulations are made under Section 34 of the Act. It is clear that subsection 33(2) is not essential to the statute's regulatory scheme and may in fact complicate the process of regulating toxic substances.
Section 34 of CEPA currently provides that where an order has been made adding a substance to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Act the Governor in Council can, after an advisory committee has been given the opportunity to render its advice, make regulations in respect of the substance. It is important to note that this section states that regulations can be made only in respect of a substance that has been added to the List by an order of the Governor in Council.
There were a number of substances on the List of Toxic Substances when CEPA was passed. These substances are on the List not by virtue of an order in council but because they were already in the statute. Because Section 34 currently allows regulations to be made only in respect of substances that are on the List by an order of the Governor in Council, substances that became part of the List in any other manner cannot be regulated. It would appear, therefore, that there is no legislative basis under CEPA for regulating the substances contained on the List of Toxic Substances at the time the legislation was passed.
It should be noted that among the substances found on the List for which regulations cannot be made are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), in respect of which the Canadian Government is committed to regulate under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Clause 2 of Bill C-22 would remove from section 34 of CEPA the reference to orders placing a substance on the List of Toxic Substances, thereby making it clear that regulations can be made in respect of any substance found on the List.
We should look at exactly what is in Schedule 1 because this is what the nub of the amendment to Sections 33 and 34 is all about, albeit the Minister and the Government are particularly attuned to the July 1 date for the implementation of the 1987 Montreal Protocol. We find under Schedule I, which is the list of toxic substances passed by Parliament, the following
categories. There are chlorobiphenyls which have the molecular formula C12H10-nCln in which "n" is greater than 2. We have dodecachloropentacyclo decane. We have polybrominated biphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H10-nBm in which "n" is greater than 2. We have chlorofluorocarbon, totally halogenated chlorofluorocarbons that have the molecular formula CnClxF(2n-l-2-x). We have polychlorinated terphenyls that have a molecular formula C18H14-nCln in which "n" is greater than 2. There are four other families. I put those on the record to have some idea of how complicated the toxic substances in chemical families are. Then there are four that I think the Minister should have been here to address. There is asbestos, lead, mercury and vinyl chloride, substances that are extensively used and find their way into our environment.
Let us look at Bill C-22 because in fact it is going to require further amendments. I say that because when one looks at the wording of the new proposed Section 33 it says:
Subject to subsection (4), the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that a substance is toxic, on the recommendation of the Ministers, make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I.
I have just listed those before the House.
If one looks at the English version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as is statute law in Canada, what Section 33(1) says now is the following:
Subject to subsections (2) and (4), the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that a substance is toxic, on the recommendation of the Ministers, make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I.
So the amendment is quite clear in English. As one can see in C-22, the English amendment is listed both under the English section and under the French section.
This is where it becomes interesting and where all Members of this House should become increasingly suspicious of who is drafting this and why additional loopholes are being created without being forthright with Members of the House. You will have to excuse my pronunciation, Mr. Speaker, but I think you will understand the distinction between 33(1) as it is in English and in French in the Act now and what is being proposed in the English here will still no longer be comparable to the French that remains in the Act. The French in the Act says the following:
S'il est-qu'une substance est toxique, le gouvemeur en conseil peut prendre, sur recommandation des ministres, un decret d'inscription de la substance a la liste de VAnnexe I.
June 20, 1989



That is not the same as the English in the Act, nor is it the same as the English that is being proposed as an amendment. Yet those who have drafted this from the Department of Justice and Environment Canada still have made no attempt to bring the French and the English into parallel.
As you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, when matters are taken before the courts, the courts are required with statute law to look at both the French and the English. One has to ask oneself, why are all of these sections of the Act not comparable? Why is it that in the English it is now going to say, if this amendment passes, "Subject to subsection (4), the Governor in Council may-" do the following, but in French it leaves the powers entirely to Ministers and Governor in Council?
Let us look at what subsection (4) is. Why is it that in the French part of the Act there is an attempt to avoid a very important procedural process that was put into the Act when it was originally drafted? Subsection (4) says:
Where a Board of Review is established under Section 89 in relation to a substance, no order may be made under subsections (1) or (3) in relation to the substance until the board's report is received by the Ministers.
If we look over to the French we find a comparable translation. It says:
La prise des decrets vises aux paragraphes (1) ou (3) est toutefois subordonnee a la reception par les ministres du rapport de la commission de revision eventuellement constitute en vertu de l'article 89.

Let us look at Section 89 because this is where the paper trail becomes interesting as to what is going on in the Departments of Justice and Environment Canada. This House cannot and should not under any circumstances pass relevant sections of law that are not comparable in the two official languages of this country. Therefore let us look at Section 89, the Board of Review Proceedings. This is where the public, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Canadian Environmental Law Association, people who are concerned about asbestos in
Environmental Protection
Cassiar, people who are concerned about lead in gasoline affecting children have an opportunity to become involved in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the establishment of a Board of Review. I quote from Section 89:
Where a person files a notice of objection under subsection 13(2), 48(2) or 86(4) in respect of a decision or a proposed order or regulation, the Minister or the Ministers may establish a Board of Review to inquire into the nature and extent of the danger posed by the substance in respect of which the decision is made, or the order or regulation is proposed.
So we have a process that is directly related to the amendments proposed in the House that is not provided for adequately in the two official languages as they are set out in the Bill brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary today.
The Minister has asked us to support it and move it through quickly. We are certainly going to try and get it through the House and over to committee quickly because it is important that we have the powers to regulate in the country. But when we see a dirth of enforcement and inadequate proposals being made in terms of the removal of things like CFCs from our environment, when we know with absolute certainty what it is doing to the ozone of our planet, and then we get a piece of legislation brought to us that we are asked to move quickly forward we find it fatally flawed. How can there be such a distinct difference between Section 33(1) in English and French?
Let us look a little further. Under Section 89, is one of the interesting things that is referred to in English but not in French. I quote from subsection (2):
Where a person or government files with the Minister a notice of objection under subsection 62(2) with respect to proposed regulations within the time specified in that subsection, the Minister shall establish a Board of Review to inquire into the nature and extent of the danger posed by the air contaminant in respect of which the regulations are proposed.
Subsection (3):
Where the Minister has published a copy of a permit or of any varied terms and conditions under subsection 73(1), the Minister may, if he considers it advisable to do so, establish a board of review to inquire into complaints from members of the public in respect of the permit or the varied terms and conditions.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection Subsection (4):
Where a person files with the Minister a notice of objection under Section 51, 55 or 74 within the time specified in that section, the Minister shall establish a board of review to inquire into the matter raised by the notice.
These are very important legal processes provided to the public. Subsection (5):
Where a person files with the Minister a notice of objection under Section 14 in respect of the failure to make a decision about whether a substance is toxic, the Minister shall establish a board of review to inquire into whether the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.
So what do we have here? Let me quickly review. We had a situation where, under the existing legislation, the Minister was not as fettered as he now claims to be when utilizing subsection 33(1) en franqais in the Act. He was fettered though in the English because it said: "Subject to subsections (2) and (4)". Of course subsection (2), which is to be deleted says:
An order adding a substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I is effective on the coming into force of regulations made under subsection 34(1) with respect to the substance.
I will be encouraged later in this day to hear from the Government side as to why this has been allowed. Why was it allowed in the first place that there be such an enormous distinction? My friend in the Liberal Party and I met with the Minister, Mr. Higgins and others from Environment Canada who are very knowledgeable in this matter. However, I cannot fathom why Bill C-22 would be brought to us and we are asked to pass an amendment in English that is not found to be represented in the legislation as it stands. Nor do they offer to provide us, without amending this, an opportunity to bring the French and the English in Section 33 into accord. I think that is of fundamental importance and should be part of the focus of the debate today.
Let me go back to the problem. I understand that the hope is that Bill C-22 will be before the Standing Committee on Environment on Thursday where witnesses will be heard from Greenpeace, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Friends of the Earth, as
well as those Justice people who drafted the legislation, and officials from Environment Canada.
The Bill is only one page long. It is not an horrifically difficult Bill to deal with, but I certainly put the Government on notice that I want adequate explanations of why we are asked to amend a Bill in which there is such a distinct difference between the French and the English in the law.
I will return to CFCs themselves. I have not yet heard from the government side, and in particular the Minister, what serious steps he plans to take in relation to CFCs. He has been on notice for weeks through questions I have raised in the standing committee, questions raised by my friend from Davenport, and questions by others in relation to the problems with existing refrigeration units, whether those be refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners in cars, trucks, tractors, or heavy duty equipment in large buildings which is the place where most of the CFCs in Canada presently reside.
Many Canadians scratch their heads and wonder why, although the Government of Canada entertains these plans vis-a-vis CFCs and wants to be involved on July 1 in relation to the Montreal Protocol, we see the rolling loonie eveiy night on the television screen talking about Canada's sudden national debt of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government is prepared to spend millions on that kind of advertising, but there is not even a leaflet which can be provided to people in the repair industry in relation to refrigeration equipment. Why is it that there is no material available in schools, at universities, in airports, or anywhere in the country on the hole in the ozone?
Canadians are deeply concerned about what is going on in the world's atmosphere. They know intuitively, almost instinctively, that the combination of the greenhouse effect, the hole in the ozone, acid precipitation, and general atmosphere and climactic change poses a very real threat to the survival of almost all species on earth, in particular our species which will not survive very well if the trends continue, in particular in relation to the hole in ozone.
June 20, 1989

I think this debate would have been much more healthy and more supportable if we had heard from the Minister today in an extensive speech on how he intends to lead Canada to the reduction, removal, and recycling of those existing CFCs by 1992. It is achievable. We have heard from experts that that is in fact achievable. Why is there this artificial date toward the middle of the next decade and the end of the century?
Those of us who have looked into this matter know that there are existing technologies for the rapid, safe and inexpensive removal of CFCs from existing technologies. They can be reinjected into other systems which should be sealed so that there is as little likelihood of leakage as possible.
We ask ourselves why the steps are not being taken. We are asked to pass regulatory change which is basically functus. I would certainly ask the Minister of Justice how he can explain such radical differences between English and French. I really look forward to learning on Thursday why they were so different in the first Act and why, even though we are making such radical changes in amending the Act, the French is going to stay the same.
I want to know where that rabbit burrow, as one might describe it, that tunnelling leads in legislation. Why is it being introduced? I do not like to know that the gnomes over at the Department of Justice are involved in this kind of chicanery and trickery of Members of the House in hopes that they can slip it through on an idle afternoon. They certainly will not, Mr. Speaker. They had better be ready with trepidation on Thursday, with some good explanations.
We in this House all have a desire to do serious things about the atmosphere, to try to bring greenhouse gases under control, and to try to deal seriously with CFCs. However, we are not seeing that. I am not suggesting for a moment that we on this side of the House should in some way delay or hold up the movement of Bill C-22 into committee. It certainly will be held up when it comes back to the House if there are not adequate explanations of what has gone on to this point in relation to why it was fumbled in the first drafting and why it has been fumbled in the drafting of the amendment before us in the House.
We will certainly be waiting expectantly on Thursday to hear from the Government exactly what are the new
Environmental Protection
enforcement procedures. Are we to stop the dumping into land fill sites in the Quebec townships of refrigeration units coming from the United States? The contents of those refrigerators are on Schedule 1 of the toxic substances list of CEPA now. The Government is going to have to demonstrate very quickly and in all good faith what regulations the Minister is proposing once he gets this amendment.
Why have we not seen those yet? We should see them on Thursday, and I hope we do because that may lead to rapid passage of this Bill at third reading. If we do not get some co-operation and some idea of what kind of enforcement procedures are going to be forthcoming, there will not be much co-operation in the future.
Having studied the law and having noted the problem that exists, we know that this is a serious technical problem which must be overcome by amendment, but I am not certain that this is the amendment. I certainly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the time to drop by the Department of Justice, to speak to Peter Higgins, to find out exactly who hatched this particular approach, and to find out whether or not in the hatching they might want to bring a few other eggs to hatch in committee on Thursday in order that the amendments to Bill C-22 can be properly made while it is before committee.
I know that my colleague wants to speak before one o'clock. I think I will give him the opportunity to do so. I believe that I have covered the problems I see with the legislation. The Government's approach is too slow, too ineffective, without enforcement, without teeth, and without taking seriously the kind of leadership role that Canada should be playing on CFCs. I am concerned and dismayed that on this day the Minister is in Canada, in Ontario, in Ottawa, and not in the House. He did not choose this opportunity to come and speak on an issue of global importance and of great importance to Members of this House, particularly on this side.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a tradition of the House that we do not discuss the attendance or non-attendance of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The comments made by the Hon. Member at the end of his remarks, to which we listened to attentively, were totally uncalled for and I think he should apologize.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Skeena is a long time Member and I am sure he knows that. I did not hear the remarks at the end of his speech, but if he made such remarks I am sure he will apologize.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, I am very sorry that he is not here, Mr. Speaker.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is a constructive debate, and I will continue in the same vein as my colleagues by drawing to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that there may be another puzzling shortcoming in Bill C-22, namely, the omission from the French version of Bill C-22 the words "par decret", the equivalent of the term "by decree", which also is not present in the English version of the Bill.
Constitutional experts would draw to the attention of the Government the fact that such an omission would mean that the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments would not have the power to examine, in due course, the performance and the consistency of this Bill with other pieces of legislation.
Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary would like to make a note of it and check it with the overworked Department of Justice, which evidently reflects a low budget, too few lawyers for too much work, and the inability of the Government to provide enough resources in the Budget so that Bills are properly drafted.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary understands and that he will look into this matter.
What worries us is that behind this measure is of course the urgent question of chlorofluorocarbons and how they might affect the ozone layer and human health. Others have already referred to it. I would like only to register through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister the fact that while the Minister of the Environment has promised to reduce the production of chlorofluorocarbons by 85 per cent, the regulations that are being presently proposed would achieve only a reduction of 50 per cent. That would be a very disturbing, large gap.
I would hope, if that turns out not to be the case, that in his opening statement in committee the Minister will clarify this matter so that we will have a confirmation that the regulations are consistent with his promise. This
is very important because of the fact that the health of Canadians is at stake if we do not move quickly.
We also need to consider the necessity, if alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons are not technically in existence, to forgo certain products and to forgo certain uses, certain consumptions in society, because if we do not the damage is irrevocable. We are dealing here with the immune system of human beings, and therefore, with a very important and central question of health.
I would also reinforce the notion of others that the Bill would actually require further amendments. Unfortunately, this is not the case today, but we would certainly want to register with the Government the necessity to introduce further amendments. The law as it functions at the present time is flawed.
The Government at the present time cannot set enforceable national standards as demonstrated in the case of PCBs. I will go into that in a moment. Second, the Minister of the Environment is the only person in the country who can seek an injunction to stop a violation of the Act. Third, another shortcoming is that the law as it stands now lacks a general prohibition clause as we have in Section 33 of the Fisheries Act, which would make the release of any pollutant an offence, not just the ones listed in the schedules of the Act. This is a very central question. Finally, in the event of an emergency, the federal Government cannot move alone. Mandatory consultation with the provinces affected is required.
I will not elaborate at length on the lack of national enforceable standards. The enforceable national standards were lost between December 1986 when the proposed Environmental Protection Act was released as a draft for public discussion and the final clause by clause work in committee. Over the period between December 1986 and the spring of 1988, as a result of Meech Lake influence on the thinking of the Government, we lost the capacity for the federal Government to establish and impose enforceable national standards. I will not elaborate on how this took place. It makes very interesting reading.
All that needs to be said is that today we are asked, as a result of the law which was finally passed, to make a change in a law that at present indicates that no regulations could be made until after a federal-provincial advisory committee, and I quote, "is provided an opportunity to render its advice". That is how the Bill reads at the present time.
June 20, 1989

For some reason that phrase has to be amended through Bill C-22. The word "given" has to be substituted for the word "provided', and "provide" has to be substituted for the word "render". The new clause would now read that a federal-provincial advisory committee "is given an opportunity to provide its advice", instead of "is provided an opportunity to render its advice".
Since you probably understand, as a literary man, Mr. Speaker, the English language much better than I do, what is the difference between these two phrases? I have enormous difficulties in understanding it.
I followed very carefully the excellent presentation by the Parliamentary Secretary. He certainly gave us a very interesting technical insight into the reasons. However, when it comes to the language, which in the end what we have to look for, I really have difficulty understanding the difference between "is provided an opportunity to render its advice" and "is given an opportunity to provide its advice".
Maybe, when the Bill goes to committee, an explanation as to the profound semantic reasons for this change will be given so that we will be enlightened. We are in the dark. We do not know whether this amendment will strengthen the Bill from a federal point of view, whether this amendment will weaken it, or whether it will make it indifferent.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that as legislators some light needs to be cast. It is interesting to note that a former Minister of the Environment admitted that the weakening or the relinquishing of powers to the provinces in making national enforceable standards in the environment was a result of negotiations with the provinces behind closed doors. These negotiations were held at a time when the former committee was holding public hearings on the Bill preceding the one we are debating today. Of course we felt at that time as if a mockery was made of public consultations. When the various organizations appeared before us we were looking at a different Bill. It caused consternation and the quality of the relationships in committee was deeply affected.
Environmental Protection
We know what the result was when it came to PCBs in the aftermath of St. Basile le Grand. Safe storage was the first item on the agenda. The former Minister of the Environment was quoted as saying: "The actions I am taking ensure that PCB storage sites in every part of Canada meet high national standards".
Within two months nine provinces had sought from Ottawa to be exempted from such standards under the equivalency provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
On May 12, 1989 all provinces except Prince Edward Island were granted exemption from high national standards. It must be noted and underlined that none of the provinces have the same penalties and fines in place which exist under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Nor do the provinces guarantee the investigation of infractions of the law as the Canadian Environmental Protection does. Yet, it was ruled that provincial laws are equivalent.
In the case of PCBs-and I want to make this case to the Parliamentary Secretary who is patiently following this matter-instead of a single national standard for the storage of PCBs we have the federal national standard in P.E.I. and in the Territories. Then we have nine different provincial standards. We have uneven regulations which can lead to the creation of pollution havens where regulations are weakest. This unevenness is made worse by enforcement practices which vary from one province to another.
With PCBs we begin to see the emergence of a veritable environmental quilt. The environment is no longer a federal responsibility. It has been fragmented and Balkanized. Therefore, the experience with PCBs in the application of existing legislation erodes our confidence in the commitment of the Government to bring in tough enforceable national standards for the substances which have not yet been approached, such as CFCs, dioxins, furans, and other toxic substances. This is why we are preoccupied and why we must take the opportunity to raise this matter at second reading with the Government. The experience with PCBs is one that has led to a predictable Balkanization of standards. We urge the Government to ensure that the experience with PCBs does not repeat itself with other toxic substances which are included in the schedule the Parliamentary Secretary recited for us earlier in his presentation.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Davenport.
It is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Davenport speak in this House about the environment. The Hon. Member comes by this honestly. As a matter of fact, people are just starting to get into some of the things that he has said about the environment. He was ahead of his time. I want to say that to him, and I wish he were the environment critic for the Liberal Party. I say to him not to worry. He will resurface because he has the knowledge and vision about the environment, together of course with my own colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena who also has the environment in his bones. There are some comments I did not understand. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to talk about acid rain back to 1979, that is fine.
What the Hon. Member for Davenport underlined about this Bill is very important. This is a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act which was a law enacted last year. I had the pleasure-sometimes it wasn't too pleasurable; it was a lot of work-to sit for a couple of weeks on the legislative committee that considered the Bill. The committee went through the Bill clause by clause. The Hon. Member for Davenport said where we failed in that Bill was to establish enforceable national standards. The Government originally had that as a concept. The former Minister of the Environment, Mr. McMillan, had that in the Bill. Then he ran into the opposition of the provincial environmental Ministers, and he withdrew this national thrust from the Bill. The committee members asked the Minister what would happen if there were a spill of PCBs or another disaster. Subsequently we have seen a spill of PCBs on the Trans-Canada Highway, a fire in St. Basile le Grand, oil spills on the coast, and other things. The environment became a national crisis, and Canadian people by any standard consider it the number one issue.
The Hon. Member for Davenport pointed out quite rightly that this Bill lacks enforceable national standards. What the Government should be doing is bringing in amendments to put these standards in the Bill.
Finally is the concept of the public being able to sue polluters of the environment; not just the Ministry of the Environment, which may do nothing but do as California does and give the public rights to take polluters to court. Where there is a polluting chemical company such as in Port Moody, the local residents would have authority under a federal Act with a national enforceable standard to go to court against that company. Then we would see some real action on the environment. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on these matters, but he need not comment on the nice things I said about him.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to disagree at this stage. Therefore, I am glad that the Hon. Member sees the necessity as we do of having national enforceable standards. He has developed the issue extremely well and I am very grateful to him.
Anyone who believes in strong federalism and does not think the answer to Canada's problem is the devolution of power to the provinces feels very strongly that beginning with the environment, followed by spending powers, by aboriginal rights, and a number of other crucial issues is one, we must stay on the road of strong federal powers.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a classic example of where a Minister of the Crown, having first introduced a Bill which did have the measure required to establish national enforceable standards in the environment, had then to turn 180 degrees and abandon that track. We regret it very much. If everyone in this House feels as strongly about the environment as does the Hon. Member who just spoke, I am sure that we can amend the Bill at a future opportunity to have enforceable national standards in the federal legislation.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I have one short comment and a question for the Hon. Member for Davenport. In the case of the environment as it relates to the Rafferty-Alameda Dam-and this affects my riding right now-there is a great deal of concern that those from outside the area who do not know the valley and do not know it is barren are rendering opinions and decisions without knowing the facts that concern the environment on the local scene. This poses a problem for the environment. I think it is most important that there is a balance and that when people make comments, whether as Opposition critics or as Members of our own Party, they ought to realize what they are talking about and deal, in the case of the Rafferty-Alameda dam, with the situation on its own merits for the benefit of the environment world-wide.
June 20, 1989


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would only refer the Hon. Member who is genuinely interested in the Rafferty-Alameda issue to the former Minister of the Environment who made a profound mistake in the inteipretation of his mandate. He had to be reminded of his duties by a non-governmental organization, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which took the matter to court in order to straighten him out on this very important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Members of the House that the town of Elliot Lake is celebrating its nineteenth annual Uranium Festival from June 23 to July 2, 1989. Being the largest summer festival in northern Ontario, those two weeks promise to be a celebration of the community pride and spirit that all Elliot Lakers feel.
Last year, more than 20,000 participants took part in such diverse activities as mucking and drilling competitions, parades, tennis and soccer tournaments, antique car displays, and a final fireworks display, to name only a few. This year many more people and events are expected.
The theme of the 1989 Uranium Festival "A Salute to Mining" reflects the great importance that the mining industry plays in the economic life of towns such as Elliot Lake and many other communities across Canada.
Anyone who has ever attended this festival will tell you the excitement that is generated is contagious and that makes it easy to see why Elliot Lake is known world-wide as "the jewel in the wilderness".


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am again raising a subject that members of the other Parties are running away from, namely, the activities of the Toronto political fund- raiser Patricia Starr.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway) to account for the misuse of CMHC guaranteed funds from the Prince Charles seniors' housing project. I asked specifically whether proper CMHC procedures had been followed in filing and authorizing consultant contracts and payments.
In his answer the Minister finally conceded that CMHC guaranteed funds were spent "inappropriately". According to a lawyer's report, $2,000 went to the PC Canada Fund.
In view of this, will the Minister now table all financial documents for the Prince Charles project, including authorized expenditures, contracts, claims, vouchers, and invoices that were used to authorize the release of funds to this project, or to any other CMHC guaranteed project involving Patricia Starr or the Toronto section of the National Council of Jewish Women?
I would also like the Minister to inform the House on the progress of recovering the misspent funds, and advise us on the penalties to the people involved for misappropriation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, "Protect children on the farm" is the theme for National Farm Safety Week, July 25 to 31, organized by the Canada Safety Council with Agriculture Canada and in cooperation with provincial safety organizations and the Farm Safety Association.

June 20, 1989
Growing up on a farm can be a wonderful experience for children, but by its nature, a farm is a dangerous place and every year, many children lose their life or are injured in accidents there.
Mr. Speaker, children are our future. Let us protect them! This year, fanners will be made aware of their responsibility for their children's safety, which involves identifying and eliminating accident risks, setting a good example and informing young people about the safety rules to observe in buildings and around livestock and machines, both indoors and outdoors.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach Canada Day, a time for all citizens to celebrate their citizenship, we should all use the opportunity to take stock of our many blessings as a nation where peace and prosperity abound.
Twenty-two years ago, a company of venturers from the Boy Scout movement of Whitby, Ontario, reversed the route taken by Jacques Cartier and arrived in Longueuil, Quebec. This trip culminated in some dialogue, and the decision to have a twinning program between the two communities.
The citizens of each municipality, with the active support of their local municipal councils, have for 21 years now sent delegations to visit each other to learn and promote a better understanding of their cultures and communities. For three days each year, 50 residents of each community are hosted in an excellent setting of friendship and goodwill.
The reason I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is so that you and other Members of the House can take this idea back to your own ridings and encourage your citizens to undertake a similar program. Would it not be great if we could influence more Canadian municipalities to twin with other municipalities and follow the lead of Whitby, Ontario, and Longueuil, Quebec.
Congratulations to both municipalities for doing their part in making Canada such a great place to live.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, we have received many reports that thousands of Bulgarian citizens belonging to the Turkish Moslem minority were issued passports and suddenly expelled to neighboring countries. Press reports indicate that the number might be over 30,000. This sudden exodus is of great concern to Canadians. Since 1984, they have been very concerned by the Bulgarian authorities' assimilation campaign which has resulted in name changes and restrictions on the use of the Tbrkish language and expressions of Tbrkish culture.
On Friday, June 16, at the Paris conference, Canada's Ambassador, William Bauer, strongly criticized the treatment given to the Turkish Moslem minority in Bulgaria and in particular, the recent expulsions. He drew attention to the human suffering caused by the Bulgarian authorities.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) remains concerned by a situation that raises tensions in the Balkans and detracts from cooperation and security in Europe. I am pleased to point out that on Friday, June 16, he issued a communique expressing Canada's concern about the recent expulsions and the Bulgarian charge d'affaires was called in so that our disapproval of his government's actions could be conveyed to him.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, a proposed business plan of VIA Rail recently obtained by The Globe and Mail has confirmed some of the worst fears held by Atlantic Canadians. The proposed cutbacks have guaranteed a minimum of 2,500 employee lay-offs, as well as the complete elimination of all regional train services. This is in light of the election promise to enhance the quality and reliability of VIA services.
June 20, 1989

I find it disturbing that various cabinet Ministers have praised the new Budget for helping the welfare of the Atlantic provinces. In reality, Atlantic Canada is being ruined by the incredible burden it has to assume in dealing with the current deficit. Major cuts in ERDAs, ACOA, VIA Rail, and the closing of Canadian Forces bases have promised to inflict devastating impacts upon the region.
I call upon the Government to reassess the negative priorities applied to Atlantic Canada. This region, which recently began upon the road of economic recovery, has once again been thrown into a situation that guarantees hard times in the Maritimes. Atlantic Canadians should be allowed to reap the benefits of economic success.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday more than 300 Islanders travelled to Ottawa to make it clear to the Government how they feel about the closing of Canadian Forces Base Summerside. Yet the Government has not made it clear to the people of Prince Edward Island what research was carried out to back up this reckless decision.
What is frightening is that this decision, which will seriously affect the economy of Summerside and the entire province, was made without an impact study. The people of Prince Edward Island deserve better.
I demand that the Government take responsibility for its actions against Summerside and area and keep the base open.
In all fairness, the federal Government cannot arbitrarily decide to shut down one-third of a community's workforce. Islanders have proved that they are determined and ready to keep CFB Summerside open, and my colleagues and I are determined to support them.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to answer a question posed by the Premier of Nova Scotia last night after a starry-eyed meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) regarding cuts in development funds that have devastated Atlantic Canada when he stated: "Cuts? What cuts?" I am here today to edify the Premier of Nova Scotia and answer those questions for him.
First, I would like to remind the Premier of Nova Scotia that in Nova Scotia alone there are six subagreements that have not been renewed; $721 million in cuts in Atlantic Canada alone. That, Mr. Premier, is a cut. Second, he should check the books and Hansard and he will find out that the ACOA program in Atlantic Canada has been extended from five years to seven years. It does not take a mathematical genius to know that that is a 25 per cent cut, Mr. Premier, in the money that is available in Atlantic Canada.
What about VIA Rail and the cuts that have been inflicted by this Government in Atlantic Canada? There is also the closure of the route from Truro to Sydney. In the Halifax area alone the reduction of service could cost 321 jobs. That, Mr. Premier, is a cut. The At and East program, as stripped down in the last federal Budget, could see 297 individuals who work at the grain terminal in Halifax lose their jobs. Mr. Premier, that is a cut.
Does the Premier not know a cut when he sees a cut? Perhaps before he gets up the next time and sticks his proverbial foot in his proverbial mouth he can give me a call at (613) 995-9378 and I will straighten him out.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should give the Premier equal time. However, he is not with us.
The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs are at risk.
Last week, representatives from the B.C. fishing industry came to Ottawa to plead with the Government not to cut domestic processing requirements for B.C. salmon and herring. They spoke not only for their own communities and their own families but also for the thousands of workers in Atlantic Canada who are being lined up for the chopping-block by the Government to satisfy the U.S. appetite for unfettered domination over Canadian resources.

June 20, 1989
On Thursday, the Minister went so far as to call B.C. fish processing jobs "archaic". There is nothing archaic about maximizing the value of our fishery for the benefit of Canadians. There is nothing archaic about ensuring that Canadians get jobs from our resources. There is nothing archaic in the desire of the men and women of the B.C. fish processing industry to want a pay cheque instead of another rain check on the Minister's promise to protect the B.C. and Atlantic fishing industry.
The Minister has become sinister. B.C. fish jobs are not archaic. I would urge the Minister to retract these words-retract or resign.


CANADA DAY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days, Canadians will join together to celebrate Canada Day. The people of Scarborough always take pride in celebrating Canada Day. However, this year they will take even greater pride in honouring Samuel Yip, an 11-year old Scarborough resident who designed the national Canada Day poster.
Samuel's design, called: "Working in Harmony to Build a Peaceful and Loving Canada" was selected from thousands of submissions.
On behalf of all Members of the House and the people of Scarborough, I congratulate Samuel Yip. His theme captures the true meaning and the bright future of this country. Together we build Canada-tous ensemble Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again, Atlantic Canadians have been insulted by a Government which makes a habit of saying one thing and doing another.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was all sun and roses in Halifax yesterday. He told Atlantic Canadians there is no threat of recession in their region. He told them not to worry about the Summerside base being closed and the 1,300 jobs lost to the Island because that would "obscure the larger accomplishments".
Just what are those larger accomplishments?
Fishing communities throughout the region are facing collapse. In Newfoundland and Nova Scotia up to 9,000 jobs could be lost over the next few months, thanks to the do-nothing policies of the Prime Minister and his Conservative Government.
The only things that this Conservative Government has accomplished for Atlantic Canadians are higher unemployment, lower unemployment benefits and greater poverty. It is a shame.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, from June 18 to June 21 the federal Government will be hosting a national forum on the prevention of family violence.
Family violence is a serious and widespread problem affecting the lives of countless Canadians. An estimated one in ten women and tens of thousands of children and elderly people are the victims of violence. The scars, both physical and emotional, can last a lifetime. The forum is being held as part of the federal Government's initiative to deal with this serious problem.
"Working Together" is the title given to the forum. It brings together about 400 individuals from all across Canada who are involved in the prevention of family violence. They represent health and social service agencies, voluntary and non-government organizations, provincial and territorial Governments, women's groups and community groups, native organizations, the business community and the legal community.
It is only by working together toward a national strategy to reduce family violence that we can expect to find long-term solutions.
I would like to wish the participants a busy and productive three days.
June 20, 1989


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, the town of Beaupre was in mourning during the weekend, following the death of Mr. Antoine Belanger, for nearly 20 years the mayor of this sizable municipality in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans.
As mayor, Mr. Belanger was very much involved in the development of Mont Sainte-Anne, now an internationally known ski centre.
At the federal level, Mr. Belanger sat in the House of Commons from 1962 to 1969 as the Social Credit Member for Charlevoix, which then included the town of Beaupre.
With all the people of Beaupre and the former riding of Charlevoix, I wish to pay tribute to this man of action and extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends.


REMEMBRANCE OF TEHRAN MASSACRE
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 1981, half a million people were gathered together in the city of Tehran to take part in a peaceful demonstration in opposition to the suppression of democratic rights in Iran.
In response to this protest, the Iranian regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, ordered guards to open fire on the marchers. Hundreds were killed or wounded. Those who escaped the gunfire were arrested and transported to the Evin Prison where the firing squads continued into 1988 with their mass executions. To date, the number of those executed without just trial is reported to have reached over 90,000.
On the eighth anniversary of this bloody massacre I urge the Government of Canada to communicate to the new regime of Iran its horror at the flagrant human rights violations that have now been going on steadily for eight years, and its intention that if this trend continues Canada will seriously reconsider its trade and diplomatic relations with that country.
Oral Questions


TAXATION
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest in the newspapers today that July 3 is tax freedom day, the day on which Canadians finally start working for themselves.
Tax freedom day has been moving back further each year as taxes increase. The middle-class of Canada feels quite burdened by the taxes that they have to pay now. At the moment the middle-class is tired of paying an excessive amount of tax for debt servicing.
Thank goodness that Canadians can look forward to an equal, equitable and fair tax system which is contemplated for the future.
Thank goodness there is one rate, fair for all with no exceptions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
For two years, the Minister has been telling us, and I quote: "Sales tax reform will eliminate the hidden taxes paid by consumers when they purchase goods." And another quote: "The tax will not be unlike the retail sales taxes operated by the provinces." And another quote: "The amount of tax will be readily apparent, as it should be. Consumers will be aware of how much tax they are paying." End of quote, Mr. Speaker.
That is what we have been hearing for two years, and it just isnt't true! The Minister was forced to admit today that the new national sales tax will not appear on the bills for the billions and billions of dollars worth of items to which the new federal sales tax will apply.
Why did the Minister of Finance mislead Canadians on this issue for two whole years?

June 20, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the result of sales tax reform is that it will eliminate the very important hidden nature of the manufacturers' sales tax which is buried deeply into the price of any product that is taxable today. Under the new sales tax system the tax will be at the retail level. Thus it will be much easier for an individual to tell how much tax will be paid.
I want to refer the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to page 25 of the booklet entitled The Goods and Services Tax. It states:
-the government will want the advice of consumer groups on:
how best to ensure that consumers know the amount of tax they are
paying on their purchases while, at the same time, maintaining the
simplicity of the tax system;
We want to ensure that consumers are made fully aware of the impact of the new tax system on them. At that time we will be having consultations with the Consumers Association, the Retail Council and other interested organizations to ensure that the visibility of the tax is as transparent as possible.


POSITION OF MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Consumers Association of Canada said today that the Minister's response is not good enough, that consumers have a right to know the amount of tax they are paying.
I did not think the credibility of the Minister of Finance could sink any lower. He says that he will replace one hidden tax with another hidden tax. For two years he swore in the House and across the country that the new federal sales tax would not be a hidden tax. Now he claims to journalists, apparently, that he has no constitutional power to force retailers to add the sales tax to the sales slip. That is absolute nonsense.
If he had such a legal opinion, why did he not say so two years ago, or is he claiming that officials hid that legal opinion from him for two years? If he did know, did he just choose not to say so during the election campaign?
Is it not the real truth that the Minister is now desperately trying to find a way to justify a hidden tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The Government of Canada does not have the constitutional right to impose its will on retailers as to whether or not it will be tax included pricing or tax excluded pricing.
We have said very clearly that this tax will be much clearer to people than the tax on manufactured products which is buried right at the manufactured level, not at the wholesale or retail level. It is right down at the manufactured level. This tax will be quite clear at the retail level.
I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that if we had a national sales tax, then the provinces would have been part of that and we would have made our views very clear at that time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the quotations that I took from the Minister's document on the goods and services tax, dated April 27,1989, was published and deposited in the House of Commons after the Minister told us that the provinces no longer agreed. The citations I gave about no hidden tax are after he knew that the provinces would not go along.
The simple fact is that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister chose the ultimately cynical course of gouging Canadians for billions and billions of dollars and not having the guts to tell them how much they are being gouged. This is the Minister who promised that he would not have a hidden tax. He now has taken the absurd position before the House that Canadians could easily figure it out because it would be on the retail level.
Since the Minister figures it is so easy, let me put to him a situation in which the average Canadian consumer will find himself. On a retail purchase of $112, for example-


Some Hon. Members:: Order Paper.


John Napier Turner: -of which $37 is not
taxable, you have a provincial tax of 8 per cent and a national tax of 9 per cent. What will the national tax be on that purchase? That is the decision the average Canadian consumer will have to make on the spot. Maybe the Minister of Finance can tell us how smart he is?
June 20, 1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Consumers Association, and consumers as a whole, may wish to state their views to retailers and to people who are selling goods at the retail point of sale to make it quite clear that it is important for that tax to be quite visible and quite clear in terms of dollars and cents.
The point I stress with the Leader of the Opposition is that we cannot force this. We have said very clearly in this document that was released on April 27 that the Government will want the advice of consumer groups on how best to ensure that consumers know the amount of tax they are paying on their purchases. That is very clear. We will be working with the Consumers Association, with the Retail Council and others to assure that that objective is followed through.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CLOSURE OF BENDIX CORP.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Since the signing of the Free Trade Agreement we have seen a consistent procession of Canadian industries moving their jobs into the United States sun belt or into the Maquiladora zone of Mexico. The latest example is the 400 high skilled jobs of Bendix Corporation in Collingwood moving to Alabama and into the Maquiladora region.
Considering that his own officials consistently have refused to take any actions to plug those loopholes by which Canadian industry can evade the content requirements and can seek out areas of cheap labour, what will the Government do to stop this leakage of Canadian employment into those areas, denying Canadians the right to work and denying Canadian industry the right to grow? Does the Government have any plan to deal with this clearly serious problem for this economy?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been trade critic long enough to know that what he is presenting to the House now is completely spurious and false.
This loss of jobs at Bendix in Collingwood, Ontario is most regrettable but it has nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It has nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement. The business produces auto parts and it has been under the Auto Pact for 24 years, since the Auto Pact came into being in Canada. Under the Auto Pact there is free trade in original equipment, automotive parts, between Canada and the United States. The company would have been free to make this decision at any time in the last 24 years or anytime in the next 24 years, but it is not permitted or given any grounds for making the decision, nor is it assisted in coming to such a decision by the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It is a matter of the Auto Pact. The hon. gentleman knows that. He is dishonest in attempting to suggest that this is a result of the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have been trade critic long enough to know that any answer from that Minister is totally spurious. It is unfortunate that a Trade Minister of the Government is not aware that under the Free Trade Agreement the content requirements under the Auto Pact were changed, requiring North American content, not Canadian content. That is what makes a difference.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada itself refuses to undertake any monitoring of this major leakage of Canadian jobs. The Canadian Government, in discussions we had today with U.S. customs officials, has refused or has been negligent in requesting U.S. customs to take any monitoring or inspection of those matters. When will the Government take serious action to deal with the serious problems resulting in a serious loss of jobs for this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we know what the theory of the Official Opposition is, because it was given to us by their finance critic: "Every sparrow that falls will be blamed on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement". He said: "The trade deal will be blamed even if it may or may not be to blame". There is the photograph of the person. He is sitting just down the aisle from the you, Mr. Speaker. The Free Trade Agreement had nothing to do with this situation, but we are monitoring what is happening.

June 20, 1989
Oral Questions
For every incident that the hon. gentleman can cite, I have two or three which show that because of the Free Trade Agreement more plants and manufacturing companies are expanding in Canada. For example, Dupont Canada purchased a site in Trenton to manufacture food containers for frozen meals, and the reason given was the Free Trade Agreement. The same is true in Windsor, Scarborough, Mississauga, Smiths Falls, Montreal-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Here is a Minister who cannot keep the promises he made regarding his new sales tax.
First of all, he promised the tax would be revenue neutral, which it will not be. And second, according to the Minister the tax would eliminate existing hidden taxes, which is not going to happen. Third, we are now witnessing the violation of his third promise: the new tax itself will be hidden.
Could the Minister explain why he has once again broken a promise he made to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no promises have been broken here. I just want to remind the Hon. Member that before she gets too far out on a limb she should reflect back on the tax probe of her Party which said: "Our analysis has led us to conclude that the current federal sales tax is so unfair, unaccountable and administratively complex that it should be abolished".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Perhaps the Hon. Member has some way of bringing in a sales tax that can achieve that. Obviously her Party says that it should be abolished.
I have responded to the Leader of the Opposition on the same sort of question, but let me say to her that the new tax will be at the same rate at the retail level on all taxable items across the board. Therefore it will be much, much easier for consumers to know how much tax they will be paying, even if the tax is included in the price.
We are not saying today that it will be included or excluded. What I said to the Leader of the Opposition was that we do not have the power to enforce that, but we will be working with the Consumers' Association of Canada and other organizations to find the best way of achieving that very important element of visibility for the consumer.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister severely criticized the existing sales tax system. I would remind him that the existing hidden sales and excise tax costs every man, woman, and child in Canada $268 a year at this time. The Minister said in 1987:
Many Canadians are unaware of this tax because it is normally applied when a produce is manufactured and is hidden in the price of goods- By the time it reaches the consumer, a dollar of tax paid by a manufacturer can raise the price to the consumer by a lot more than a dollar, and the purchaser does not know much.
I would like to ask the Minister to tell the House how the new sales tax is going to differ from the old sales tax.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do just that because the Hon. Member is absolutely right.
I have roundly criticized the existing tax as has her Party, as has the Liberal Party. It is a bad tax. The reason why it is a bad tax is that the existing tax is buried deep in the production of the particular product. When it reaches the retail level, the tax may be 3 per cent, it may be 5 per cent, it may be 10 per cent, or it may be 13.5 per cent. Surely that is an unfair tax.
What will happen with this tax is that it will be 9 per cent on all taxable goods at the retail level. That makes it much fairer. That makes it much clearer to the consumer. That is one of the key reasons why we are supportive of this tax. It is one of the key reasons why I believe her Party should also be supportive of this tax.
June 20, 1989


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Canadians cannot be that easily fooled. They know that a hidden tax is a tax that can be raised without them seeing where it is going to.


IMPACT OF NEW SALES TAX
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a new 9 per cent tax is supposed to mean a break for consumers on the price of manufactured goods such as cars, household furniture, and appliances which are currently taxed at 13.5 per cent after the recent Budget.
If this tax remains hidden, how can Canadians be sure that they are getting this break that he says we are going to get in the new sales tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we will be making that quite clear when the technical paper is released.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me remind the Hon. Member of another reason why her Party should be fully in support of this tax. The New Democratic Party says that loopholes for the rich are bad. One clear element of this sales tax is that there are no loopholes.
Any time persons purchases a product that is taxable, they pay that tax. The rich cannot tax plan themselves out of this. They cannot hire lawyers or accountants or anybody like that to tax plan them out of paying that tax. It is payable by everyone. Furthermore, there is an offset to low income Canadians which ensures that this tax is a fair tax for low income Canadians.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in the House yesterday the Minister of National Defence stated in his response to my question on the search and rescue component now at CFB Summerside that search and rescue was identified on budget day and that that was still the policy and direction they were prepared to take.
Will the Minister confirm, more specifically, that search and rescue will not only remain in Prince Edward Island as stated on budget day, but that it will remain in Summerside since it will cost many millions of dollars to have it placed elsewhere?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the necessity to close CFB Summerside was to bring about a savings to this Government because of the lack of operational need of that base. I want to repeat what I have said before, that the search and rescue squadron will continue to operate on Prince Edward Island as a detachment of a base in the Maritimes.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, what the budget statement said was that it would be located in Prince Edward Island, that it would be located in Charlottetown.
The Minister said that he was saving money by moving the search and rescue to Charlottetown and that it would cost many millions. It seems to be a contradiction in terms, that it is going to remain in P.E.I., in Charlottetown, yet it is not going to even be on the Island. Will the Minister please explain?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on budget night the backgrounders that were put out clearly stated that the search and rescue squadron would continue to operate on Prince Edward Island as a detachment of a base in the Maritimes. That gives the Department several options to consider. When those options have been considered, there will be a decision made.
However, the Hon. Member knows that to maintain partial use of CFB Summerside certainly would not affect the savings that are necessary so that we can continue to use: those dollars to buy equipment for the men and women who serve Canada.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Egmont of course is dead right when he says that the Government ought to be increasing not decreasing surveillance, particularly over fishing.
I have a question for my good friend, the Minister of Fisheries, about the overfishing which is devastating the Atlantic economy. Yesterday we learned that Fishery Products International, FPI, suffered a $7 million loss in the first quarter, that it is buying fish from South America and Alaska, and then processing it in the United States.

June 20, 1989
Oral Questions
Is FPI's policy of purchasing fish in other countries and processing it in the United States just the latest example of what free trade is going to mean to Atlantic Canada-creating jobs in the United States instead of here in Canada?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made certain allegations. I am unaware of the factual basis on which those allegations are made. I would certainly want to look into that question before I would accept any assertion made by the Hon. Member opposite on such a question.
I also note that the president of Fishery Products International only yesterday was quoted as saying that he was very optimistic about the outlook for Fishery Products International in terms of returning to a profitable position by, I think, the third quarter of this year.


Roger Simmons: What allegations? That there is overfishing? Does the Minister not know that there is overfishing? Does he not know that FPI has lost a bundle this year and that it is buying fish abroad?


CRISIS IN ATLANTIC INDUSTRY
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister. The crisis in the Atlantic Fishery is having a devastating vicious chain reaction. Fishing incomes are down or wiped out. Shipyards are laying off people. The construction industry is in a tailspin. I could go on.
Is it necessary for the people of Atlantic Canada to beg this Government for help? Where is the plan the Minister promised this House three full weeks ago, the plan to help those people caught in the middle of the Government's mismanagement and kowtowing to the foreigners.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made the observation last week, but I will make it again today. The Hon. Member should apologize to the people of his area and of Atlantic Canada for spreading totally unjustified alarm and fear. The inshore fishery of his own region is only beginning to get under way for the 1989 fishing year.
Under the last four successive years of fisheries management by the Government, employment in the Atlantic fishery and income have continued to increase to unprecedented levels.


PRESENCE OF NICK PRICE AT CANADIAN OPEN GOLF TOURNAMENT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
The Canadian Open Golf Tournament takes place this weekend. The Minister will be aware that South African golfer Nick Price, travelling on a British passport of convenience, is attending the tournament. The Minister will also be aware that this is in complete contradiction of the policy the Canadian Government announced last year.
Will the Government enforce its own policy and prohibit Nick Price from entering Canada to participate in the tournament? Will it call on the Royal Canadian Golf Association to withdraw its invitation to Mr. Price?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's policy in the area of sport contact with South Africa is derived from the 1977 Gleneagles Agreement. As the Member has mentioned, there has been a review of that policy as applied in Canada less than a year ago and a tightening up of the policy. Since then there has been a further review of how the policy now applies in Canada to consider further ways in which we can tighten it up.
Mr. Price is coming into Canada under a passport from the U.K. I am sorry to say that in those circumstances Canada is not in a position in which we can question the legal documents that have been put out by the Government of the U.K.
However, I will add that I will intervene personally with the Royal Canadian Golf Association and invite it to decline from inviting Mr. Price to play in its golf tournament.
June 20,1989


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government is not too late. It has had notice of this situation for some time.


UNITED NATIONS BLACK LIST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister also aware that seven golfers, including yesterday's U.S. Open Champion Curtis Strange, Lee Trevino, Ben Crenshaw, Ken Green, and Nick Faldo, who have thumbed their noses at the UN boycott of sports contacts with South Africa and who, as a result, are on the UN register for sports contact with South Africa, intend to participate in the Open?
Will the Government enforce the UN black list and will it act to preserve the threat against the Commonwealth Games in Auckland and Victoria and in order to preserve Canada's reputation on the issue of apartheid?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as you will know, this is a very important issue for the Government of Canada and that is why there was a tightening up of the policy less than a year ago. One of the things we did at that time was to deny visa to those athletes, whether professional or amateur, attempting to enter Canada for sporting events. Even though there was that tightening up, we are looking at ways now in which we can do more things.
The difficulty we have in the very specific situation of a professional event is that they come under legal documents put forward by other countries. That obviously sets a limit on our level of action, but we will be speaking with those sport associations which have this type of activity to encourage them not to invite these athletes and to maintain Canada's position of having one of the strongest policies against sporting contacts with South Africa.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the tragic events the past few weeks in China.
Oral Questions
As Members will know, some thousands of Chinese citizens, many of them students, have found themselves caught in a most difficult situation here in Canada. They are quite concerned about what their future situation will be with respect to staying on in Canada.
Does the Minister intend to take further steps to assist these people? If so, can she indicate to the House what those measures might be?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, we are constantly looking at our policy with regard to Chinese Nationals in Canada. There are two important things that I would like to clarify today. One of them is a new step which we are prepared to take.
First, immigration officials in our many offices across Canada have been actively approaching community organizations to ensure that the public is aware of the measures they are taking. Public information sessions have been held at various locations, and I would encourage people with questions to get in touch with them.
Second, one of our first steps was to extend visas by 60 days for those who are in Canada. I would point out that the visas of many of the people who are in Canada right now do not expire for some months. However, I would encourage those who feel they need an early decision to approach our offices because we are prepared to give sympathetic consideration at this time to extending those visas for a year.

[Translation)


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today, Montreal's commission for economic development published a report indicating that the unemployment rate in 23 neighbourhoods in Montreal is over 15 per cent, while in 6 it is over 20 per cent. For instance, in Park Extension, the rate is 21 per cent, which is more than Sept-Iles with the same population, and in Plateau Mont Royal, it is 18 per cent, which is more than Abitibi with the same population.

June 20, 1989
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, considering these circumstances, when will this Government be ready to implement a special economic program for Montreal, in order to create jobs and reduce poverty? When?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course, since September 1984, 315,000 jobs have been created in Quebec, and many of these in Montreal. Since we came to power, the unemployment rate has dropped from 13 per cent to 9.8 per cent, a decline of 3.2 per cent. The other day, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, mentioned that the economy of Montreal was in better shape now that it had been in decades, and I think he is right. There is investment. Things are happening in Montreal. The boom is strong and sustained, largely thanks to investment brought about by the unusual degree of co-operation between the federal Government and the Government of Quebec, which has generated a considerable number of jobs.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Prime Minister read the report that was published in Montreal this morning.
The report says that the situation is worse now than it was in the recession of 1981 with over 400,000 unemployed in 23 Montreal districts. This was confirmed by the January report Deux Quebec dans un and the recent report of the Canadian Council on Social Development.
On June 7 the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the City of Montreal, said that the Government had no special programs in mind for the City of Montreal. In view of the report tabled today in Montreal, would the Government now reconsider that approach and take steps with the City of Montreal and the Government of Quebec to reverse this deplorable situation in that city?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentions the year 1981 involving his Government. During the term of the last Liberal Government, in almost five years, 55 months, there were
40.000	jobs created in Quebec. In four years there were
315.000	jobs created in the Province of Quebec under the Progressive Conservative Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is a big difference, 315,000.
My hon. friend points out that there are areas of economic difficulty in some areas of Montreal. I agree with him. We are trying to work very closely with the Province of Quebec, the City of Montreal, and the private sector to try to alleviate difficulties in those various sectors. However, generally speaking there has been a remarkable improvement in the economy of the Province of Quebec and in the growth of the City of Montreal. My hon. friend is a Montrealer; he is fully acquainted with that.
Under this Government jobs have been created in the Province of Quebec at a rate eight times faster than jobs were created under the previous Liberal Government. My hon. friend should be celebrating that tremendous contribution to Quebec's economic well-being rather than being a doomster and a gloomster like he has been all his life.


HOUSING
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. Yesterday in Montreal, the provincial minister, the mayors of Montreal and Quebec City, the president of the provincial municipalities' union and others denounced the abolition of RRAP for rental housing as an act of blatant discrimination against Quebec. My question is: Was the Minister aware that by cutting this program, he was hitting the poorest in the Province of Quebec hardest, because they received 50 per cent of the funds under this program? If the answer is yes, why did he single them out, and if the answer is no, is he prepared to revive the RRAP for rental housing immediately and without delay?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with Quebec's problem. The RRAP for rental housing was used more in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada because 65 per cent of Quebecers are tenants. In the rest of Canada, only 38 per cent of the population rent their housing.
Yesterday, I told this House that I hope to form a tripartite federal-provincial-municipal committee which will find a solution to this problem. The question was raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member was not here at that time.


William Warren Allmand: Read the report.
June 20, 1989


ABSENCE OF CONSULTATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, by cutting the program, the Government not only cut an essential program; it cut it without consultation with the provincial Governments concerned. The tripartite idea flown here yesterday has not impressed the provincial minister of housing, nor the mayor. The provincial minister said yesterday that he was going to take the Government to court. He said that the Government broke a federal-provincial agreement.
The total absence of consultation is breaking federal-provincial agreements. It is breaking the Government's word. Is that the way the Government intends to pursue the housing crisis in this country?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware of the difficulties we have with the fiscal situation in this country. When a program is not funded unfortunately there is no money to carry it out.
I regret that and I know that all members of the Government regret that fact. I am looking forward to working with the Hon. Member and all the Hon. Members in the House from Quebec and across the country to find some solutions to that problem.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, over 26,000 jobs have been lost by Canadian workers, men and women, to the United States and Mexico since the free trade deal has been instituted.
In answer to the question the Minister was asked about another 400 jobs being lost in Mexico, the Minister attacked the Liberal Party.
Does he have something to offer concretely in the terms that the Prime Minister said, that we would have the best programs of readjustment on the Free Trade Agreement of anywhere in the world? What does he specifically have to offer the 26,000 people who have already lost their jobs? Another 400 jobs are going to Mexico because of your bungling of the Free Trade Agreement?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not come up with a sparrow. He has come with an albatross-


An Hon. Member:: You are the albatross.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and it is hanging around his neck. There are no such 26,000 jobs. There have been 1.4 million jobs created since the Government came into office. From time to time I am able to give other examples of jobs which have been created as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
There is Alcan Aluminium, a $48 million modernization and expansion in Kitimat. That is in British Columbia. There is Cargill, a $50 million slaughterhouse in High River which will employ 480 by mid-summer 1989. That is a slaughterhouse. There is Novacor Chemicals of Calgary, $600 million in an ethylene plant near Joffre, creating 200 permanent jobs. There are no 26,000 jobs.


MAQUILADORA PROGRAM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a document which comes from the Commissioner of Customs in the United States. It indicates that goods brought into the United States from the Maquiladora section of Mexico will be treated under many circumstances as having U.S. origin.
What is this Government going to do to plug this loophole and to safeguard thousands of jobs right across this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have had sparrows and we have had albatrosses. Now we have a canard or several canards.
There are clear provisions in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. You have to show, in order to get the benefits of the agreement, that the goods originated in the United States or in Canada.
I do not know what obscure little document the hon. gentleman has from the U.S. Customs. However, their documents do not matter to us. It is our documents which matter to us. Our Customs will not allow such goods to come across the border subject to the U.S.-Canada tariff arrangements unless they show the goods originated in the United States, not in the Maquiladora, not in Mexico, and not in anywhere south of the border.

June 20, 1989
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


POSTAL SUBSIDY CUT-BACK
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, as part of its promise to the Canadian voters that culture would not be on the free trade table, the Government undertook that postal subsidies would be maintained for at least five years.
In spite of that promise, the Budget Papers state that the postal subsidy will be cut by $10 million in 1989-90 and $45 million in each subsequent year. At this pace the program will be totally wiped out before the next election.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. While we know where the first $10 million is going to go that the Government is going to cut, we want to know what will be affected by the next $45 million? Over how many years is it going to take place? Where will the Minister stop, when the total $164 million infrastructure program is completely gone?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that this infrastructure program has been in place for a long period of time. It has not had much by way of review over the last many years.
What we are doing as a part of the budget process is reviewing all aspects of this program. The Hon. Member knows that there are publications which should not be getting this subsidy. It is those publications which will be identified, and they will cease to get the subsidy.
The Minister of Communications, working with the Minister responsible for the Post Office, will be coming up with proposals in that regard.


Sheila Finestone: It is very clear where the $45 million cut is going to stop.


ACCESS TO PROGRAM
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister.
Could the Minister tell us why the Government has chosen not to support cultural magazines, ethnic magazines and not to support third language newspapers, community newspapers and daily newspapers when the Department of Communications study has shown that these subjects, supplementaries, and subsidies are absolutely fundamental to the survival of these particular magazines and newspaper?
It is important to small town Canada and rural Canada. Why is this Government not giving fair access to all Canadians across Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this normally is not the style of the Hon. Member to distort what we are trying to achieve with a program.


Sheila Finestone: No. I am telling you the reality.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What we have said is that it is about time governments reviewed all forms of subsidy. This is one of those which we think it is important we should be reviewing.


Sheila Finestone: The Italians, the Hungarians, the Greeks-everybody will be happy!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Minister of Communications will be coming forward with proposals in this regard but clearly the Hon. Member is falling into the same trap of not wanting to review where moneys are spent. Keep the deficit running up. Keep the debt of the country running up. Forget about the impact that this has on interest rates, the impact of those interest rates on the very people about which she is concerned. This is what we are doing as a government and we feel it is the responsible approach to take.
My colleague will be bringing forward proposals which will demonstrate clearly that we are sensitive to a number of the concerns that she has raised.


FINANCE
Right Hon. John N. Ibrner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that the federal Government under our Constitution has the power to tax from all sources? Having that power he has the power fully to administer the tax including the power to describe the amount of the tax on any good affected by the tax. If he has a contrary legal opinion, would he table it in the House of Commons?
June 20,1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is a former Minister of Justice and he knows that that is something that is quite contrary to tradition in this House. Ministers do not table legal opinions that are provided by the Public Service. But the Right Hon. Leader is fully aware-and he has a little smirk on his face, Mr. Speaker-that this is something not within the domain of the federal Government.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because the Minister is again hiding the truth from Canadians.


NATIONAL SALES TAX DISCLOSURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance had this position documented by legal officers of the Crown, why did he not reveal the position two years ago instead of promising Canadians for the last two years that the new national sales tax would not be a hidden tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I addressed that point in a previous answer. Two years ago we were working on a national sales tax which would have involved the provinces. If it had involved the provinces then clearly we would have had the ability and the capacity to do that sort of thing. Once we moved away from a national sales tax to a federal only sales tax, then we lost that control. But as I have said, and I have underscored this very clearly in this House, we are concerned about the visibility of the tax. We are concerned that consumers understand the impact of that tax on them and we will be working with various organizations to ensure that that does take place.


POINT OF ORDER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed during the voluminous verbiage by the Minister for International Trade that he in the course of his remarks suggested that my response was dishonest. At page 106 of Beauchesne it specifically describes that as an unparliamentary term. I would ask the Minister to withdraw it.
Ways and Means


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may want to respond. At the moment I am not going to make any ruling until I have a chance to look at Hansard. The Hon. Minister?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what term the hon. gentleman is referring to but I certainly want to withdraw it. Anything that Lloyd objects to I would naturally withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I want to take the Minister at his word. Will he withdraw the Free Trade Agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, may I anticipate withdrawing whatever I may say tomorrow?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I am leaving the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: You are withdrawing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tkx Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act, laid upon the table on Monday, June 12, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

June 20, 1989
Ways and Means


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
*Rimer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner
White
Assiniboia)
Worthy-130


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been consent among the three Parties that I present to you a report of the legislative committee on Bill C-19.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act. It is also my understanding that there has been agreement that this Bill will be debated later on today.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) that Bill C-22, an Act to
Environmental Protection
amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commenting on the main theme point in the Speech from the Throne in which the Government told us that the environment and its preservation for future generations were the Government's top priority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Members who wish to carry on a conversation will please converse behind the curtains.


Marlene Catterall: I noticed that by the time the Throne Speech had faded a bit and we were into the Budget, suddenly the title of the Budget was not sustainable economic growth but sustained economic growth with no reference to sustainable.
That brings me to some of the points that I am concerned about with regard to this Bill. I do not believe any of us dispute the purpose of the Bill. I do think we have some concerns, however, about the commitment to the intention of the Bill and to the actions that are needed to go along with it. The reason we are being asked today to approve this Bill, and with minimum debate because of its urgency, is to allow the Government to implement its stated intentions to reduce the production of CFCs and their release into the environment.
We have no question in our minds that the environment, in particular the atmosphere, is the main issue that confronts society in Canada and around the world today. It is quite simply a question of whether there will be anything left to breathe a few years from now. If there is not, there will be no life on earth. For that reason, we have to question some of the weaknesses in the Bill. We have to question the lack of national standards that can be implemented. We have to question why, if this is such an important issue, the enforceability of this Bill is weak. We have to question why we are doing the minimum in targets for the reduction of CFCs being released into the atmosphere.
By contrast, I look at the actions of the Ontario Government which has introduced a package to eliminate the use of CFCs in Ontario completely. I note that part and parcel of Ontario's announcement was a commitment to commission and to fund the research and development necessary for a safe and efficient destruction method for CFCs.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
We have heard and we will continue to hear in this House, at least from this side of the House, about the lack of commitment to science, research and technology development in this country. That is particularly important in the case of the CFC legislation and in the case of all environmental programs. This type of control, when it is only there as a mandatory kind of thing and not as part of a total commitment to the soundness of the environment, to improving it for future generations and certainly not to damaging it, is tokenism at best.
I am concerned that this Bill does not mean an awful lot. Over the last few years there have been reductions in research and development in energy conservation and the development of energy alternatives. There has been a reduction by 75 per cent of control of fertilizers and a lack of commitment to add resources to control the approval of pesticides and, in fact, to go back and review pesticides that have been approved and are now in use, based on our current knowledge of the environment and of the damage that pesticides can do both to the environment and to humanity.
I anticipate the same problem with CFCs: no commitment to research and development for alternatives, no commitment to the research and development necessary for the safe destruction of CFCs. Therefore, there is a minor effort to control CFCs, and perhaps this is a little too harsh, but I suspect no real commitment, if one looks at the record of the Government over the last four years, to other similar environmental areas.
As we look at this year's Estimates as well, we see a lot of words in terms of commitment to the environment, but no real commitment. Real commitment means you put your resources where your words are. That simply has not happened with the Estimates put forward by the Government this year. We see cuts in the commitment to inland waters, to fisheries, to atmospheric research, all those things which are part and parcel of the problem that this Bill purports to address; that is, the problem of CFCs, the problem of the deterioration, the destruction and, if we are not very careful, the imminent death of our atmosphere.
We see no commitment to municipal infrastructure. We all know that we need to do more to treat water supplies so that the circulation of water out of rivers and lakes and back into them is done in a way that does not
deteriorate those bodies of water. We have the technology now to improve the way we return water to the rivers, but we have poor and small municipalities unable to afford to implement that technology. Every province across this country is prepared to cost-share the improvement in the treatment of water, but this federal Government refuses to participate in it.
Looking back over what the Government has done with PCBs only reinforces my concern about its commitment to this Bill and to the protection of the atmosphere. Four years ago there was a PCB spill in Kenora. There was a great uproar. The Government was going to do something, but it was quietly forgotten for three years until St. Basile le Grand had a tragedy with PCBs fortunately just before an election. That jolted people into action. However, if we look at what has happened since, is there one federally-owned PCB site that has been cleaned up? Is there one federally-owned PCB deposit that has been destroyed? I think not.
Vehicles can still be purchased by the Government without emission standards. This Government has failed to use its power of spending to achieve the needed improvements. We will be speaking about that later today when we look at Bill C-3 to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. But the Government has tremendous purchasing power amounting to billions of dollars every year to determine what products will be produced by the private sector for consumption in this country. Its very purchasing power gives it the ability to influence manufacturers to develop alternatives to CFCs. Yet it is not doing that. There is no policy within this Government to determine that we will not purchase products that are unsafe to the environment. There is no Minister who has the authority to ensure that such a policy is implemented.
This Bill ignores completely the fact that the CFCs we have already put into the environment will not cease doing their harm for another 16 years. The atmosphere will continue to deteriorate as a result of the products that we used yesterday. This is damage which is predictable, and it is treatable if we are committed to doing it. But we know that by continuing the use of CFCs, we continue their damage, not for tomorrow or for the 5,10 or 20 years we continue to use them, but for a full 16 years beyond that.
June 20, 1989

It is good that the Bill is here. I wish I felt that it were part of a real, ongoing and well understood commitment to consider our depletion of the earth's resources and our contribution to cleaning up the earth in everything we do. However, that is not what we have in front of us, that is not what I have seen from the Government in the last four years or in the last six months.
It has been said, and I guess it is a bit of a cliche, that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. I think it is a shame that the Government had to be forced by the courts to obey its own environmental guidelines. I thought that when we passed guidelines or laws to impose on other people it was because we believed in them and that we did not have to be forced by courts or anyone else to abide by them ourselves. I am a firm believer in "Do as I do, not as I say". It is a little hard for us to tell private industry to clean up if we are not prepared to clean up ourselves.
In passing this token legislation I challenge the Government to look at every aspect of our operation as a government and every aspect of the projects which we choose to fund here and abroad and consider what it is doing to the world that we are leaving to the next generation.
We need nationally enforceable standards and, more than that, we need a national and universal commitment by government to act on that which we all now know, that is, that unless we change our way of living we will not have a world to live in.


Mr. Stevenson:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome an opportunity to make a comment in this debate today. As a Member, I object to the actions of certain Members who work extremely hard to make the environment into a very strongly partisan issue. It is clear to anyone that every Member in this House would do the most possible to ensure that our environment is indeed safe. I am sure that you, too, Mr. Speaker, would agree with that.
Canadians use about 2 per cent of the total world production of CFCs. Certainly we are part of the problem, but obviously not a huge part of the problem on a world-wide basis. From outside our borders Canada is looked upon as one of the leaders in establishing legislation and taking actions to control chlorofluorocar-bons. We need look back only as far as the Montreal Protocol to see the leadership which Canada has taken. We took part in that agreement and since that time it has been recognized that rather than only cutting by 50 per
Environmental Protection
cent we must basically eliminate the use of chlorofluoro-carbons in Canada.
The Government has put out a report for public perusal on the deadlines in various usage areas. I have no doubt that as soon as practical alternatives come along significant action will be taken and members of this Party, as much as Members of the Opposition, will work very hard to ensure that the necessary action is taken to control this very serious environmental problem which we, individually, have been watching for some time and on which we will demand action.
I am not sure that this particular Member mentioned, as others have, that we should take action on alternatives immediately. Quite frankly, some of those alternatives are not yet proven. What alternatives exist in the area of household refrigeration, for example, to convert household refrigeration appliances if we suddenly removed chlorofluorocarbons?


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is fine to say that we all want to do our best. I cannot help wondering why the Government seems to believe that it should be left totally to market forces to develop these alternatives. Surely the Hon. Member must be aware of the need for government investment in research and technology that is to the benefit of all society. We cannot simply wait for the vagaries of the market. I did mention that the Government has an ability to influence the market in a positive way by refusing to purchase certain products. As long as we spend Canadian taxpayers' money on harmful products there is no incentive for anyone to develop alternatives. I challenge the Member to take that back to his caucus and suggest that there are more positive things that can be done.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment with regard to the remarks made by the Member. Too many are tending to play politics with the very serious subject of the environment, and I refer particularly to the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. A lot of people have made statements in this House, to the press, and in other fora, who have no knowledge of the project. These types of statements do not help to build a better environment which will be sustained for future generations. All political Parties have supported this dam. In fact, a past Minister of the Environment under the Liberal Party, who is now the Governor General, instituted a report in 1974 which commended the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. The NDP have built six projects, smaller dams, on that basin system. Every government has supported the direction taken in that.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the privileges of the House protect us from making statements that may be found to be in contempt, but I think that if the Speaker will review the comments which have just been made he will find that the Member is moving dangerously close to contempt of court. There was a court judgment which came out specifically in the case of the Rafferty-Alameda Dam which has nothing to do with any political party. Heaven knows that Ministers of the Crown who have commented in the past on court judgments have found themselves out of a job. I know that the Member would not want to be found in contempt of court so I am sure he would want to withdraw his comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will review the comments of the Hon. Member for Souris-Moose Mountain (Mr. Gustafson) with our law officers during this debate. I would hope that if this does involve a court proceeding the Hon. Member will tread lightly.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly implied nothing which would infringe upon the courts. I did mention the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. This has gone on in a very serious way which is challenging a most important project. It is very, very important that we have a clear understanding of what we are going to deal with if we are going to have a fair balance of dealing with environmental issues that we are all concerned about which will enhance the development of the environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West would like to rebut, please.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how relevant the comments are, either to the issue or to my statement. I think the Hon. Member has made the point very well.
The court has made a decision that a project was not subjected to the environmental assessment when it should have been. The statements from the Hon. Member opposite simply reinforce my concern that having laws on paper is no commitment on the part of the Government to live within the letter and the spirit of those laws. The case he cited was an excellent example.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. Debate. Is the House ready for the question?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa South.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene in this debate very briefly. This is a Bill which we support. We support the objectives of the Bill in creating a legislative framework in which to enact regulations respecting the manufacture and expansion of CFCs and to implement the agreements of the Montreal protocol.
This is a very small Bill. Unfortunately, I take seriously the remarks of one of my Conservative colleagues that the environment is not really a partisan issue. It is an issue which is of much too great importance to debate merely on partisan grounds.
In this case, though, there are some things which should be said in response to the Government's proposition of this Bill at this time. It does indicate that the Environmental Protection Act was enacted last year in what was more or less a death bed conversion on the part of the Government to put together a major piece of environmental legislation in the final months before an election, when Decima told them it was the biggest issue on anyone's agenda in the real world.
We see a case of poor drafting in a statute that was hurriedly put together and needs to be amended before any other regulations have been proclaimed just in order to comply with the Montreal protocol which has been around for some years now.
I want to reflect on the importance of this Bill as a symbol of what we need to be doing here in this Chamber. In my few months here, we have debated the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. We have talked about the Budget and budget leaks. We have talked about the Constitution, things of great importance to many of us and to many Canadians.
June 20,1989

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about today in this one-page Bill is the most important matter to come before us in the months of this Parliament.
What we have discovered in recent years, to our dismay, is how interrelated human activity truly is. For all those years when we, without a thought, used the CFC propellants in our aerosol cans, we never once thought of the long-term damage we were causing to the global environment. We have the evidence of the destruction of the ozone layer. It is not evidence which was easy to come by. According to an article in Time Magazine in 1987, they wrote:
For several years NASA's scientists failed to accept data on the Antarctic ozone hole that was before their eyes. The reason: Computers pre-screening data from monitoring satellites had been programmed to dismiss as suspicious presumably wild data showing a 30 per cent or greater drop in ozone levels. After British scientists reported the deficit in 1985, NASA went back to its computer records, finally recognizing that the satellite data had been showing the hole all along.
As we talk about the global crisis in the environment, Mr. Speaker, it is often that we hear these expositions of concern and worry dismissed as being panic-mongering or wony-mongering. Those dismissals have occurred before by elite scientists, as sophisticated and as well trained as those of NASA. They were proven to be wrong. Deterioration of the ozone is of special concern to those of us who find the sun somewhat difficult to bear as it is. The evidence is clear. I speak as someone with a bit of red hair and with two children with red hair. The evidence is clear that many of us are going to be prone to skin cancers in the years to come as a result of ozone deterioration. That is maybe the least of our problems.
The evidence is also clear that the agricultural product is going to be reduced. Productivity will be reduced as ozone deteriorates. Further, sea life is in peril as the plankton in some areas are killed by the ultraviolet rays. Onee the food chain is affected, what we have on our hands is a serious, serious problem in a world in which we are already having difficulty feeding our population. That is why I say that perhaps this little one-page Bill is the most important thing we have brought forward in this Parliament.
Environmental Protection
A few weeks ago, my 10-year old daughter came to me with a poem which she had written. She read it as a rap. It was kind of read to a beat. She gets up earlier than the rest of us and it was something which she sat down early in the morning on her own and produced. It was about the environment. She wrote a little poem about how we were messing things up.
I think the question that we all have to ask ourselves, as we carry on our duties as Canadian parliamentarians, is what do we say to the children? How do we explain to them that the world in which they are growing up is imperilled in a very basic fundamental way? Our abilities to sustain life are in peril because of our greed.
I think that this amendment is a good one. It is good that we are moving forward on the Montreal protocol. There are some criticisms that maybe the regulations should be sterner and maybe, as the Friends of the Earth in a press release issued today have said, we could reduce the CFC production more rapidly. We could make a greater contribution. I would urge the Government, if that is the case, to make every effort to expedite the reduction of CFC production.
That is not really the point. I think the point is that we have discovered in this global interrelatedness of our economy, of our energy policies, of our finance and of our environment, that we no longer live in a world separated by international boundaries. We are one another's neighbours.
We have a stake in the destruction of forests around the world. We have a stake in the economies of those countries whose poverty is driving them to destroy the very resources that they and the world needs in order to carry on. We have a stake in those countries who are so threatened by global warming that they may not continue to exist as nations if present trends continue.
I give you the example of the islands of the Maldives which will not exist in the world in 50 years' time if present global warming trends continue. I give you the example of the state of Egypt where 10 million of its people live at an B latitude less than one and one-half metres above sea level. If current global warming trends continue, that entire population will be forced to relocate. We, as Canadians, have a stake in these crucial world problems. We have contributed our part to the creation of these problems. We are called upon in our sophistication, in our higher education and in our wealth to contribute to their solutions not just within our own boundaries but world-wide.

June 20, 1989
Environmental Protection
I return to the question that I posed earlier somewhat rhetorically. What are we going to say to the children?

How to explain to the children of the world that we took too much-

That we were too greedy and that their future is in peril.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to comment on the matters raised in this debate. He spoke on the ozone layer. Also the Parliamentary Secretary raised the problem of Rafferty-Alameda Dam. Would the Hon. Member agree with me that that was one of the biggest scams for which this Government has ever been responsible in the sense that it went ahead with that without an environmental study, through a quick deal behind the doors, a backroom deal with the Premier and Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan with the consent, I would say, of the present Parliamentary Secretary who should think perhaps about shifting his portfolio away from environment. This, as the Hon. Member would know, caused the resignation of one of the senior staff members of the previous Minister of the Environment who blew the whistle on that gang of environmental crooks.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that? The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is heckling me. But surely the Canadian Federal Court showed what a scam the deal was.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the Hon. Member would put the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am putting the question, Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary would let me do so. He is very, very sensitive to this scam that he, Devine and Bemtsen made. The Federal Court of Canada had to overrule and caught them through some honest person in the Minister's office. It is a scam. Every environmental group in Canada is upset over the way the Government acted.
I want to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke and spoke very well on having some ethics in environment. Would the Member agree with me that this is not the way to approach environment through backroom deals, but we do need environmental assessment of projects so this kind of environmental degradation cannot happen?


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. What we can be grateful for in this sorry history is the Federal Court of Canada and the decision it rendered.
The question points out the truth of what the Brund-tland Commission itself stated when it considered the problems that we have in trying to interrelate various aspects of policy making in a very complex economic environment. The Brundtland Commission in speaking of the challenges to link the aspects of policy making together in sustainable development stated:
The challenges are both interdependent and integrated, requiring comprehensive approaches and popular participation.
Yet most of the institutions facing those challenges tend to be independent, fragmented, working to relatively narrow mandates with closed decision processes.
Those responsible for managing natural resources and protecting the environment are institutionally separated from those responsible for managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change, the policies and institutions concerned must.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not trying to make things hard for you. I just want to point out that I made a mistake and referred to the Parliamentary Secretary when I was talking about what I consider a scandal over the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. I meant the Hon. Member for Souris-Moose Mountain (Mr. Gustafson), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is the one responsible for this scam.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member just makes the point that I made earlier. The minute we start to play politics with the environment, to play politics with a sensitive issue we begin to-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Keep politics out of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
June 20, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte)-AGRICULTURE- Provincial soil agreements; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi)-Canadian Aviation Safety Board recommendations-Air traffic controllers; and the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud)-Occupational Health and Safety-Closure of Centre-Government position-Rights of Canadians to information.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-3, an Act to establish the
Industry, Science and Technology
Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
[Translation[
Motions Nos. 1 and 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr.Langdon) cause the Chair some procedural concerns. Subsection 6(2) of the Bill limits the Minister's powers to regional economic development in Ontario and Quebec only. It therefore seems that by seeking to broaden the Minister's powers and duties to include all of Canada, the mover is seeking to amend the Bill in a way that goes beyond what the House had in mind when it approved the Bill in principle. Therefore, in accordance with Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne, motions Nos. 1 and 5 will not be selected.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley), is identical to an amendment that was moved, debated and negatived in the legislative committee which studied Bill C-3. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(5), this motion in amendment will not be selected.
Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) is acceptable and will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley), although similar to an amendment that was moved, debated and negatived in committee, is somewhat different and, consequently, I shall give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion to be debated and voted upon separately. Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-

Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is in order and it will be debated and voted on separately.
To recap the ruling, Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 5 will not be selected. Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are acceptable and will be debated and voted upon separately, and I shall now put Motion No. 3 to the House.

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after
line 17 at page 3 the following:
"(d) ensure an equitable distribution of economic benefits
throughout the various regions of the country."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to bring into line the functions of the Minister of Science and Technology. The Department of Industry, Science and Technology is a new Department. The legislation deals in Part I with the very important issue of trade, commerce and science and the objectives of the Minister are to strengthen the national economy, increase the international competitiveness of Canadian industry and encourage the fullest and most efficient and effective development and use of science and technology-
My amendment would add to that that the Minister ensure an equitable distribution of economic benefits throughout the various regions of the country. A Minister responsible for industry and commerce will have a lot of power. I believe that one of the objectives of the ministry should be to ensure equal distribution of economic benefits throughout all of Canada.
Part II of the legislation deals with science, and we understand that the Minister is to have power over science and research. Part III deals with regional development in Ontario and Quebec. I believe that because of this, the Minister could look more leniently at Quebec and Ontario, but I would like him to deal with Atlantic Canada and the West the same way. That is why I have moved this amendment.
I believe this is a reasonable amendment. It would put into perspective the Minister's objectives. As I said, one objective would be to ensure an equitable distribution of economic benefits throughout the various regions of Canada. As a westerner and as a person who feels that the Department of Industry, Science and Technology will be a very important ministry, I believe the Minister should have that as an objective as well. That is why I am putting this motion to the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to very briefly indicate our support for this amendment. We tried with several amendments in the legislative committee and before the House, amendments which were considered to extend the scope of the Bill unduly, to get the same sense of equity put into the legislation. We wanted a commitment
on the part of this ministry to have some kind of over all function with respect to economic equity in Canada.
In Canada, there are now essentially three quite disparate and often unco-ordinated agencies which are trying to achieve regional development. There is ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which has one set of policies it is pursuing with respect to Atlantic Canada. There is the Western Diversification Office which has a completely different set of policies it is pursuing with respect to western Canada. As the legislation before us presently stands, there is also this ministry which will be taking responsibility for Ontario and Quebec. Talking of balkanization within a country, I think this is the most glaring example one could possibly see with respect to one of the most important functions of Government, its responsibility to achieve greater economic equity throughout the country.
If this motion is passed, it will have the effect of indicating the significance of this concern. It will not do as much as we would like to see done. We would like to see the responsibility clearly set out for the ministry to give some co-ordination to regional development efforts right across the country. In the absence of that, this motion would at least recognize that part of the responsibility of the Minister will be to work toward greater equity in economic opportunity throughout Canada.
Let me illustrate some of the problems that are coming up in the present situation. At the moment, the constraints which have been imposed on ACOA have led it to focus its assistance very much on small-scale business in Atlantic Canada. I personally think that makes sense, but at the same time, the Minister responsible for western diversification, when he testified recently before the Standing Committee, Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development, indicated that he himself was putting the emphasis on larger scale projects in western Canada. In fact, the great bulk of money provided through his office for western diversification has gone to large scale projects. In fact, much of it has gone to foreign owned projects which are the subsidiaries of large, extremely rich multinational corporations which, quite frankly, do not need subsidized loans from the Government of Canada in order to provide enterprises throughout the country. In the case of western diversification, the emphasis should be on westerners, western Canadians, small and medium scale entrepreneurs who want to see development in their communities and are prepared to take steps to attempt to achieve that.
June 20, 1989

Because of a lack of over-all responsibility on the part of this Ministry for benefits for the future and a sense of equity in these benefits, we have diversion in terms of policy taking place.
If this were diversion with respect to tourism policy, for example, we might not be so concerned. Our tourism policy would give us a policy which differed depending on the part of the country. However, here we are talking about very important concerns for the country in the future and the desire to get some type of regional equality of opportunity for people and for communities. Instead of greater equality being recognized as something that is being sought in this legislation, as it stands at the moment it is not a responsibility of the Minister.
This amendment comes from the Conservative benches. It is an amendment which we certainly support, because it at least goes some distance in putting into effect some of what we had hoped to accomplish. I very much hope that my fellow Members of the House in the Liberal Party will also be able to support this amendment. Frankly, I hope that it will be unanimously accepted by the House as a constructive addition to this piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Willowdale.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: We in the Liberal Party propose to support this amendment. We congratulate the Hon. Member who has moved it. It is critical that we claw back from the Government some of the territory that it has taken away from the regions of Canada. It is critical, because the Government is cutting the funding in Atlantic Canada. It is cutting the funding for development in the West. It is cutting the funding in northern Ontario. It is cutting the funding to the regions of Quebec.
The Government is content to close down small-town Canada. The opportunities that the people in those regions have are being pulled back from them by the Government.
Industry, Science and Technology
This amendment gives us one opportunity to remind the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) that he has a responsibility to the regions of Canada.
It is with enthusiasm that we support this amendment. We wish that it were not necessary, but in light of all the other attempts by the Government to get rid of its responsibilities to help the people in the regions of Canada who need it most, this type of amendment is critical.
For example, in my own province in northern Ontario, industry is a major industry. Because of the 15 per cent tax, we have seen seven sawmills close, laying off some
2,000	people from work. Hopefully, with this type of amendment, we can take steps to redress this inequitable situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4.


John Paul Manley: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry,
Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 4 the following:
"(i) develop, implement, and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion to amend the Bill to create the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, is intended to bring within the provisions of that Bill the requirement that the Minister, in exercising his duties as Minister, develop, implement and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable.
This amendment goes to the very core of what the Government has been stating about its interest and concern in the environment. It goes to the core of the Prime Minister's praise for the work of the Brundtland Commission. This amendment seeks to take this Department of Government, which is a key economic Department, and put within it the responsibility to look to sustainable development as a key aspect of economic policy. This is entirely consistent with the proposals of the Brundtland Commission. I submit that it is entirely consistent with what the Government has been stating. Remember the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, wherein the Government proclaimed that the environment was to be one of its first priorities?
I have a series of press clippings here: "More priority for environment is promised by new minister"; "Environment No. 1, Bouchard says"; "Environment comes first in new projects: Bouchard"; and "Environment to get top priority, minister says". This is to be the top priority. An article in The Globe and Mail on February 1, states in part:
The new federal Environment Minister, Lucien Bouchard-said the new government's thinking is in keeping with the concept of sustainable development: that the prevention of present and future harmful environmental effects has equal priority with other economic and social goals.
This is consistent with the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission. I also wish to quote from the Brundtland Commission report which states:
In the past, responsibility for environmental matters has been placed in environmental ministries and institutions that often have had little or no control over destruction caused by agricultural, industrial, urban development, forestry, and transportation policies and practices. Society has failed to give the responsibility for preventing environmental damage to the 'sectoral' ministries and agencies whose policies cause it. Thus our environmental management practices have focused largely upon after-the-fact repair of damage: reforestation, reclaiming desert lands, rebuilding
urban environments, restoring natural habitats, and rehabilitating wild lands.
The ability to anticipate and prevent environmental damage will require that the ecological dimensions of policy be considered at the same time as the economic, trade, energy, agricultural, and other dimensions.
The Science Council of Canada in its report entitled Environmental Peacekeepers makes the same point. Again, I quote:
Global environmental deterioration has been spawned in large measure by science and technology applied to unsustainable economic growth and development in the industrialized countries. It is worsening as those Third World countries that can do so accelerate their economic development in order to raise their living standards-
The role of science and technology in undoing the global ecological crisis-if it is to be undone at all-is of paramount importance.
The Science Council of Canada goes on to recommend that the Department of Industry, Science and Technology take a leading role in the environmental renewal that the world calls for us to have.
This is a challenge to the Government. This is its commitment to live by the intent of the Brundtland Report. This is its opportunity to embark on an exciting adventure. Let us say now to Canada and the world that our key economic development Department of the Government of Canada is going to take into its heart and soul concerns about the environment.
I know what the response in the legislative committee on similar amendments was. It was: "Well, there is an environmental policy committee of Cabinet to review these things". Is that not the Canadian way, Mr. Speaker? We will turn it over to a committee. Committees are well known for the types of decisions they make.
Let us take environmental concerns and put them under the responsibility of the Minister who is going to carry out policies whose very implications could be threatening to the environment. That is where it belongs. That is the challenge to the Government.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say a brief word of congratulation to the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) for having taken this very fine initiative. Second, I wish to say that if any Member of the Progressive Conservative Party were to vote against the amendment now proposed by the Hon. Member,, they in substance and in spirit would be voting against their own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), their own Speech from the Throne and statements made at home and abroad by their own Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
June 20,1989

I will explain to you why, Mr. Speaker, I say that. The amendment being proposed reads simply that the mandate of this Department should also "develop, implement, and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable".
What the Hon. Member for Ottawa South is proposing is what the Prime Minister proposed at the United Nations in June of last year. Do the Progressive Conservative Members in the House want to vote against what their own Prime Minister said abroad? If that is not enough, would they want to deny a major paragraph contained in the Speech from the Throne which states: "My Government will pursue sustainable development as a major thrust in the policy development of this Government in this Parliament"? Is that not what it states in the Speech from the Throne?
On April 27, when the Minister of Finance delivered his speech in this House he, in his own words, said he also wants to have economic development that is consistent with sustainable development.
The Minister repeats the old chestnut that his colleague the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Andre) brought up in committee when he said: "Oh well, do not do that because the development and environment Department should do it". That thinking belongs to the caveman. It has been put aside at a number of places where Canada participates and in organizations of which Canada is a member, namely, the OECD, the United Nations, and through two members of the Brundtland Commission-everywhere we have agreed to the principle that we should now integrate the economy with the environment.
We have even reached the point of adopting and sponsoring the notion that the environment ought to be made the responsibility of every Department. Now is the opportunity to practise the theory that has been embraced by the Prime Minister at home and abroad, by the Minister of Finance and by some Members of Cabinet who attempt to do it and, quite understandably so, within the realm and powers given to Cabinet.
Industry, Science and Technology
What the Hon. Member for Ottawa South is proposing is really an additional step, but a very practical one. The first practical opportunity to implement this practical step within the Government's structure is by saying that the formation of a new Department which, among other responsibilities, has the responsibility to ensure that the fostering of economic development be also environmentally sustainable.
It is a beautiful amendment. It is a great opportunity for Members on the Government side to practise what their Prime Minister preaches abroad and at home, and also what some of their own colleagues in the environment committee have been saying for weeks and months now. They also support and quote Madam Brundtland, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa South has just done. It would be a contradiction of their own polity, of their own credo, of their own statements and beliefs if they were to vote against this amendment.
This is where the political crunch is. We are anxiously awaiting the moment when you call the vote, Mr. Speaker, to see that there is consistency in the beliefs of the Progressive Conservative Government when it comes to sustainable development.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa South is offering Members opposite a unique opportunity to practise what they preach. It is not good enough to go to the United Nations and make a great declaration. It is not good enough to go to The Hague as the Prime Minister did in March and make another declaration. It is not a matter of a declaration here. It is a matter of putting into legislation a very sound and basic principle, one that is being proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa South. We congratulate him.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, with respect to our Party we want to say two things. First, we wish to extend our congratulations to the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) for his continuing efforts to put this idea before the Government, both in the legislative committee and now here in the House. He is absolutely correct when he says that the position which has been so strongly put by the Brundtland Commission is something which we in this House should feel a sense of enthusiasm about and a sense of commitment to.

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
I hope very much that Government Members will take this amendment seriously, look at it, listen to some of the points which have been made and on the basis of their consideration of the substance of it end up supporting it. It is interesting to look at the clause to which the Hon. Member wishes to add this notion of environmental priority. The clause contains perhaps the greatest collection of motherhood statements that have ever graced a piece of legislation in the House of Commons.
The Minister is to develop, implement and promote national policies to foster international competitiveness in industry. It would be most remarkable if a Minister of Industry for Canada were supposed to promote international lack of competitiveness for our industry.
He is supposed to enhance industrial, scientific and technological development. Again, it would be absolutely bizarre if the Minister of Industry were given the task of reducing industrial, scientific and technological development in this country. He is supposed to improve the productivity and efficiency of industry. We would be amazed to see before us a clause which states that the Minister is supposed to promote inefficiency.
The Minister is supposed to develop and implement national policy to foster entrepreneurship, start-up growth and expansion of small businesses. Again, it would be remarkable if he or she was supposed to spend time undercutting small business in this country. This is a set of motherhood commitments.
Frankly, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, what the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manly), whom I have already congratulated, has suggested here tonight is a motherhood statement as well. It is a statement that the promotion of national policies to foster economic development should be environmentally sustainable. Surely this is not something radical and excessive to suggest in 1989 when the Great Lakes in Ontario have levels of toxic chemicals that threaten communities like mine, and the St. Lawrence is being the subject of tremendous government expenditures even during a time of restraint in order to reduce toxic dumping into that river system which so threatens people
down river within the St. Lawrence. If we are going to recognize the motherhood principles within this clause, surely it makes equally as much sense to recognize the importance of our environment.
When I first heard the Government begin talking about the environment, I put tongue in cheek and waited for the inevitable failure of the Government to follow through. I will not say that I have been convinced, but I must say that the Government is proving to have more seriousness with its commitment to environmental concerns. I give credit to the Minister for some of that, but I give credit to the Cabinet itself for recognizing the importance which public opinion has begun to give to environmental concerns. With that sense of environmental commitment which exists across the country, an amendment like this is not just a subject for celebration on the part of the House, or just a subject for easy and unanimous support, but something which is so straightforward and understood within the rhetoric of the Government's own thinking that there should be no question that this amendment would be adopted by the government side and those on this side of the House.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few words. Motion No. 4 by the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) is certainly an excellent one. It deals with the problem of the environment. I think that today the Government itself realized the importance of the environment. That is why I will vote for this motion and I hope that other Members will do the same.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make a brief intervention in the discussion on this amendment to Bill C-3. I want to add to the compliments of our industry critic for the New Democratic Party and commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manly) for moving this amendment. It is important that we in the House begin to understand the mechanics involved in bringing sustainable development into legislation and Acts of this land.
June 20,1989

All too often, governments like the one opposite and perhaps others ask how they are supposed to achieve sustainable development. I believe this amendment is the first practical way to begin making the steps toward a sustainable development policy in Canada.
What could be a better place to do it than in Bill C-3, with the creation of a new Department that in Ontario and Quebec will help manage resources like forestry, agriculture and others?
It is an important subject for us to follow because, unfortunately, just in the last week and a half the Conservatives have voted against the environment, voted against VIA Rail, voted against education, and if some of the comments opposite are any indication, when we vote on this amendment tonight the Conservatives will vote against sustainable development.
It is time that the Party of the Members opposite practiced what their Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) preaches. As the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said, "What we have across the way is not the Progressive Conservative Party, we have the negative Conservative Party. Government Members have been voting against all of the progressive amendments and motions that Members on this side have been presenting to this House. It is a shame, but it will be remembered by the voters when it comes time to consider this in the future.
Further, on sustainable development, as your Honour would know, we hope soon to see introduced in this House legislation to create a full department of forests. I have spoken about that a number of times and I know it is of importance to other Members. I would like to put yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of State (Forestry) (Mr. Oberle) when he is in the House, on notice that I trust the Government will bring in legislation that will have the concept of sustainable development built into it. If it is not, I suggest that we will be the first to present an amendment to that legislation to see that it is brought in. We need that legislation and we need it soon. However, we do not just want some kind of airy-fairy framework. We want to see some substance in that legislation. I believe this amendment is an example of that.
Industry, Science and Technology
Furthermore, if I could just put in some comments about what the concept of sustainable development means. How do we deal with that concept? It has been written about, and I would like to quote a few comments from the 1988 Ombudsman Report from British Columbia which I recommend to Members of the House to read and to whom I would certainly be able to provide copies. One section here deals withpart of the problems that we have in British Columbia in forest resource management and resource conflict. The Ombudsman has spent a great deal of time resolving those problems. The interpretation that I place on sustainable development is that before we proceed with a project and with development that all Parties sit down and work out how that can be best managed and developed.
I will conclude with just a few comments from the Ombudsman Report.
-a duty is placed upon the decision maker, insofar as is reasonably possible, to appreciate fully the significance of and the foundation for the various individual or group interests.
These groups would include environmentalists, loggers, fishermen, fisher-people, whoever is involved in that resource, to see that those decisions are made. We need a structure.
I was just in Alberta last week. If there is a place that needs a structure for proper environmental assessment of all those major pulp mill projects going on, Alberta is the place. We also need some objective assessment criteria.
In the Forestry Committee some two or three weeks ago, we asked the Minister to provide to us the criteria he is looking at when he attends, presumably next Monday and Tuesday, a Forestry Ministers' Conference in Ottawa. "What is the criteria that you are looking at when you sit down to, hopefully, re-sign those forest agreements, the six that have expired and the ones that we are looking for in the future? Is sustainable development part of that?" We do not know. Is reforestation part of that intensive silviculture? How many years are we looking at for this? The Minister refused to provide the committee with that information. Unfortunately, on partisan lines, the committee voted to refuse to ask the Minister to provide it. That is a point that is made in this report. You need that information to make objective decisions. The independent assessment is critical. We need to avoid the process whereby experts are retained to present data in a fashion which will advance only the interests of their client.

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
One other point that I believe is critical, not just on questions of sustainable development or the forest department legislation or even this legislation, is policy guidelines. Rules and regulations should be clearly defined in plain language.
Most Members probably know that in Toronto there is a plain language centre. We should send some of the legislation rules of this Government through their plain language grinder to come up with some legislation and policies that everyone can understand. Often it is very difficult to understand.
I will conclude with the forest resource development agreements. That is a particular interest of mine. It is an area where the question of sustainable development can be applied. Let us have a framework when we renew those agreements. Let us have a framework of sustainable development so that we can reforest our lands, so we can accommodate the interests of others-integrated resource management, pest control that is environmentally sound. This amendment is calling for the framework of sustainable development. This amendment will give some practical edge to the implementation of the policy that this Prime Minister talks about. For that reason, Members opposite should support this amendment. We certainly will. I congratulate the Member for bringing it in.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that this motion is even here for debate is a crying condemnation of the Government's real commitment to sustainable development. It is in fact a blatant demonstration that Members of the Government on the committee that considered this legislation do not even understand what sustainable development is. They failed to understand that the whole message of the Brundtland Commission, the whole message of sustainable development is that the economy and the environment are inextricably linked. We cannot continue to use the earth's resources, deplete those resources, to return them to the earth filthy, to the air filthy, to the water filthy, or to use them up faster than they can be replenished and hope to have an economy that will continue to provide us with the goods and services that we require.
We cannot afford to export the kind of wasteful, destructive, economic activity that we have enjoyed in the developed world to those countries that are just now developing. That is the whole message: the economy and the environment cannot be separated. That is why the motion of my colleague from Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) is one that should enjoy the unanimous consent of this House.
How can one foster tourism, foster entrepreneurship, foster competitiveness and not look at the resources that we draw from the world to create that entrepreneurship, to draw those tourists, to feed the industries, to support the competitiveness? How can we fail to preserve those very things that drive the economy? Therefore, how can the Minister himself say that the mandate of this department is developing economic strength? Does he really not understand and does every Member sitting across the aisle not understand that the strength is based on the resources of the earth. If you do not use them in a way that ensures their preservation, you do not have resources on which to build your economy. It is an integral part of the mandate of this department. It must be, or there will be no reason for this department to exist.
Far more important, it is essential that this concept be absorbed into every department within Government. At the Environment Committee, we have been discussing how to achieve this at meeting after meeting. Here is our first opportunity to do so.
The Minister responsible for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) said that the Department of the Environment has the responsibility for those things. He was talking about sustainable development. He said that this amendment and spreading the responsibility for sustainable development to other departments do not contribute to better Government. That is precisely what must happen. It must become the responsibility of everybody who works for Government, everybody who directs any program of Government, to ensure that the work they are carrying out is in conformity with our commitment to the future of the world. We owe it in fact to the quarter of a million of people who work for the Government of Canada to make sure that they have that message. There are citizens out there who are concerned, as your polls tell you, that our Government, and we individually, take action to preserve the environment.
June 20, 1989

There are citizens who want to know what they can do in their workplace to contribute to a better world. If that leadership is not there in every department, from the top down, they will not get that message. We will go on spending over $100 billion a year in our procurement of goods and services, on products that are damaging to the environment instead of using our purchasing power to influence what the market produces and how safe it is.
If the Government is wise, it will spread that influence to other public spending. The provincial governments across this country spend that much and more every year. The municipal governments collectively spend 25 per cent more than the Government of Canada. What a magnificent economic tool to harness and foster the growth of environmentally safe products.
Another thing that rejecting this amendment does to the mandate of the Department, in fact to the responsibilities of the Minister, is to ignore some very excellent opportunities for economic development, for economic growth, and for competitiveness for new small businesses. One of the key opportunities in the next few decades will be for nations that know enough to see the problems of the world and develop solutions to them. Canada is ideally situated, both climatologically and environmentally and in terms of our stage of development, to be one of the world leaders in developing solutions to environmental problems. There are few countries in the world that have the capacity, the natural strength to do it as this country has. If sustainable development is not part of the responsibility of this Department, then that opportunity will be missed.
The question of sustainable development of environmental consciousness is not a little jewel to be put in a box and brought out for press conferences and to show our international friends on international junkets. Yet that seems to be the impression of the Minister who said in committee that "the Government's direction is to want an economy that is of high quality in terms of sustainable development, to preserve and enhance the environment that provides for things that are not immediately of tangible value but have some higher values; poetiy, music, what have you." The Minister obviously fails to understand that we are talking about the survival of the world and of human life in this world. These are
Industry, Science and Technology
not nice little extras to have, they are essential to human life. If we try to treat the environment like a jewel that we put in a box and trot out and admire and flash around when we want to look good, we will find that what we have in fact is a Pandora's box.
My colleague from Ottawa South said that this amendment is a challenge to the Government. I say that it is more than that, it is a challenge to the conscience of every person who sits in this House, a challenge to their commitment to the future, and to whether they really mean what they say when they talk about the environment, or are they just mouthing pretty words?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this concept. I am not a member of the Environment Committee as is the Member who just spoke, or of the technological committees of which Members have been speaking. However, I have a great deal of interest in the environment.
About 15 years ago I was associated with the Berger Inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. We went to examine the social, economic and environmental implications on the people of the North of the building of the massive megaproject. Before we really started the inquiry, I had the honour to go with Judge Berger to New York to the United Nations. We went to see the United Nations environmental people to find out what other countries had done. As the Member from Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall) who previously spoke said, Canada had to show the lead. We were surprised to find out that no other country had ever looked at the environmental implications of the building of a megaproject before the project was built. A lot of them could see it afterwards but no one had looked at it before. Canada was a pioneer in this.
I have watched this environment issue develop over the years. This is an interesting motion, it is to amend the Bill to add "develop, implement and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable". The Brundtland Commission speaks, I believe, of sustainable development. What is sustainable development? I am a layman, not a member of these committees and not one directly involved in environmental issues. I know that sustainable development has been defined by some Members here today but it still seems to me like nailing jelly to the wall.

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Let us be honest, what is sustainable development? I talked to someone who looked at all Canadian government programs to try to find examples of sustainable development under the widely defined terms of development that is good for the future, that does not destroy our resources but keeps them for our children and our children's children. That is much the way in which native people speak of developing resources. This is the western liberal technological equivalent to the native holistic view of being at home with the forest and the land and keeping them for their children. The same thing is luckily and finally happening here for us and it may be the key to saving this planet.
Given that broad definition of sustainable development, I asked people whether we could find any existing government programs which fit into it. We found one program, and that says a lot for what past and present governments have done. The program we found was the Fish Habitat Program developed during Mr. Speaker Fraser's tenure as Environment Minister, I am pleased to say. That program provides for the replacement of fish habitat that is destroyed by a construction project.
For example, let's say you were going to add a runway to the airport in Vancouver. You would have to prove, first, that that is a productive construction approach, that it would add to our productivity. One could easily make that argument, two runways would contribute to more economic development and so on.
The second aspect is that you have to replace the fish habitat. If the runway goes into the Fraser River, for example, you would have to find alternate habitats. The development would have to be sustainable to the surrounding environment, specifically the fish habitat. That is an example of sustainable development. The developers may have to find more fish habitat in another part of the river and develop it. That is the only program we could find, of all the programs of the federal Government. That says a lot, doesn't it?
The second point I would like to raise is that we need some way of measuring sustainable development. It is all very well to say that the Minister shall develop, implement and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable. How do you measure it? Well, that can be done as well. I
understand that there are some people in the World Bank working on new ways of measuring sustainable development. In the 1930s we had to invent new ways of looking at the world when Keynesian economics came along and so on. They invented Gross National Product. As an example, Canada's GNP grew by 5 per cent last year, our goods and services. Had we cut down and logged all the trees in Canada, our Gross National Product might have grown by 9 per cent, but we would have lost the trees so we would not really have made progress. Certainly that development would not be sustainable. I understand that they are working on a measurement to measure sustainable development.
That will mean we have to do an inventory of all our resources. Then we will have to measure how much we use them without replacing them. This is going to be a very interesting figure. We will be able to set targets. We can set a target for the year 2050, or a target for the year 2080 or whatever. We can tell whether we are doing development that is sustainable on our planet or whether we are losing the resources of our planet.
I think I have spoken enough on this. I just find it a fascinating, interesting area for all of us in the House. It is an area which is hard to define. It is worth supporting this motion. However, let us not kid ourselves, we still have a lot of work to do. It is all very well to say that yes, we develop, implement and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable. We have a lot of work to do to define what that is, project by project and inventory by inventory of every part and every sector in the economy from forest to fish to minerals and so on.
We have just taken, as one Chinese politician once said, the first step in a march of a million miles. It is going to be a long march to get to what we actually mean by sustainable development. At least this is a start.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly appropriate that we are speaking about this particular amendment to Bill C-23 on the same day that we have been dealing with the amendment in respect of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
June 20, 1989

As has been very ably pointed out by my colleagues, the Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley), the Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall) and the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the amendment which has been proposed by my colleague is in keeping with the spirit of sustainable development which we thought was launched by Brundtland and was embraced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). No less than the Prime Minister. We heard the Prime Minister in the House vaunting the work of Gro Harlem Brundtland and vaunting it to the point where he was very pleased to have accepted the award which he took in Washington, et cetera. This is the first time that outside of the context of the Environment Committee we have an opportunity at a departmental level to incorporate in the raison d'Etre of a newly established Department. We have the capacity to build in the implementation and promotion of national policies to foster economic development which is environmentally sustainable.
Anybody who took the time to read our common future would understand that for any minimal accomplishment of sustainable development it has to be applied across the board in various Departments. I cannot believe the statement of the Minister, who stated that: "So regarding adding that clause, this is the clause that has been proposed with respect to sustainable development. The recommendation simply does not fit directly with this Department. I suggest we have a cleaner"-it is a rather Freudian point, Mr. Speaker-"more reasonable approach to things, leaving the responsibility for the environment with that Department."
Surely, the whole purpose of the Brundtland report was to wake up the world to the fact that we cannot departmentalize environmental questions. The question of sustainable development must permeate every decision made by the Government insofar as where we promote industry, where we develop our science policy and where we in fact spend the money that would lead to a policy of industry, science and technology.
In this particular case, we are repealing the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act. We are basically saying where we are going to put our financial clout over the next number of years. That decision
Industry, Science and Technology
cannot be made in a vacuum, without putting the environmental questions in context.
Every single thing which we do in this House of Commons, and every single Act which is carried out by Parliament has a potential environmental impact.
Next week, July 1, is Canada Day. At this point, the National Capital Commission, which is responsible for the promotion of Canada Day activities on Parliament Hill, will be committing environmental folly by releasing
10,000	balloons into the environment.
The Province of Nova Scotia has already banned the release of balloons because they recognize that the effect of a burst balloon on the ecosystem is such that when, for example, fish, sea whales, sea turtles and whales eat rubber, which is the product of the burst balloons, they can actually have their normal eating habits impaired because they think they are full when they have basically swallowed a piece of a balloon. It sounds somewhat comical, Mr. Speaker, but it is a reflection that every decision which we make, whether it is as minor as organizing a celebration to release balloons on Parliament Hill, or as major as a decision to proceed with the hydroelectric project cannot be taken without environmental consideration.
I have here in my hand a copy of the hydroelectric resistance program which was produced by the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec. It is a voluminous document. It points out the crying need for a federal environmental assessment in respect of a potential decision to proceed with a second phase of the development of the hydroelectric project on James Bay.
In fact, this particular Department, the Department which we are about to launch, oftentimes the Department of Industry, Science and Technology will put forward financial backing for these types of projects. Whether it be financial backing by way of an interest-free loan to Lavalin to go off and develop a light rapid transit system in a Third World country, or whether it be in relation to a specific regional development project in Canada, there are potentially environmental implications.
If we look at the specific decision now, for example, in the Province of Nova Scotia, to proceed with a new technology for the extraction of energy from coal, that again involves environmental implications.

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
The amendment which was moved by my colleague, the Member for Ottawa South and supported, I might add, by a Conservative Member of Parliament who recognizes that it simply embraces and endorses all of the promotion of the environment which we have been talking about since the arrival of Brundtland, surely any Member in his or her right mind who would not support this motion cannot call themselves an environmentalist. I heard the-

-the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) this afternoon, when we were talking about protecting the environment, accused me of being a politician, of playing petty politics with the environment. He accused me of petty politics. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill and a motion that can be supported by all Members. All we ask, Mr. Speaker, is to include the comment made by Mrs. Brundtland. The Prime Minister talks a lot about Brundtland. He is crazy about Brundtland. All we ask is to have the legislation reflect the Brundtland proposals, in other words, when we create the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, we recognize the fact that the department's terms of reference should include to develop, implement and promote national policies to foster economic development that is environmentally sustainable. How can anyone argue against this amendment? If we want to be known as environmentalists who do not play petty politics with the environment, then we have no choice but to vote for this very effective, very short and very sustainable amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-South (Mr. Manley).
Instead of pointing the accusing finger and saying that Members are playing politics, I wish Hon. Members would realize that Canadians are sick and tired of politicians who talk about policies but are not prepared to put those same words in the Bill and the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, do I have a little more time or just ten seconds?
We all know that this Bill, this amendment is an opportunity to incorporate, not just the environmental spirit but also the Kind of legislation that will protect us. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I think we can safely say that to the Conservatives, the environment is just a word that has no meaning as far as the legislation is concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it would not be necessary to move this amendment. But, in the absence of willingness on the part of the Government to reflect the important national role this particular Department should have with respect to regional development and to regional equity across this country, my only option is to suggest that we do not repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act but keep the Department in place.
I want to make two points with respect to this Bill in front of us now to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology which represents a further step in the process of this country turning its back on equitable regional development. I think that it is an extremely unfortunate set of steps that we have taken.
If we go back to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, there we had a ministry which had as its single and sole purpose the expansion of regional development throughout this country. That was something we, in this Party, have always seen as an essential commitment that Ottawa should be making to all of the people of this country, a commitment which also should be made by the provinces. DREE itself was done away with. Then we had the establishment of DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Within DRIE we had two functions together. We had the function of industrial development for the entire country and we had the function of regional development for the country as a whole put together.
June 20, 1989

There was some serious difficulty in trying to mesh these two differing functions together within one ministry. It functioned and it operated within two separate sections of the ministry. One section dealt with industrial development and the other dealt with regional development. With this Bill we have the elimination of any national commitment to regional development within our country. If this Bill is passed as it stands there will not be a single ministry within this Government that has the commitment to see that there is fairness and equal opportunity in different regions within Canada.
If we were Luxemburg, even The Netherlands, or Switzerland, this might not be something for us to be concerned about but we are not. We are an incredibly large diverse country with remarkable differences in terms of the economic base of livelihood from which people start.
An exciting thing about being a Member of Parliament is the chance to see many different parts of our country. It is both exciting and stimulating, but it is also terribly distressing to see in central British Columbia, for instance, unemployment rates of 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent, to see in northern Saskatchewan unemployment rates of 13 per cent, 14 per cent and 15 per cent, to see in parts of northern Ontario unemployment rates of a similar magnitude and to see in Atlantic Canada, especially in parts of Atlantic Canada, unemployment rates that are at real levels once you take into account where people really stand with regard to the labour force. Real unemployment rates are often over 50 per cent.
People from Newcastle, New Brunswick have told me of unemployment rates in their part of the country in real terms that reach over 50 per cent. The same is true in parts of the outports of Newfoundland. In fact, there are parts of Newfoundland where one finds unemployment rates in which the percentage of people who are at work is significantly less than the percentage of people who would like to be within the work force. One can see the same thing in other parts of Atlantic Canada.
Industry, Science and Technology
We see the same thing happening in the Province of Quebec. In some parts of Quebec the unemployment rate is far too high for a developed country like ours.
In the Eastern Townships, for instance, in the textile and clothing sectors, the unemployment rate can be as high as 30 or 35 per cent.
What we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, is not just unacceptably high levels of unemployment, we are seeing a situation where many workers cannot find jobs, and as result, they decide that they better stay home because there are no jobs available.

That is the reality of regional disadvantages which exist in parts of Canada. Since the Government has not been prepared to bring amendments to this Bill, amendments which would give the Department some responsibility to co-ordinate and work toward regional fairness, it is necessary to keep the Regional Industrial Expansion Act as it presently stands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five Members having risen:

June 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House. Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr Kindy).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent at least from the majority of the Members-I do not know; I cannot speak for the Member for Calgary Northeast, but I can certainly speak for this caucus-to apply the result of the vote just taken to the next motions, if you insist, in reverse.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like my name to stand. I am voting in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa South.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House agree that the division just taken can be so recorded?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the application of the votes I am not sure that the words "in reverse" would apply to any of the votes on the motions. That would perhaps apply when one gets to concurrence in report stage but not at the motion stage since the Government is not prepared to accept any of the motions.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like the guidance of the Chair. Members on this side have noted a very serious matter to which we would want to draw the attention of the Chair, that is, that the Minister of the Environment has been straining to get to his feet and has been stopped by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We suspect that he wants to vote for an amendment on sustainable development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House agree that the division just taken will be recorded as applying to the remaining motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly the next vote is on Motion No. 4, standing in the name the Hon. Member for Ottawa South.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Is it also agreed that the division just taken will be applied in reverse to the motion for concurrence in the Bill at report stage?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alex Kindy: I am abstaining on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Mr. Lewis (for the Prime Minister) moved: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Weiner
White
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle
Venne
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Worthy-129
++NAYS
Members


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.40 p.m., pursuant to Order made June 13, 1989, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

June 20,1989
Post-Secondary Education


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Government appreciates that should we go to a Private Members' Hour now there would only be 20 minutes for the Private Members' Hour.
In order that the matter before the House has a full opportunity for debate, we would suggest that there be one full hour for Private Members' Hour and that Orders of the Day be called again at 7.40 p.m.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   TRANSFER PAYMENTS POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should restore funds cut from federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and complete an agreement with the provinces to provide assured levels of funding commensurate with the increased costs of universities' operations and the need to enhance the availability of resourceful humans for economic development and full employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has become almost trite these days to observe that Canada, for a force, must shift from a resource based economy to a knowledge based economy if it is to compete in the new economic circumstances that exist in the world. It has been said, and it is true, that we can no longer depend upon our forests, our land, our minerals, and the fish from the sea to sustain this modern nation in present circumstances.
This was an observation that underscored a remark made by the Prime Minister back in 1983, which I can merely paraphrase. He said that if there was not a dramatic improvement in Canada's performance in the area of research and development, Canada would play in the minor leagues of the competition in this world in economic terms. Just yesterday the Prime Minister made a similar remark. He said:
Either we meet the challenge of competitiveness and ride the crest
of the technology wave into the 21st century or we exhaust ourselves
in the rip-tide of history, fading inexorably backwards.
So far all we have managed is to be inundated with rhetoric while there exists a virtual drought in action. The Prime Minister, I note, made another remark. He said that a recent survey of 13 countries ranked Canadian high school students eleventh in biology, eleventh in physics, and twelfth in chemistry, "the very subjects on which the knowledge industry depends".
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the deplorable performance of our high school students cited by the Prime Minister is really a reflection of the quality and the character of the teachers that we are producing in universities which have fallen into a disgraceful state.
Right now in this country we are spending something in the order of $13,000 on an average per student while in the United States the average expenditure per student is $20,000. That is an average. Canadians recognize, as a matter of fact Canadians consistently observe that the quality of education in the United States is so much worse than ours. This is just a recognition that there are some states, Mississippi, Alabama and so on, in which the quality of post-secondary education or education at any level does not meet the quality which we think exists in Canada. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that those figures which I cited are averages. In fact, in some states of the United States four to five times as much money is spent per student as is spent in Canada.
Beginning just after World War II the federal Government began to provide financing for post-secondary education in the forms of grants to veterans. Then in the year 1966 or 1967 the federal Government entered into an agreement with the provinces to provide 50-50 sharing for the funding of post-secondary education. This worked out quite well, and I think that many of us in this House will recall that this was the most significant period in terms of developing accessibility and building the university and college system in Canada. These were halcyon days from 1967 until 1977.
In 1977 the then Liberal Government negotiated with the provinces something which is still called Established Programs Financing that covers transfers to the provinces for both health and post-secondary education. Subsequently legislation has been passed which assures that those portions of EPF which are allocated to health indeed go to health. However, since 1977 there has been
June 20, 1989

no assurance that funds provided by the federal Government for post-secondary education indeed go to post-secondary education and that those funds are matched in any way by the provinces.
The situation as it has evolved since then is such that the vast bulk of the cost of post-secondary education, both in colleges and universities, is paid for by the federal Government. It is notable in that context that only the Province of Quebec matches the federal contribution for post-secondary education on the 50-50 basis which characterized the decade after 1967.
Not only has there not been an equivalent contribution from the provinces, there have been cut-backs in the amounts transferred from the federal Government to the provincial Government for post-secondary education.


Mr. Friesen:: Be careful how you say it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: This has occurred as a result of decisions taken by both the Liberal Government and the Conservative Government. I know that to resort to history on this is bothersome, but let us understand what we are talking about here. The undertaking in 1977 was that the growth in post-secondary education transfer payments from the federal Government were to grow in the same measure, based on three-year averaging, as the growth in the Gross Domestic Product. That applied to health transfers and to transfers for post-secondary education.
In 1982-83 the Liberal Government imposed the 6 per cent and 5 per cent rule, which was broadly applied to wages and so on, to be transferred to post-secondary education costing the system something in the order of $400 million over that period of time. Then in 1986 the Conservative Government, arguing as my colleague across the way just did, did not cut post-secondary education by $1.6 billion from the period from 1986 to 1991. It just cut the expectations of the system by $1.6 billion in respect to post-secondary education.
We know that those on the other side will use whatever semantic arguments they may choose to try to convince themselves of the obvious, that is, that the undertaking made by the federal Government to the
Post-Secondary Education
provinces, to post-secondary education, and to the youth of this country was reneged upon.
As if it were not enough, even as every significant examiner of the situation in this country with respect to post-secondary education said that there was going to have to be an increase in expenditures, this Government has proceeded in the last Budget to impose yet further cuts, which beginning in 1991 will accumulate over the next five years an additional cut of $1 billion in transfer payments for post-secondary education.
My colleague across the way will say: "Oh, well we didn't cut; we are just not going to give them as much". When we have a system which between 1977 and 1987 occasioned a real decrease in real dollars of 10 per cent while student enrolment rose by 30 per cent, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that is a cut. It certainly is a failure to fulfil a promise. It is a failure to respond to the needs in this country which everyone by now recognizes.
It is an absolute outrage that in a period of time when this country should be developing the means to respond to the demands of an international knowledge based industry the Government should be cutting expenditures for post-secondary education, while at the same time refusing to increase expenditures for research and development.
There are classes in our universities with as many as
5,000	students. There are seminars which are supposed to be for small groups, intimate, close, and Socratic in which as many as 50 students are expected to benefit from the intimate examination of knowledge and are intended to learn.
There is not a criterion of economic success with respect to the knowledge based economy in which we do not finish last or near last. Every institution, every commission, every committee within this House, at the federal level, at the provincial level, or anywhere has recognized that there is going to have to be a change. There are going to have to be substantial increases in expenditures for post-secondary education and the mess that exists at this time, in which the federal Government and the provincial Governments dispute how much of a share each is paying, has to end.

June 20, 1989
Post-Secondary Education
It has to end. If it does not end, we are going to deny not only our future prospects for economic growth but opportunity to thousands of students who want nothing else but the opportunity to build a particular vision of Canada which is not borrowed from elsewhere.
What is the solution to this? The solution has been clear. It has been debated repeatedly in this House. It has been debated in the Committee on Science and Technology. It has been debated in the Committee of the Secretary of State. It has been debated in the Senate. It has been considered by the National Advisory Board for Science and Technology. It has been considered by the Bovey report. It has been considered by the A1 Johnson report. It has been considered by so many people that even this Government ought to be able to understand what is necessary.
What is necessary is for the urgent call of a First Ministers Conference. They should not be allowed out of a locked room until they have agreed on a basis for the shared funding of post-secondary education which will ensure that both levels pay their share. Nothing else will do. We can no longer burden ourselves with petty jurisdictional disputes while our country and our youth suffer. They are suffering now, and they will suffer yet more. To suggest that the burden of a deficit is going to be an overwhelming burden is ridiculous as compared to the kind of burden which will be their inheritance if we do not begin to catch up.
It is impertinent nonsense for the Prime Minister to condemn our schools for their failure to produce the level of literacy in science, as he did, while at the same time refuse to do what is necessary and to fulfil the promise he has made.
When we stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to support this motion, it is very simple and very clear. The funds which this Government has cut should be restored. The deficit and the allocation of funds to post-secondary institutions will breed a deficit so huge in the future, an intellectual deficit, an economic deficit, and a deficit in jobs, that it will be far more serious than a self-created deficit which this Government seeks to defend at odds with itself, as it has continued to do.
Second, in recognizing the mutual responsibility of both the federal and provincial Governments, they should, as I said before, through the calling of a First Ministers Conference come to an immediate resolution of this issue. Otherwise the future will look, indeed, as if this country in the economic league will be playing not Class C but sand lot.


An Hon. Member:: Bush league.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Bush league is too high for what will result from the continued travel along this route. Let me say another thing which is not contained in this motion-but which I think is necessary. This country has no policy focus with respect to any level of education.
I do not think that there is anyone who does not understand that there is something wrong when one-quarter of our population is functionally illiterate. This does not reflect the role of universities. This reflects the role of the elementary and secondary institutions. All need some policy focus. All need initiatives which will relate the nature of our curriculum at the lower levels and the functions of the institutions at the higher levels with our economic priorities, as well as our social priorities. This is a country in which the economic imperatives do not outweigh and ought not to outweigh the social imperatives. We should develop the necessary models without encroaching upon particular jurisdictions which will permit our institutions of education at all levels to provide the kind of knowledge that will enable all Canadians to exercise the kinds of creativity and the intelligence of which Canadians given the opportunity are capable so that we will be seen as not only an economic success but a social success and a model for the world. It is almost too late.
I know, Mr. Speaker, by the way in which you are posing your hands that you are concerned and anxious for the Government to get on with it. I am sure that you are waiting to hear a positive response with respect to the required initiatives.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party, and what struck me in nearly all the speeches by Opposition Members, whether they represent the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party of Canada, what struck me was the constant and increasing demand for money, without considering the broader context of our national economy. Money is needed for post-secondary education, for the provinces, for this and for that, but no one bothers to consider this country's main problem, and that problem is what we refer to as the national debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker, as you know, our national debt has now reached $320 billion. This year, the annual deficit will increase by an additional $6 billion because of rising interest rates. However, since 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party has done a tremendous job of controlling and dealing with our national debt. In 1984, the debt increased 24 per cent. In 1989, we have managed to keep the increase down to 10 per cent. Even at that, we
June 20, 1989

still have this national debt which is increasing and we have a deficit that is still too high. We hope, and I believe we have taken the necessary steps to bring the deficit down to approximately $16 billion by 1993-94.
The last Budget, like all other Budgets, was a serious exercise in restraint, and I think the Minister of Finance is to be commended. We managed to reduce spending and programs, and we raised income tax and certain other taxes so that this year, the Government will be able to collect $5 billion and next year, an additional $9 billion, which will be used to reduce our annual deficit and control our national debt, a process that is already underway.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the specific issue the Hon. Member was discussing this evening, and I am referring to transfer payments to the provinces, there are, in fact, two distinct types of payments. I am referring to equalization payments and so-called established programs financing. As you know, Mr. Speaker, equalization payments are made to certain provinces on the basis of their revenues and according to a pre-established formula. The April Budget in no way interfered with equalization payments. We are not decreasing the amount allocated for established program financing, but we are reducing the percentage increase, which is something else. As a result, established program financing in 1988-89 was $18.7 billion; in 1989-90, it is $19.8 billion; and in 1990-91, it will be $20.8 billion. So we see that the annual amount of established program financing given by the federal Government to the provinces is increasing. We only reduced the percentage increase. Equalization payments in 1988-89 were $6.9 billion; in 1989-90, they are $7.3 billion; and in 1990-91, they will be almost $7 billion. Once again, Mr. Speaker, you see the annual increase provided.
I will go further, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the best way to look at how the Canadian Government operates is in percentage terms. For 1989-90, we will spend-the Canadian Government will spend $103.5 billion; 10 per cent of that is grants for businesses; 10.8 per cent is for national defence; 4.6 per cent is for Crown corporations;
Post-Secondary Education
2.4 per cent is aid for developing countries; 31.5 per cent is for individual Canadians, for old age security, etc.; and 23.2 per cent is for the provinces, which means that 23.2 per cent of the money spent by the Canadian Government goes to the provinces in cash. And to that, I must add $10.5 billion in fiscal transfers. A total of $34.4 billion annually goes from the federal Government, the Government of Canada, to the ten provinces and two territories.
Mr. Speaker, that's not peanuts! These astronomical figures, I think, show what this Government does for Canadians' welfare and also the interest the Conservative Government has in every province giving its citizens the goods and services to which every resident of every province is entitled.
You see, Mr. Speaker, I could go on giving figures and point out among other things that with respect to the increase in established programs financing from 1979-80 to 1983-84 we are talking about $54 billion. From 1984-85 to 1988-89, Mr. Speaker, the amount was $83 billion. And our estimates for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94 amount to $107 billion, almost $108 billion for established programs financing alone, funds which will be paid by the federal Government to the ten provinces and the two territories.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest these figures speak for themselves. However, we must not lose sight of the April 1989 Budget which urged all Canadians to tighten their belts and keep in mind the current economic situation of the country. The potential is there, whether we are talking about raw materials, labour or skills, but all that cannot be put to contribution and create jobs if we are saddled with a serious economic problem, if our country is debt-ridden. You know how things were, Mr. Speaker, because you were a Member of the House when interest rates peaked at 22 per cent and you made some comments about that situation. From the outset we had-we still have-to get a handle on threatening inflation. For the first time in years, Mr. Speaker, we have an inflation rate of 5 per cent. This is why we need interest rates to stem the current inflationary trends, and this will automatically guarantee that the country will steer the same course it has been following over the past four years.

June 20, 1989
Post-Secondary Education
I am thinking of the kind of job creation we have seen over the last four years, due to this Progressive Conservative Government's sound management.
Within that overall context, Mr. Speaker, the Budget had to make difficult choices in terms of tax increases, of certain program cuts, and also in terms of transfers or rather of increase of moneys to be transferred once more by the Canadian Government to each and every province.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion now before us does not recognize the economic reality across the land. And when it comes to the Budget, when it comes to managing a nation like Canada, we should not look at a small square only, a single card, because there are 52 different cards in a deck!
We must therefore look at the overall Canadian picture, before making our choices. This is what the April Budget did. I see you are signalling my time is up, so let me conclude by stating that the motion in my view is not warranted within the overall Canadian economic situation.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am. pleased to rise to speak on this motion. It provides the Government a wonderful opportunity to correct its ways, to give renewed hope to our youth, to women, to the poor, to the unemployed, to older workers and to all Canadians who wish to upgrade and improve their skills and education at a university, a community college or a number of various other sources which increase literacy. This provides an opportunity for Canadians to become more competitive, to contribute more to Canadian society, to find a more secure future for themselves and for their children.
This is not only an opportunity for renewed hope but also an opportunity to ensure that education, training, retraining and research and development become the cornerstones of our economic development, of our competitive edge. Let us stop this massive financial retreat undertaken by the federal Government when it comes to post-secondary education and related matters.
Let us ask ourselves what is the financial situation regarding post-secondary education.
First, I would like to contest most strenuously the figures used by Government Members. They use figures like $6.9 billion, $7.3 billion, $20 billion, $103 billion or 23 per cent of such and such. Those Canadians who are listening to this debate simply do not have the experience of dealing with millions, let alone with billions. The suggestion has been made that there is massive support for post-secondary education, but if one looks at it in context, that is not at all an accurate description of what is occurring.
What is the financial situation regarding post-secondary education today? In 1986 $8 billion, not $8 million, was reduced from transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. In 1989, $4 billion, not $4 million, was reduced. Those are rough figures, but they are very, very close.
Quite apart from that, there has been a $700 million reduction in training and retraining. Then the Government adds another $800 million to it and tries to pretend that it has increased funding for training and retraining. It has said this without looking at increases in student enrolment, without looking at increased programs, without looking at needed new equipment or any of those variables. Quite apart from that, there are plants and equipment that are getting older and require more dollars for maintenance. That is being drawn from general revenues.
The Government neglects to point out that there has been a 30 per cent increase in enrolment in universities in the last decade. In that decade, there has been an increase of only 8 per cent in the teaching workforce at those universities. It neglects to mention that professors need to deal with large, overloaded classes and it is becoming increasingly difficult for educators to give the kind of education to which our youth are entitled.
Let us look for a moment at student aid. The cost of living criteria has not been changed since 1984. Because of increases in salaries, that means that the student must pay a greater proportion toward his education. Those parents who support their children who are going to post-secondary educational institutions are also paying more.
June 20, 1989

Current levels of funding have in fact been frozen. The program for an increasing part-time student population has been a disaster, and that has been acknowledged by all Parties. In this Budget, current overall levels for student aid have been frozen.
Let us look at research and development. One half of our Gross Domestic Product is devoted to research and development. That is one half of that which is devoted to it by our major competitor, the United States, and it is roughly one half of what is contributed to it by Japan, Sweden and a number of countries that are smaller than Canada and overall have fewer riches than Canada does.
We have not even looked at the hidden costs, and there are many. One example is postal subsidies. It would appear as if postal subsidies available to learned journals and scholarly books will no longer be available. This will be an additional financial burden on those institutions and on the educational system in general.
This massive retreat will increase regional disparities. The poor will have to pay more, and by the poor, I mean the citizens and the poorer provinces. There will be fewer graduates from those areas of Canada that are poor and therefore regional disparities will increase.
I would argue that it is quite appropriate to target funds after consultation with the provinces. I am sure that there can be some accommodation made, but we need to come through with the funds in order to support that infrastructure that will either make us competitive or not competitive, not only with the United States but on the world scene.
Spending on education, training, retraining and research and development needs to be looked upon not only as an expenditure but as an investment. If Hon. Members doubt what I say, they should look at the number of investments made by the United States, Japan and a number of other countries in the area of education, training, retraining and research and development. There are such things as good debts and bad debts. A good debt is one that returns on the investment made and a bad debt, of course, is one which does not make that return. I would submit that with education, training, retraining and research and development, there is a great deal of return on the investment.
Post-Secondary Education

We are losing our competitive edge. There have been numerous cuts. What has the impact been? It has meant extra costs for provinces, students and their parents. Our young people are losing hope.
Laid-off workers, especially older ones, are driven to despair. The Canadian people are confused. They realize the deficit must be reduced, but on the other hand they question this Government's priorities. This should be a tremendous opportunity for the Government to discharge its responsibility as regards post-secondary education. Let them do so, and let them do it now! Let them give postsecondary education its due!


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the Hon. Member for Windsor- Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy). I thought it was well delivered, and obviously the Hon. Member cares about the youth of Canada. It needs to be said, however, that all of us care about the youth of Canada. All of us want to find the right combination of actions which will end up securing a very promising future for those young people. It is in that spirit of caring about what comes next, of caring about the next generation, that the federal Budget was framed. I really believe that. The Hon. Member talked about the burden of the deficit, and that economic imperatives should not outweigh social imperatives. That is an interesting concept. I agree with the Hon. Member that in a perfect world we should invest whatever needs to be invested for research and development and education. As the Hon. Member well knows, we are not living in a perfect world.
I would like to make a couple of comments on the motion the Hon. Member has put before the House. When the Government came to office in 1984, it was quickly realized that we had a serious debt problem. The Government has been on a course of action since then to attempt to get the debt problem under control. There has been some success. The debt has been reduced from 24 per cent in 1984 to less than 10 per cent now. Is that good enough? No, not by any means is it good enough. Still Canada faces a serious problem in the future. The Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in April accelerated us on the road to being more responsible in terms of debt control and management.

June 20, 1989
Post-Secondary Education
The Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy) would have to agree that the key point in maintaining our social programs is maintaining our ability to fund them. That is pivotal. We can talk in the House about how we are not spending enough in different areas, programs, agencies, on education and on R and D. However, unless we have the facility as a country to make good on those promises, what is said here contains empty words. We need to be more realistic about what we can and cannot do.
The debt that Canada has accumulated and the debt service costs which make that debt rise on a daily basis threaten our economic ability to sustain prosperity. The Hon. Member has to agree with that. We are spending $30 billion a year on debt service payments. Imagine what $30 billion a year could do to funding education. It would be wonderful to be relieved of the burden of financing this debt, but we are not.
What steps can the Government responsibly and realistically take to get the debt monkey off our backs, and at the same time tiy and maintain a caring and human face to the Government? I submit to the Hon. Member that we are attempting to find that formula. It is important to remember that we are not looking at absolute cuts in funding here. The Member's motion is flawed in its wording, because it talks about restoring funds cut from federal transfer payments. That is not exactly true.
Transfer payments to other levels of Government from the federal Government amount to 24 per cent of government spending. That is a significant amount of money. In absolute dollars it is $34 billion which is transferred from Ottawa to the provinces. If the Government wants to become more responsible about how it is spending its money, it cannot ignore those transfer payments; it cannot ignore a budgetary item so large. Therefore, the Government is correct in looking at this.
Established Programs Financing contributions amount to almost $20 billion in 1989-90. The next largest federal transfer program is equalization at $7 billion, and the Canada Assistance Plan at $5 billion. On a per capita basis, that represents $750 for every single Canadian in this year. Therefore, it is a significant amount of money.
Of course, federal assistance through EPF helps the provinces, as the Hon. Member has stated, meet their responsibilities for health and post-secondary education. EPF also forms the largest part of federal support for health and post-secondary education. Federal transfers under EPF arrangements are indexed to grow annually, and they take the form of a block fund. Federal assistance is not linked to how much provinces spend in a particular area.
The 1989 Budget announced that the growth rate of those transfer payments will be reduced by 1 per cent. That is not a cut. There will continue to be a rate of growth and the funds will continue to grow and get larger year after year. Therefore, there has not been a cut in transfer payments to the provinces. Over the next five years EPF is expected to total nearly $108 billion. That is an increase of $24 billion. How can that possibly be a cut when it is going to increase by $24 billion? EPF transfers to the provinces will match or exceed the rate of inflation. When something is growing by $24 billion, when it is exceeding the rate of inflation and getting larger, how can it be a cut?
I might point out to the Hon. Member that for Ontario, the province that he and I are from, the hard numbers indicate that in 1989-90 the estimated EPF and equalization transfers to Ontario will be $7.2 billion. In 1991 they will be $7.6 billion. That is an increase in one year of $429 million. It is not a cut.
This year for the Province of Quebec, transfer payments will be $8.1 billion, and next year they will be $8.5 billion. That is $421 million more, which is an increase. The Province of Alberta will receive a $103 million increase year over year; British Columbia will receive a $133 million increase. Those are not cuts.
I submit that the motion before the House has been improperly drafted by stating: "the Government should restore funds cut from federal transfer payments". Those funds have not been cut.
On top of this, the equalization program provides substantial additional federal assistance to lower-income provinces to help them in providing services to the public. Equalization payments are unconditional transfers to the provinces. Provinces can also use those funds to finance important services such as education.
June 20,1989

Robust growth in overall provincial revenues, together with strong economic growth in Ontario, has substantially increased these payments. This year they are expected to exceed $7 billion.
Not only are EPF transfers continuing to grow, but so are total major transfers to provinces. In 1984-85 they were $25 billion. By 1989-90 they will have increased to $34 billion. That is an increase, a growth of $9 billion. It is not a cut.
EPF is the largest single program of assistance to post-secondary education, but it is by no means the only form of help that the federal Government gives to the provinces. There are student loan programs and granting councils.
The Liberal Member who spoke a moment ago talked about good debt and bad debt. I will concede that the Hon. Member made a good point in that there is a differentiation in the type of debt incurred. However, there is another type of debt which shackles and can destroy whole nations. Canadians need only look south to other countries that have travelled the road of excessive spending leading to mounting debt problems to see where the road ends. I remind the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair that this road ends in the inability of a country to fund the social programs he has defended and spoken to so eloquently.
I share his concern for the youth of this country. However, I say to the Hon. Member that we have to clean up our financial house, get it in order, get Canada back on a solvent basis, and then we can have the caring, kind, and humane face to this country that the Hon. Member and I would both like to see.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what others have said on this motion. The Member who brought the motion forward and I are kind of partners in crime in this whole business of education. Therefore I think we both have a right to speak on it. However, I wish he would not leave the Chamber at this point. I have a few things I would like to say to him.
Post-Secondary Education


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's why he's leaving.


Benno Friesen: He used the term, one which I wrote down when he said it, "self-created deficit", as though it is some mysterious object that all of a sudden appeared on the scene and now we have to ignore it in order to get on with important matters like education. I want him to know that education has always been important. However, there were a few intervening actions which occurred that created this mysterious self-created deficit that we are all so concerned about now.
First, let us go back to 1972 and 1974, the period of a minority Government. David Lewis was the leader of the Party of the Hon. Member. The Liberal Party was very anxious to maintain its hold on the Government for as long as possible. Thus there was a convenient arrangement made between the governing Liberal Party and David Lewis and his operatives so that they could have a temporary coalition in order to stay in office.
During that time some things came into being, mysteriously, such as the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Commission headed by Tom Berger. That Commission managed to stall energy operations in western Canada for a good many years. In fact, that part of it has not done well since. In fact, in terms of threats of oil spills on the West Coast of Canada, we would not have had to worry about them if they would have allowed the pipeline to be built.
Then there was a little corporation known as PetroCan created. It was bom as a result of this coalition that came into being between 1972 and 1974. PetroCan was supposed to be a window on the industry with just a small cash infusion of $500,000-an insignificant amount. However, the window went on to become a bay window. It kept getting bigger and bigger until the corporation is now monumental. It is a multi-billion dollar corporation with a glass tower in Calgary known as Red Square. This $500,000 company was begun as a result of the coalition which created this self-created deficit.
Then, Mr. Lalonde, who was the Minister at the time, bought a foreign oil company that was operating in Canada. He paid $1 billion too much for it, something which inflated the whole price of Petro-Canada. Now, a few years later, we have to think of how we are going to pay back the debt that was incurred by the loose spending of that loose coalition which seemed so innocent and so human at the time. The most human thing it could have done would have been to think about education. It was profligate in terms of its spending in those

June 20, 1989
Post-Secondary Education
days. Deficit spending was thought to be a buzzword, an in word for people who were in this coalition. It was good because it thought of the people. That deficit is now robbing 30 per cent of our income. We cannot spend it on education anymore. We cannot spend it on health services the way we would like to. The Hon. Member now sees that as a self-created deficit. The Member who was an educator wants to see us ignore the deficit.
Incidentally, as my colleague just pointed out, the Hon. Member who proposes the motion talked about cutbacks and cuts in spending. Between 1979 and 1984 Established Programs Financing hit a peak of $54,929 billion. From 1984 to 1989 the figure rose to $83,354 billion, an increase of nearly $30 billion as I read it. However, the Hon. Member calls that increase a cut. Between 1989 and 1994 it is expected that Established Programs Financing will rise to $107,865 billion. Is that a cut? That figure is double what it was between 1979 and 1984. Yet the Hon. Member persists in calling it a cut.
I know that money is important in education. Without it we cannot get into all the areas that we need to get into such as research in microbiology, space research, sound-all of the matters that universities have to get into if we are to become world leaders in these areas. However, they all cost money. Everything in education does not cost money. I wish the Hon. Member as an educator himself would have said something about the place of curiosity in education, the place of working one's way through school and giving oneself an incentive in education.


Mr. Fisher:: Did you?


Benno Friesen: Yes, I did. It didn't cost the Government of Canada one red cent for my seven years of university training.


Ron Fisher: Of course it did. Your tuition does not pay the full cost by any stretch of the imagination.


Benno Friesen: That is right. However, I was not trained in Canadian universities. When I went to state universities I paid double tuition.


Jesse Philip Flis: That explains it.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member has it.
I wish the Hon. Member would have talked about something about which I think he is probably very competent in, that is, the role of the teacher in inspiring curiosity in students. I think he was probably veiy good at that. However, somehow it all boils down to money. If the growth is not quite as high as it was the year before then somehow the students and universities are being defrauded. I do not think that squares since those other ingredients have to be fed back into the system.
I hope the Hon. Member who has put this motion forward will do some sober thinking about self-created deficits. What we borrow today we have to pay back tomorrow. The interest payments we are paying today could have been better spent on universities as opposed to paying it to the banks and Wall Street. We cannot rely on continued deficit financing in order to keep the system going.


Mr. Nicholson:: That is the point where the Hon. Member got up and left.


Benno Friesen: Exactly. That is when he got up to leave. It was when we talked about deficit financing. It has been the darling ploy of the New Democratic Party.
While I have some sympathy for this motion, I am afraid that I cannot support it. It has an open-ended criterion to it.
There is one other factor in dealing with the cost of education. It is cost control. At the present time we are asking the federal Government to pay out, but the federal Government has absolutely no control over what it costs. Somewhere in the balancing of the books there has to be also a balancing of the costs, not only the asking for more funds. Somewhere along the line we have to get that equation worked into the system. I hope that the Hon. Member will do some more thinking about this motion before he ever proposes it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to recognize more Hon. Members on debate. However, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
June 20, 1989


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, before we commence debate on Bill C-8, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to have Bill C-22, which we debated earlier this afternoon, referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment rather than to a legislative committee as had been proposed to the House earlier this afternoon.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are four motions on the Order Paper and Notices offered in amendment to Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act, all in the name of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud).
Motion No. 1 is similar to a motion that was debated in committee. However, the Chair is of the opinion that the motion is sufficiently different that it will allow it to be put to the House.
Motion No. 1 will therefore be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 2 is identical to a motion that was moved and negatived in committee. For this reason it will not be selected.
Motion No. 3 causes the Chair misgivings because the amendment is attempting to add a definition of a "Consultative Council Board". This is a new concept, a concept that was not envisaged in the Bill when it received second reading. It is my view that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill as read a second time by the House.
Paragraph one of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition stipulates that: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the Bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived".
Labour
Consequently, the motion is out of order and will not be selected.
Motion No. 4 is in order and will be debated and voted on separately.
To recap, Motions Nos. 1 and 4 are in order and will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are out of order and will not be selected for debate.
The House will now deal with Motion No. 1.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-8 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11 to 14
at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"ions, employees or employee organizations, for the purpose of
making provision".
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on this motion. Specifically, the motion calls for Bill C-8 to be amended by striking out lines 11 to 14 at page 1 and substituting this motion. Clause 5(1) of Bill C-8 would now read:
Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the Minister may enter into agreements with provincial Governments, employers, employer organizations, employees, or employee organizations, for the purposes of making provision.
Bill C-8 is an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, enabling the establishment of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, otherwise known as POWA.
It has been more than three years since the Government announced its intention to create a program for older worker adjustment and, finally, the Government has brought forward legislation. It is important to note that this announcement by the Government came directly on the heels of its decision to cancel the Labour Adjustment Benefit Program in the Government's February 1986 Budget.
During the debate at second reading of Bill C-8, I addressed this matter and I want to reaffirm that my colleagues on this side of the House are very upset with the Government for taking more than three years to bring this legislation to fruition.
Given the time frame that the Government had to produce legislation that could greatly benefit older workers, what we see here is legislation that is a step in the right direction, although a minor step forward at best.

June 20, 1989
Labour
I say that because during the three years that older workers have been waiting for a new program there have been approximately and still are 636 applications involving thousands of older workers. They have been waiting a long while and my colleagues and I on this side of the House do not think that they should wait any longer. They had been promised a program by the Government; they were promised benefits and assistance.
Throughout the legislative committee hearings this theme was constantly brought forward by the witnesses. Although they felt that there were inherent flaws in this particular legislation, substantial flaws, they still felt it was important to support this legislation. A major concern was the involvement of financial institutions in the administration of this program.
The Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Labour Market Productivity Centre, and the Canadian Council on Social Development raised this concern during the hearings. That is why I am proposing this motion in the House today.
The Canadian Labour Market and the Productivity Centre suggested that a better model for administering income maintenance could be through the Canada Pension Plan and proposed that this program somehow be administered through Health and Welfare Canada. In terms of the annuity model, they proposed that instead of privatizing the delivery of this program, systems already in place could take care of the same issue.
The Canadian Council on Social Development questioned how the program administration with the financial institutions, and more specifically with insurance companies, would actually work in practice. During the legislative committee hearings the Canadian Council on Social Development stated:
We question the appropriateness of business firms making adjustments to the benefits payments, once the initial benefit level has been established by POWA. How will private firms monitor changes in annuity holders' employment and income status without reference to personal information on these annuity holders' income tax returns?
The Canadian Labour Congress had reservations about the involvement of financial institutions in the administration of this program. One concern was the transfer of work from unionized public workers to
non-unionized private sector workers. Another concern raised by the CLC was that the purchase of annuities virtually guarantees that the provision of income security to older workers will be administratively segregated from the other aspects of an integrated adjustment program, which include training, job counselling and job placement. To summarize the feelings of the CLC, I think it is safe to say that to turn over the income situation of POWA beneficiaries to financial institutions was, according to them, totally unacceptable.
Given the concerns raised by these notable organizations during the legislative committee hearings, I propose that the House consider the adoption of this motion that is before us today.
These organizations have a very strong insight into the concerns with respect to older workers in this country. The dilemmas facing older workers today, and in the past, are not new to these organizations, for they have researched this area for many years and have provided us, as parliamentarians and Canadians, with very thorough studies. I trust that this motion will receive positive consideration by the House.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion. The major reason why I do so concerns an element of privatization to a portion of the Government, and perhaps the involvement by the private sector in government at all. The concept of the delivery of the benefits of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment being delivered by private insurance institutions is one I find particularly abhorrent. The struggles I have had with insurance companies in the delivery of workers' benefits for sickness, accident and long-term disability pale in comparison to the struggles the Opposition is having with the Government. So you can quite well imagine how enormous the problems are which people are having with private insurance companies insofar as the delivery of these programs are concerned.
Can you imagine an employee on long-term disability from a plant that is designated within this program, the employees of which are entitled to receive benefits under POWA, an employee who is most likely at two-thirds of the previous salary? POWA stipulates that the benefit levels are 60 per cent of previous salaries.
June 20, 1989

Once the enterprise has been designated under this program, I would suggest that there would be an enormous amount of pressure by that insurance company to force the levels which it was previously paying out of its own pocket of 66 per cent down to the 60 per cent and foisting the cost of that worker on to the taxpayers of the country.
I do not think it is possible to view some of the problems associated with this concept in any other way. There is absolutely no reason for insurance companies to be involved in this kind of a program at all. What we see here is simply a continuation of what was begun several years ago by this Government but which has accelerated since the return of this Parliament and certainly as a consequence of this Budget; that is, the privatization of as many services which can be provided to people ostensibly by the Government as possible.
The Government claims that the reason for doing it this way is that it is cheaper. If the Government puts these things out for tender and the cost to the Government as a result is cheaper, and they have said that it will be as much as 70 per cent, the difference in cost is quite easily explained.
As the previous speaker pointed out, and as the mover of the motion pointed out, what is happening is that the people who will be implementing this program are now going to be in the private sector and will be more poorly paid than Government workers. I would suggest that the insurance companies are able to provide the cost at somewhat less than the Government, but even on that basis what the Government is really doing, as is the case in most privatization efforts, is being penny-wise and pound-poor. If the people who are providing this service were to remain within the Government, well paid workers within the Government earning decent salaries, paying income tax and spending the money in the community, the basic overall return to the Government would be just as high as if these services were not provided by private companies.
I agree with the previous speaker that what we have here is a pale beginning of something which should have become full blown long before now, something which we have waited three years for the implementation of, the pale beginnings of something which has to occur. Older workers are at a tremendous loss within our society to
Labour
find jobs for themselves. Even the services provided to them under the Labour Department are insufficient in helping them to find jobs for a variety of reasons.
For the time being, I would simply like to point out that while we will be supporting this motion and supporting the concept of POWA, it is with a great deal of concern and sorrow that we recognize that it does not go much farther.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-8 is to provide income assistance to older workers who have lost their jobs and who, because of their age, cannot find work again. In the Bill older workers are defined as those people 55 years up to and including 64 years. This proposal to provide income assistance to older workers is of course subject to conditions. I will discuss those conditions when we come to a later amendment.
Let me say that it is obvious that one of the conditions is that the older worker must have exhausted his unemployment insurance. Therefore, what we have here is a Bill which will provide income assistance to a worker over 55 who cannot find work, who no longer has unemployment insurance. He has to have some kind of income assistance until he gets old enough to get the old age pension. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The amendment to the Bill, which we are discussing now and which has been proposed by my colleague from Prince Edward Island, is to strike out that clause of the Bill which provides that income benefits to the unemployed older workers come from private financial institutions. For some reason or other, the Government has decided to finance and provide this income assistance to older workers by making agreements with private companies and with private financial institutions.
We cannot understand why. We don't finance old age pensions by some sort of an agreement with private financial institutions. We do not provide family allowances by making a contract with private insurance companies and private finance companies to make those payments to families for family allowances. As a matter of fact, I do not know of any kind of social programs where the Government makes a contract with a private, profit-making company to provide benefits to Canadians. We have in this Bill such a provision.

June 20, 1989
Labour
The witnesses before the legislative committee recommended that that is not the way to do it. They said that these benefits should be provided for and financed like other social benefits through Government agencies such as the Canada Pension Plan,old age pensions,family allowances and so on.
The Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council on Social Development recommended that we strike out this provision that says that the benefits will be financed and provided by financial institutions. That is what my hon. colleague is doing in this amendment.
We urge Members of this House to support the amendment so that these benefits will be financed and provided for like all other social benefits and income support benefits.
It is surprising that the Government announced this program in the Budget of February, 1986, and yet it took the government members more than three years to produce this Bill. After abolishing the previous program, they finally came forth with this Bill and program for older worker adjustment. Despite the fact that we support the goal of the Bill, it is hard to understand why there are so many flaws in the Bill such as the flaw before us. I urge the House to support this amendment put forward by my hon. colleague.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my support to the motion tabled here before us by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud). It is a very important amendment. More and more we are seeing in our constituency offices people who have lost their jobs and specifically between the ages of 55 and 64. My hon. friend before me referred to them as the older workers. I would like to refer to them as the more senior workers. Because they have experience, they can offer a lot to the country, perhaps for another 20 years or more. Yet firms are reluctant to hire them. That is why I think this Bill is a good one. It does provide protection for such workers who find themselves unemployed. It has a traumatic psychological effect on people to find themselves unemployed after working for 20 or 25 years. That is not an easy thing to live through. It is unfortunate that it took the Government three years to bring in such a Bill.
I hope the Government is listening and will vote for the amendments which our side is introducing because their purpose is only to improve the Bill. The Government is following a trend of cutting the public service and moving toward privatization. It has brought in the free trade Bill, the effects of which we have already seen. Plants are moving to Mexico where workers work for $4 a day. This displaces workers in Canada in the age group of 55 to 64.1 know you want to get on with the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge all Members of the House to support this amendment.

Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of LabounMr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the proposed amendment, if adopted, would eliminate a key component of the program, a component that has played a major role in all our negotiations with the provinces on their participation in this program. Adopting this amendment would require a new series of negotiations with the provinces and might mean considerable delay in providing the assistance that older workers need. Earlier, I heard the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud) say there had been too many delays already, and my point is that adopting this amendment would only make the situation much worse.
As for cancelling the previous program, I can inform the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) that we have not yet terminated the previous program. In fact, it has been extended for one year, and this was a program his Government had expected to expire in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, by striking out, as proposed by the Opposition, the words "or other such persons or entities as the Minister considers appropriate", we would in fact deprive the Minister of the option of using any other legal entity in the job environment that might be useful in facilitating adjustment payments. This would mean it would take at least one or two or maybe more years to put in place the government bureaucracy required to dispense these payments, and it would also reduce the amount of money available for the workers in question.
June 20, 1989

I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that the House vote down this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


George Albert Proud: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding immediately after line 14 at page 2 the following new clause:
"2. (1) Three years after the coming into force of this Act, a comprehensive review of the provisions of section 5 of the Department of Labour Act, as enacted by this Act, shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as maybe designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report on the review to the House including a statement of any changes the committee recommends."
He said: The last motion that I have the pleasure of speaking on today in reference to Bill C-8 is a motion proposing that the Bill be amended by adding, after line 14 on page 2, the following new clause numbered 2(1), and I quote:
Three years after the coming into force of this Act, a comprehensive review of the provisions of section 5 of the Department of Labour Act, as enacted by this Act, shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
Labour
There are a myriad of concerns with respect to this legislation, as I have addressed in previous comments to the House and throughout the legislative committee process. Obviously these concerns have been shared by my colleagues and by numerous organizations and individuals throughout the country.
As previously mentioned in this House, my colleagues and I support this Bill in principle. By that I mean that older workers need assistance and they have waited long enough for such a program.
I would briefly like to highlight some of the concerns that have been raised pertaining to the legislation. I believe that, although it is definitely an improvement to have a program for older workers' assistance, this legislation has an unusually high degree of selectivity, arbitrariness and subjectivity.
The criteria for eligibility is very broad and does not take into account older workers who may fall between the cracks so to speak. What about older workers who are not part of a major permanent lay-off as designated by the Minister? We still have no idea what the Government will consider as being a major lay-off. Will the Government judge by the number of employees laid off in a region or by the severity of an individual's situation? These lay-offs are to be assessed on a case by case basis.
Given the loosely worded criteria for deciding who qualifies, it is left totally to the discretion of the Minister of Labour as to what constitutes a major lay-off and thus who will be eligible for assistance. The motion I have proposed today will ensure that if the concerns are raised in this area strongly enough to warrant review that the House will do so.
With respect to the federal-provincial partnership of this program, the Government is saying that it will be 70-30 cost shared. It is important to note that Ontario is the only province that has not agreed to participate. British Columbia has recently entered the program. Why has Ontario not agreed to participate? We haven't been given any reasons for its reluctance. Does this mean that older workers from Ontario will not have the same rights and opportunities as older workers from the other nine provinces?
Another concern is how the program will mesh with the UI proposals. How will the design for programs for older workers under the labour force development strategy mesh with POWA? Will they be used to test eligibility for POWA? Will older workers have to exhaust all alternatives in order to qualify for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment?

June 20, 1989
Labour
During the legislative committee hearings a multitude of concerns were raised, some of which I outlined a few moments ago and some of which I will outline now. POWA continues to be a passive approach to labour adjustment for older workers. Some of the witnesses at the hearings believed that it is better to put resources into training and retraining older workers rather than only providing income supplementation. The LAB program had worker and employer representation in the decision-making group built into its administration, unlike this Bill. The program should be made more consultative by including workers and employers in its administration. Under this proposed legislation there are very low yearly benefit levels, with the maximum about $13,200 in 1989 which is about the same as Statistics Canada poverty lines.
How would a lay-off be judged eligible? According to the legislation it must be a major permanent lay-off, but it could be refused if considered a minor permanent lay-off.
As we can all see, there are a variety of concerns with respect to this legislation. Thus I believe that the motion I have proposed today will ensure that these concerns will be dealt with and that other concerns that may arise will be dealt with in an effective manner. I urge the House today to support this motion which I have put forward.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, there are several very good reasons for supporting this motion, not the least of which is that there is a lack of regulatory authority within Bill C-8 itself. That highlights more than ever the necessity for a review. I cannot think of a better vehicle for reviewing this legislation than the House itself and a committee set up by it.
It needs a review process because all it says really is that the Minister will enter into negotiations. There is not any major evaluation of what the final program will look like. All we really have at this stage before it becomes law is reference to some Department of Labour documents which are not very extensive in their exposition of what the program will entail.
The motion will also provide a public review of the program for older workers. Related to what I have already said, this program contains the vaguest of references and operates largely upon the goodwill of the Government. In light of what we are experiencing in relation to this Government at the present time, how can we have any assurance that the designations of major lay-offs are going to be fair? It is absolutely essential that the public have some input. It might possibly be that three years is too long a period of time. It is absolutely essential that the public have some ability to be able to review this program after it has had a chance to operate for a while.
The third reason that it is essential that we have the review is that when it comes to older workers, they face many problems within society as a result of losing their employment which other age levels do not experience. Not the least of which, Mr. Speaker, is the inability to be able to find work at the age of 55 to 64. It is almost a given within our society that people of this age are going to have difficulty finding employment.
In addition, a review of this very situation is going to be essential because the older worker, the 55 to 64 year-old age group, while they are becoming a larger portion of Canadian society are becoming a smaller proportion of the labour force, indicating something in reverse to what one would hope to see happen.
Since that is the case, with a review three years from now we will be able to take a look at where this trend is leading us and be able to make a very good assessment as to whether or not programs should be put in place to supplement this one and the degree to which this one should be augmented if that should be the indication.
I can only say in relation to the whole program for older workers that it is a pale semblance of what we ought to be having. It is a beginning. Let us hope that it is the beginning of a program which takes care of not only these people from 55 to 64 years of age who find themselves at odds with their society because they are unable to find work, but also there are developing serious problems of people even at lower ages. A review three years from now may also include the problems of workers who are even younger than 55.
June 20, 1989


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the purpose of this amendment is to require a review of the legislation after three years. That amendment was proposed to us by witnesses before the legislative committee. The reason that they proposed this review after three years is because they wanted the Bill to go through now, but they said it was subject to many flaws. They felt that the flaws should be dealt with in due course.
For example, the Bill contains no appeal procedure. In the former legislation, the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program, there was an appeal process which workers or firms could use if they felt the administration had not treated them properly. There is no appeal procedure in this. There is no consultation procedure written into the program.
The Minister has almost total discretion under this Bill. He can do pretty much as he likes. Many of the individuals who spoke to us felt there should be a consultation process whereby the Minister would have to consult with labour and with management with respect to this whole process for older workers.
Another flaw is that the benefits payable under this legislation are higher than welfare but lower than unemployment insurance. It is somewhere between unemployment insurance benefits and welfare benefits. This means that while it will be better to receive assistance under this Bill than under provincial welfare schemes, it will be less than some people would receive under unemployment insurance. There are flaws in the Bill. As a matter of fact, there is very little in the Bill. The Bill is only two pages. Most of the program that relates to the administration of the Bill, the criteria and so on, are in directives which are internal in the Department. We have the directives and we are able to read them but they are not in the Bill. This is another flaw.
The Government itself has put a similar provision in other legislation which is brought before Parliament. This Conservative Government has used that type of clause before, that legislation should be reviewed after three years or after five years. When we were in power, we did it with the Freedom of Information legislation and the Privacy legislation. We did it at that time at the request of the Conservative Party. They had proposed it in the House, such as we are doing tonight and we
Labour
agreed to it. That legislation was subject to review. A parliamentary committee studied it and made a report on improvements.
I would urge the Minister of Labour to take this proposed amendment seriously. It does not change the legislation as such now, but it will require that the legislation be reviewed in three years' time by a designated parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee can propose improvements to the law at that time on the basis of three years' experience. I have already mentioned some of the flaws in the Bill.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I too support in principle the amendment that is proposed, which basically renders this legislation reviewable after three years. It seems to me that it is a good move to review the purpose and effect of this particular legislation and the impact it has in Canada generally.
Having said that, I would like to indicate my very serious concerns with respect to the fundamental problem that Bill C-8 purports to address. That fundamental problem, Mr. Speaker, is one that you, I and every Member of the House of Commons encounters almost on a daily basis in our constituencies. That is the older workers who find themselves unemployed through no reason of their own.
We know all too often major plants and minor employers for economic reasons, whether it is because of free trade or because of other economic considerations, decide to close their plants. The closure of a plant or the closure of a place of employment has brutal effects on workers, especially those workers who are older. This particular Bill deals with workers who are between the ages of 55 and 65.
Regardless of what age one may be, the impact of losing a job is very severe and especially when the person losing his or her job is the major breadwinner in the family. Having said that, the problem is even more acute when we are dealing with older workers. As their Member of Parliament, I have older workers calling me in desperation looking for some type of employment. They find themselves somewhat short of 60 years of age when they would qualify for a reduced Canada Pension Plan, or several years away from Old Age Security. The impact is devastating on a family where at one moment there is an income and the next moment there is not.

June 20, 1989
Labour
Bill C-8 tries to address that particular problem and although the Bill ought to be supported, especially in view of the great number of applicants-I understand there are 636 applicant groups that apply for benefits under this legislation-but this is not the answer. It is simply ad hoc, it is piecemeal and it is also discriminatory. If you are 54 years of age, you do not qualify. What is the difference between a 54 year old worker with three or four children, a mortgage to pay and other expenses to meet and a 55 year old worker with four children, a mortgage to pay and expenses to meet? What is the difference between the two when they lose their jobs? There isn't any.
Unfortunately the Government has arbitrarily chosen age 55 as being the operative age after which benefits may be payable under this legislation. That is a fundamental flaw in the legislation in that it only applies to older workers beyond the age of 55.
What the Government of Canada ought to be looking at is not an amendment to the Department of Labour Act, Bill C-8-here it is 8.20 p.m., a few weeks before we are adjourning to fulfil a commitment made by the Government in 1986-but it ought to be addressing the fundamental problem in a serious and comprehensive way. What I am speaking of is a form of guaranteed annual income or an income supplement program available to all Canadians. There comes a time when we have to talk about the ultimate social program. In Canada today we have a myriad of programs, whether it is at the provincial, municipal or federal level. There are welfare programs, unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, mothers' allowance, all kinds of ways in which the Government tries to assist those in need. At some point in the future the Government will have to realize that each and every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives, regardless of being male or female, whether he or she is 65 years or 25 years of age, people are all entitled to a certain minimum standard of living. That is the least we can do as a modem, prosperous and civilized nation.
I see that not only my colleagues in the Liberal Party are supportive of a comprehensive review of all welfare systems in Canada-the beginning of a discussion of a guaranteed annual income program in Canada-but I note the Minister himself and other Ministers of the Crown nodding in agreement. Indeed, various backbenchers agree as well. I would hope that all those who
agree will urge the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to give serious consideration to addressing the root problem that this Bill purports to address.
I note that I am permitted to speak on the motion and I understand that third reading will follow when my beloved colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the deputy whip, will speak. Not so long ago he was not a member of management. Now he is and he is telling me to speed up. I will conclude by saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I see there is considerable support for me to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: My colleagues are so appreciative of my submissions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. Let me say that the Hon. Member who just spoke and I do not have the same understanding of the applause that went on while he was speaking. I gather it was more an encouragement to put an end to his speech than to what he was saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Corbeil: I think that this Bill is a tribute to both my predecessors, the Hon. Member from Vaudreuil, the Hon. Member from Kindersley-Lloydminster and the officers of the Department of Labour, who have put together a new program that is a monument of flexibility that will fill the need that is so important for the older worker.
The program is flexible and will also provide the necessary help for older workers. This is a joint federal-provincial program and it would be in keeping with the consultative nature of this program to review activities with the provinces. Moreover, Members of Parliament have the opportunity annually to examine the activities under the Department of Labour Act through their annual review of Labour Canada's Estimates. Also, a committee has been put together consisting of representatives from the provincial Governments, the federal Government, labour and employers to make sure the program fits the needs for which it was designed.
June 20,1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, there have been further consultations among all Parties in the House of Commons and I think if you were to seek unanimous consent you may find that the House is prepared to vote on Motion No. 1.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Jean Corbeil: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Corbeil: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, in my share of time this evening on these two motions and on the motions I put forward I want to say that this Bill is going to pass. We have said throughout the hearings that people have been waiting for this legislation. We are not totally satisfied and as my colleagues have said, there are other ways to look more in depth at these social
Labour
programs. I hope that many of our concerns about who will qualify, about what is a major lay-off, concerns I have put forward today, in committee and at second reading stage, will be addressed. I look forward to seeing the results of this Bill as it becomes law.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, during the debate in the House over the last three or four days, I have kept hearing references to the Budget made by government Members. Government Members are claiming that a great deal less is really a lot more, but that in the odd case where there is more government control it is really less.
In the final analysis the program for older workers is the same. In 1985 under the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program, which I grant did not have as wide an application as POWA, more people were covered. They were covered at higher levels and they received more money.
There is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 73,000 people who are in the age group of 55 to 64. The Program for Older Workers, under the best of circumstances, cannot cover more than 10 per cent of those people who may be potentially affected by becoming unemployed at that age. That is one of our major concerns. What will happen to that 90 per cent of people who will potentially find themselves out of work with no possibility whatsoever of being able to avail themselves of the Program for Older Workers?
It is true that the sooner this Bill gets passed, the better, but it is also true that there are many older workers who anticipate benefiting from this program who will not. They will not benefit from it because they will find themselves in what is identifiably a major lay-off which, under the terms of this program, terms that are certainly vague enough, will not be a lay-off that is deemed to be severe enough. Therefore, they will be excluded from receiving the benefits of this program.
This Bill will be implemented. We in the New Democratic Party will not vote against it. However, we would ask government Members to look at it again. I cannot for the life of me understand why they would object to having this program reviewed after three years. If it will be as good as they say it will be, I would think that they would welcome the initiative of the Hon. Member from Prince Edward Island who moved the motion that there be a review after three years.
June 20, 1989

Labour
The legislation is fraught with many problems. It does not go far enough. However, some people will be helped, though not enough. Let us help those who need the help.
[ Translation]


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would provide some very necessary and useful assistance for older workers who have lost their jobs as a result of major and permanent lay-offs and have no prospects of re-entering the labour market. These workers are some of the most deserving people in this country.

In third reading stage of this Bill I would like to thank the members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party for the constructive perspectives they offered during the hearings of the legislative committee and for their co-operation in ensuring the speedy passage of this brief legislative amendment to the Department of Labour Act.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wish to make one or two other points with respect to Bill C-8, a Bill which purports to address the problem of unemployed older workers.
First, the Bill does not go far enough. It is somewhat discriminatory in that it applies to a certain group of older workers, those between the ages of 55 and 65. I hope the Minister has sought and received the advice of law officers of the Crown to determine whether this legislation complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the Minister knows, under Section 15 of the Charter, it is prohibited to discriminate based on age.
As I indicated earlier, this Bill does discriminate. It discriminates in a positive way in that it provides benefits to a certain group of people. However, it discriminates in a negative way against those who are not between the ages of 55 and 65.
People who are 54 years of age will be discriminated against by this legislation. In my respectful submission, the Bill is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Minister nodded when I asked him if he received the advice of lawyers on that point.
A general point has been made by a number of my colleagues on several occasions with respect to the arbitrary age at which the Government of Canada tells workers that they must retire or become eligible for benefits. I am speaking of two programs in particular. Under the Canada Pension Plan, people become eligible for reduced pensions at the age of 60 and they become eligible for full pensions at the age of 65. With respect to the Old Age Security Program, a program which up until recently was open to all Canadians but for which the Government has now introduced a claw-back, workers who turn 65 years of age become eligible.
There is nothing magical about turning 60 years of age or 65 years of age. At some point in the past a Government in its wisdom decided that that was the age when people had to consider themselves old, when it was time to be removed from the workforce. I would ask that parliamentarians, particularly the Minister and government Members, give serious thought to those arbitrary ages which were selected for the Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan.
The age of 65 is not a magical age. There are workers who are 55 and wish to retire for health reasons or other reasons. Surely, in a modem, prosperous, affluent country like Canada, we can find the resources to permit older workers who wish to retire the opportunity to do so with a pension from the Government of Canada, keeping in mind, of course, that when an older worker removes himself or herself from the workforce, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a position opens up for another worker. Those are the other two points I wish to make for the record, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 20, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express to the members of the Standing Committee on Transport my appreciation of their excellent spirit of co-operation in the study of the Bill. As I look around at the audience tonight, I see several members of the Transport Committee present. On behalf of the Minister, I wish to thank them for their co-operation.
Political partisanship was set aside, and a real spirit of co-operation was demonstrated by all. I wish to thank all members of the Standing Committee for that.
The key point is that the Bill which emerged is much better legislation. Co-operation in the pursuit of improvements has shown its value in the end product. For this, members of the Standing Committee can be justifiably proud.
Obviously we did not in the end satisfy everyone completely. I do not believe that this is ever possible, and some ideas for changes to the Bill could not work without totally changing the concept of the proposed Bill.
I am reminded of one definition of a camel: a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The members of the Standing Committee avoided that pitfall. Instead, they took a reasonably good work horse and made it into something closer to a thoroughbred.
Among the amendments to the Bill, the addition of oil and gas pipelines to the board's jurisdiction deserves mention. Those pipelines were not initially included in
Accident Investigation
the Bill, because they have not traditionally fallen within the scope of transportation, the subject of this Bill.
Members of the Standing Committee noted, however, that there exists a perceived potential for conflict of interest when the regulators of oil and gas pipelines are also the accident investigators. It is therefore only logical that accidents involving oil and gas pipelines, as well as pipelines carrying other commodities, be investigated by an independent board.
The object of the board was also expanded by amendments. The Bill now provides that the board may pursue its over-all objective of improving transportation safety by conducting special studies and investigations on matters pertaining to transportation safety.
In line with this, the board's objective of improving transportation safety was reinforced by adding the word "safety" to its title. It will be known officially as the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.
The Government has agreed with these changes. However, I would like to add one point of clarification. The board is responsible for conducting accident investigations and studies, and it is accountable for the quality of its recommendations to improve transportation safety.
The responsibility for the safety of the transportation system itself rests with the Minister of Transport. The Minister is accountable to Parliament and to the people of Canada for transportation safety. I know that the new board, in its operation, will understand and respect the role and responsibilities of the Minister, as I know the Minister will understand and respect the role of the board.
Witnesses before the committee expressed a number of concerns that were dealt with by amendment. Many interested parties that would be affected by the board's work, for example the railway companies, sought assurances that they would be consulted on the regulations and policies of the board.
The Bill was amended to confirm that regulations will be pre-published for 90 days in The Canada Gazette. Another amendment requires the board to make public its policies regarding which accidents to investigate and how to conduct investigations. This guarantees that any interested party can have easy access to these policies and comment on them.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation
I expect that the board will consult with interested parties on the development of those policies in any event. Consultations will ensure that the policies are fair, reasonable, and workable. Consultation also recognizes the interest and responsibility for transportation safety shared by interested parties, especially carriers and their employees.
Representatives of the rail and marine industries also expressed some concern that the investigators' power to quarantine an accident site would unduly interrupt essential transportation services. The first and foremost priority of the board must be to find out what caused the accident in order to improve safety in the future. Without compromising this principle, it is possible for the investigators to have regard to the other objectives of the national transportation policy, namely, efficient and effective operation. The Bill was therefore amended to instruct the investigators to have regard to the desirability of minimizing the disruption to transportation service.
Thus, essential transportation services will be resumed as soon as practicable after an accident, for example, by replacing damaged rails so that trains may again pass through the accident site or by allowing a ship to continue its voyage as soon as possible.
Representatives of labour asked that the privilege accorded to air traffic control recordings be extended to include traffic control recordings in the rail and marine modes of transportation. All members of the Standing Committee agreed, and the appropriate amendment was made.
These amendments and a number of others adopted by the standing committee have improved Bill C-2. The Bill represents a major step toward maintaining the safety of our transportation system. It is the final piece in a series of safety related legislative initiatives in the past several years.
I would therefore like to reiterate my appreciation for the co-operative spirit shown by Members from all sides of this House in studying and debating the provisions of the Bill. I hope that they will now support it on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Crosby):: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has a point that he wished to raise.


Mr. Nowlan:: I wish to endorse what was stated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I do not wish to interrupt the flow of debate on Bill C-2, but as chairman of the committee to which the
Hon. Parliamentary Secretary referred, in my relatively brief experience as chairman of the Transport Committee, and in my longer experience as a member of the Transport Committee both in opposition and in government, I have never seen a Bill that has moved through a committee in a non-ideological and more positive way and with the assistance of Members from all sides. I wish we could have had a video of how the Bill worked through the committee as an example for other committees on other Bills that do not have partisan involvement as to what can be done.
In conclusion, I wish to compliment the Vice-Chairman, the Hon. Member for St. Maurice, the other members of the committee, and my friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I commend all members. In the McGrath spirit of reform of committees there are many things some Members still wonder about.
In terms of the example presented in Bill C-2,1 want to compliment all Members from all sides of the House. I have never participated in any committee on any Bill on which there has been a healthier and more constructive consideration by more intelligent and competent Members from all sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Crosby):: I am sure that Hon. Members will appreciate those good words and govern themselves accordingly.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary just said and my friend and colleague who is the Chairman on the Standing Committee on Transport just said. It was very enjoyable working through the process of this legislation. It was made enjoyable because of the people who showed such dedication in preparing themselves for the committee meetings. I thank them very much for the co-operation that they showed to the Members on this side of the House.
Having said that, there are some issues to which we still take exception. I will very briefly touch on those tonight. In our judgment we feel that the amendments which we proposed to this legislation should have been entertained with perhaps a little more seriousness. We wish even today, as the Bill is in its final stages in the House, that these amendments would have formed part of the legislation.
June 20, 1989

I might add that the proof of that will come to light to those of us who sometimes practise law when we go to our law libraries at different times and pick up statute citators on this particular legislation. We will look at the legislation and see those areas of the Bill that may have been adjudicated by the courts in this land for interpretation. In summarizing those issues time will tell whether the legislation is in fact operative or whether we should have spent more time on it.
It is interesting to note that this Bill was introduced and read the first time on April 7. It was then debated at second reading stage on April 17 and April 18 and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport on April 18.
After hearing from 45 witnesses the committee reported the Bill to the House, with amendments, on June 8. As I mentioned, we heard from over 45 witnesses, most of whom had many valuable comments, observations, and suggested amendments to contribute to the committee's analysis of the Bill. Yet, despite this wealth of evidence, we were unable to weigh it effectively. We were not able to discern which witnesses presented the most salient, cogent and prudent evidence or the best recommendations.
Within 24 hours of hearing the final witnesses the committee began its clause by clause consideration of the Bill. It was not possible to reflect on the evidence presented and assess which witnesses on balance presented the strongest evidence. Instead, we had to give a cursory review of statements and proposed amendments.
One would have thought that given the importance and implications of this Bill that the Government would have realized and appreciated the merits of giving this legislation more thoughtful consideration, something which could only have been achieved with less stringent time constraints. If the Government were adamant about having this legislation passed before June 30, why was the House convened on April 3? Moreover, why was the Government so intent on passing this legislation before June 30?
Accident Investigation
As you know full well, Mr. Speaker, Justice Estey is currently conducting a judicial review based on the Gander incident looking only at the four comers of the evidence. Does it not make good sense to postpone the passage of this Bill until the Minister receives a report and the Standing Committee on Transport is given the opportunity to examine the findings and the recommendations, if any, stemming from it?
Let us not be fooled, the Gander crash was most instrumental in prompting the drafting of Bill C-142 which died on the Order Paper in the last session of Parliament and which now forms Bill C-2, the legislation presently before us.
Granted, we are creating a multi-modal board which, along with aviation, will be responsible for investigating rail, marine, and commodity pipeline accidents. However, if it were not for the differing opinions and personality conflicts which made the Canadian Aviation Safety Board inoperative following the Gander crash, I doubt that the Government would have proceeded with such urgency to create this multi-modal board.
In essence, this legislation permits the Government to put an end to the dissension and conflicts which were making the Canadian Aviation Safety Board inoperative and drew greater attention to the controversies surrounding the Board than those surrounding the Gander crash.
Replacing the Canadian Aviation Safety Board with this legislation effectively permits the Government to get rid of those persons who were trying to bring the public's attention to some of the irregularities in aviation accident investigation in Canada.
In fact, these individuals have already received their notice. Would it not make good sense to wait to see if the Estey review sheds any light on why so much dissension surrounded the accident investigation assessment process? We can learn from this, correct our mistakes, and not allow them to happen again.
Many have said that it was personality conflicts which prompted the dissension. How many Canadians do you know, Mr. Speaker, who would be willing to put a $80,000 a year job on the line simply because they did not like someone else? These individuals did what they did as a matter of principle. I compliment those who were the dissenters on the Gander crash. They saw irregularities. They reported them, and now they are being silenced.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation
If there indeed were irregularities with the investigation of the Gander crash, then this legislation should not proceed. We will not know this until Mr. Justice Estey submits his report which is anticipated in another two weeks. Only then will we be in the position to proceed with the legislation that holds so much importance for accident investigation in our country.
Based on the evidence submitted to it, the committee concluded that the problem area lies more in the realm of the structure and the methodology of accident investigation rather than the number of board members or the powers of the chairman, although the latter are significant. Difficulties with the Gander crash point to problems with how the accident was investigated and how those investigators brought their findings and conclusions to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board for the consideration of the board members and the board panel.
Yet, in dealing with the legislation before us today, there was never an opportunity to examine the regulations of accident investigation. These, I would pose, were the root of most of the difficulties incurred by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, not personality conflicts. If it were simply a matter of problems with the personnel, replacing them would have resolved any difficulties. While they are being replaced by the current legislation there is no guarantee that the same problems will not be revisited by this new legislation that will be passed because the regulations dictating the investigative assessment process have not been examined.
On May 261 attended the non-evidentiaiy hearings of the Dryden crash inquiry in Toronto. Justice Moshansky was appointed commissioner on that investigation. He will be examining as part of the scope of his authority the structure and methodology of accident investigation in Canada, along with determining the cause of the Dryden crash.
As I mentioned earlier, given the importance of such an examination, our Party moved an amendment to Clause 63, which was approved in committee, which will see that this legislation, that which is before us today, will undergo a comprehensive review in January 1993. I am pleased to say that this will allow whatever findings and recommendations which come out of the Dryden inquiry to be considered as they relate specifically to the
legislation before us. I would also assume from that amendment that we will be able at that time to look at the recommendations, if any, from the Estey inquiry, and any recommendations which should come out of that inquiry will also be incorporated into the legislation.
I am disappointed in certain areas of this legislation. We proposed a number of recommendations and amendments that we thought were substantial, including the number of members on the board that would make up the multi-modal board. We are still convinced that one of the real problems on the previous board, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, was the lack of delineation between the powers of the chairman and the powers of the board.
Try as much as we did in this new legislation to delineate the powers of the chairman and the powers of the board, we were unsuccessful in doing so. The question of confidentiality presented us with some problems. We discussed confidentiality in the previous legislation dealing with the Department of Labour Act amendment.
We have great respect for the institution of the collective agreement. We on this side of the House were concerned that the collective agreement was being used in the investigative process. We believe that the confidential statements made between the employer and the employee should remain confidential. If the investigators want any other source of information, they should take their own course rather than rely on those statements given pursuant to a particular clause in the collective agreement. It is our view that the sanctity of the collective agreement in our society should not be touched, for whatever reason or purpose.
We found it difficult to accept another clause. It concerned the acceptability of evidence after it was presented. According to the processes that are outlined and still in this section of the Act, it appears that the reverse onus is one that my colleagues on this side of the House feel even today would not stand the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That causes us some concern because, as my colleague stated earlier in the debate, we all try for the benefit of all Canadians to bring in the most operative piece of legislation to look into the investigation process within our country.
June 20,1989

With those remarks, I am sure my colleague is happy that I will not go into any more detail. We compliment all members of the committee who worked on this legislation. It was an interesting process. Time will tell whether we were successful in the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Crosby):: I should clarify for the purposes of all Hon. Members that I recognized the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) on a point of order, and that the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) had unlimited time. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan (Mr. Angus) on debate.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in third reading of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. Like the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), my experience as what turns out to be one of the most senior members of the Transport Committee leads me to believe that this was a very good start for the work of the Transport Committee. We had a Bill that was non-partisan in nature. We all agreed with the intent of the Bill to provide a mechanism to investigate accidents in transportation modes.
There were some disagreements, not just between caucuses but within caucuses in terms of the final substance of that Bill. We must recognize that part of the reason we were able to do that was because of the spirit in which the Government, particularly the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) and the Parliamentary Secretary came to the committee ready to listen and learn. They were not locked into the existing wording of the Bill.
As with many other Bills, we all like to think that we are planting seeds by asking specific questions and raising particular points. First, we hope we are indicating an interest, and second, hopefully, we are trying to pull from the witnesses the ammunition necessary to make changes that are appropriate to the legislation.
Accident Investigation
Of the total amendments that were moved and accepted, 19 of those were authored by Government Members. One amendment authored by a Government Member failed, and I will deal with that later. However, it was an indication that the Government was prepared to listen, at least in those areas.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) that there were areas in which the Government did not listen, even when it was clear some of its own Members supported a point of view different from that of the Government.
We attempted to make some changes and we lost a particular vote on a tie. I hoped the Government would return with a recommendation at this point to make the change dealing with the size of the board, but that did not happen. That is unfortunate. Time will tell whether this will be an appropriate number for the board.
I want to deal now with some of the specifics of the Bill. I spent a lot of time dealing with the issue, both as it related to the Bill and as transportation critic for my caucus. I am pleased that my colleague from Alberta, our energy critic, is in the House because one of the key changes we made was to ensure the purity of the legislation.
The basis of the legislation was that we separate the people who regulate a transportation mode from the people who investigate any accidents. Initially, Bill C-2 included an exemption for pipelines covered under the National Energy Board Act. We began to wonder why and considered that to be very inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation. We moved to change that, and an amendment I put forward was accepted by the committee, in effect by the Government, because it did not in any way attempt to block that change. That is a very important decision that was made not by the Government but by a committee of this Parliament.
The second major change, which deals less directly with the Bill than with all of Parliament, was an amendment I moved that changed the Bill in 22 different places. It is the first time in Canadian law that this has occurred. It is the first time in British Commonwealth law that instead of a chairman of the board we now have a chairperson.
It is to the credit of the Transport Committee which decided to accept that recommendation. I encourage all other committees, as they deal with legislation, to establish or amend boards to change the terminology to reflect the reality of the 1980s and 1990s.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation
Mr. Speaker, let me go through a couple of the other changes that were made because they are important. No longer does the new Board report to the Minister of Transport. Part of the problem that we found within the Canadian Aviation Safety Board was the perception of conflict of interest. After a lot of thought and bouncing around of ideas as to whether it should be the Minister of Justice, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the President of the Queen's Privy Council, the committee opted to send it to an individual, a Minister who does not have any hands-on responsibility for the operation of transportation, but who is a Member of Cabinet and who can fight for the Board on behalf of the Board for necessary funds in person-years to allow them to do their job. But more importantly, it separates transport from the Investigation Board. That is extremely important because the public has to feel confident that the Board will tell it like it is as opposed to trying to water it down or hide it away; very clearly a separation of powers.
The other change, and this is one of those other examples where there were differences of opinion on the committee, and in fact my colleague and good friend, the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) and I disagreed on this particular one. That was over the name of the agency. It is now called the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. We did not fight about it, but I voted against it because as the Parliamentary Assistant stated very clearly, it is the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport that is responsible for safety in this country, safety of air, rail, marine and pipelines.
By putting the term safety into the Accident Investigation Board, we may in fact be misleading the people of Canada to think that this agency is the one responsible for it. It will have the responsibility for investigating accidents and making recommendations to the Minister of Transport, and anybody else for that matter, but it is up to those other bodies to make the decision as to whether those changes will be made. Ultimately, the responsibility is with the Government. We differed on that, but so be it. That was the nature of the debate that we had in committee where Members of the Government caucus differed from time to time. I cannot remember whether any Members of the Liberal caucus
split on any particular motions, but certainly the option was there. It was very appropriate that we approach it that way.
One of the other areas that we worked on, and it goes back to part of the problem with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, and that was the personality conflict. There were members of that Board who did not see eye to eye but who were all appointed by the Government of the day, but with no public process, no mechanism to say to the aviation industry that it would have two people on the Board and asking who it would it like to propose. The same thing for marine and for rail. My colleague and I put forward a motion. If it had been accepted, it would have provided for the establishment of a selection committee for each mode. Then we would get people who had the confidence of the transportation areas they would be investigating.
I alluded to this earlier. We wanted to change the number of members on the Board from five to seven because we thought that unfortunately there was more than enough work in Canada to investigate all of these modes of travel and that seven people would be more appropriate. It was lost on a tie vote with the chairman voting for the status quo as is his responsibility. We also attempted to put in place some temporary members so that from time to time, when the workload became too heavy, the Minister could pull in some additional people for the Board to help out.
We also made a number of other changes throughout the Bill, but in a couple of key areas there was a lot of concern expressed. Again, it was over the conflict within CASB in terms of who was to give the chairperson of the Board the power. Should it come directly by legislation or should it be passed on from the Board itself to the chairman? In other words, the five-member Board collectively would decide what the powers of the chairperson would be. The Government Members opted to maintain the existing structure, which is that through legislation the powers are given to the Chair. The reason that we wanted to make it a conscious decision is that if there are problems in the future with a new Board, if we do get fundamental splits, that at the very least we know that the Government of the day had a chance to change it so the power was collective rather than singular, and they would have to accept the responsibility.
June 20, 1989

The other thing that we tried to do in that same mode was to make sure that the directors of investigation were appointed by the Board rather than the chairperson. Again, we think it is part of the ownership that the Board has to feel good about the decisions and the investigation that is being conducted on their behalf.
Another amendment was to change the reporting system so that the reports would come directly to Parliament rather than going through the Minister and without the necessity for the Minister to have time to respond. A number of other amendments were put forward. We had a lot of discussion and by no means was there a consistent view in terms of whether or not there should be draft reports.
For those of you who are not aware of what the Act says, it provides that a draft report from the Board shall go to Ministers and to interested parties. They have a period of time in which they can respond and point out technical errors. It does not include the recommendations. A number of people argued that there could again be the perception of conflict of interest by allowing the Minister of Transport or a pilots' association or an aircraft company to come back to the Board and get them to change the report. Therefore, we tried at first to delete that reference so that the Board would create a final report and it would become public. That failed. So then we attempted to, at the very least, have appended to the report a list of the changes that were made and why they were made and who they were requested by or, if they were not changed, the fact that they were requested. Everything was above board once again with people feeling confident in what the Board was doing.
In addition to the draft report, there is an interim report that can be requested by any Minister responsible for a department having a direct interest in the subject matter of the investigation; primarily the Minister of Transport, but it could be the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps it could even be the Minister of the Environment. But they can request an interim report when they feel it is warranted because of lapse of time and they know the investigation has gone to a certain point. We wanted to make sure that any observers would also have the opportunity to get that report. It was decided that that did not make sense.
Accident Investigation
The other thing we wanted to do was to build in an appeal mechanism for when the Board came down with its report, with its recommendations.If a particular group feels that it is not sufficient, or they are not happy with the work that was done-perhaps as was suggested with Gander that they did not look at certain things-currently there is no way formally that they can request the matter to be re-opened. The Board, in its own wisdom, if it gets new evidence, can re-open it, but what we had proposed was a recommendation that they could get in touch with the Minister who in turn would automatically request the Board to re-examine it. So there would be at least a mechanism for their participation once again, just so there would be no way that it could be left hanging.
One of the key amendments that was accepted-in fact the final version was a draft put forward by the Government-was to ensure that communications in all modes of traffic would be treated the same. Initially, the Bill dealt with air traffic control or the air mode, but it was not as concise in terms of rail and marine. So we have changed the Bill to ensure that any communications, whether from the cab of a locomotive or from a vessel to the Coast Guard, are protected under this Act.
One of the unusual things that we did in terms of the railway mode was that we had both the railway companies and the railway unions, two groups that have tended not to see eye to eye on very much, come to us with a concern about the use of the investigators' reports of the statements taken by the Board investigators. They were worried that those could be used in disciplinary hearings between the company and the employee. They agreed that they should not be used, that they should remain confidential. The committee and the Government agreed with that change.
Many other amendments were put forward. I think the key is that we do have a better Bill. It is considerably better than what we started with. We learned a lot. Perhaps in three or four years when we get to the review process I and my colleague, the Member for Regina- Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), will once again say "I told you so" as we find that something we had tried to do on Bill C-2, which was not accepted, actually would have made things better. However, that is the process we go through.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation
The only negative concern I have is that we did rush things a bit too much. We had a problem with regard to preparation of amendments because we wanted to find out what the Government was prepared to do in order that we would not duplicate effort. Because of that, some of the amendments we submitted were not translated into one of the official languages. That caused a delay and I can say in retrospect that we probably should have built that into the process to ensure that everything was presented to the committee at the same time and in the same way.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as we did at second reading we will be supporting third reading of this Bill. It is a good day for transportation. I have not dealt with the issue of highway transport but I am sure my colleague will because it is an area of great interest to him. I look forward to seeing the new Board in place. I would encourage the Government to look carefully at who it appoints to this Board to ensure that it has the best possible people available and that they be appointed in a spirit of non-partisanship rather than using it as a resting place for tired old political war-horses. We need some good aviation, marine and rail individuals on this Board to take a good hard look at accident investigations in this country. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on the Transport Committee for all their hard work.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today government Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. At the outset there was some resistance by some Members of the esteemed Standing Committee on Transport during clause-by-clause consideration of the Board to not incorporate the word "safety" in the title of the Act. However, through the insistence of opposition Members we directed the Government's attention to the mandate of the Board, which is found in Clause 7, that is, that "the object of the Board is to advance transportation safety". The Government eventually saw the wisdom of our suggestion and, despite the committee chairman's observation that the title, in his words, "lacked sex appeal" or something very close to that, the TAIB or Transportation Accident Investigation Board was amended to include the word "safety".
I want to make it clear that I do not disagree with the intention of this Bill. In addition to aviation occurrences, the new Board will consolidate and be responsible for investigating occurrences in the modes of rail, marine, and pipelines transportation.
It must be noted that Bill C-2, when enacted, will replace CASB, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. That was a good idea. CASB did its job, conducting close to 700 investigations a year. It gained a solid reputation in aviation circles around the world. However, a grievous split developed in a most controversial case, Canada's worst air disaster, the crash of an Arrow Air chartered DC-8 at Gander, Newfoundland, in December, 1985, which claimed the lives of 248 U.S. soldiers and eight crew members.
Enter CASB. Four of nine board members, all of them intelligent, capable and knowledgeable, with full credentials, disagreed with the report of the Board which concluded that a thin layer of ice on the planes' wings was responsible for the crash. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) endorsed the report which then prompted the four dissenting members to call for public inquiries, not only into the controversial finding that icing caused Canada's worst air disaster, but into air traffic control problems as well.
In light of this and other problems, including the resignation of the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of Canadian Aviation Safety, who resigned in the midst of controversy over the crash at Gander and the Air Ontario crash at Dryden, the Minister of Transport, instead of attempting to rectify problems that existed within CASB, chose to create a new board, virtually sweeping under the rug any outstanding questions in relation to Gander, Dryden and other problems the Government failed to deal with immediately in air transportation.
So we come to Bill C-2. While there are still many unanswered questions, are we guaranteed that this new Board will address them? Will Canadians ever get any answers? Although multi-modal in design, the new Board is entrusted with responsibilities and authority similar to those of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Canadians are no more assured of increased safety now than they were in the past. There is nothing in Bill C-2 to prevent a repeat of the circumstances which led to the end of CASB.
What incredibly convenient timing, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport appoints an eminent outside authority, Mr. Justice Willard Estey, to review the Gander accident investigation and appoints Mr. Justice Virgil Moshansky to conduct an inquiry into the Dryden accident. However, before he is prepared to hear the reports from Estey or Moshansky, important information by the way which could be incorporated into this legislation, we find ourselves here today on a strict government timetable pushing Bill C-2 through the House of Commons.
June 20, 1989

On the subject of power, it was the contention of many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport that too much power will be handed to the chairman of the multi-modal board. Under Bill C-2 the chairman will have the power to hire and fire investigators, all the financial power, power to set the agenda, and the power to decide what Board members will do what work; all this power in the hands of a single individual. Let us not perpetuate the problems that existed under CASB where the powers were vested in one individual rather than in the Board as a whole. The chairman must be responsible to the Board.
In the overall scheme of things, the public lost its confidence in CASB because a group of Board members had to move out from under the umbrella of the Safety Board in order to publish their own minority report because a powerful chairman attempted to silence them. We can learn from this, Mr. Speaker. The very essence of democracy means to consider many points of view. We welcome and in fact look toward the divergence of opinion in order to judge effectively. Dissent is healthy. This House is a good example of that, Mr. Speaker. The multi-modal Board must make room for dissenting points of view and accept the variety of opinion. It all works toward ensuring that transportation, whether by air, rail, marine or pipeline, is as safe as it can be for all Canadians. That is the ultimate goal.
The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, is, I must say, a modest man. He speaks of co-operation and the spirit of constructive, non-partisan discussions which led us to this Bill. Well, aside from the cigar smoke, our effectiveness was fresh in its approach and a model for other committees to follow, due in large part, I might admit,, to the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Accident Investigation
I look forward to the new challenges which will come before the Transport Committee. I look forward to the nature of the positive co-operation we received from the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin), as well as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) himself. These of course are precedents which must not be forgotten.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Regina- Lumsden.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I have been wooed, coaxed, pleaded with, and begged with, to not say anything, or asked how quick could I be? I thought to myself, on legislation which I agree with in principle, there has to be something wrong especially if it is brought forward by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, since you and I are getting close to our twenty-first birthday, and I wish we both looked it and felt it, however, I do want to say on this matter that it is something that for seven Parliaments that I have had occasion to get up and speak about, fight about and argue about, and that is the whole issue of safety in transportation. In my years on the railroad, and my father was a railroader, I had some experience on the issue of transportation accidents. In fact, in my years in the railway as a telegraph operator and a station agent, I had to be at the scene of a mishap. There was one in particular which was particularly serious, two passenger trains. There were three people killed and 27 injured in conditions and circumstances that not only all the employees but the officers of the company knew there were some fundamental errors in the operations of the system. I remember that it was about 28 below zero, which I guess is about 20 below Celsius. I was copying train orders on the side of a telegraph pole when we arrived at the scene of the accident. I remember helping pick up some bodies and luggage out of the snow. I remember-


Jesse Philip Flis: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I did get up wanting to debate the Bill but I think you recognized the Hon. Member prior to me because he wanted to make a statement or ask a question. I would like clarification. Is he asking a question or is he debating?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He is on debate.


Jesse Philip Flis: On debate. I thought you were recognizing me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. There were two Liberals prior to you and there is now the NDP. This is debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, so that we can listen to the Hon. Member, I was hoping that you could draw the attention of this little hot stove league here in the House to the fact that they could go behind the curtain and do their business so that we can hear the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If you would just depart behind the curtain, please. The Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden has the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)is what is called a recidivist. Like a reformed sinner or a bom again Christian, he has not learned any better the second time in this place.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted that I have been there on the ground and I know the terrible experience and feeling when you go through something like that. I have also been through the experience of being summoned to a coroner's inquest. The railway lawyers and the Crown prosecutor took statements from us, interviewed us and cross-examined us on a witness stand.
I will never forget the instructions from the CPR lawyer from Montreal. This was in Calgary in the winter of, would you believe, Mr. Speaker, 1949-50.1 will never forget his instructions to us. "Don't volunteer any information they didn't ask you for". It is a good instruction if you have a half decent lawyer. Do not volunteer any information.
Yet when I got that instruction, and I say to my good friend, the chairman of the Transport Committee, I wondered what would happen if I said some things which needed to be said. Then I realized if I did, I would be out of a job. I kind of liked the job. I worked hard at it and I was very conscientious about it. It was one of the reasons, I guess from my own background, why I was so concerned about Clause 24, for example.
I was concerned about statements taken from employees, and who they are taken by and what circumstances they are under because I have been there, damn it. I guess I kind of resented the expertise from legal eagles from the Department of Transport and some of the highly paid consultants and legal eagles who were there on behalf of a few of the witnesses we had. They have never had to do it.
It was the unanimous consensus of the committee in the first five minutes that this was the kind of legislation which we all wanted. One of the concerns we had was that this board must not only be independent but is seen to be. That was the problem which I and some of my colleagues had with Clause 24. I was very proud of the Railway Brotherhood which said they do not want any part of being sent a copy of the draft of the final report to comment on.
The Board should make its report without any comment from anybody. Once it has seen the evidence and heard from its investigators and once it has cross-examined witnesses and heard from the employer, the airline or railway, and have heard all the evidence, it makes its report. Every observer and participant in the hearings will have had his chance to have his say.
Once the Board has heard all the evidence, it makes a report and submits it to the Minister as specified in the Bill. Then if somebody disagrees with the findings of the Board, disagrees with evidence submitted by an investigator or any witness, he can go to the Minister and say: "We would like you to review the evidence". It is in the Bill. But you cannot have an airline, railroad, steamship company, a pipeline company, the Minister or any other Minister who has a direct interest in the matter-that could be the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and a few others I could think of, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais)-making interventions on a draft report unless the Board will include those interventions and comments in its final report so that the public will know that this is a full and open public hearing. There will be nothing hidden and nothing secret. I still do not understand why the Government did not accept our Motion No. 10 at report stage, why it would not accept a similar amendment in the committee. It seems to me that it will come back to haunt us if at any time somebody can make some comments and send an intervention and a request to the board based on a draft of a final report.
June 20, 1989

Once it becomes publicly known that that intervention was made, particularly if it comes from a member of the Government even if the board totally ignores that intervention, the integrity, independence and openness of the board is in question. Why we are passing an otherwise good Bill that leaves that possibility there in the legislation passes all understanding. Why the stubbornness of the Government on this item is beyond me completely. Why would a Minister of any integrity, honesty and reputation even want to have the opportunity? At least the Railway Brotherhood said: "We don't want any draft report. We will have our chance with the observers that we have at the scene of the accident or incident. We will have an observer at all the hearings. We will have all our opportunities to make our representation to protect our members. We don't want access to a draft of the final report".
This one item in this Bill flies in the face of the bitter experience we had with previous accident investigation boards. The Elon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes) raised the matter about the CASB. When he mentioned Hamilton I thought to myself, let's not dredge that up again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We do not need to dredge, but let us learn something from that experience of the CASB. I think through this Bill we have learned something.
I wish the Government would have reconsidered, because I do not think anyone should get a draft of a final report. I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is going to get one about VIA Rail. If he does not like it, he will send it back. He will get three or four reports by the time this is over. In fact, I am wondering if this is going to be a report from Mr. deBelleval or Mr. Lawless or are we going to get a two-headed report.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I invite everyone in the House to come to the Transport Committee tomorrow afternoon. We have Mr. Lawless from VIA Rail appearing before the committee. You know that coyote who is in charge of the chicken coop. Why the Government would want to have that provision in this Bill escapes me entirely.
Accident Investigation
Something else I must express tonight because I am a little bitter about it. I went through this matter with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axwort-hy), with Jean-Luc Pepin and with the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). The matter had to do with air traffic control, the safety issue and inspection of aircraft. Once they are more than 10 years old you have to go over them with a fine toothcomb and you have to do it often. We did it during all the debate about airport congestion and airline safety. We did it when we came to deregulation. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre was the guy who started it. He became Minister of Transport because his predecessor was against deregulation. Jean-Luc Pepin made himself very plain in that matter. I can understand why the Liberal Party does not have the Member from Winnipeg as the critic on transportation. That is a perfectly logical thing for the Liberals to do because they would have a little trouble having him there.
The whole scenario for these many years has been to keep the airlines, railroads and shipping companies happy and profitable. What we have done with the laws in Canada is to force otherwise honest and reputable companies to cut comers. They have no choice when the bottom line is what tells the tale. If you have a jet engine that should be overhauled after 2,000 hours, well, we hear it said let's go 2,500 hours. In 99.9 per cent of the time you would get away with it. What if you have a bad order railway car that is tagged by a car inspector and put on the siding and the supervisor comes along, takes the tag off and the car gets put back on the train again? Any time that happens or is even attempted, you are asking for work to be done by the Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board of Canada.
All the protestations I have heard here for 21 years next July 25 about safety being the priority I have heard ad nauseam. As the farmer says "If you've never had manure on your boots, you really don't know what the hell you are talking about", and that has been the problem with the 12 Ministers of Transport I have known since I was first elected to the House of Commons. We should have a revolving door on the office of the Ministry of Transport. The amendments we moved at report stage were not moved just for the heck of it. We did not move them because we were Liberals, NDP or Conservatives. We moved them because we knew what the hell we were talking about, and we knew why we were talking about it.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation
I hope that what I am worrying about will not happen. If it does, I will still be here when the review period expires, but if you are lucky, Mr. Speaker, I will not be here. Surely then someone will make the corrections in the legislation that should have been made at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not like to have to interrupt the Hon. Member because he is making a great speech, but his time has expired. In fact, he has gone a little over his time. On questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Grand Falls (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a simple question, and I am sure that-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


George Baker: Did you hear the hon. gentleman behind me asking me not to ask a question?
I would ask the hon. gentleman, if he could just listen for a moment, if he could tell us very simply what improvements there are in this Bill over the previous legislation as far as accident investigation is concerned, keeping in mind that Canada's worst disasters have occurred in the last couple of years. Under this Bill, will there be an improvement in the investigation process as it related to the disaster at Gander, Newfoundland, that saw 258 people killed and the absolutely outrageous report made by the previous board? Does the Hon. Member see an advantage in the Bill before us or have we moved ahead at all?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend. He can be sure that in the back of the minds of all the members of the committee was Gander, Dryden, Cran-brook and others. I am sure those incidents influenced the feelings and thinking of all Hon. Members.
I think the Bill is an improvement in the sense that the wording of this Bill contains elements of recognition of errors made in the previous legislation. Quite a bit of this Bill is nothing more than a duplication of the previous legislation, but there were enough modifications made to show that the Government itself recognized what was lacking in the previous legislation. We will only find this out once this Bill becomes law, but I also think that the
Government recognizes that it needs to triple or quadruple the number of qualified inspectors and investigators, not only those who act after the fact but those who act while railways, airlines, pipelines and marine operations are in operation. Without that in place, the accident investigation board will have a hell of a lot more to do because there will be no reduction in accidents.
I got the feeling, and I hope I am not wrong, that the Government recognizes this and that beginning in 1990, a substantial amount of money will be provided in the Estimates for the recruiting of bodies with the expertise to enforce the laws that are already in place. If the Government does not do that, I know we will hear from the hon. gentleman and we will hear from guys like me because that is something we have been fighting for for the last many years. Deregulation just compounded the problem three or four times over.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I recognize the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I could go on for 20 minutes on this issue, but rather than do that, I would refer Hon. Members to Hansard of April 18 when I spoke on this Bill at second reading stage. I said it all at that time.
I am rising today because I have received new and additional information since I spoke in the House the last time. I agree with the intent of this Bill which establishes the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, but I do not agree with the hidden agenda behind it. The hidden agenda is to cover up the truth about the cause of the accident in Gander which killed 258 American soldiers.
The other hidden agenda behind this Bill is to dismantle the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the members of which are doing an excellent job now. As we know, five members of the board submitted their report stating that the cause of the accident was icing on the wings while four members of the board with the highest qualifications in aeronautics in Canada submitted a minority report stating that it was not caused by icing on the wings but was caused by some explosion or other force.
June 20, 1989

Last night I saw colour pictures taken the day after the accident. A helicopter had followed the path of the plane that crashed taking pictures every step of the way. If you saw those pictures, Mr. Speaker, you would see that there was no indentation in the ground where the plane crashed. If the crash was caused by icing on the wings, then as the plane came down, there would have been a gouge in the earth. There is no such indentation in the earth. The pictures show small fragments of the airplane scattered all over the bush. Trees are clipped off from where the plane first started coming in, but there is a row of trees standing while parts of the plane are scattered all over. The only way those parts could get there is if the plane somehow disintegrated in the air and came falling down. One part of the plane has a gaping hole in it. The picture clearly shows that this hole was caused by some explosion, not by icing on the wings.
I would not feel right, having been sent here by my constituents, knowing this information and not sharing it in the House. I share it now before the Bill leaves this House. I know it is going to the Senate and I urge the Senate to conduct a full investigation before giving the Bill Royal Assent. The Senate has the power to call in additional witnesses who were not called under the previous investigation. I invite the Senate to look at the pictures I saw last night and I think it will probably come to the same conclusion to which I came which is that Mr. Justice Estey should be given full powers to reopen the investigation and hear witnesses who were not called before. Then and only then should we pass Bill C-2.
I was the Parliamentary Secretary who passed the Canadian Aviation Safety Bill, Bill C-163. In the debate at that time, we felt we should go with a unimodal safety board and iron out the kinks before we brought in a multimodal board. The Government has not demonstrated that it can manage the nine members of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. The Minister accepted the report of the five and immediately ordered a secret investigation into air safety. Why did he do that if he believed the report? I highlight that I agree with the intent of the Bill. I do not agree with the two hidden agendas of the Bill. I invite the Senate to do a full investigation before giving approval.
Accident Investigation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rises on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: I believe you will find that there exists within the House unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) to make some remarks on this Bill. I gather the Hon. Member requires approximately five minutes. Then we will wrap up and also quickly deal again with Bill C-4, the energy Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Grand Falls.


George Baker: I would like to have equal time with any Hon. Member who rises on this point just raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: If there is not unanimous consent, then perhaps we can deal with the situation in the following manner. We could not see the clock until the completion of the speech of the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Perhaps we could further consult with Members on the government side and on the opposition side in order to determine whether a slight amount of time is required beyond that. We will speak about that within the next few minutes. Meanwhile, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could seek unanimous consent to not see the clock for the duration of the speech of the Member for York South-Weston, for the time being.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You asked for unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe in open-ended unanimous consent at this time of night. If you allow the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) to speak, he could have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments. I believe that we should not see the clock until 10.15 p.m. If there is an agreement negotiated before that time, it is agreeable, but at 10.15 we will see the clock.

June 20, 1989
Accident Investigation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: I am not asking for special consideration. I am simply asking for the opportunity to exercise my rights as an elected Member of the House to speak on this Bill.
If the House Leaders or the representatives of the three Parties want to negotiate any type of deal, I do not want to preclude any other Member, whether it is my hon. colleague here or others, from speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair will do whatever the House decides. If we can continue until 10.15 p.m., I will recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, if that is what the House would like and there is agreement. We can then decide at 10.15 whether we should go to the late show.


George Baker: Could you elaborate on what you have stated, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there was a request to extend the hours until 10.15 to allow the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to say a few words, and perhaps also the Hon. Member for Gander-Grand Falls. If we could wind up by 10.15, fine. If not, there will be further discussions or we will go into the late show at 10.15, or carry on after discussions after 10.15.
Shall I recognize the Hon. Member for York South- Weston?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Then we can decide what we will do at 10.15.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, while I regret that we have gone into overtime with respect to the business of the House, I believe it is more important that we deal with the legislation than attempt to rush through a piece of legislation that is considered flawed and a cover-up by a Member who sits on the Transport Committee.
I want to make it clear that I was not a member of the Transport Committee that considered this particular piece of legislation. I did not speak at second reading stage of this legislation, but I have followed the debate tonight. I have reviewed various provisions of this Bill and I have some concerns. My concerns are compounded
by the fact that certain members of the Transport Committee have expressed concerns about Bill C-2. When I asked my questions of various Members of the House, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Belsher) about a provision in this Bill under Clause 3, I was not given an explanation as to what it meant.
Some people would like the Senate to give this Bill more consideration. I commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) for expressing the concerns that he has expressed and through the public record, through Hansard, he has requested that the Senate give this Bill some serious consideration. However, I see other flaws in the legislation.
While Members consider passing this Bill, and Members have stood up and complimented one another on how great it was to deal with it in the spirit of non-partisanship, I would submit that there have been some oversights that ought to be addressed. At the very least, I would like to discharge my responsibilities by putting my comments on the record. Hopefully, again, the Senate will consider my submissions and the submissions of any other Member in its deliberations on Bill C-2.
To get to the point with respect to my concerns, we know that the purpose of the Bill is to establish a new board to investigate accidents in Canada. That is fair enough. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board had a lot of problems over the last number of years. It embarrassed the Government on a number of occasions with respect to the Gander crash and the near misses at Pearson International Airport. There was a need for a more comprehensive board or commission. That is fine.
Clause 3 tries to define the purpose of the Bill, or how the Bill applies. Specifically, I will only address the situation of air disasters, when there are crashes involving aircraft. Clause 3(1) states:
This Act applies in respect of aviation occurrences-
The clause goes on to describe three situations to which the Bill applies. First, it is when the occurrences happen in or over Canada, including the international waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada. That is pretty straightforwrd. If an airplane crash occurs somewhere in Canada or within Canadian jurisdiction, then this Bill applies to that particular crash.
June 20, 1989

Clause 3(l)(b) deals with occurrences in or over any place that is under Canadian air traffic control.
The clause then goes on to state:
(c) in or over any place, if
(i) Canada is requested to investigate the aviation occurrence by an
appropriate authority,
That, presumably, refers to a foreign Government which can say to the Board which is established by this Bill: "We want you to investigate. Come in and investigate".
Then it goes on to state that the Bill applies if the aviation occurrence-and we are talking in simple terms of a crash-involves an aircraft in respect of which, or that is operated by a person to whom a Canadian aviation document has been issued under Part I of the Aeronautics Act. I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chairman of the-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You got an answer, so speak truthfully.


John V. Nunziata: I did get an answer.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What was the answer, my friend? Come to the committee some time.


John V. Nunziata: I did get an answer. The answer was not satisfactory.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: To your ego. The answer was factual and correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the floor.


John V. Nunziata: The point I made is-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You got the answer.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps I can address the point.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, you can address your ego. That is what you are doing here.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member advises me that this clause with respect to the Canadian aviation document, the reference, refers to a Canadian plane, let us say, an Air Canada plane or a Canadian pilot. If the aircraft happens to be a Canadian plane or there is a Canadian pilot manning the aircraft, that is fine. In such circumstances I would submit that the Act should apply. What if a plane that departs from Canada, that has over 300
Accident Investigation
Canadians on board, crashes off the coast of Ireland? Does the Act apply?


Mr. Holtmann:: That is not hypothetical.


John V. Nunziata: It isn't hypothetical. We all know that on Friday of this week it will be the fourth anniversary of the crash of Air-India, when over 300 Canadians perished off the coast of Ireland. To this day there has not been a Canadian investigation into that accident.
In Canada we have had a Royal Commission of inquiry investigating the conduct of a Cabinet Minister. We have had a Royal Commission of inquiry investigating the Ocean Ranger disaster off the Atlantic coast.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It happened in Canada you silly idiot.


John V. Nunziata: We had a Royal Commission of inquiry that investigated the Hinton rail disaster. Yet we have not had any type of investigation in Canada with respect to an air crash disaster that occurred, fine, not within in Canada, offshore-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Not driven by Canadians.


John V. Nunziata: So what, I say to the Hon. Member. Just because the plane did not have a Canadian pilot, just because it said Air-India instead of Air Canada, notwithstanding the fact that there were over 300 Canadians on board on that plane, the Hon. Member, the chairman of the Transport Committee, is saying that we do not investigate. He is saying we do not have jurisdiction. Well, my friend, they were Canadian lives.
You say this Bill is not flawed? You want to investigate accidents that happen elsewhere just because there is a Canadian pilot on board, but the Transport Committee, of which that Member is chairman, does not want to investigate and the Government has refused to investigate over the last four years a deliberate accident caused by a bombing that involved the lives of over 300 Canadians. The Air-India flight originated in Canada, in Montreal. It flew to Toronto where it took on passengers and baggage. Before it landed, it exploded in the sky. The Member, the chairman of the committee, the Parliamentary Secretary and others are saying that this board that is being established under Bill C-2 should not have the jurisdiction to investigate that aviation disaster.

June 20, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Under normal circumstances one can overlook, on the eve of our summer vacation, a flawed piece of legislation in the haste to pass legislation. However, I submit to you that we have an obligation to ensure that when we pass legislation we do not worry about getting home at ten o'clock at night, we worry about whether this legislation will serve the purpose it is supposed to serve.
I know it is late and Members want to leave. It is 10.15. We are at third reading stage and all the House Leaders want this legislation passed. I say to you that the Bill is flawed. I hope that the Senate will take the time to look at the Bill, think about the Air-India disaster, think about the great disservice we have done to the families of those on board Air-India flight 181, and ask ourselves whether we should be rushing this Bill through the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to amend the Access to Information Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is agreement among the Parties that we will deal with C-4 right now. I think that should be stated before you actually start the debate. Just as a matter of precedent we have agreed among the three Parties to have a very short debate on Bill C-4.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mr. John MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on June 5 of this year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) introduced Bill C-4 as reported in Hansard at page 2542. I would like to refer the said Bill C-4 to a legislative committee as soon as possible.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on June 91 questioned the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) on the status of water and soil conservation accords and agreements with the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. My question was a follow-up to one asked by my colleague, the Member for Regina-Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. de Jong) on May 3. At that time the Minister stated that the agreement with Saskatchewan had not been signed because certain criteria had to be satisfied. However he did not specify exactly what these criteria were. The other possibility is that the Minister is not being factual with the House and in that case there is some underlying reason which has not been made clear to the House. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain if that is the case. I find both of these possibilities hard to accept but I ask the Parliament Secretary to please tell this House and the people of Canada which one it is.
I would also like to know to what criteria the Minister is referring. They must be very important criteria since in the case of Saskatchewan he has had five months to study the agreement and the criteria. It appears to be criteria so important that no one seems to know exactly what the criteria are, criteria so important that the provinces do not know about them. Criteria so important that his own staff does not seem to know about them, criteria so important that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary himself does not know about them.
June 20, 1989

I do trust, however, that since the Minister has seen fit to send the Parliamentary Secretary to the House to answer the question he has taken time at least to brief him on these criteria. I am beginning to wonder whether the Minister himself knows what the criteria is to which he is referring. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to please explain to this House what criteria the Minister referred to in his answers of May 3 and June 3.
I trust and hope that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will not take the arrogant approach which has become a trademark of the Government and not answer this part of my question.
Finally, I and many people across this great land would like to know when these four agreements are going to be signed by the Minister. The Government speaks in glowing terms of the environment, it says that the environment is an important part of its mandate and an important part of the work that it is going to perform over the next four years. Certainly soil and water conservation is an integral and important part of the environment. If this is an example of how the Government is going to act with respect to the environment, Canadians should be warned that the commitment to the environment which the Government pretends to have is nothing more than an elaborate fraud.
Every region of this nation needs soil and water conservation accords from potato farmers in Prince Edward Island to wheat growers in Alberta. Typical are the residents in the Outlook area in my own riding who need some assistance from either the provincial or the federal Government in this important area.
In conclusion, I will simply reiterate my points. First, why is the Minister stating that there are negotiations going on while, at the same time, his staff is denying it? Second, to what criteria was the Minister referring in his answers of May 3 and June 9? Third, when will these agreements be signed? Those are three simple questions, the answers to which are very important to the future of this nation.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte) on federal-provincial soil conservation efforts. There is a growing sense of urgency among Canadians that we must act to protect our soil and water resources in order to ensure the long-term viability and prosperity of our agriculture and food industry.
The Government of Canada and the provinces have agreed to work together to safeguard these resources. This commitment was spelled out in the National Agricultural Strategy signed by the federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture in 1986.
The National Agricultural strategy calls for a co-ordinated soil and water conservation program adapted to meet the particular needs of each province. It was agreed that the program should include awareness and education programs, improved extension, technical and advisory services, more on-site demonstrations of conservation techniques and additional research.
In December, 1987, the federal Government responded with the National Soil Conservation Program that made funds available for a new nation-wide push to conserve and improve Canadian farmland. This three-year, $150 million co-operative effort between the federal Government and the provinces will encourage long-term soil conservation measures.
As envisioned in the National Agriculture Strategy, the program will involve on-farm technical and financial assistance, demonstrations, research and monitoring.
This approach recognizes that it is the farmer who is on the front line of the soil conservation battle. The program will also work to increase public awareness about the need to conserve our soils.
Program components will be tailored to reflect the nature and extent of problems in each region. Federal funding will be distributed based on the extent of soil degradation problems and the availability of matching funds in each province.
June 20,1989

Adjournment Debate
The federal Government has successfully reached basic soil and water accords with the provinces. These accords give us a framework for future consultation and planning on all agriculture soil and water issues.
We are now working on actual agreements for soil conservation activities under the national soil conservation program. We are also working out the financial and administrative arrangements with each province.
Negotiations have taken place with the provinces. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has expressed his particular concern about the agreement with Saskatchewan.
In the case of Saskatchewan and the other western provinces, factors such as last year's drought had to be taken into consideration and changes made to the original proposals.
We have done that, and we expect the agreement with Saskatchewan to be concluded in the very near future. This Government recognizes the importance of conserving our soils. Once the agreements are signed, we are prepared to move quickly to put in place the national soil conservation program.
AIRPORTS-CANADIAN AVIATION SAFETY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS/AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I intervene this evening due to my growing frustration over this Government's inability and its unwillingness to respond to the safety deficiencies at Pearson International Airport.
I am here to pursue a question which I asked on April 5, 1989. It is absurd that after a full two months, we are still waiting for this Government to address in an effective manner, the safety problems at Pearson Airport.
An article in the Globe and Mail on June 1, 1989, entitled, "Making Canada's Airports Safe" said that: "A lack of safety in air traffic control is being blamed for near collisions at Toronto's Pearson Airport". The article goes on to say: "-the safety problem at Canada's largest airport, like the problem that plagues other major Canadian airports, boils down to economics-Airline deregulation, with the major opportunities it has provided for lower air fares and significant increases in airline travel, this deregulation has posed no problem for the private sector. Private suppliers have provided more planes, more in flight meals, more stewardesses, more pilots and more fuel to respond to the increased demand for air travel. However, no corresponding expansion has occurred in the supply of airport facilities-" This is a failing of this Government, Mr. Speaker.
I informed this House two months ago that a Department of Transport document clearly outlined in June, 1987, that the Government totally failed to make adequate effects on airline deregulation. More specifically, I advised the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) on April 5 that Canadian travellers cannot afford to play Russian roulette with air passenger safety. I asked the Minister: "What are you doing about controllers at Pearson so that the safety of Canadian air travellers can be assured?" This Government has a very difficult time in answering questions about air safety. Every time I have made an intervention in this House, I have been given a response relating to air traffic delays. It is precisely because I do understand the difference between safety deficiencies and air traffic delays that I continue to raise this issue, obviously in vain.
The Minister of Transport, for example, responded to my question saying: "People who are surprised at the delays at Pearson should understand that the directives are quite clear. We handle the number of flights that our air traffic controllers can handle". Delays, Mr. Speaker, are a symptom of the unsafe condition. There are not enough air traffic controllers at Pearson.
If conditions at Pearson were safe, we would not have experienced the three misses, one on December 20 and two on January 10, which happened within three hours of each other.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that time is running on. It is half past the hour. It has been a long day. Let me just close by saying that perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may wish to explain to Canadian air travellers why this Government, in light of its self proclaimed commitment to safety, has chosen to reduce funding to air traffic control services by $3,575,000, or 67 person-years as outlined on page 2-57 of the 1989-90 Transport Department estimates for this year.
June 20, 1989

Is this an example of this Government's commitment to safety? If it is, we are in serious trouble. In light of these facts, will this Government stop giving Canadian air travellers false assurances? Will this Government undertake to inform air travellers using Pearson International Airport that there are safety deficiencies that do exist? It is their duty and obligation to do this.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi), I would like to begin by assuring Canadians that the skies are safe. The specific reference to Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto, I would remind the Hon. Member that the Ministers of Transport have recently completed extensive consultations which will lead to the development of a comprehensive plan for the whole of southern Ontario air space. An announcement will be made in due course.
I would like to emphasize that while we do have a shortage of air traffic controllers at Toronto, the traffic flow is always matched to the controllers' ability to safely handle the traffic. This means delays, not a decrease in the level of safety.
I would also like to assure Members and the travelling public that every conceivable effort is being made to rectify this shortage situation. I want to assure Canadians that the training program is proceeding at full capacity. Day and evening training is being conducted to maximize the time available for simulation training. The content and length of the basic ATC training course is being examined to safely maximize the number of trainees that can be accommodated.
Members will also know that a special emphasis has been put on recruiting Canadians with previous civil or military experience as Air Traffic Controllers. Such experienced people are able to benefit from an abbreviated training course so that they can get their on-the-job training as quickly as possible. As well, the Department of Transport has entered into a program to hire up to 45 foreign experienced controllers who will be employed in four-year term positions. At this moment there are 14 American former controllers presently training on the job in Toronto. One American has
Adjournment Debate
recently qualified and seven more are very close to doing so.
As the Minister has indicated on many occasions, he intends to avail himself of the expertise of both industry and government to assist him in ensuring that we have the right resources and that they are used in the right way in order to meet the changing needs of the future. To this end a task force has been established and work is ongoing.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY-CLOSURE OF CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION-RIGHT OF CANADIANS TO INFORMATION
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, when I first came to the House I heard Members talking about the late show. Now I know what they mean.
I rise pursuant to a question I asked on June 13 regarding the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. In reply to my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil) regarding the federal Government's elimination of funding for the centre by April 1, 1991, I was told that the centre would not close.
This, in my opinion, is difficult to believe given this Government's fiscal plan for the centre. Unless the centre becomes self-financing by 1992, it will in all likelihood be forced to close.
At the present time the federal Government contributes approximately $8 million a year to the centre's operations. For the fiscal year 1989-90 the funding for the centre has been cut by $1.5 million. This is only the beginning. In 1990-91 the funding will be furthered reduced by $4.6 million and by April 1, 1991 the centre will be entirely cut off from federal funding. This certainly puts the centre's survival into question and the good useful work of the centre, as described by the Minister of Labour, in jeopardy.
The centre was created in order to promote the fundamental right of Canadians to a healthy and safe working environment by creating a national institute concerned with the study, encouragement and co-operative advancement of occupational health and safety. Since the centre's inception in 1978, the centre has done just that by providing the Canadian workforce with valuable information regarding work place hazards.

June 20, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The centre's statistics are impressive. In 1988-89 alone, the centre answered by phone and mail over
26,000	requests from individuals for occupational health and safety information. Its newsletter had an international following of over 35,000 readers and it distributed over 350,000 publications in response to requests.
These statistics represent the fact that the centre is providing a useful service to Canadians. In the wake of its increasing popularity, the Government has introduced unprecedented cuts to the centre's funding with the goal of self-sufficiency by April, 1991. In keeping with this, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil) has asked the President and Chief Executive Officer of the council to produce a plan for alternative funding for the centre.
There are funding alternatives that have been presented so that the centre will not be forced to shut down come April, 1991. The centre could raise money through fund-raising projects, from a capital loan from the Government, by charging for present services, from provincial grants or through assimilation into a federal Department. The Minister has, however, ruled out federal funding, charges to ordinary users and assimilation into Labour Canada. None of the funding alternatives which have been proposed could alone meet the financial needs of the centre.
Given the alarming statistics regarding occupational health and safety in Canada, we know there is indeed a need for the services provided by the centre. Over
800,000	work days are lost annually by Canadians due to disabling injuries and over 440 lives are lost yearly due to industrial accidents. It is as a result of this that over $7 billion is spent annually to cover medical expenses, compensation for lost earnings, pensions, insurance and loss of production.
These statistics are disturbing. How can the Government justify these cuts, particularly since it has made such a strong contribution to the cause of Canadian workers only to leave them with absolutely nothing? Workers deserve Government action in eliminating occupational hazards in the workplace. In this vein, the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Centre must continue as an independent national tripartite organization.
The centre provides a necessary service to Canadian workers and should extend this information service, not have it curtailed by fiscal restraint. In the meantime, alternative funding mechanisms should be investigated so that some products could be developed in order to increase revenues. These mechanisms should not, however, be permitted to impair the reliability of the centre's information work or the flow of information to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Canadians have a right to this information and they should get it. What is the Government's intention for the health and safety of Canadian workers and for the future of the centre?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Proud) and this House that the planned reductions in the funding of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety will not result in the closing of the centre. The reductions merely reflect the Government's belief that the centre is now a viable enterprise capable of becoming more financially self-sufficient. The centre has already demonstrated that it is able to recover some of its costs. In the last fiscal year, for example, it recovered $440,000 while in this fiscal year it plans to recover $1,400,000. I have no doubt that the centre can earn even more of its income from its operations.
For 11 years since its creation in 1978, the centre has been provided with the financial support it needed to establish itself and to develop a variety of useful information services. Today, the centre is able to provide a full range of services. They range from technical bulletins to a set of compact discs containing volumes of information on every aspect of occupational safety and health. This latter product is called a CCINFO disc. It is an innovative use of compact disc technology which has received international attention.
I am convinced that most of its clients, especially corporate ones, are prepared to pay the centre for the true value of creating these and other products. Although the centre will have to charge for its products, I want to assure this House that all Canadian workers will be able to receive the information they need through their employers to do their jobs safely. Please allow me to explain.
June 20, 1989

The Pan-Canadian workplace hazardous materials information system and other federal, provincial and territorial occupational safety and health legislation gives workers the right to be informed of the hazards associated with their jobs. It is the duty of employers to provide their employees with this information. This legislated requirement will provide the centre with a considerable market for its information services.
Adjournment Debate
In closing, I believe that the planned reductions in the centre's funding will neither close it down nor deprive Canadian workers of essential information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 21,1989