1989-06-08

Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 116 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. [



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Jean J. Charest: 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 the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the striking committee.



TRANSPORT-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: 

BROADCASTING-REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE

['Mr. Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery students from the John Dearness Public School of London, Ontario, who are following this debate on the environment. I am concerned that their audio systems may not be working. Perhaps the security staff could acknowledge the presence of these fine students and help them with that situation.']
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, after the usual discussions between the Government and opposition Parties, I would like to put forward the following motion:
That the entire subject matter of both radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, be referred for examination, study and report to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Member's Business, with such study, to include an examination of the subject matter of the proposal by Cableco and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for licence to operate a specialty programming network, styled the Canadian Parliamentary Channel CPAC;
That, the committee and members of the committee have the power, when the committee deems it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the committee or members of the committee, as the case may be; and that, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the committee is completed, the committee shall report its findings by depositing with the Clerk of the House and the report shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table; and
That the committee shall report to the House not later than December 31, 1989.

June 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Leader of the Government in the House have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, if you check with the House you will find unanimous agreement that when we come to Orders of the Day for the discussion of the opposition motion, that the Parties may divide the 20 minute slots among the number of speakers as they so wish.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this is something we would very much like to have in place for this debate today, with this one nuance, if I can put it that way, that it should be left to each Party to decide whether they wish to divide up their time for each slot or have that slot used entirely by one speaker.
The concept we have in mind is what was done Monday during the emergency debate on the situation in China.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the situation. I thank the Hon. Member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government is also prepared to go along. I think it is a step forward in parliamentary reform that we be able to do this. I agree with my hon. colleague across the way, that it should be up to each Party to decide how to use their 20-minute slots right from the start.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia.
They indicate their concern regarding the Government's decision to curtail VIA Rail services in a number of the regions of the country. They believe that had the Government provided the necessary resources, that VIA could have not only lived up to its mandate but gone beyond its mandate.
They are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation, presumably, to maintain and improve and to modernize VIA Rail as opposed to curtailing its service throughout many parts of Canada.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour today to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Moose Jaw area who are petitioning the Government with respect to VIA Rail.
It is their concern that the Government provide VIA with the necessary support to fully realize its potential to develop the kind of national rail network that Canadians want and deserve, and they call upon the Government to act immediately.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, today we have a delegation coming in to meet with the Minister responsible for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) on the Port of Churchill.
I have the honour today to present three petitions signed by residents of the communities of Nipawin, Ridgedale, Arborfield, Garrick, Choiceland, Love, White Fox, He des Chenes, Saskatoon and Creighton, Saskatchewan.
Also in Manitoba, Gillam, Bird, Flin Flon, The Pas, Cranberry Portage, Thompson, Sundance, White Lake, Ilford, Churchill, Winnipeg, Brandon, Cowan, St. Martin, Arborg, Dallas, Selkirk, Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake, Minnedosa, Erickson, Rapid City, Gimli, Dauphin, Lo-rette, Miniota, Dugald, Morden, Cartwright, Boissevain, Glenbow, Clearwater, Souris and Deleau.
June 8, 1989


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 250 residents from Thunder Bay, Nipigon, Red Rock, Beard-more, Dorion and Pass Lake.
They are concerned that this Government is planning to automate the lighthouse at Lamb Island on Lake Superior. The lighthouse keeper serves many vital functions and should not be removed.
An automated system cannot respond to distress calls from the many commercial fishermen who use these waters. It cannot prevent incidents of costly violence and theft, nor can it respond quickly to a malfunctioning of the light which is so important to the safety of these fishermen.
The petitioners thus call upon Parliament to order the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to ensure that the lighthouse keeper be maintained in his position on Lamb Island.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to present a petition prepared and signed by 1,414 Canadians concerning the possible extradition of criminals now in Canadian prisons. We know that these criminals might have, or have allegedly, committed crimes in other countries as well and they should be prosecuted by the authorities of those countries; however, because of some of our laws, these criminals are beyond the reach of other countries.
Routine Proceedings
The purpose of the petition is to encourage a change in our legislation to make these criminals who are now here in our jails extraditable by foreign countries, so that justice can also be done in those countries.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour today to present a certified petition organized by residents of my riding and signed by a number of residents from Metropolitan Toronto and other parts of Ontario.
The petition requests the Ministers of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), and National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to revise the medical standards for admission to Canada with a view to compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enhancement of the human rights and dignity of the disabled.
I strongly urge the Ministers and other Members of the House to support this request. People should not be discriminated against because of a disability, particularly Downs Syndrome.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 36, 48, 54, 57 and 74.


Mr. Boudria: At the present time, does the government, its agencies or Crown Corporations lease office space from Robert Campeau or Campeau Corporation and, if so (a) what is the total number of square metres (bf what is the total amount paid per month (c) did or does any of these leases expire during fiscal year (i) 1988-89 (ii) 1989-90 (iii) 1990-91 and. if so, what is the total amount of square metres affected?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: I am informed by the Department of Public Works, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Canada Post Corporation as follows:
At the present time, the Department of Public Works, through its Accommodation Program, leases from

June 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Campeau Corporation a total of 388,884.0 square meters of office and associated storage space for occupancy by various federal government departments and agencies. The Department pays rent totalling $5,993,570.00 per month for this space. None of the lease or lease/pur-chase agreements involved expire in fiscal years 1988-89, 1989-90 or 1990-91.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation does at the present time lease office and storage space from Campeau Corporation.
Square Metres	Montly Rent
1176.0	$25,631.59
One lease (65.6 square metres) expires in March 1990.
While Canada Post Corporation can confirm that the Corporation does lease office space from Campeau Corporation, the commercial details of lease portfolios are proprietary to Canada Post Corporation and, pursuant to policy, are confidential.
All other Departments, Agencies and Crown Corporations have no information on this subject.


Mr. Rodriguez: Did the government enter into a contract with Nancy Jamieson and Heather Conway of Public Affairs International for services related to publicity for the Budget and, if so, what sums of money (a) have been paid (b) remain to be paid under the contract?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No. The
Government did not enter into a contract with Public Affairs International. Neither of these individuals is affiliated with P.A.I. Their duties relate to strategic planning and communications advice with respect to the goods and services tax.
The services of Ms. N. Jamieson have been retained (through the company N.L. Jamieson Strategic Consulting) for a six month period at a per diem rate of $600. Ms. Jamieson left the employ of Public Affairs International in May of 1988.
Ms. H. Conway was hired on the Minister's staff on a six month contract at the Special Assistant Exempt Staff Level which has an annual salary range of up to $52,740.


Mr. Angus: In the determination of railway costs under the Western Grain Transportation Act and the National Transportation Act, what is the (a) cost-of-funds rate used, for (i) debt (ii) equity, before and after tax
(b) total weighted average cost-of-funds rate used before and after tax?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: The
Western Grain Transportation Act (WGTA) indicates that the cost of funds approved for the Canadian rail division of Canadian Pacific Ltd., adjusted for the risks associated with the movement of grain, shall be used to determine railway costs under this Act. The cost of funds rates for the crop year 1988/89 are as follows:
a.	>)	Debt rate	= 10.1%ii)	Equity rate* -before tax	= 20.4%-after tax	= 11.3%b.	i)	Total weighted average cost of funds rate:	-before tax	= 13.5%-after tax	= 8.7%
Blend of Preferred Equity and Common Equity and Common Equity rates.


Mrs. Finestone: 1.	Does the government own all or any part of Ginn and Company and (a) if so, on what date did this acquisition occur (b) if not, has the government made an offer to purchase the Company from Gulf and Western and. if so (i) what was the price offered (ii) what amount of equity in the company would the government acquire through its offer (iii) would the government acquire *itde facto*ro control of the company (iv) would there be any provision for Gulf and Western to be represented on the Company's Board of Directors and, if so, what provision (v) on what date will the government's purchase offer expire?
2.	Has the government corresponded with Gulf and Western regarding the Company and, if so, what was the content of that correspondence?
Hon John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)): 1. The Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) and Gulf + Western Inc. (G + W) signed an agreement on May 2, 1989, for the purchase of a 51 per cent interest in Ginn and GLC Publishers Limited (GLC) at a purchase price of $8-$9 million, subject to final adjustment. The transaction closed on May 26, 1989, with the following payments made by CDIC; CAN$ 3.1 million; US$ 4.6 million. The final adjustment for GLC is to be determined through arbitration.
The terms of the offer to purchase the Ginn Business stipulate that the Ginn Business will be transferred to a newly incorporated entity created by G + W with which GLC will be merged. The terms and conditions of sale establish that CDIC will acquire a majority (51 per cent) voting and equity interest in the new Company, that CDIC will nominate three of the five Directors on the Board, and that the Chairman will be selected from
June 8, 1989

Routine Proceedings
among the Directors nominated by CDIC. However, the terms do limit the Board's ability to make decisions on some strategic matters in that four out of five members of the Board must support such motions as changes to the current product lines and investment of borrowed capital.
2. CDIC has held negotiations with G + W for the purchase of 51 per cent of Ginn and GLC. (In response to the CDIC offer, G + W put together a combined package for Ginn and GLC, another company acquired by G + W and subject to divestiture requirements pursuant to the Baie Comeau Policy.) These negotiations established the terms and conditions of sale as set out in the acquisition agreement. The acquisition agreement between CDIC and G + W stemmed from the agreement signed by Investment Canada and G + W to satisfy Investment Canada's Canadian ownership requirements. Investment Canada correspondence constituted setting deadlines and monitoring negotiations with G + W.


Mr. Milliken: Did the Minister of Finance consult with non-governmental constitutional experts following the Budget leak of April 26, 1989 and, if so, what are the full names and occupations of those experts?
Hon Micheal Wilson (Minister of Finance): Yes.
1)	Mr. Roger Tasse, O.C., Q.C. Mr. Thsse is currently Executive Vice-President, Legal and Environmental Affairs at Bell Canada. He is former Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada and former Deputy Solicitor General of Canada.
2)	The Hon. Eugene Forsey, O.C., Ph.D., D.C.L., L.L.D., D.Litt., P.C. Dr. Forsey is a distinguished consi-tutional scholar. He was summoned to the Senate in 1970 and retired in 1979. He is the author of numerous articles, books and pamphlets on constitutional issues, Canadian history and economics.
3)	Professor Peter W. Hogg, Q.C. Professor Hogg is a professor of law at the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. He is the author of the leading text on Canadian Constitutional law.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 20 and 59 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions listed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 20 and 59 be made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): In the fiscal years 1987-88 and 1988-89, were Aboriginal students refused post-secondary educational assistance by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, in what numbers (a) overall (b) among those funded under C-31 in (i) each region of the country (ii) each of the categories outlined in the departmental communique of May 14, 1987?
Return tabled.


Mrs. Stewart: Is the government aware of any printing errors or statements in the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Synopsis, which was published and widely circulated before the November 21, 1988 election, which do not accurately reflect specific details or the intent of the Free Trade Agreement which became law on January 1, 1989 and, if so, with reference to the Synopsis and corresponding reference to the actual legislation of the Free Hade Agreement, what are they?
Return tabled.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 33 and 61?

June 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Taylor: Since January 1, 1985 has Canada Post reclassified or deleted any full-time positions and if so what number (a) have been reclassified to other full-time positions (b) have been reclassified to part-time positions (i) under 20 hours a week (ii) over 20 hours a week (c) have been deleted?
Mr Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology): Canada Post Corporation informs me that the information required to answer the question is not available. Therefore the following is the most complete answer possible.
The breakdown of the full-time and part-time employees is as follows:
	1985	may 1989
Full-time	57,382	53,386Part-time	8,797	8,982Total	66,179	62,386
Note: The above does not include casual or seasonal workers.
Total reclassification to full-time (estimate) is 1703 and to part-time (estimate) is 678. Sufficient detail is not available to provide an accurate breakdown of more or less than 20 hours.
PCB STORAGE SITES IN KAMLOOPS *"
Question No. 61-M. Riis:
Are there any PCB storage sites in the constituency of Kamloops and if so, for each site (a) what is the frequency of inspection to ensure proper safeguards are being maintained (b) what steps are being taken to safely dispose of these PCBs?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: 1. There are 22 PCB waste storage sites (3 federal, 19 private) in the constituency of Kamloops.
(a) The proper safeguards for these wastes are contained in the CEPA Storage of PCB Wastes Interim Order issued on September 22, 1988. Every owner and operator of PCB storage sites is required to maintain monthly reports of inspections carried out to ensure all proper waste management procedures are being followed. Since September 1988, all federal and private sites have been inspected at least once either by Environment Canada or the B.C. Ministry of Environment. Repeat inspections by government inspectors to verify
compliance with regulatons have been conducted as required.
Four storage sites have been inspected twice: 1 federal-Transport Canada Mount Lolo Radar Station 3 private-Highland Valley Copper Ltd. -Aimsworth Lumber Ltd. -Nelson Machinery Ltd.
Two storage sites have been inspected three times: 2 private-Caribou College -The Weyerhauser pulp mill and sawmill
One storage site is inspected at least once a month by the B.C. Ministry of Environment 1 private-Mohawk Oil Ltd.
(b) The responsibility for the safe disposal of PCBs stored in the Kamloops areas rests with the provincial government. The B.C. government is assessing various options for establishing destruction facilities for PCBs and other hazardous wastes. There is not time estimate known when such facilities may become available.
The federal government is in the process of leasing two mobile or transportable incinerators for eliminating federal PCB wastes. The contract for one unit at Goose Bay is expected to be awarded this summer. A contract will be let for the second unit once a federal site has been selected. The federal government intends to consider the destruction of non-federal PCB wastes in these incinerators on a cost-recovery basis.

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a short point of order, could I ask the Deputy Government House Leader, since the constituency of Chambly essentially has not had a representative for the past six months, I wonder if the Minister could indicate if the Government has passed an Order in Council calling for a by-election, or setting a by-election date. If not, does he have any indication as to when that might occur?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am sure the Government will want to attend to this matter as rapidly as it can.
June 8, 1989


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order. I believe that earlier this morning we made a tentative arrangement whereby we would divide up the time in a way similar to what we did on Monday night. Perhaps it escaped all of us that at that particular time on Monday night, because it was an adjournment debate, there was no such thing as a question and answer period after the speeches.
I would like to suggest to my colleagues in the other Parties that we should proceed in the following way; that in each round the Party in question decides whether they will have a 20-minute speech, followed by a 10-minute question and answer period. Alternatively, there could be a 10-minute speech, followed immediately by a five-minute question and answer period, followed again by a subsequent 10-minute speech and another five-minute question and answer period. In this way, we will not lose the opportunity to have questions and answers, but we will pro-rate them depending on the length of the speech. In other words, a 20-minute speech will have a 10-minute question and answer period and alternatively, a 10-minute speech will have a five-minute question and answer period.
I have had some discussions with my colleague from the New Democratic Party on this subject. I would like to offer that as a suggestion to the Whip of the Government to see if it has their agreement as well.
I think that we have perhaps inadvertently forgotten that part of the equation in the earlier discussions this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West, and then I will hear from the Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government is quite prepared to see the ratio discussed. I think if we had a 13-minute speech and a seven-minute question and answer period then it should as closely as possible approximate the length of the speech in terms of its relative proportion, if that is not too onerous for the Chair. It may turn out to be too fine a line at some point, however, we could basically try that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I agree there have been
Routine Proceedings
discussions. I would like to support the suggestion for two reasons.
One is that we are dealing today on an opposition motion put forward by the New Democratic Party on a number of environmental concerns. I think it is in the House's interest to have as many Members as possible participate in the debate if they wish.
Second, I think that it is a way to experiment with a change to the Standing Orders without actually changing them, to see if in fact it is an effective way to involve Members of the House on critical issues.
For those two reasons, we are anxious to proceed with the suggestion.


STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker:: In the normal course starred questions Nos. 33 and 61 would be the subject of oral answers. If that is not the case, then perhaps the Hon. Minister of State could let the Chair know and the answers will be tabled.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, with respect to starred questions Nos. 33 and 61 I am informed that the reason why the Government suggests that they be tabled is because the responses are very long. We felt that it would take up the time of the House to read them. Thus we suggested that they be tabled.

June 8, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the remarks of the Hon. Minister of State. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: In terms of the suggestion made today, which seems a very sensible one, that the Parties divide the 20 minutes as they see fit, presumably all Parties consider that this 20-minute period would be used by either one or two of their Members. The suggestion has been made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that when a Member has spoken for 10 minutes, then immediately at that point there be five minutes for questions and comments. That seems to me to be the tidiest way to approach it. If the House is in agreement, then that is the way the debate will be conducted.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government has no objection to doing it that way today. I would like the House to consider perhaps an alternative suggestion for the future which has just occurred to me. That is to say we use the 20 minutes and then have 10 minutes for questions and comments for the whole of the 20 minutes which could be directed at one or more Member.
Parties might on occasion want to use four Members with five minutes apiece. To move to questions and comments immediately after a five minute speech might turn out to be a problem.
However, if we just had the speeches in the course of 20 minutes followed by questions or comments to be directed at whatever part of the 20 minutes is appropriate, then that might be something to consider in the future. It might make things a little easier.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I am very conscious that it is an Opposition Day today. I think that probably the House would want to get on with debating the motion. Unless there is any adjustment that needs to be made in this understanding we will proceed with it.
However, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was rising. I will certainly hear him.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was rising just to indicate that I am certainly prepared to entertain that proposal at some other time. We will try one system today. Perhaps on another Opposition Day we could try the variation suggested by the Hon. Member and subsequently incorporate whatever method is thought to be best in our rules to improve the debating procedures of the House.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery students from the John Dearness Public School of London, Ontario, who are following this debate on the environment. I am concerned that their audio systems may not be working. Perhaps the security staff could acknowledge the presence of these fine students and help them with that situation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands) moves: That, in recognition of the importance of contributing to an
environmentally sustainable future, it be an Order of the House that:
(1)	the Government introduce by September 30, 1989 an Act to require environmental assessment of major federal projects, programs and undertakings, such Act to provide for the appointment of an environmental officer of the House of Commons whose duties shall include the assessment of all practices of the House, and who shall be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the Speaker on ways in which the House can contribute to a safe and environmentally healthy future;
(2)	the Government table, within five sitting days of the first sitting day after June 30,1989,its plans for the safe disposal of toxicwastes; and
(3)	the Government table by December 31,1989 its plans to achieve minimal discharge of deleterious substances into Canadian fresh and coastal waters.
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the wording of the motion today. I want to try to do it in a spirit of co-operation, trying to be helpful first to the Chair and then to all colleagues of opposition Parties. I will try to make my points as succinctly as possible so as not to take up the precious time of the House, especially considering the nature of the substance of the motion which I think we all agree is a very important issue for all sides of the House.
My point is procedural. It has to do with the wording in the first paragraph of the motion which states, "-that it be an Order of the House that:" followed by the other paragraphs of the motion.
My basis concern is with the phrase: "That it be an Order of the House that:". The problem is that we know of no tradition of Parliament whereby this type of motion, if passed, because of its wording using a phrase
June 8, 1989

like this, ipso facto becomes an order to the Government to introduce specific legislation, to table policy, or to do other things.
According to our knowledge and our research, the ancient and valid tradition, of course, is that Parliament recognizes in its forms and words the difference between a motion which, if agreed, becomes a resolved resolution and, by distinction, a motion which, if agreed, becomes an order.
To put it precisely the House expresses itself to the Government by "resolution" as distinct from an "order" that is given to execute a decision of the House or an order given to different officers of the House in the view of executing that decision.
To support our argument we wish to cite the 1970 edition of the parliamentary dictionary by Abraham and Hawtrey, page 185 where it is stated under the word "Resolution":
An expression of the opinion of the House with reference to some subject or a declaration of its intention to do something. A resolution is sometimes ordered to be communicated to the other House with a request for its concurrence, e.g. a resolution that it is expedient that a joint committee be appointed to consider a certain subject. A resolution may be rescinded.
Resolutions must be distinguished from Orders, i.e. directions or commands addressed by one or other House to members or officers of that House or to other persons. Thus the House of Commons resolves that an address be presented to the Queen, but orders it to be presented to her by those Members who are privy counsellors or members of the royal household.
In light of that argument, we submit the proper way of wording the motion would be, as has always or long been our practice, not to say, "it be an order of the House that-" but instead say, "this House calls on the Government to-". That is the wording which we respectfully submit should be included in this motion.
Having made that point, I want to reiterate to colleagues of opposition Parties that, consistent with Citation 480 of Beauchesne's, we certainly do not expect the Chair to come back immediately with a ruling on the arguments I have just presented. Consistent with the practice of the House, we should get under way the debate of the very important issue that is put before us today.
In that light I think it is reasonable and important for us to obtain a ruling from the Chair so that in the future we can know what to expect. This would reasonably give
Supply
us a good idea of a distinction between the use of one set of words or another set of words.
I humbly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the meantime while Your Honour is reflecting on this matter that perhaps you. Sir, could indicate the different circumstances, if any, which allow or require the use of the phrase: "It be an Order of the House-" such as is used in both Notices of Motions under Private Members' Business in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) with respect to calling individuals to the bar of the House. I think that is a good example of something the Chair may wish to clear up.
Our basic point is that the use of the words that are proposed to us today would break some new ground. In that context we feel compelled to bring Your Honour's attention to this matter so that it may be clarified and that in the future we know exactly what to expect.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by my hon. friend and colleague, the Deputy House Leader for the Government, on this issue. I want to explain the reason that these particular words were chosen. I see this issue as different from most issues brought forward on opposition days. I think it is fair to say that on most opposition days the Opposition brings forward a motion which the Government tends not to support. A motion is often aimed in a rather critical way at the Government and, of course, a votable motion normally is actually even designed that way.
On this issue, we felt that it would be appropriate to ask that it be an order of the House that certain initiatives follow because of the non-partisan nature of this particular motion.
We are simply making the assumption that all Members, Government Members, as well as members of the Official Opposition and Members of the New Democratic Party, will be supporting this opposition day motion today. Who would not think it appropriate that we should have an environmental officer of the House? After all, we have the responsibility of providing leadership on critical issues. Second, who would not say that it was appropriate to have plans in place for the disposal of toxic wastes and so on?

June 8. 1989
Supply
We are offering this motion today. I appreciate the points made by the Deputy Government House Leader that perhaps there is an alteration in the traditional wording. Elowever, we felt that this issue certainly was above the usual partisan concerns found in the House of Commons and that it was an item that all of us would support.
With due respect to my hon. friend, if that were to cause problems, in other words if that were to provide a reason that might make it awkward for government Members to support this initiative, we would welcome an amendment. As a matter of fact, we would propose an amendment if the Government would see that appropriate. We will wait your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as the day goes on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just in case there is some confusion, let me say that today is a supply day and that the support of an opposition motion on a supply day would be treated, I think, in terms of our precedents, as a matter of confidence. I would not want to leave any sense of confusion about that as the chief government Whip. Supply days have a special purpose in our Standing Orders. Today is a supply day and the motion is a votable one. I could signal to the House that it is my intention to defer the vote until Monday if that is helpful to Members. I would not want to leave any sense of confusion. The wording of the motion is one issue. The purpose of a supply day is a very different issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know it is important that we begin this debate, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to say that we appreciate the interpretation that the government Whip might place on this, but I want to make it very clear, before the debate begins, that in no way would we consider this to be a motion of confidence in the Government, absolutely not. This is an issue that must rise above partisan concerns. It is an item on which we all have veiy strong feelings. To consider it to be a vote of confidence is something that we would not anticipate, and I want to declare here and now that in no way ought it be construed as a vote of confidence in the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House as soon as possible. In the meantime debate will proceed with the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when we debated the issue of South Moresby, which you will recall, it was not considered to be a confidence motion. It is in that same spirit that I make this point. We feel that this case is not dissimilar to the South Moresby case. With all due respect, I want to make it very clear that confidence is not an issue here.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate though it seems that is what is happening. We do want to point out that the issue of wording is important for future debates in this House. We bring that to Your Honour's attention, at the same time recognizing the fact that we expect debate to go on. The wording for future debates is important for us; it is important that it be clarified.
I also want to indicate, as the government Whip has done, that there is no mistake on this side of the House on the nature of this debate. I think the answer to that argument is found in the words of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party when he referred to the nature of an opposition motion. He said that it was often critical and admitted that this motion had been designed to be critical of the Government. I understand that maybe today is something of a non-partisan nature for him.
We have stated and the Minister for the Environment has said often that the issue of the environment is a non-partisan one. However, the simple fact of the matter in life is that we are now in the House of Commons in Canada. We cannot pretend that we are not here. The rules and traditions of the House are something with which we have to live and by which we have to abide in that spirit. I am sorry to say that it is part of the rules of today. For that reason the Government considers this motion to be a confidence motion, and we intend to behave accordingly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say very briefly that while the points of order which have been raised deal with serious matters of concern with respect to the operation of the House, I hope we will be able to get on with debating the substance of the motion very soon. If you, Sir, are reserving judgment on the points of order, it would be understood that your ruling would not be such that the entire motion would be deemed out of order and the debate would not continue today.
June 8, 1989

Rather, the NDP Elouse Leader will be making such amendments in the light of your ruling, I am not anticipating it, but, in any event such that the debate can continue. We in the Liberal Party have some things we consider to be important and want to say about the environment. We hope, whatever the outcome of the consideration of the points of order, it will not result in the motion being swept aside so that we have to go on to other business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Members. I do not think that was the intention of the Deputy Government House Leader when he made his proposal this morning. We will start the debate immediately with the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be addressing the House today during Environment Week. It is a shame that there has been such a delay in the debate which has forced the school children, who were here to observe the beginning of it, to leave.
The Government has endorsed the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission. It has failed, however, to demonstrate a willingness to go beyond rhetoric and deliver the substantive changes necessary. Decisive political action is required now. The motion before the House is an humble attempt to begin that process.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister responded to a question from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan about economic decisions and the environmental assessments connected to them. In June 1988 the Prime Minister said: "We have established mechanisms to ensure that economic decisions take environmental impact into account". He was asked whether the cuts to VIA Rail had been considered in this context. The Prime Minister was very concise. He answered: "No". The beginning of this motion addresses the requirement for environmental assessment. As I stand today in the House I want to tell Members opposite that they must make a fundamental change in their thinking about what is required, if we are to make the changes necessary and solve the real environmental problems in our country.
Supply
Another example of the kinds of contradiction that are myriad within government policy is the fact that the Government is still giving our tax money to the oil companies. For example, in Alberta there is $1 billion for the Hibernia oil field, $650 million for the OSLO tar sands plant, and $325 million for the Lloydminster heavy oil upgrader. This is in the context of being told over and over again that we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and that the effects of global warming are so extreme it puts all human life at risk.
In the same context we have cuts to conservation and alternative energy programs. Conservation and renewable energy funding has declined from $400 million per year between 1980 and 1984 to a paltry $49 million for 1989-1990. This is from the post budget departmental briefing estimates.
When we talk about environmental assessment, we also must consider the larger picture of over-all government policies: why the Government is giving money to one portion of the energy sector and taking it away from the kind of conservation and renewable energy sources so necessary to form real alternatives.
The information we have before us on the effects of global warming is most frightening. In the environment committee we heard reports from Jim McNeill, the former Executive Director of the Brundtland Commission. He talked movingly about the testimony of the President of the Maldives, an island nation, before the Brundtland Commission, that if global warming continues at the same rate, that country whose highest elevation is 1.5 metres above sea level-that is about five feet-will disappear beneath the waves in 40 to 60 years.
When we think in those terms and see that our Government is still using our tax dollars to fund fossil fuels, we wonder where the sense of it all is. Global warming will cause a phenomenon that we have not yet experienced, a phenomenon of environmental refugees on a scale unheard of to date. We are talking about multi-millions of people trying to get to higher levels because the oceans will make their homelands disappear.

June 8, 1989
Supply
At a time when we have the contradiction of the Government funding megaprojects, it is crucial for the House to understand that we want environmental assessments of a non-partisan nature but of a crucially political nature. As the Member opposite pointed out, this is the House of Commons. It is a political body. It does not necessarily have to be a partisan body on this issue. We must think in the long term and not the short term, not respond to government polls but respond to the very real and sincere concerns of not only Canadians but of citizens of the world.
We are concerned about the transition to a sustainable society, and the questions arising from that are undeniably large ones.
Fundamental changes are required in the way we weigh costs and benefits and make decisions. The federal Government must be prepared to demonstrate leadership in adopting these changes, not just in matters of national policy but its own day to day operation. In this spirit, this is why we want an environmental officer of the House.
Parliament Hill, as those of us who are new here perhaps see more clearly, is a city within a city. We have an opportunity to demonstrate to Canada and to the world that we are serious about this environmental concern by getting our own house in order and by recycling the paper used here. I come from the Province of British Columbia where we had over the centuries complete destruction of forests. It is not necessary if we recycle wisely.
Implementing the Brundtland report entails more than just mouthing the words of sustainable development and attaching environmentally friendly stickers to everything in sight.
The report envisaged a whole new approach to economic development. We could begin here on Parliament Hill in some of the things that we are doing. We do not just want to tinker at the edges. We must show that we are prepared to undertake fundamental change.
In environmental assessment, we are asking the federal Government to begin an immediate re-evaluation of all its policies and programs asking if each is environmentally sound.
That brings us to my area of interest, that is, international development. In the last Budget, it was clearly demonstrated by the Government that it did not understand the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission or its concern and observation that not only are we interconnected internationally but we are interlocked. We are interdependent. We in a developed country seem to think we are immune from the kind of damage that is occurring internationally in the Third World. The Government felt that immunity sufficient to be able to bring the budget cuts to foreign aid.
What that means is we may reduce our deficit. We are looking after ourselves, but we are exporting the environmental degradation to those countries that can least afford it, those people who are the most vulnerable.
It makes no sense if we place that on a large international scale. Many scientists and other esteemed people have told us that we are on this planet together; if we violate one part of it, all of it is violated. It is the budget proposals on foreign aid, reductions to foreign aid, that demonstrate that the Government has no understanding of that dynamic at all.
As to the concerns about waste products and use of toxic waste, we have a priority substances list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There is a need to ensure, however, that time lines for elimination are set. There is a need for targets and timetables for reduction of chemicals in our environment. We must see sustainable development distinct from cleaning up the mess that we are already in. Some 10 per cent of world trade is now in chemicals. They move into the environment. Many work their way up through the food chain to plants, animals, and humans.
Much of our drinking water has been contaminated by toxic substances such as PCBs, dioxins, and furans.
The recent revelation of high PCB levels in the breast milk of Inuit women substantiates the need for national and global action, for zero discharge standards, to prevent pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals from moving through the atmosphere to be deposited in areas far from their application, storage, or disposal.
With some 100,000 chemicals on the market and some
600,000	new chemicals coming on to the market per year, it is clear that workers and the public are best protected by prohibiting contact in as many locations as possible. It

June 8, 1989
is also increasingly important that producers be required to determine a method of safe disposal of chemicals prior to marketing.
I am quoting from a report just released this week, Towards a Sustainable Future. I was fortunate to be one of five New Democrat Members on a task force that travelled across Canada. This is our offering to the House, Towards a Sustainable Future. I recommend it as reading for all Members of this House, because it is our sincere hope that they will educate themselves about the crucial issues confronting us. As legislators we talk a lot about sustainable development and concern for the environment, but in this place we have a responsibility to act and to legislate. It is not good enough to talk. People have a great deal of disrespect for politicians, and the reason is that they think we are all talk and no action. As the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands I have no intention of falling into that category.
I want to talk about the concern for water resources, both the fresh water and ocean resources of our country. We have concerns about the dumping that is going on, and the "solution to pollution is dilution" type of thinking that we can no longer afford.
In my province where the pulp and paper industry is large pollution is rampant. We have legislation but no enforcement. We must have enforcement and the powers of our federal Government to come down on those polluters and say "no more" in the interests of Canadians.
We must establish a super fund for cleaning up our environment, in the same manner as the United States. We must come up with a funding mechanism to clean up toxic waste. The U.S. effort to clean up its own environment has been to the detriment of our environment. Recent figures confirm that more that 170,000 tonnes per year of toxic and hazardous waste are presently entering Canada from the United States. Its solution is to export pollution. That is not acceptable. We have a responsibility to clean up our own house, but the United States also has a responsibility to look after its.
We must have a national recycling program. We must have taxes on polluting products, on excess packaging,
Supply
and on packaging that is not recyclable. We have to make it economically unviable to degrade our environment. There are many things that we have to do.
An Environment Canada report recently leaked to Greenpeace indicates that pulp and paper mills are responsible for at least 50 per cent of all water pollution in Canada. That is staggering when one considers the bottom line that those companies use as their determining factor in action. Those people are polluting our environment in order that they can profit from it. Once again, we should be making sure that it is not economically viable to degrade our environment. We should also be giving economic incentives for clean activities.
Finally, I want to talk about oil tanker traffic on the West Coast. As one of the Members representing Vancouver Island, I was intimately connected with the oil spill that occurred off our coast in January. That has brought about many cries for a full public inquiry, not only from Members in the House but from many citizens with high profiles. I know that the Minister of the Environment has met with many of those people. In committee he assured me that there would be a public inquiry. I want to make it clear that what we are asking for, and what they are asking for, is a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act in order that people can be subpoenaed and we can hear the full story on what happened in that oil spill. We can also look into the exploration of oil in order that we can be more informed about our ocean.
Recently I heard that there has been a fifteenfold increase in barge and crude oil exports out of the Port of Vancouver. As the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, as the name implies, the Gulf Islands are in my riding and this is of deep personal concern. Those ships and barges go right by the beautiful Gulf Islands on their way down to Cherry Point, Washington where the oil refinery is. With a fifteenfold increase over five years we certainly have to think of the time bomb ticking and how long we have before the beaches of my riding are befouled by oil. That is why it is crucial that a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act be implemented. We have to answer those questions about long-term planning to prevent the befoulment of beaches of the Pacific Rim National Park.

June 8. 1989
Supply
This motion is put forth as an humble attempt to address the sustainable development agenda of the House. The clock is ticking and we are running out of time. There is an urgency, and the public is aware of the urgency. I think the public is way ahead of us in its thinking. Politicians who do not listen to the public are not politicians for very long. We must address this issue. We have to be courageous with the type of decisions that we have to make. We have to put aside partisan interests and stop trying to make political points on one another. We have to change. We as human beings do not like to change. It is a scary thing to change, but it is necessary, or we are all doomed. On that light note I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River.


Mr. White:: I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I would like to make a brief comment and also ask a question.
I am fortunate to come from an area in rural Manitoba where we have clean air and clean water. The people I represent have come to realize, as have all Canadians, that the number one issue that we are facing as Canadians and as residents of the planet earth is the protection and preservation of our environment. I believe that it will be the number one issue in the future, starting now, as a matter of fact.
The Hon. Member talked about going beyond rhetoric and the fact that politicians cannot only talk about environmental concerns, that there has to be action. I have to take the Hon. Member to task on that comment, because there has been talk from this Government and also action. There was a federal environmental assessment and review process on the Sea Island fuel barge facility where it was concluded by the panel that the Minister of Transport unconditionally rejected the proposal submitted by the North Fraser Harbour Commission. That is an example of where the federal Government has taken action.
Up until the spring of 1988 Manitoba had an NDP Government. We had a perfect example with the NDP Government in Manitoba of all talk and no action. A group of environmental organizations did an assessment, province by province, of all the provincial Governments in late 1987 or early 1988. The New Democratic Government in Manitoba ranked dead last. That is a perfect
example of a Government that was all talk and no action. I have a question I would like to ask. I do not think that there is any Member in this House that would disagree with the fact that we have to develop alternate sources of energy.
The Hon. Member mentioned in her remarks that there is a contradiction in spending the money that is being spent on the fossil fuel megaprojects. I would like to ask the Member what we as a nation would do if we did not invest in the megaprojects and there was a time gap between a future serious fuel shortage and the development of a viable alternate source of energy? What would we as Canadians do if we were faced with a time gap if we quit investing in the fossil fuel megaprojects?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question and applaud the Member in a spirit of non-partisanship for any action that the Government takes on reducing the damage to our environment. I welcome the example that he has given to this House.
Addressing his question about the time lag, I realize that we have to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. We cannot do it overnight. The examples I have of program cuts illustrate that at the time we are giving money to subsidize those megaprojects, there have been cuts to the programs such as Canada Oil Substitution Program, that went in 1986, the Canadian Home Insulation Program, that went in 1986, the Canadian Energy Audit Program, that went in 1986, the Atlantic Energy Conservation Investment Program, that went in 1986, the Solar Energy Demonstration Program, that was gone in 1989, the Remote Community Demonstration Program, that went in 1989, the Forest Industry Renewable Energy Program, that was gone in 1989, Industrial Conversion Assistance Program, that went in 1987.
So my answer is that we have to change our thinking. I realize that a weaning away process is necessary but we also have to start funding other types of program so that real alternatives are viable.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to indicate to the House my pleasure in having an opportunity to address this very important issue. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the motion she has presented today and for the spirit in which it is presented.
June 8, 1989

I would also like to state to Members of the House that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) regrets that he cannot be present at this time, but will be returning shortly to the House from Montreal. As Members may know, the Minister is in Montreal this morning announcing details, in co-operation with the Province of Quebec, of the implementation of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. I think all of us who are aware of the deterioration which has taken place in the quality of the St. Lawrence will welcome this initiative on behalf of the federal and Quebec governments.
As Members of this House also know, this Government and this Minister have given a very strong commitment both in our actions and in the Throne Speech, to the environment in general and in particular in the Throne Speech, to the need to introduce legislation in the House for the environmental assessment of its activities. I can assure the Members of the House that officials at this very moment are preparing the necessary documentation for the introduction of that legislation to the House.
I think that at the outset of a debate of this importance, it is necessary to establish some sort of groundwork or framework in which to judge what is being done, what has been done in the past and what is needed for the future. It is important to the Members of this House and for the public to have a clear awareness of the way in which Government goes about the process of assessment of environmental effects of its activities.
There has been a process of environmental assessment in place since 1974. That initial process, started by the Liberal Government of that day, contained a rather loosely worded cabinet directive which placed a great deal of faith in government's voluntary willingness to do the right thing by the environment. The process at that time did not have a great deal of public credibility. There was not very much progress until the present Speaker of this House, at a time when he had other responsibilities during the Government of 1979-1980, initiated what proved to be time-consuming and complex policy development work including very extensive consultations needed to produce credible legislation in this most important area.
This legislation is absolutely fundamental to having
Supply
environmentally effective Government decision-making.
I believe that this Government and all Members of this House would accept the fact that it is exceedingly important that what be done be done properly and effectively. Many of the principles in the existing process are valid if conscientiously applied. Since returning to office in 1984, this Government has over the past five years paid particular attention to ways of improving the process with respect to day to day practice in advancing towards the stage where we are now, the preparation of environmental assessment legislation.
I would like to explain to the House some of the more important aspects of the way in which environmental assessments are done as of now and some of the principles we would propose to incorporate into the new law as soon as it is available.
The Canadian federal approach is based on a judgment that is shared by most of the industrialized world and I believe to a significant degree by the developing world. That judgment is that environmental impact assessment is an essential element in the applying of economic development initiatives. Such assessments will help avoid potentially serious environmental and related social problems which could greatly reduce the value of apparent economic progress. Good environmental assessments result in good development and makes good economic sense.
The federal environmental assessment and review process, which we know as EARP is an administrative process set out by Order in Council applicable to proposed federal Government initiatives or private sector undertakings for which the federal Government has some decision-making responsibility. Their process is a self-assessment procedure in that the government agency with the main decision-making responsibility in each instance undertakes the preliminary screening and, if needed, the more detailed initial assessment of the proposed activity. However, where in the opinion of that agency there is likely to be significant environmental effects, the project must be referred to the Ministry of the Environment for public review by an independent panel appointed by that Minister.

June 8, 1989
Supply
The Federal Environment Assessment Review Office, known as FEARO, is a small agency which reports directly to the Environment Minister, organizes a review, provides logistic support and often provides a panel chairman. Elistorically, I would note in passing that only a small percentage of the projects undergoing initial assessment have proved to have sufficiently severe environmental effects that they have required the public review of which I am referring.
Upon the completion of this review the panel provides a report to the Minister of the Environment and to the initiating Minister, the Minister responsible for the agency proposing to undertake or authorize a project. This report which is a public report, contains the recommendations of the panel. While these recommendations are not binding, the initiating Minister is expected to outline publicly his or her response to that report. Certainly those recommendations are of monumental significance.
In early 1984 the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office completed its own review, initiated, as I referred to earlier by the present Speaker in another capacity, of the operation of EARP and made recommendations for improvements to the then Environment Minister.
These recommendations were incorporated in the present guidelines as of June 21, 1984. These guidelines and the Act under which they are operating, the Government Organization Act of 1979, give the Minister of the Environment the responsibility to initiate, recommend and undertake programs of the Government of Canada that are designed:
To ensure that new federal projects, programs and activities are assessed early in the planning process for potential adverse effects of the quality of the natural environment, and that a further review of those projects is carried out of those projects, programs and activities that are found to have probable significant adverse effects, and the results thereof taken into account.
Earlier this year, the Federal Court when rendering a decision on the Rafferty-Alameda project in Saskatchewan determined that the guidelines to which I have now referred are in fact the binding regulation. The main thrust of these guidelines is to require government Departments to conduct their screening and initial assessment activity in a systematic, open and documentable fashion. Detailed instructions to assist Departments in how to do this are provided. The hallmarks are brevity, simplicity, and openness.
It was recognized from the outset that the concerns and responsibilities of the provinces must be taken into account in the operation of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. Consequently, in regard to any public review, FEARO is required, where needed, to negotiate co-operative federal-provincial or territorial arrangements. Co-operative reviews between jurisdictions are intended to avoid duplication, to reduce costs and to expedite the decision-making process. Most of the public reviews conducted by the Environmental Assessment Review Panels have involved varying degrees of federal-provincial co-operation, ranging from co-chairmanship in some cases, to a case where jointly appointed single chairmen through the appointment of a provincial member to a federal panel. Because of the importance of federal-provincial co-operation in this area, and the realization that such co-operation must continue to exist, it is important to look at a number of examples as to how the process has worked to date.
Several of the reviews are being conducted by panels jointly appointed by federal and provincial Governments and are operating under the terms of reference negotiated between them. Because the reports are purely advisory, they tend to develop without regard to jurisdictional divisions, thus providing a holistic view of the social and environmental impact of a given project.
In fact, some joint environmental reviews, such as West Coast offshore drilling, have been undertaken on proposals where a jurisdictional dispute was still occurring. But that assessment has taken place without prejudice to the final result of that dispute.
The degree of federal or provincial participation in each case has generally reflected the extent to which the major decisions are being made by one or the other government. For example, a panel set up to assess the expansion of the Vancouver airport, which was clearly a federal responsibility but with some impact on provincial responsibilities, is federally chaired and supported but has amongst its members a provincial nominee. At the other end of the spectrum are the panels which assess the Arctic pilot project's southern terminals in Quebec
June 8, 1989

and Nova Scotia. These are provincially chaired and supported but contain federal nominees.
The nuclear generating project in New Brunswick was planned by a joint federal-provincial Crown corporation to be operated by the New Brunswick Power Commission, a provincial utility. Substantial federal financial credits from the federal Government were needed for the project to proceed. Thus, both Governments had major responsibility and it was decided that a fully joint assessment would be most appropriate. In Nova Scotia, the Venture offshore gas development project was conducted in a similar manner.
In 1983 a federal Government-B.C. memorandum of agreement called for a joint federal-provincial review of environmental and related social and economic effects of a renewed program of petroleum exploration off B.C's northern coast. The review was held without prejudice to the ultimate ownership of the resource and managed within the joint framework of the Provincial Environmental Management Act and the federal Management Act and the federal EARP.
In view of the evolving situation in Canada's North, it seems very logical that territorial Governments must be a part of this process in the future. By the same token, the importance of land claims agreements are resulting in larger roles for native communities in managing environmental assessment procedures. EARP's flexibility must be sufficient to accommodate both of these developments.
It is appropriate to note that the guidelines often required federal government agencies to take into account environmental impacts external to Canada. I believe the Hon. Member referred to that.
This is the basic outline of the environmental assessment process as it now exists and how it works in co-operation with the provinces.
Not surprisingly, environmental assessments, whether they be federally, provincially or jointly managed, have over the years given rise to concerns about costs, uncertainty as to data and research requirements, potential regulatory duplication and delays.
Costs affecting the economics of a proposed activity are of concern to all developers. It follows that every effort must be made by administrators to ensure that information requirements and other obligations imposed upon proponents are reasonable and restricted to
Supply
those necessary for the conduct of a responsible and adequate review.
Obviously the collection and the analysis of environmental and related social data and, in the case of formal public reviews, the appointment of a panel and the conduct of hearings carry a cost in both time and money. Such costs must, however, be weighed against the very considerable costs that can be incurred if mitigating measures involving significant redesign have to be introduced after the construction of the project is under way or even completed because of the emergence of an unanticipated environmental damage and a weak or strong public opposition.
Underlying such more obvious costs are the costs in lost opportunities, slowed natural productivity, reduction in environmental sustainability, and even health risks that can result from insensitively designed projects. As a general comment on the costs of environmental assessment, it should be noted that these costs historically average only 0.5 per cent of the capital cost of the project.
It should also be stressed that one of the objectives of the EARP is to facilitate and place in a constructive context public input to government decision-making.
The concerns of society at large must be taken into account when dealing with possible changes in the natural environment. Resource managers, whether they be private or public, are expected to be responsible stewards. People affected by a proposed activity have a right to be heard and in a setting in which they can have a reasonable expectation that there views will be seriously considered. Experience has shown that information derived from such local knowledge is exceedingly valuable in deciding on project design, timing and management. This process, if done correctly, can be considered to be an important and legitimate part of the cost of the entire project and will ultimately contribute to a far better project.
Experience has shown all of us that the technical quality of planning and design has often been enhanced by the demands of a public review, sometimes even to the point that such reviews may well prove cost effective for industry in the longer term, quite apart from their environmental benefits. Moreover, when the results of work under the EARP have been incorporated into project planning and design, proponents have realized that they can proceed with greater confidence about the long-term acceptability of what is proposed. This is reassuring to them, to government and certainly to society in general.

June 8, 1989
Supply
It is our experience that industry is supportive of environmental assessment activities as long as the information demands are reasonable, duplication is avoided and a clear, timely decision results.
There exists a similar potential for duplication between the EARP and formal regulatory processes within the federal structure.
A notable example is the National Energy Board which, under its enabling legislation, is assigned regulatory powers which include the licensing of the export of oil, gas and electricity, the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines, and the setting of just and reasonable tolls for pipelines under federal jurisdiction.
Under the board review procedures there is a standing requirement for environmental impact assessment of projects needing board approval. If a given project has also been subject to public review under the EARP, criticism can arise over apparent duplication.
The EARP is most effective when it is used as a planning tool rather than as a regulatory device. Used as a planning tool, it should be brought into play at the earliest possible opportunity to assist in identifying potential environmental problems and to help design solutions for them. Such an approach encourages better project design and allows for the required regulatory activity to occur without duplication but with the benefit of substantive early environmental planning.
Obviously, early application of the EARP, including public reviews as needed, is also the answer to concerns over delays whether or not a formal regulatory process is involved.
It is our experience that well-managed environmental assessment can reduce delays in securing project approvals. Not only can it reduce public conflict about a given project, but early environmental assessments, particularly those involving public reviews, can also cause early project planning to be carried out at an impressive level of detail and quality. This in turn often means that projects are better thought out resulting in fewer and shorter delays during construction and fewer cost overruns. Good environmental assessment is good planning, which is good business.
In closing, I wish to reinforce the importance of legislating this process to ensure that this and future governments are required to assess the environmental effects of our actions. The Canadian public must be assured that potential environmental problems will be caught before they can become significant public problems.
Environmental considerations must be at the heart of our decision-making.
There is a new ethic evolving in Canada which is making environmental considerations a determinant of economic change, rather than the historical pattern, of the economy being a determinant of environmental change. We are all well aware, too much aware in fact, Mr. Speaker, of the problems that result when the latter strategy is in place.
I suggest in closing that what is even more important, however, is to ensure that when the guidelines are brought into legislation, as they will be hopefully in the very near future, that the process is done properly, that the guidelines are properly, adequately structured into law. It is more important that the process be done correctly, than it be done hastily. This issue is too important for mistakes to be made.
We understand that the task before us, the task to which the motion in part refers, is exceedingly important and we give it a very high priority, and agree in principle with the motion that is being presented and debated today.
The Government will be unable to support the motion because of at least in part the inappropriate deadlines which it imposes.
Again, in closing, the task is an important one. I believe there are no partisan differences in the House on that. The need, however, is to ensure that it is done correctly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
June 8,1989	COMMONS


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, given the serious environmental impact on the potential for a Government decision to close down passenger service for VIA Rail, I wonder if the Member could tell us whether there will be an ERP panel invoked to examine that particular Government decision, and if not, why not?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as all Members know, this issue was addressed in the House at least in part yesterday during Question Period. I dare say it will probably come before us again. It may well be that speakers later in the day will want to address the point which the Hon. Member has made.
I think it is exceedingly important that one of the things which the new legislation does is spell out far more clearly than the guidelines have done to date exactly what will be the federal Government's responsibility, bearing in mind that there are many provincial responsibilities. It is important to spell out very clearly what the ERP requirements are going to be. One of the things which troubles me, and undoubtedly troubles the Hon. Member, is that the present guidelines are not explicit enough in indicating when the process occurs. What is very clear is that if there is to be involved new expenditures of money, as is the case with some of the projects in the West, or federal lands being involved as Justice Cullen ruled in his decision with respect to Rafferty-Alameda, then the ERP process clearly applies.
Whether it would apply in this instance at this point in time, I am not able to say. I would suggest that in looking at a VIA Rail proposal, we have to bear in mind not just VIA and where it fits into our preferences for transportation within the country, but we would have to bear in mind the entire transportation needs of the country, to what degree VIA has moved people, the percentage of transportation which occurs on its system, and what part it then plays in the whole transportation mode of people within the country. Certainly how we move is obviously environmentally significant.
The Hon. Member might even suggest that perhaps governments in the past should have considered the environmental impact assessments before TransCanada highways were constructed from one side of Canada to the other. This is not something which in any way would be unique to the consideration of train travel.
I would think that if we are going to use the ERP process to look at transportation, we would have to do so within the entire context of transportation practices. In doing that, we would then have to consider to what
DEBATES	2767
Supply
degree and what percentage of transportation in Canada is provided by VIA, and bear that in mind in our evaluation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops on a question or comment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have first of all a comment. It sounds like a lot of gobbledegook to me. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Clark), with all due respect, has spent 20 minutes explaining how the Government plans to take all of these initiatives to ensure that proper environmental assessments are made whenever the federal Government takes a major initiative. Here is a major initiative, the curtailing of passenger rail service, and yet there has been no appropriate environmental initiative taken. I think that we are hearing a lot of rhetoric.
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary is as follows, Mr. Speaker. In the newspapers this morning we read that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) is saying that it is absolutely essential for the Government to look at policies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels which produce carbon dioxide and accelerates the global warming crisis cited by most scientists.
We also read that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) is saying that the Government has to subsidize fossil fuel megaprojects in the future. There seems to be some inconsistency with one Minister saying that we have got to enhance and encourage the megaprojects of fossil fuel development, and the Minister of Environment saying that we must reduce them. That is my first question.
My second question is, does the Parliamentary Secretary support the Minister of Environment who also is reported in the press this morning as saying that the federal Government believes that there should be no logging activity at all in the disputed Carmanah forest. Does he also stand by the Minister in his decision not to support any logging in this pristine valley whatsoever?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, while I have not had an opportunity to read the news reports in question, or to verify their accuracy, I can say as Parliamentary Secretary that if this country is to continue to make use of fossil fuels in any kind of intensified manner, we will have to be well aware of the cost and be prepared to pay that cost. All activity will not cease, whether with respect to providing fuel or providing transportation systems across the country.

June 8, 1989
Supply
What we need, and what I think the concept of sustainable development refers to, is a realization first of all of the cost of that development, and then a willingness to have that developed in such a way that it is consistent with our environmental needs. It may be, for example, that we continue to make use of fossil fuels and maybe even increase the use of fossil fuels. We will have to be prepared to pay the additional cost, whether it is in the form of scrubbers or whatever else it might be.
With respect to the Carmanah forest, which was discussed in committee at least on one other occasion, the federal Government has made it very clear in correspondence with the Minister in the Province of British Columbia that we are anxious to be a part of the process. We offered the federal Government's technical advice to the provincial Minister. The Minister, I think responded in a letter just some few days ago accepting that advice. What the Minister was saying in committee was that certainly with respect to the identified area of the Sitka spruce that there absolutely was a need to preserve it. If we look at the correspondence, what is not clear in what has been said is the extent of the area to be preserved.
I do not think that any individual as such has spelled that out as yet.


Mr. Waddell:: I just have a comment and a question. First, I find this incredible concerning VIA Rail, because if the Federal Court can apply the ERP guidelines as law to the Rafferty-Alameda project, as the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned it did, why cannot the Government, which purports to be environmentally conscious, apply the law and the guidelines to a megaproject or a mega change like VIA Rail?
If VIA Rail is wiped out, we will have more cars, and we have the whole problem of fossil fuels. We are in a new era. We have to understand that we are in a new environmental era. We have to put our minds into that. That is why the Government should be responding positively to the suggestion of doing an environmental assessment on the changes in VIA.
Perhaps we could have done it with the highways years ago, as the Member mentioned. We might have had a
different way of getting around the country, more environmentally conscious and better. My question is is on a different matter.
The motion today is not that difficult. The Hon. Member who proposes it has said that it is non-partisan. We are asking that we put our own house in order as she said, that is, the House of Commons and Parliament Hill.
Why can the Government not accept the fact that it is not a non-confidence motion? If it does not like parts of it, then why not amend it? Members opposite can get along with the Hon. Member for Kamloops. He could accept some amendments, if they are good ones, as can the Hon. Member who presented the motion.
The Hon. Member from Saanich-Gulf Islands said that there had been a lot of talk but very little action. If the Government votes against this very mild, non-partisan resolution to put our own house in order, then surely the Government is being hypocritical about it being pro-environment.
I ask the Parliament Secretary this question: How about proposing some amendments or some changes to the motion so that we can send a message to the Canadian public that at least on Parliament Hill we will begin by putting our own house in order and then later put the country in order?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first part of the Hon. Member's remarks concerning VIA Rail and automobiles, I do not think there is anyone in the House who would pretend for a moment that, irrespective of the type of train system we might have in the country and its acceptability by the public, there will continue to be a massive amount of automobile travel throughout all of Canada. In all likelihood, again regardless of the quality of service and the extent to which it is used, that automobile travel will grow as the public grows. I suggest to the Hon. Member that if indeed that is of primary concern, he should be on his feet applauding the Government for its decision, for example, to abolish the use of leaded gasoline by 1990. As he knows, we moved that date forward.
June 8, 1989


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I suggested that in 1981.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Let us address each part of the problem in turn.
With respect to the motion before us, the Government has indicated that we are supportive of the motion in principle. As I have already indicated, we understand the need to address many of the concerns raised by the motion. We are indicating that that legislation will be introduced.
The Hon. Member's House Leader referred to the number of minutes in which I talked of the nature of the legislation and the principles on which it will be founded. I suggest that those principles are exceedingly important since the legislation, if it is going to do the job we require, must be adequately designed. I suggest to the Hon. Member that the guidelines which are now there, guidelines which were drafted in an earlier era, were not well designed. In fact, their lack of clarity has contributed to some of the confusion which now exists.
What is not crystal clear-otherwise we would not have had the court case which we had-is the exact circumstances on which EARP is applied. That is an evolving situation. By the time legislation comes before the House, hopefully early when we return in September, the Hon. Member will find that the areas needing to be well defined will in fact be well defined.
I suggest that the principles involved in this motion are important rather than the timetables which it incorporates. If we are concerned about the environment, we must work together in a co-operative manner to ensure not that the legislation be introduced to the House within five days, or whatever the case may be when we return in the fall, but that we work together to ensure that the legislation, when it is introduced in the House, does what we all wish it to do.
If that same type of co-operation had been sought and secured when the guidelines which are now operative were introduced in 1984, we might not have the same confusion that has been in place since that point in time.
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), because I think it does deal with a number of the issues. It is particularly timely in that its introduction is during National Environment Week.
The issues that have been put forward today by way of resolution obviously involve a response specifically by the House of Commons since it deals with an environmental officer of the House. However, it also deals with the question of environmental assessment and setting for the Government a timetable in relation to the quality of our waters, whether they be sea waters or fresh waters, and also the specific issue of the disposal of toxic waste. Those are certainly critical issues.
I am somewhat encouraged to hear the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Clark) in relation to the interdependence of transportation systems across the country and specifically as they relate to VIA. I asked the specific question about VIA because you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) took the job back in late January, he was heralded with much fanfare as the Minister who was going to put the e for environment into every aspect of the Government's daily operations and every aspect of national policy. He announced that there would be a radical change in government decision making, giving him a virtual veto with respect to all federal projects that put economic or political advantage ahead of the environment.
In assessing the effectiveness of the Minister who has been in his current position for five months now-allegedly, he has been given the mandate by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as the key spokesperson in the area of the environment-we must examine not only whether his veto power applies to federal government projects but also to the issue of sustainable development. I hesitate to use the term "sustainable development" since I think that, with all due deference to the work which has been done by the Brundtland Commission, the people of Canada want environmental action. Sometimes they do not even understand the implications of so-called sustainable development.
In that regard we have to examine the Government's and the Minister's input into every decision made across all Departments. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bou-

June 8, 1989
Supply
chard) this week stated that if a recommendation emanates from VIA Rail he is prepared to kill passenger service across Canada. That statement by a Minister of the Government indicates just how far from achieving his objective of veto is in fact the Minister of the Environment.
As the Minister himself has pointed out, we are the most wasteful country in the world from the perspective of energy. We waste more energy on a per capita basis than any other country in the world. Our size and our climate, of course, has some bearing on that particular waste, but it also relates to the fact that we have been seen to be a land of abundant and plentiful energy. We have not developed the systems which encourage not only security of supply, as the Minister of Energy is wont to speak about often, but also conservation.
In that regard one has only to travel to Europe where the elements of conservation have been practised for years, elements which have escaped Canadians for the most part probably not only this decade but since the work of the Brundtland Commission. If one goes to a grocery store on a daily basis, one sees plastic garbage bags by the thousands being given out to individual consumers. We do not recycle our plastic bags. We see people in Europe for the most part doing their shopping while carrying a permanent shopping bag which they are willing to take with them from day to day. That is why when Canadians think about the issue of the environment and when we in the House think about the issue, we think globally and act locally. When we act locally let us put it into the context of the House of Commons.
This wad of paper in my hands now, most of which is printed only on one side, is a collection of what has come across my desk in the last week. It does not include what I have thrown out, what my staff has disposed of, and what was not relevant to make it into the files. This relates only to my file in relation to the environment. In so far as the House of Commons is concerned, we certainly have much work to do in that area. I think the notion of having an environmental officer is indeed a very sound one.
Do Members of the House of Commons know, for example, that we force our employees in the House of Commons, in many instances, to work in unsafe conditions? Under any other circumstances those conditions would be subject to a complaint under the Canada Labour Code. Have you, Mr. Speaker, ever visited the refinishing area of the House of Commons where our employees are forced to work in poorly ventilated areas with toxic chemicals that would, under any other circumstance, be banned because the circumstances for work are unsafe? Yet we as the House of Commons, because we are the House of Commons, are not subject even to some of the minimal requirements that currently apply under the Canada Labour Code. We exempt ourselves. We set up special rules for smoking on that particular basis. Unlike other workers under federal jurisdiction, the House of Commons, for the most part, is exempt from health and safety laws. That is because the current Government has not yet moved to invoke sections of the legislation passed in the last Parliament which gave basic, minimal safety and health laws to the workers on Parliament Hill. Yes, we have much work to do in that area.

However, Mr. Speaker, since it has now been five months since the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) was appointed, I think it is high time to take a look at what he has been doing in his Department. Canadians are being asked to think globally about the environment and to act locally. I suggest we analyse the action taken by the Minister of the Environment who said when he was appointed in January that he would radically change the Government's approach to decisions affecting the environment.
But why just this Minister? In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with several issues, and first of all with the decision announced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), the other Bouchard, on the changes at VIA Rail.
The Minister of Transport even said this week that he was prepared to kill VIA Rail passenger services. In the Environment Committee this week, we asked whether the other Bouchard, since we have "mini-bouche" and "maxi-bouche", whether the other Bouchard had been consulted as he implied he would be, when he was appointed.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
June 8, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture) (Mr. Blais), on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: I have been listening to her comments since the beginning of her speach. She may have taken advantage of the fact that certain Members weren't paying attention, but I believe that we are obliged to use a person's full name. We have certain rules here in Parliament. I don't think we should insult people, using nicknames that are entirely uncalled for. If the Hon. Member has a point to make, she can do so without stooping-without trying to make a play on words, as she usually does, especially since she is the first to rise in the House to criticize every comma and semi-colon and to raise questions of privilege for no reason at all. I believe that in a case like this, the rules of this House should be strictly observed, Mr. Speaker.
I would advise the Hon. Member to be careful and perhaps to withdraw certain terms that are almost rude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) knows the Standing Orders, and I am sure that she will do her best to abide by them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I didn't think "bouche" was rude.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: It's the way you said it!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I seem to have touched a sore nerve in the Conservative Party. However, I will continue my analysis of the situation at VIA Rail. In fact, I can understand why the Tories are upset when we talk about VIA Rail, because we all know that the decision to close down VIA Rail's passenger service will affect every part of the province of Quebec and communities across Canada, including my own city, Hamilton. When I asked specifically, and we did not get a good answer, Mr. Bouchard, the other Bouchard, the Minister of the Environment, said-


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I think there is a proper way to refer to Ministers and Members in this House. The Hon. Member was worned once before!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to refer to ministers by their title.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I was talking about the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Lucien Bouchard). When he was
Supply
appointed, he announced that he would have a veto right on any federal decision respecting the environment. Well, a decison has been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Benoit Bouchard). When we asked in the Environment Committee whether he had been consulted, because as you well know, Mr. Speaker, as far as transportation is concerned, if we want to become a conserving society, not conservative but conserving, as far as transportation and our ecology is concerned, I think we must have a transportation policy that encourages Canadians to travel by train and to use public transit. Whether we are using VIA Rail or other transport modes, I think that conserving the environment should be one of our main objectives in drafting an environmental policy for the twenty-first century.


Don Boudria: Absolutely!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Even today, the Government doesn't realize. . . If we look at the situation at the airport in Toronto, there are a lot of Torontonians who are now starting to take the train, since 1988-89, because of the fact that air traffic is so congested. They are now starting to use other forms of public transportation which are far more efficient in the environmental sense. And now the Government decides to close down VIA Rail, without any consultation with the Minister of the Environment! So, as far as VIA Rail is concerned, I will have to give the Minister of the Environment an F on his report card for the last five months, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Boudria F minus.


Sheila Maureen Copps: An F, because he was never consulted on a matter that should be a priority issue as far as the environment is concerned.
Second, Mr. Speaker, there is the Rafferty-Alameda Project, and I know that the Minister's parliamentary secretary made a reference to the court's decision. Well, Mr. Speaker, thank God for this decision by the court which acknowledges the fact that, as far as the Rafferty-Alameda Project is concerned, there had not been adequate federal assessments as required under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act passed in 1987. But Mr. Speaker, do we, as parliamentarians, have to go to court all the time before we get a decision that will protect our environment? On the Rafferty-Alameda case, I will have to give our Minister an E, not an F.

June 8, 1989
Supply


Don Boudria: E minus.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I give him an E and I shall tell you why. He gets an E because he failed by not deciding himself to have a federal assessment done as it should have been according to the regulations of his own law. But at least we must admit that, following the good decision rendered by Judge Cullen, which unfortunately was criticized by some Conservative Members who claim that it was made by a Liberal judge, the federal Minister of the Environment at least had the good sense not to appeal, whereas the Government of Saskatchewan is appealing to overturn this good decision made by Judge Cullen. At this time, I must give the federal Environment Minister an E.


Don Boudria: You are too generous.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Now, this week, we see that the federal study on the Rafferty-Alameda project that was just released clearly shows that the studies that should have been done before beginning the project were not done and I ask the Minister whether he wants to improve his mark on his report card a little. I think it would be in the Minister's interest this week not to wait for the final exams but to realize that there must be a complete review of the Rafferty-Alameda issue, because it is quite obvious, with the results of the assessments this week, that the appropriate studies were not done.
Now the third project, Mr. Speaker, under consideration at the Environment Department is James Bay. Mr. Speaker, on that subject, I know that the Minister is in Quebec City today, announcing that he was doing some things about the St. Lawrence River, which is well and good, coming after the recommendations made by our leader (Mr. Turner) during the last election campaign, and I am glad that he is continuing with them. But on the James Bay project, the Environment Minister must get an F minus.


Don Boudria: F minus!


Sheila Maureen Copps: F minus, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: That is all he deserves!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Because the Cree Indians who appeared before the Environment Committee last week told us in heartrending terms that they can no longer eat the fish
they catch because it is full of mercury. They ask the government of Canada, if not to withdraw from Phase II of the James Bay project, at least to order an independent study of the results of Phase I.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what was the response given by the Minister of the Environment? He said that federal studies would only duplicate Hydro-Quebec's. But to ask Hydro-Quebec to study the environmental effects of Phase I is like asking the fox to survey the chicken coop. Therefore, all we are asking, and I think it is quite normal since the Minister claims that he has a right of veto on all national projects, is for the Government to carry out a study to determine if, following Phase I of the James Bay project, certain environmental compensations were given to the native people who, after all, were living in the James Bay region long before so-called civilized Europeans came to Canada.
Consequently, on James Bay, I must give him an F minus.


Don Boudria: That is all he deserves.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Concerning toxic wastes, which are also mentioned in our motion, I am absolutely astonished at the Government's record. During question period some two or three weeks ago, the Minister said, concerning the importation of fuel laden with BCP's, that he was going to do his best, that he was going to put a stop to it. He even closed three quarters of all border crossings where gasoline was coming into Canada from the United States. He appears to have acted rapidly in response to newspaper articles describing an intolerable situation for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, if we examine closely the toxic waste issue, we must recognize that Canada has become a dumping ground for American toxic waste such as PCBs as well as dry waste. For example, we know that in the Eastern Townships we see refrigerators full of CFCs, which are imported from the United States and end up in public dumps everywhere releasing CFCs into our atmosphere. It is all very well to say that he is doing his best but, Mr. Speaker, to have a real toxic waste policy, we must know where that toxic waste comes from, whether it is legal or illegal, and to define criminal offences so that companies and individuals producing toxic waste must take responsibility for their own actions.
June 8, 1989



For us to clean up our own mess we have to adopt a basic principle, which to date has been ignored by this Government, that as Canadians and members of the human race we have to be prepared to deal with our own waste.
In this particular case, we are making a megabusiness out of the importation of waste from the United States. Americans love to get rid of their waste because as soon as it leaves the American border, they no longer are legally responsible for it. There is a built-in incentive for Americans to send toxic wastes to Canada.
We are importing toxic waste. Last year, we brought in
140,000	metric tons of hazardous waste legally into this country from the United States. Who knows what came in on an illegal basis? That particular incentive has got to be cut off at the pass. This why I am shocked, disappointed, disturbed, and completely dumbfounded at the fact that the Minister of the Environment is not encouraging Congress to pass the Hazardous Exports Control Act which was moved last week by Mr. Synar, the Congressional Democrat from Oklahoma.
That particular initiative should have some modification, but it would go a long way in closing our border to the export from the United States of hazardous waste that will end up being dumped illegally. That initiative is being not only disregarded but deliberately thwarted by the Minister of the Environment in the Government. For that, he receives an / minus.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Montreal Protocol, the Minister said in February that he was quite willing to get to work on regulations. Last week he told us that he cannot proceed with regulations because the law is
Supply
poorly written. But what did they do between February and June? The Minister must assume that responsibility.

I think he better get back to the drawing board because so far his report card has been a disaster in the first five months. During National Environment Week, I think we should make sure that the Minister of the Environment realizes that he is going to be held accountable for his Government and its deplorable environmental record.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows. Congressman Synar's Bill which has been introduced in Congress would provide for inspection of Canadian dump sites by American officials. It would also provide for the application of American standards to Canadian dump sites.
Does the Hon. Member and the Party which she represents favour that extraterritorial equality aspect of that Bill?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the Government should now claim that it does not want extraterritorial sovereignty in terms of U.S. moves in this area. When the Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated, the federal Conservatives seemed to see nothing wrong with allowing Americans in to examine the books of Canadian logging companies.
I think that if we look at the non-proliferation treaty, there is a specific initiative in that treaty which permits host countries to make sure that the material they are sending out of a nuclear nature is being properly utilized.
In so far as Congressman Synar's legislation is concerned, I think there could be a bilateral accord. The current bilateral accord is not worth the paper it is written on in so far as the concerns about sovereign use of our own territory are concerned.
Congressman Synar's Bill could be modified and worked upon in a bilateral way between Canada and the United States. The intention of it is to prevent U.S. companies from using other countries, including Canada and Third World countries, as a dumping ground for unwanted American waste. The intention of making sure that the waste is disposed of in a proper fashion is built in to give that assurance. I think we could work out something in a bilateral way which would achieve Congressman Synar's objectives without in any way inhibiting Canadian's right to control and develop our own regulations.

June 8, 1989
I think that the Government's immediate knee-jerk response to try to block the Synar Bill is in fact a response which has been motivated by big business, which has been motivated by two or three Canadian companies that have made multi-millions of dollars in importing hazardous waste. It has very little to do with an intrinsic concern about Canadian sovereignty.
I do not buy the sovereignty argument. It is a red herring. If the Government is truly concerned about dealing with the issue of importing waste from the United States, which is coming in by the hundreds of thousands of tonnes, I think it should support Synar's Bill in principle and work to modify those areas of concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, recent decisions by the Government have left the Canadian dairy industry facing a very serious and immediate crisis, and a highly uncertain future.
The cap that has been put on industrial milk prices until December, 1990, while allowing decreases in industrial milk prices if the cost of production formula goes down, has left the dairy farmers of Canada wondering where is that commitment that the Government claims it has to protect the dairy industry?
When is the Government going to stop hammering the dairy farmers' managed supply system, while at the same time claiming commitment to the industry while it watches it disintegrate?



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, some families in Atlantic Canada are faced with income reductions of 50 per cent or more this year, and the
prospects for the next two years are not much better. Particularly hard hit are young families who, despite significant reduction in income, must still meet mortgage and boat payments. With recent rises in interest rates, those payments certainly have not been reduced, let alone in proportion to income reductions. For those young families, and in some cases those of their parents who have co-signed mortgages, foreclosure would spell disaster.
Canada needs those hard-working young people, economically strong and healthy. During their short-term difficulties they need our help in order that they can contribute to Canada for many years once our fishery recovers.
Accordingly, I urge the Government to establish special support measures to assist those families through their short-term time of difficulty.
If, Mr. Speaker, as you walk through the forest you encounter a fire, you digress from your path to put it out before it spreads. This fire of economic crisis must be put out now.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Minister of Public of Works (Mr. MacKay) stated in the House that the Government's decision to shelve the construction of a new building for Transport Canada in favour of renewing the Department's lease with Mr. Robert Campeau had "resulted in considerable savings". Similarly, the budget speech of the Minister of Finance refers to the cancellation of a new building as an "expenditure reduction".
Yesterday, in his appearance before the Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Public Works flatly contradicted his earlier statement and stated that he has no idea if the renewal of Transport Canada's lease with Mr. Campeau will result in any savings, and that it might actually end up costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
In a more disturbing admission, the Minister also stated that the decision to shelve a new building in favour of a renewal of the lease was motivated by political and not financial considerations, the decision did not actually have to save money as long as the cancellation of a new building gave the "perception" of belt tightening.
I call upon the Minister to come clean with the Canadian taxpayer and remove the inefficiency and
June 8, 1989

double dealing that has plagued the Transport Canada project from its inception by stating clearly and unequivocally-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Access Awareness Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues in the House, and all Canadians, of the importance of promoting the full integration of disabled persons into all sectors of Canadian society.
Canada is a country that respects the rights of all people, a country where everyone is encouraged to do his or her best. Yet for disabled Canadians, who represent close to 15 per cent of the population, even simple, every day activities can pose enormous problems.
This week should be an occasion for us to work together to find ways to remove physical and other types of barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from participating fully in Canadian society.
May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the special attention you have personally given to this week, declaring, among other things, yesterday June 7, as Employment Day on the Hill. Further, I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the declaration of National Access Awareness Week, as one way to help improve attitudes of Canadians toward their fellow citizens who are disabled.



FISHERIES


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, a joint meeting was held on the weekend in the Acadian Peninsula to report on the crisis now raging in the crab industry.
At this meeting, all concerned were able to make recommendations to broaden the economic base of the Acadian Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, the whole fishing industry of northeastern New Brunswick is going through an extremely difficult period and this industry alone cannot continue to support the region economically.
That is why I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to mandate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt) to set up a task force, together with the Minister of Public Works and Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act (Mr. MacKay) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), to find solutions to help these courageous and capable workers who now find themselves in an intolerable situation.
Mr. Speaker, the federal Government must deal with this question immediately to show that it understands the frustration of these Acadian workers who are entitled to live and work in respect and dignity.



THE BUDGET


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the May 22 issue of Western Report magazine and the growing popularity of Resolution No. 1. Resolution No. 1 states that all future tax increases should be exceeded by expenditure reductions until the Budget is balanced. This is the first sign of a taxpayer backlash to the recent Budget.
The PC Budget does not show restraint. It increases the deficit and it increases spending on an over-bloated public sector. I urge someone, anyone, in the PC Caucus to speak out against this. Where are the fiscal conservatives?
I wish Resolution No. 1 well. Western Canadians have learned that the most effective protest is done at the ballot box. I warn members of the Progressive Conservative Party, continue your tax and spend policies and it is only a matter of time until Tories all across Canada will face a new political option based on free enterprise and fiscal responsibility.

June 8, 1989



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a June 4, 1989 Canadian Press article by Camille Beaulieu is headlined "Viscous liquid leak from American railroad car at Senneterre". He is referring to car No. 524335 which was part of a CN convoy and belongs to an American company, Southern. It has been shunt lined in the Senneterre switching yard because of damage. CN repair work order No. 6229 dated June 2 indicates that "as a result of damage to the car which was side lined at Senneterre for repairs, it was noted that it contained a few copper plates. It is in fact loaded with barrels containing all sorts of unidentified products and the barrels are unsealed. Some of them have been tipped over and liquids seep under the car". This car crossed into Quebec around May 19, 1989, which means that CN management have let this car travel across Quebec cities and villages for a number of days without being concerned about the liquid seeping under the car.
Mr. Speaker, thank God the CN employees at Senneterre are competent and look after the environment in Abitibi!
^



THE BUDGET


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget of the Government has imposed some of the most brutal, callous, and regressive taxes upon Canadians, including a goods and service tax which will even tax the homes that Canadians want to buy.
Officials in the office of the Minister have stated that this tax may be refundable, partially refundable, or not refundable, depending on who one speaks to. Home buyers and home builders deserve to know what is going on in order that they can make their plans.
In addition, the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway) states that the cancellation of the rental RRAP is because this program is not fully targeted to needy Canadians. Nothing can be further from the truth. Housing groups in municipalities across the country disagree. In fact rental RRAP is a program that is very
effective and targeted to those tenants who deserve decent accommodation. The Government should look at the real facts.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, June 4 to June 10 is Canadian Environment Week. To mark this important week, I see fit to announce a federal grant of $435,000 to the Centre for Atmospheric Research (CARE), in Egbert, Ontario, to allow the facility to expand.
Construction of the addition to this Centre is under way. The Centre will develop new weather monitoring instruments, as well as research and study climate change on water resources and forests.
CARE is the only research station of its kind in Canada. The Centre is located in a rural environment in Simcoe Centre to ensure that measurements are not affected by the higher air pollution levels usually found in urban areas.
The CARE facility will permit new technology to be developed that will keep Canada at the forefront of environmental, atmospheric research.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I attended a meeting of grain producers and concerned citizens in Debden, Saskatchewan where the discussion centred almost entirely on the need for the upgrading of the rail line between Debden and Big River, Saskatchewan.
On June 2, in response to a letter that I sent to him, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), conceded that the line known as the Big River subdivision had been designated for upgrading in May, 1984. However, immediately following that year's general election, the project was cancelled in September, 1984.
The Minister now states that the early termination of the branch line rehabilitation program, which had enough money in it to complete the Big River subdivision upgrading, has killed the project, and no funding for this line will now be approved.
June 8. 1989

The Minister and the Government are playing with the future of entire communities here, and I call upon the Minister to immediately rethink the elimination of the branch line rehabilitation program, and to honour previously agreed to commitments such as the Big River subdivision.



THE PRESS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, as a 20 year member of the parliamentary Press Gallery, including several years on a Gallery executive, I am well aware of the hits journalists take from politicians and the public. But they are nothing like the hits that journalists are risking right now in Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere during this tragedy in China. Our contributing journalists to Canadian newspapers, TV and radio newscasts are witnessing scenes totally beyond human understanding. They are living and reporting a horrible piece of history on the run.
I was moved to hear The Globe and Mail's Jan Wong tell first hand on CBC Morningside:
I saw that young man climbing upon a tank and stopping a whole convoy. It happened right outside my window and I couldn't help crying.
The passing of a brown envelope at a west end Ottawa gas station pales by comparison to the heroism of reporters defying martial law in a country where they beat foreign journalists and shoot at random through windows of diplomatic residences. Vive la presse libre.
-k *k *k



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Phil Latulippe is an outstanding Canadian who at 70 years of age is running across Canada with the key desire to raise $300,000 for the Phil Latulippe Foundation for recreation programs for handicapped children. As generous Canadians, let us all get behind this remarkable man and his wonderful and dedicated wife, Lucie.
I first met Phil Latulippe when he was a Sergeant in the Canadian Forces and stationed with the Second Field Ambulance at CFB Petawawa. He decided 22 years ago that he was going to stop drinking and smoking and get himself into shape. The base race track was one-half mile long. So he decided to walk it non-stop 365 times, once for each day of the year. It took him nearly two days to walk the 182.5 miles. During that time General S.V. Radley-Walters who was base commander asked me and several others to take turns walking with him to keep up his morale, and we did. The retired Canadian Forces chief warrant officer who used to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day is out to beat his own cross-Canada running record which he set in 1981.
All Canadians wish Phenomenal Phil well and Godspeed. Thank you, Phil, for being such an excellent example to all of us.



INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to advise the House that yesterday morning in London, England, the governing body of the International Maritime Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, selected William O'Neil as their next Secretary General.
This is the first time that a Canadian has headed a specialized United Nations agency for over 40 years and it is something of which all Canadians should be proud. It reflects Canada's deep commitment and participation in the affairs of IMO since its founding in 1948.
The IMO is committed to enhancing the safety of life at sea and promoting a cleaner marine environment by the prevention of pollution from ships. These admirable objectives are supported by all Canadians. Canada should be proud that these goals will be pursued by a Canadian who has dedicated himself to public service in the marine world for over 40 years.

June 8, 1989
Oral Questions
Mr. William O'Neil was the first Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard and for the past 10 years he has been the President of the St. Lawrence Seaway authority. His election as Secretary General reflects highly on his personal credibility in the international maritime circles and also reflects highly on Canada's reputation as a supporter of safer shipping and cleaner oceans.



SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to certain comments the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made to the media yesterday about the refusal of many scientists to relocate with the space agency.
No government would make a decision on health care without consulting the medical profession. No one would consider changes to the court system without consulting the legal profession. This Government has demonstrated that it makes no decisions about business without consulting with business. Why then should the Prime Minister treat with contempt the space scientists who claim only the right to the same consideration?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also stated that he is not concerned over the fact that only 4 of the 56 scientists now working in Ottawa are prepared to move to Saint-Lambert and that there are a lot of people who are just waiting to pick up the challenge.

I invite the Prime Minister into the real world, a world where underfunded universities struggle to produce qualified scientists and a world where experienced scientists are so hard to find in this country that they do not have to tolerate the ignorant contempt of opportunistic politicians. There are other places where they can go and where they will go if this Government fails to recognize their voices in decisions affecting them and their families.



ANNUAL BASEBALL GAME

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the struggle between age and beauty came to a head last night as the MPs took on the Pages in a game of baseball.
For the first time in 11 years, the MPs decided to let the Pages win. The starting pitcher, the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), had the Pages trailing 12-2 but then the so-called "terminator" from Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) let the MP's lead slide and consequently had to take his first loss of the season at 14-13. Lawrence "superpage" Weiner drove in the winning run. Page Petra Kuret slid home to score in the bottom of the ninth.
In total 35 Pages took on a puny squad of 22 overweight, out of shape Members of Parliament. Captain Richard Gabruch masterminded the complex strategy to lead the Pages to a narrow victory. The Member from Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) summed up the game nicely: "Good guys don't always finish last".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, this being International Environment Week and as the Prime Minister is speaking on the environment in Vancouver today, I have questions for the Minister of the Environment.
Following the Gray's Harbour and Exxon Valdez spills, the Minister of the Environment refused our request to have a public examination of the situation. Instead he said he would have a "short, swift and strong" bureaucratic review. He will know that British Columbia's oil spill adviser has now called for a total ban on all exports of oil from the Port of Vancouver. Since he has refused our proposal for a public inquiry and since he is going to review this matter himself, would he now give us the quick answer that he promised us and tell us what his reaction is to the B.C. adviser's proposition to ban all exports from the Port of Vancouver?
June 8, 1989


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is only one aspect of the question. The question deals with the general concern on the B.C. coast, and all over Canada, of possible disasters of great magnitude in terms of oil spills off our coasts. We have set up this internal committee which is now working. We are in the process of setting up another way of dealing publicly with the question.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: We are no closer to any answers. I would have hoped that the Minister would have given us his reaction to the British Columbia Government's proposal to ban oil exports from the Port of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, of special interest to you and me.


MEETING WITH CANADIAN FEDERATION OF MUNICIPALITIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is speaking on the environment at a Tory fundraiser tonight.
He will not be joining myself and other Members of Parliament at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities dealing with the fundamental problems of the infrastructure of our cities and towns and the environment. The Minister will know that there are 138 cities and towns in Ontario where sewage treatment plants do not meet environmental standards. He will also know that there are east coast cities which dump their sewage directly into the ocean. There are western cities with an incredible overflow and leakage problems in the sewage facilities. The federal Government has steadfastly refused to participate with the municipalities in meeting this problem.
Can the Minister of the Environment explain why, with all the Prime Minister's grandstanding on the environment, particularly tonight in Vancouver, the federal Government has done nothing to deal with the sewage treatment problem? Why is it that the Minister of the Environment does not want to get to the problem right at its source?
Oral Questions


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the task before us is enormous. Governments must do their share as dictated by their jurisdictions. The federal Government will do its share, and it expects other levels of government to do the same. It so happens that sewage treatment systems are a municipal and provincial matter, and that here in Canada we have a serious problem because of the fact that water is not taxed at a realistic level. If Canadian municipalities were to tax water at the same levels as their U.S. counterparts, they would have no trouble in raising the billions of dollars required to renew these systems.


THE EFFECTS OF THE CLOSURE OF VIA RAIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not exclusively municipal or provincial, because all Canadian municipalities and all the provinces are agreed on a proposal to share the cost three ways. The Minister and his Government continue to reject these proposals.
The Minister, I imagine, must be very surprised, if I may look at his twin, the other Bouchard, without wishing to violate the Standing Orders. He must be very surprised at the words of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, who tells us that an environmental assessment review is not necessary to evaluate the impact of closing down VIA Rail passenger services.
After careful consultation with the experts and after consulting the Government's body of documentation, we found that on average, for every passenger transported over a distance of one mile, the automobile uses four times as much energy and creates four times as much pollution as the train in rural regions, and uses ten times as much energy and creates ten times as much pollution in urban areas.
Since VIA Rail produced 1.5 billion passenger-miles last year, would the Minister of the Environment agree that closing down VIA Rail will have a very negative and even disastrous impact on our country's environment?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Government's position is that the EARP process does not put any legal obligation on the Government to assess measures that have the effect of reducing the Budget deficit. The Leader of the Opposition, himself a former Finance Minister, knows perfectly well that budgetary decisions are sovereign decisions.

June 8, 1989
Oral Questions
Regarding the deficit-reducing measure applying to our railways and its impact on the environment, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how maintaining, at great expense-an annual deficit of $500 million-trains that criss-cross Canada empty and produce pollution can help the environment. What will help the environment is funds that will become available as result of the deficit reductions and which can then be allocated to other sectors, including the environment.


REQUEST FOR REGULATIONS TO PROTECT GREAT LAKES
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Ele is aware that the Great Lakes are becoming a massive toxic soup. The recent International Joint Commission report outlines the current and future danger. We can only guess at the health effects of the 30,000 different chemicals used there.
Two years after amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which promised programs to deal with all sources of contamination, the Government still has not followed through. Will the Minister finally support a two-pronged effort to both clean up the Great Lakes and create new, strong regulations to protect this vital national resource?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is forgetting that the Government is in the process of defining 17 remedial action plans for the Great Lakes. There are 17 hot spots for which we will have remedial action plans, with funding of $125 million. This action must be seen in comparison to the $110 million plan announced today to de-pollute the St. Lawrence River. I call that action.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, since 1,000 new chemicals a year are generated around the Great Lakes and at least 500 are suspected to affect human health, will the Minister commit further funds today for the research, regulation and reduction of toxic chemicals before the crisis becomes irreversible?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this question is of great concern to the Government and all Canadians. We agree with the Opposition that we must pursue the programs we have set up to eliminate as soon as possible this high level of toxics in the Great Lakes. We have had success. We have taken drastic measures. Last year we strengthened agreements with the United States, and there will be more action.


TRANSPORT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. When the Conservatives wanted to deregulate the airlines we were told that deregulation would mean lower air fares and greater consumer choices. That was in January, 1988. Today, in June, 1989, two airlines control 98 per cent of the domestic market and effective competition has died. The author of a recent study is predicting that air fares will go up 30 per cent in the next year. What steps will the Minister of Transport take to ensure that Canadians have real competition in the air?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first I should point out that I did not read the Roman report, so I am not in a position to comment on it.
One thing I can say though, as I pointed out yesterday with respect to the deregulation process launched by the then Minister of Transport and current Deputy Prime Minister, is that all regions of Canada now derive benefits from deregulation in the sense that a number of services which are now available were not even offered five or six years ago.
As to the fare issue, it is of course a very complex problem because depending on regions and flight types-transcontinental fares, for instance-some fares are down by as much as 80 per cent. All told, I would suggest that Canadians have benefited from deregulation.
June 8, 1989


INCREASE IN FARES ON VIA RAIL
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said he has not read the report, but he has the answers. He has not read this report, and in the last two days he admitted to our Leader that he has not read VIA's proposal on cut-backs. Does the Minister not understand that there is a place for air travel and rail travel in this country, and that by the Government's actions which is forcing VIA to increase fares, abandon routes, and reduce services, it will also destroy rail transportation in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we realize that that question is not about air transportation. It is always a question about VIA Rail and it means having the same answer. VIA Rail has to consider increasing fares, cutting routes and so on. VIA Rail first has to consider living within the reference levels we have given it.
Once again, we cannot afford to put as much money as the Hon. Member believes we can into empty trains.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about transportation in this country. We have lost all forms of competition in the air. The Government is cutting back on VIA Rail.
Let me give a specific example of what it is doing in my area. The Government is forcing the same train crew on the route from Winnipeg to Churchill to stay on that train for 80 hours. That goes against all the recommendations of the Foisy report which stated that there must be well-rested crews. Not only is the Minister destroying competition, he is destroying safety. What will he do?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, one can always try to make the situation appear more critical. My colleague from Churchill knows full well that train travel and railroad beds in that region are further complicated by recurrent frost, that rail maintenance is extremely difficult, and that CN management have done everything possible to find a solution to the problem.
Oral Questions
My colleague seeks to bring up the case of the port of Churchill. Later this afternoon at 4 o'clock we will meet with a Churchill delegation to listen to what they have to say in an attempt to find answers acceptable to both sides.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of Canada is in direct disagreement with the Auditor General concerning the expenditures made under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Development Agreement. The $20 million gift of federal taxpayers' money spent on a project not even related to the purposes of the fund in the riding of the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is appalling.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify such pork-barrelling schemes when, on the other hand, this Government as a result of its recent Budget has cut back on child care spaces, has slashed ERDA funding in Atlantic Canada, and has dismissed hundreds of applications made under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency? How can the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government of Canada justify such appalling action?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Hon. Member's question that he is opposed to improving the economic infrastructure of the Province of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Maybe for the benefit of all Hon. Members and particularly the people of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Member would outline what other projects which have been funded by this program he is opposed to. Let him stand up and tell the people of Nova Scotia what he is against. We do not know what he is for, but we certainly know that he is against anything that helps the

June 8. 1989
Oral Questions
people of Nova Scotia have a better life and better opportunities and the opportunity for jobs.


David Charles Dingwall: I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister what I am opposed to. I am opposed to pork-barrelling schemes which only benefit friends of Tories. That is what I am against.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said, and I quote: "The project rationale does not explain how this highway will support offshore oil and gas activity." Will the Deputy Prime Minister not now admit that the Government spent millions of dollars on this road for which there is little economic justification and no connection whatsoever to the offshore oil and gas development, and that its real purpose was to pork-barrel his friend and colleague, the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that these projects are in fact initiated, as I understand it, by the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. In this particular case they provided a project which was deemed to be appropriate and fitting within the criteria that was established, and it was done.
He said that he is against projects which are in Tory ridings. My understanding, and I stand to be corrected on this, is that there was a Sydport access road built under this program which happens to be in his colleague's riding, Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Is he opposed to that one too?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE E. BROWN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery of Congressman George E. Brown who represents the Thirty-sixth District, California, the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF KOREAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of the delegation from the Korean National Assembly, led by the Honourable Jae Hee Nam, Chairman of the Seoul City Committee of the Ruling Democratic Justice Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Prior to the recent Budget both he and the Prime Minister had repeatedly assured Canadians that the Government would not attempt to reduce its deficit at the expense of lower income earners.
However, according to a recent study based on Statistics Canada models, over half of all families with incomes of less than $25,000 a year, a total of almost two million households, will suffer a further drop in their incomes.
My question is how, in light of this fact, does the Minister justify reducing the Government's deficit at the expense of the already disadvantaged families in our society?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just draw the Hon. Member's attention to some of the elements in the Budget which increased the surtax on upper income Canadians by a considerable amount. It also introduced a large corporations' tax of $1 billion which had the effect of spreading the burden over the large corporate sector. It is these specific items that have eschewed the burden in the tax side of the recent Budget so that it is borne much more by those who are better able to bear that burden.


IMPACT ON LOWER INCOME FAMILIES
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the various tax measures in the Budget, aside from those which he may have mentioned, indicate that some 800,000 families with incomes of less than $15,000 annually will pay higher taxes, partly as a result of the regressive taxes he introduced this week.
Has the Minister made such an analysis of the impact of his Budget on lower income families and, if so, will he now make it available to all Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in this particular Budget we have increased the refundable sales tax credit to offset the impact of sales tax measures on those who are in lower income brackets, precisely the people to whom he referred, those families earning less than $15,000.
June 8. 1989


Mr. Peterson:: You are wrong.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Willowdale states that it is wrong. Obviously he has not read the Budget, because it is there in black and white, and I would suggest the Hon. Member read the Budget.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Environment is in regard to the growing public concern about the presence of nuclear waste in the world's oceans.
Is the Minister aware of the recent U.S. defence report, which states that on February 13, 1950 a U.S. Air Force B-36 bomber dropped an atomic bomb into the waters between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island? Is he aware that the weapon partially detonated on impact with the sea, scattering its radioactive warhead in Canadian waters?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are aware of those facts.


RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTER TO INFORM PUBLIC
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the Minister is aware of such an event, does he not have a responsibility to inform the Canadian public of that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the question to which the Hon. Member is referring is the one as to whether or not the Government of Canada, exercising a jurisdiction that belongs to the Government, should somehow stop the docking at Canadian ports of-


An Hon. Member:: It is a cover-up.


Charles Joseph Clark: -should stop the practice which has been followed by Governments for some time in this country of allowing the docking at-


An Hon. Member:: That was not the question.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I am being interrupted by the new candidate for the leadership in the New Democratic Party who is rarely-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the New Democratic Party is that we live in an age of nuclear weapons. When there are nuclear weapons there are going to be accidents. There have been accidents at sea with respect to submarines carrying nuclear weapons. There have been other accidents. Those are recorded.
There is also an issue in this country as to whether Canada should continue a practice, in place for some long time, of supporting North Atlantic Treaty Organization arrangements by allowing foreign ships to dock occasionally at Canadian docks. We have decided that it is in the interest of the deterrence which is at the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to allow that kind of practice. I know the Hon. Member would prefer if there were a world in which nuclear weapons did not exist. The way to achieve that kind of world-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

[ Translation ]


RAILWAY TRANSPORT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Railroad car No. 524335 belonging to the American Southern company is shunt lined in the CN switching yard in Senneterre. CN work order No. 6229 dated June 2, 1989, indicates that as a result of damage to the car, several unsealed barrels containing all sorts of unidentified products tipped over and that some liquid seeps under the car. Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: Could the Minister confirm today that CN will be subjected to the same stringent controls as the transportation of dangerous wastes from the United States, because in Abitibi we are suffering another episode of CN management incompetence in environment matters concerning the movement of that American railroad car towards Rouyn-Noranda.

June 8, 1989
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Of course, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is enforced at the present time, and through the inspector responsible we ordered the car in question to remain in Senneterre until samples are taken of the substances which do not seem to be dangerous, but the car will not be allowed to leave the switching yard before we get the results of the analysis of the samples we have taken.


TOURISM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. The cuts in the Government tourism promotion budget and the new taxes which increase the costs of the Canadian tourism industry are very disturbing and certainly negative for that sector. To that we must add the VIA Rail cutbacks which will aggravate the disastrous consequences for the tourism industry.
Can the Minister tell us why he could not convince his Cabinet colleagues of the disastrous consequences of these cuts on Canada's most important industry?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to remind the House that in ten years tourism will probably be the largest industry in Canada. In fact, it has been increasing enormously over the past five years, to the tune of over 10 per cent per year.
The provinces and the federal Government met last week on this subject. We are finding that there are opportunities that have never been pursued before-certainly not by previous Governments-such as co-operative advertising with the provinces and the private sector to give us more exposure, not less.


TOURIST INDUSTRY CUTS
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question but after hearing an answer like that I won't bother.
The Government's budget for tourist development has been cut. The budget of the tourist industry in Canada has been cut because of the Government's activities. Members of the industry have told me that. How does less plus less equal more?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we could do a lot more if there was more co-operation in this country between the tourism industry, the provinces and the federal Government. We could then do a lot more.


INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Mobil Chemicals in Belleville, Ontario employs 250 workers and has an $11 million payroll.
Mobil's $70 million investment, without government grants, has made it the leader in the industry whose total production capacity is only 80 per cent utilized.
How can the Government justify a $5.7 million grant to Vifan, an Italian owned company, to establish a plant in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board producing the same product as Mobil?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member being new here is probably not aware-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -that if he wants detailed answers like that in Question Period he should give warning. It is part of the tradition of the House. I would have prepared the information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 8, 1989


Harvie Andre: Indeed, there are regional development programs for the resource and central regions of Quebec which have a high unemployment rate, much higher than in the Province of Ontario. We give those grants to promote employment in those high unemployment areas. We do so proudly and properly.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that they do it proudly and properly. I think he will recognize that if the normal procedure had been followed, his departmental staff would have consulted with the other manufacturers of the product in Canada to see if there was a need for another producer of that same product.
Why did the Minister's staff not do that in this case and still give nearly a $6 million grant to build a plant in Lavaltrie-Paroisse?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology consults widely. They are experts on the industry. They consult widely with the industry representatives.
I repeat to the Hon. Member, he ought to follow the traditions around here, give warning and then he will get detailed answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Canadians know by now that the Government has little dedication to sharing the tax burden equally. However, there are more glaring discrepancies which I think taxpayers do not need to be financing.
One example I would like to present to the Minister is the question that those companies and corporations which supported and advertised for the Government on the trade deal, in the support of it, are allowed a tax deduction, while those corporations or businesses which did not agree with the Government's position and advertised against the trade deal are not. There are different rules for different people. If one is Hurtig
Oral Questions
Publishers there is one rule. If one is Domtar or the Royal Bank there is another rule.
How does the Minister justify this unfairness?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the Hon. Member gets her information. The only time that I made a public comment on this matter was Thursday, May 18 of this year when I said: "I cannot make blanket statements whether pro or anti free trade advertising is deductible or not. I would be irresponsible if I made a blanket statement that said those who support free trade can write it off and those who don't support free trade cannot write it off. I am not saying that and that is not the case".


DISCLOSURE AND FAIRNESS RULES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Minister, then, that he speak to his Department. In committee the Deputy Minister said that there does not have to be tangible proof that a contribution has gained or produced income for a firm or business, but that they would be able to deduct this for income tax purposes. It seems to me that we see that the Government's friends still set the agenda and the Canadian taxpayers pay for it.
The Minister is saying it is not clear. When will the Minister stop this arbitrary system of rewards and punishments? When will he set rules clearly on full disclosure and fairness?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, what this Hon. Member is saying is totally and absolutely untrue and dishonest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I want the Minister to make it very clear that he is not accusing the Hon. Member of dishonesty. He may very well want to take the position that what she has asserted is not so, but there is another way of putting it.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that the Hon. Member is a liar. I am saying that her facts are not the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could try again.

June 8, 1989
Oral Questions


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that under the Income Tax Act each case is looked at on its own merits. It is possible that if companies which advertised pro-free trade or against free trade could show under the provisions of the Income Tax Act that there was benefit accruing to their company as a result of that advertising, then that advertising could be written off.
However, there is absolutely no evidence, nor is there any suggestion, nor is there any directive as the Hon. Member from Winnipeg said a couple of weeks ago in this House, that a directive has been given by myself to support those who were for free trade and oppose those who were against free trade. There is no such policy on this side of the House. There may be some policy on the other side of the House.


AUDIT OF CORPORATIONS
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Seeing that there seems to have been some anomalous and contradictory decisions regarding the assessment of companies that were opposed to free trade as opposed to those which supported free trade, will the Minister undertake to audit those companies that were in favour of the Free Trade Agreement to see that they are being treated in the same manner and that all Canadians are being treated equitably?


Otto John Jelinek: that is the Liberals example of fairness then they are on the wrong side of the issue, let me tell you that, Mr. Speaker. To make the fact of the matter very clear to the Member I will read it: "The Income Tax Act provides that deductions from business income are limited to the extent that they are for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business."
Each case is looked at on a case by case basis. If it is determined in a non-partisan, non-political, objective manner that the company has gainfully gained as a result of that advertising or that business transaction, then a write-off can take place. It has nothing to do whatsoever-and I underline that-with whether someone supported free trade or opposed it. I think the Liberals and the New Democrats should forget about continuing the battle which they lost last November.


HOUSING
Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In The Toronto Star of June 7, 1989 an article referred to a report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicating that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of privately owned housing in the Toronto region is bought for speculation and that speculators are helping to fuel price increases.
In view of the magnitude of the problem now evident, will the Minister bring forward a housing speculation tax with such revenues allocated to provide social housing in regions where people are victimized by land speculation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member may know, some months ago there was a study done by CMHC with respect to land speculation. There have been other studies done since that time by other bodies, such as Royal Lepage.
I am sure the Hon. Member may have seen in the paper today the fact that the Toronto Real Estate Board reports that not only have housing sales paused dramatically in the Toronto area, but on top of that, housing prices have fallen since last month by $10,000 on average. It would appear that this may not be the appropriate time to introduce a land speculation tax even if the federal Government had the jurisdiction to do so. It is my current advice that that is not the case.
I must say that I have previously asked the Premier of Ontario to introduce a similar tax. If and when it is appropriate, I am sure that I will be raising that question again with him.
^


VIA RAIL
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the 7,500 VIA Rail lay-offs across Canada, of which 54 per cent will be in Quebec and 3,241 in Montreal. Those workers have a right to know the Minister's position, not only that of VIA Rail's management. Is the Minister ready now to state he asked VIA Rail's management to proceed to humane rather than wild rationalization and lay-offs, and if so how are they to implement that?
June 8, 1989


Benoît Bouchard: The
Hon., Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie enjoys his own reality as usual. Let me try and make a few corrections. There is absolutely no question of my giving any guarantee to you, because I did that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to other Members. I am simply saying this, VIA Rail received reference levels for the next five years. The Corporation was asked to submit to us a series of proposals that would allow them to live within those reference levels. When the Government has received them, when we have reviewed them, we will accept or reject the Corporation's business plan, and in the meantime I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie, rather than making VIA Rail employees feel insecure, to wait for this Government's decisions.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail employees cannot be made to feel secure because the Minister in charge who should defend them is acting as a loudspeaker for VIA Rail's management. If the Minister earns $50,000 more than we do, it is because he must assume his responsibilities. And if the Minister wants to take his own responsibilities and recommend a humane rationalization, would he be ready to recommend that VIA Rail be designated under the older worker adjustment program so that the latter applies and lay-offs are done humanely, on the basis of early retirement, rather than having management do a hatchet job? Take your responsibilities, you do not rate a chauffeur just to ride around.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, anything can be said in this House, as we have just seen. I think the Hon. Member already decided there were lay-offs. He already decided to implement programs that come under my Government colleague. He already decided, in his own world, to live with fancy realities.
Under the administrative process, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, reports are made by a Crown corporation, an arm's length corporation which submits reports to the Government, on the basis of which the Government then makes decisions. This is
Oral Questions
how things have always been done and this is how they go on being done.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the Minister knows, the Port of Churchill is the best port for shipping grain from the West to the northern ports of the Soviet Union. Will the Minister confirm that the Canadian Wheat Board is currently negotiating with the Soviet Union for a wheat sale and September delivery of 2.5 million tonnes of grain? If this negotiation is successful, will the Minister direct that Churchill be used for these shipments?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the Prairies suffered a very poor crop last year and the amount of wheat that we are going to export will likely be about half of what we exported a year ago. Consequently, there is going to be less grain for all ports including Churchill, Thunder Bay, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert.
With regard to myself, as Minister responsible stepping in and interfering with the day to day operations of the Wheat Board, I am very surprised that it is the position of the Liberal Party that we now have direct political interference in the operations of a Crown corporation. I stay out of the day to day operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. What I will do is make the Wheat Board aware of the Hon. Member's concerns, and I am sure the Board will do everything it can to see that there is an opportunity to sell grain through Churchill as long as it is in the best interests of western farmers.


REVITALIZATION OF PORT OF CHURCHILL
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Perhaps in his role as Minister for Western Economic Diversification he will be willing to intervene and help this community.

June 8, 1989
Oral Questions
Given that the Port of Churchill will be standing idle for another year because of Canadian Wheat Board decisions, will the Minister tell us what, if anything, his Department of Western Economic Diversification will be doing to revitalize the economy of this port? Have any economic impact studies been done? What is being done to help tourism? Will the suggestion to use the port for humanitarian food aid exports be taken up? Will the Minister act now to save Canada's only Arctic port?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that we have been in conversation with the Government of the Province of Manitoba discussing many of the issues including tourism. There are some things that we can look at for Churchill. However, in terms of the port, the Hon. Member should know that there is a very limited time in which Churchill operates. The Port of Churchill normally opens about the second week in August and runs to about the second week or the middle of November. It is very difficult in terms of selling grain to some countries to say them: "Look, we want you to wait until September or October to buy grain through Churchill''. Our customers may very well decide to go elsewhere.
We are aware of the concern. We are working with the provincial Governments to see what we can do on behalf of Churchill. In fact, the Minister of Transport and myself will be meeting this afternoon with a group of people from Churchill to look at what can be done for Churchill.
* *


TOURISM
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism. The Minister recently acknowledged, during committee hearings, that the tourism industry sub-agreements with the provinces would not be renewed. Would the Minister advise the House whether he has in fact consulted with the tourism industry before cutting them off at the knees?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have not cut the tourism industry off at the knees. There will be various programs of economic co-operation with the provinces through the regional agencies. We have other agreements yet to expire. In fact, the industry itself is looking forward to co-operating with us on marketing and advertising. We will do this. We are looking forward to increasing the yield of the Canadian tourist industry next year as a result of this co-operation.


FUNDING OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE YUKON TERRITORIES
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in fact indicate that no consultations have taken place. The Minister also indicated that federal tourism funding will now be funnelled through regional agencies, such as ACOA and Western Diversification.
I wonder if the Minister would explain how he intends to finance tourism development in the Yukon Territories, whose agreement has now expired, when in fact the Yukon Territories cannot access the funds in these regional programs, such as Western Diversification.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, with the Yukon, that is a separate conversation and separate agreement which can be discussed in the future. I would remind the Hon. Member and the NDP in particular that the success of the tourism industry in Canada today is not just because of Government contributions. It is the strength of the private sector and strength of the industry on its own two feet together with the marketing help of the federal Government.


THE BUDGET
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Government's Budget has imposed some of the most brutal, callous and regressive taxes upon Canadians, including a goods and services tax which even will tax the homes that Canadians want to buy.
June 8, 1989

Officials from the Minister's own office have said that this tax may be refundable, partially refundable, or not refundable, depending on who you speak to.
Home buyers and home builders deserve to know what is going on so that they can make their decisions. Will the Minister tell this House how the goods and service tax will be reimbursed? Will it be fully rebatable or partially rebatable according to an income test?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question. It is a matter that has been discussed with the industry on an ongoing basis since I made the commitment last September or October that the new goods and services tax would not be a burden to the affordability of housing.
We are studying precisely the ways of implementing that commitment. Once we have the technical paper out later this month, that information will be available.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my first and considerably briefer response to the questions from the Member from Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), I used the word "facts" when I intended to use the word "allegations". I apologize to the Member and the House for the mistake.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order from the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell).



Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order with respect to the Minister's hot line on China. I do so in a non-partisan way in keeping with the debate that we had in the House last week.
There is a Professor Norman Robinson from Simon
Business of the House
Fraser University who is missing in China. He was at the University of Beijing since May 27. He has not been heard from by his wife.
His wife called the hot line. There was a quick response from the hot line in the sense of getting through, but no response afterward. I found out independently that in fact the Minister's Department, as it so often does very well, was making the appropriate enquiries but it had not found out anything. I urge the Minister to consider arranging that his officials inform the families even if nothing has been found out. I think it would be very helpful in the operation of the hot line.
As well, I would hope the Minister might, since he is a House of Commons person, perhaps give a statement later on-


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be that the Minister may want to give a statement. I think in the interests of other Hon. Members who also may want to proceed with the debate, we will have to interrupt the Hon. Member because that point of order is getting beyond being a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Port Moody rise on another point?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean now. I meant perhaps next week during ministerial statements, the Minister might be able to give a statement on the operation of the hot line and Canadians still missing in China.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to ask about the business the Government intends to call for the coming week. In that connection and in line with its responsibilities through having the majority of Members in the House, I want to ask the Government what it can do to ensure that the Energy Committee of this House begins to operate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 8, 1989
Business of the House


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am informed that the committee has had no meeting whatsoever subsequent to the organizational meeting. Following that, I am told that the Chairman, a Conservative Member elected by the majority of Members on the committee, who are Conservatives, had to withdraw because he did not put in his list of substitutes. Since that time, there has not been a single meeting of the committee. The Chair and Vice-Chair, for some reason, do not seem to be ready to carry out their responsibilities.
I ask the Deputy Government House Leader, if they are not ready to have the committee operate through the Chair and Vice-Chair that they have selected, to co-operate with us and let us get somebody else who will do the job. The energy issue is too important in this country to allow it to be ignored through the committee not operating.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), tomorrow will be an opposition day, like today.
On Monday, June 12, 1989, the Government will ask for Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, to be reported to the House. At three o'clock, Mr. Speaker, we will also have the report stage of Bill C-2 concerning transportation safety.
Tuesday, June 13, Mr. Speaker, will probably be an opposition day as well.
I would also like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the vote that was to have taken place this evening will be postponed until next Monday.
Finally, in answer to the second question of the Hon. Member for Windsor West, it is not customary for us to make deals on the floor of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore what he said. You are signaling to me to make a deal, to negotiate on the floor of the House. What I can tell him is that I shall go myself to check on what is happening in the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources and report back. We will have the usual discussions that we should have among ourselves when this kind of question arises. I hope that from now on we will avoid wasting the time of the House of Commons in discussing what we could very well discuss among ourselves, the New Democratic representative, the Government, outside the House of Commons.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I must make an important clarification. The usual discussions among the leaders of the various parties already took place. Because the committee on energy policy has not sat to date, in spite of these discussions, I felt it was necessary, in the interest of this important policy, to raise the question here in the House this week, which is Environment Week.
I ask my colleague to cooperate with me to have the energy committee working as soon as possible.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Striking Committee and Chief Government Whip, I would like to correct the record. There have been several meetings of the Energy Committee, including the organizational meeting and several meetings in-camera for the purpose of briefings.
I think Members would be well advised to remember the responsibilities of the Striking Committee, which are to put Members on committees.
There were 49 new Members of Parliament in our Party. There are approximately twice as many committee slots to fill, with fewer Members available. I think it is wisdom, when Members are asked to go on committees, to have a series of meetings, which Members are free to attend or not attend, for the purpose of briefing before they move into substantive examination so that they can make better choices. Whether or not the Opposition chooses to attend meetings is in the hands of the Opposition, but meetings were indeed called, and many of them.


Mr. Allmand:: Boloney.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: In fact, there have been two meetings of the committee. To my knowledge there have been four briefing sessions hosted for members of the committee, called by the Department, but they were not meetings of the committee; of those there have been two.
It is my understanding that the Estimates of the Department automatically stand referred to the committee which is charged by the House to consider those Estimates and report back. We have thus far utterly failed to even attempt that. I say "we" because I am a member of this ghost committee.
June 8, 1989

I want the committee to meet. I do not want to be in contempt of the House. I do not want to ignore the orders of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I take it that the Deputy Government House Leader has had sufficient reaction to follow through now and ensure that those meetings begin as quickly as possible.
My point of order refers to an earlier discussion regarding opposition motions on Supply. Since this morning, I have had an opportunity to do some research to see if there have been opposition motions on Supply adopted by the House and motions that were not considered to be motions of confidence.
The record is quite clear that there have been at least 30 occasions where opposition motions on Supply were not considered to be votes of confidence and have seen the vote of the House of Commons. The most recent was on May 14, 1987 when the Government accepted a motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). That was the motion to take action to see South Moresby Park declared. That was certainly considered to be not a non-confidence vote in the Government and a vote was held and passed unanimously in the House.
I urge the Government to reconsider some of the comments made earlier that, by definition, it would have to consider this motion to be a motion of confidence. I want to suggest that there have been many occasions when that has not been the case. On this matter asking for an environmental officer of the House and a number of other initiatives, all Members who have spoken have indicated their support. When we vote on Monday next I hope the Government will reconsider its position.


Mr. Caccia:: Contrary to what the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) proclaimed a moment ago, this Parliament has 13 Members more than the last Parliament.


Jean J. Charest: I can only npte that the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is a point of order too late. I suppose we should not be surprised.
With respect to the point made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, I can only say to the House and remind myself of the words spoken by the Deputy House Leader this morning in his own remarks when he
Business of the House
referred to the nature of the opposition motion put before the House this morning. He stated to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Members of the House that the motion had been designed to be contradictory, or to be a nuisance in some way, shape or form to the Government.
If those are his own words, how can he expect representatives on this side of the House to see the motion otherwise? As things presently stand, we have informed the House of our intention to defer the vote until Monday. We see this as a vote of confidence and we intend to behave accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the interjection by my friend and Deputy Leader of the Government. As the "Blues" show, and as Hansard will show, I did not make those remarks. Quite the contrary, I was indicating that this motion is put before the House in such a manner that it would be a non-controversial motion.
The only concern in opposition that I have heard is from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Clark) when he spoke earlier and was concerned about the time limits. He thought that perhaps there would be some problem in taking action in adequate time. That can always be amended and a few weeks or months can be added, if that is the request.
However, if the Deputy House Leader for the Government is concerned because of the remarks I made earlier, he will see that I made remarks quite to the contrary. The "Blues" show it, and Hansard for today will also show it. I suspect when he sees those words he will have a different view on Monday before the vote.


Mrs. Marleau:: In respect to the point of order raised on the Energy, Mines and Resources matter, if the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Committee from the Government are not willing to do their jobs, I am very willing to offer my services to chair that committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Marleau: Perhaps the members would be far better served to start considering the Estimates on their committee. They might know more about what is going on in the Energy, Mines and Resources field in our country, rather than visiting some country, goodness knows where.

June 8, 1989
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair thinks that we should proceed with the Allotted Day and continue debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Hunter:
That, in recognition of the importance of contributing to an
environmentally sustainable future, it be an Order of the House that:
(1)	the Government introduce by September 30, 1989 an Act to require environmental assessment of major federal projects, programs and undertakings, such Act to provide for the appointment of an environmental officer of the House of Commons whose duties shall include the assessment of all practices of the House, and who shall be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the Speaker on ways in which the House can contribute to a safe and environmentally healthy future:
(2)	the Government table, within five sitting days of the first sitting day after June 30,1989, its plans for the safe disposal of toxic wastes; and
(3)	the Government table by December 31,1989 its plans to achieve minimal discharge of deleterious substances into Canadian fresh and coastal waters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House adjourned at one o'clock there were seven minutes left in the question and comment period on the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Prior to the one o'clock adjournment, the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had referred to the Bill introduced into Congress by Congressman Synar. I wish to make it very clear that no Minister of the Government in any way expressed opposition to the Bill. The individual in question who phoned Congressman Synar on June 1, Mr. Ross Glasgow, who is the First Secretary of environmental matters, indicated to the Congressman Synar or his officials, or to whomever he spoke, that the Government of Canada and the Embassy in Washington had no reservations with the principle of the Bill, but did express reservations about the extra-territorial nature of the Bill. That was the difficulty the Embassy officials were
expressing. That is the only reservation about the Bill that has been expressed by anyone on behalf of the Government of Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am a little confused. The Parliamentary Secretary states that the Embassy individual involved was not acting on behalf of any Minister. It is my understanding that when the Embassy calls, and in this particular case Mr. Glasgow stated that he was calling on behalf of the Ambassador, the Ambassador is a servant of the Government and he is acting on instructions either from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard).
I do not believe that the Ambassador picks up the phone and makes calls, or asks someone to make calls in relation to a piece of legislation, without having first checked on the Government's position with his political masters. The current Ambassador knows enough about government process that I am quite sure he was fully briefed by the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs before his First Secretary placed that call.
If I am to understand the Parliamentary Secretary, the Ambassador or the Embassy is somehow acting on their own. If they are not acting on their own, on whose behalf in the Government did they call to express their concerns about the legislation? Was it the Minister of the Environment, or was it the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The Minister of Environment (Mr. Bouchard) indicated in the House when this issue first arose that the officials in Washington were clearly not acting on the instructions of the Minister of the Environment. He made that very clear during the discussion in the House early last week.
The point I wish to make, and the question I wish to ask, is to indicate that that official expressed support for the principle of the Bill, but expressed reservations about the extra-territorial nature of the Bill. I would like to ask the Hon. Member again whether or not that Hon. Member and the Party she represents does not also share those reservations about the extra-territorial nature of Congressman Synar's Bill?
June 8, 1989


Sheila Maureen Copps: Am I to understand that the First Secretary was acting on instructions of the Secretary of State for of External Affairs (Mr. Clark)? I am still confused. If in fact the Canadian Embassy in Washington is making calls to a congressman's office on an environmental matter without first having vetted their contact and having been briefed specifically by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), then I maintain my original premise that the Minister of the Environment is not doing his job. Remember, this is the Minister who came into office five months ago stating that every government initiative and every project and step taken by the Government would first be cleared through the Minister of the Environment. Now we hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying that a call was made to a congressman's office with respect to a waste management Bill, and the Minister of the Environment was not involved in developing a position on that particular issue. If that is so, then who is developing Canadian environmental policy?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that this question and answer routine is becoming somewhat reversed in the sense that I think I asked a question of the Hon. Member. I asked a very specific question as to whether or not the Hon. Member and the Party that she represents do not share reservations about the extra territorial nature of Congressman Synar's Bill, which was the only reservation expressed by that Embassy official. By the way, I would think that Embassy officials located in Washington do have a certain responsibility to gather information, so that they can report back to the Ministers here in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary was here before one o'clock when I made the position of the Liberal Party quite clear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sure that the Member from Winnipeg is not interested in the fact that 140,000 metric tonnes of toxic waste is imported into Canada every year from the United States. A lot of Canadians are interested in that issue. That is specifically why I raised the position of a Canadian Government which is currently trying to block
Supply
a specific piece of legislation in Washington which would put restrictions on the exportation of hazardous waste from the United States. Since Canada currently receives approximately 80 per cent of the hazardous wastes that are exported from the United States, it is my belief that we are rapidly becoming the dumping ground for American waste of a toxic nature and also of a dry nature. We should start putting in place some systems to prevent that. My first line of attack would be to have a bilateral agreement which is at the very least patterned along the lines of the convention that was signed in Switzerland with respect to the international agreement on toxic waste which the United States has not yet signed.
As a second line of attack, there is a Congressman in Washington who is trying to do something in the international arena to prevent American companies from trying to dump their toxic waste on Third World countries and on Canada and the Canadian Embassy and the Canadian Government is preventing that.
My point in Question Period as well as in the continued exploration of this issue is to suggest to the Minister of the Environment and to the Government that at the very least they should be working with Mr. Synar to develop a bilateral approach which will see cradle to grave legislation on both sides of the border so that American companies cannot escape the legal liability, as they are currently able to do, by exporting their waste to Canada, and conversely, so that we Canadians who create toxic waste are ultimately responsible for the disposition of that toxic waste. The only way we will be able to address the horrendous problem of legal and illegal disposition of toxic waste in this country is if we create cradle to grave legislation which puts the onus for the ultimate disposition of the waste on to the shoulders of the company that creates the waste. That is the intention of the Synar Bill. That is why I was somewhat shocked to see the Canadian Embassy in the person of the First Secretary phoning the Congressman's office to express opposition to the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of the Environment.

June 8, 1989
Supply


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the three issues raised in the resolution are all very important. Basically, the objectives set out in the resolution seem to be totally compatible with Government action, and we have even gone beyond them.
First, I would like to talk about the issue of environmental assessment. That very important issue is at the center of most Government concerns and our present problems. Over the years this country with its highly developed economy has launched a large number of energy exploration projects and developed an extremely productive agricultural sector. We are one of the largest food producers in the world. We have built a very strong economy, which has created a lot of jobs but which now requires us to take different measures in order to reverse the negative effects of economic growth.
The assessment part of the resolution seems to have been handled very seriously, since we are experiencing a situation that can be changed with basic assessment legislation.
A number on unknown factors are still to be determined in the current debate. For example, I would refer to the Rafferty-Alameda reservoir construction project which has been stopped by federal court order. We often wonder to what extent the federal Government participates in such projects. For example, the Cree are wondering what role the federal Government should play in addition to what it is already doing in connection with the James Bay project. We have megaprojects which were given the green light after being the subject of assessments. However, others are now being assessed. There is not a single economic project in Canada which must not first be the subject of an assessment procedure.
Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, this Government has implemented the directives issued during the last days of the previous administration. The previous Governement did not have to follow up on those directives and live with them on a daily basis because the whole thing began before the change in Government, before the 1984 general election. We have had to live with these directives for four years-sometimes in an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty-and the federal court has just issued a ruling to the effect that the directives involve legal restraints and ordered a stop to further work on the Rafferty-Alameda site.
Like everybody else we feel it has become urgent to replace these directives which were issued through an order in council and which can be amended by administrative action on the part of the executive branch. Indeed we believe that the directives must be replaced by an act of Parliament. With this legislation there will be an opportunity for a comprehensive approach under which Canada as a whole, following consultations which have already been completed, and of course for Parliament as well, will be able to set up an assessment system which will meet current environmental needs, clarify situations, identify respective roles and allow for inputs from all interested groups. It is essential that this legislation we have in mind should reconcile environmental concerns with economic development imperatives.
The Government, therefore, is drafting such a legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am commited to tabling next Fall a bill which I am finalizing, a proposal which will be submitted to Cabinet early in the Fall, that we may return to the House with a well-drafted if somewhat complex bill which will open the door to a new area of environmental assessment. That is why we just cannot accept a fixed time frame which would compel us to work in a way which would not be consistent with the interests of the situation. This is not going to be a half-baked, short-sighted kind of thing. We want to set up the foundation of a new assessment environmental process, and our commitment for us to do just can be found in the Speech from the Throne. Of course, I can confirm that my Department is currently drafting a proposal for the Cabinet and that no later than next Fall, we will be in a position to provide Parliament with a legislative instrument of major significance.

The second aspect dealt with by the resolution of the Opposition is about toxic substances. The resolution would like the Government to table within five days of the first sitting day after June 20 the plans for the safe disposal of toxic waste. There is something very strange in this because it looks like nothing has been done on this very important topic. The Opposition should know, and I am sure they do, that we have a law governing the movement of toxic and dangerous goods from the United States to Canada and from Canada to the United States, that this has been doubled by an accord duly signed
June 8, 1989

between the two countries and there are enshrined very tough and strict rules governing the movement and transportation of dangerous goods. The Opposition knows perfectly well that those rules provide for such things as a very precise and detailed notification of the export of contingent goods from the states to Canada or from Canada to the states, so that the provinces and the states are duly notified in advance that toxic materials will be transported in their territory. The states can refuse those exports if they have reason to do so. When they refuse an exportation, they have the right to return the goods to the exporting country.
There is also an obligation to set up a manifest which must contain all the details referring to the export. It is possible for the customs and environmental inspectors at the border to verily if the contents of the truck correspond with the details appearing on the manifest.
The House should also know there are laws obliging countries to provide adequate facilities for the treatment of those toxic wastes. No one can import toxic wastes from Canada or the states without the necessary facilities to destroy them or recycle them.
Much has been said about the fact that the American export of toxic wastes to Canada are greater than toxic wastes to the states. There have been many figures cited, but I suggest it is approximately 140,000 tonnes of American waste to Canada compared to 40,000 tonnes of Canadian toxic waste to the states. The Opposition is correct to hope that at some point we will be able to exclude all possibility of American export to Canada of toxic waste. But we have to be careful and practical. Right now Canada needs to export its own toxic waste to America because in some areas we do not have the required facilities to treat our own material. Let us be practical and responsible. It would be a terrible decision to forbid any import of toxic materials when we have the facilities to destroy or treat them, because the immediate result would be for us to be stuck with stockpiles of toxic materials which we cannot treat or destroy. It would be
Supply
very damaging and very irresponsible toward public health and the environment to do so.
This being said, we must establish a serious and strong policy to provide Canada with the required facilities for the treatment and destruction of our toxic wastes so we may be in a position as soon as possible to be strict with the importation of toxic wastes.
Let me point out that the Opposition does not mention the fact that the new law enacted last year, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, gives us all the tools to control the full life cycle of toxic materials. It is impossible for anyone now to introduce into the market new toxic substances without a full assessment by the Government. The Opposition also forgets to remind the people that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives us the power to establish a priority list where known toxic substances will be fully investigated and scientifically assessed.
This power has been exercised by the Government. A few months ago I had the honour to sign and publish a list of close to 50 toxic substances that will be analysed in priority. Those are concrete measures and constructive actions by the Government to assure Canadians and Canada that we will get rid of all toxic materials.
We have also announced numerous programs to destroy all federally owned PCBs in Canada, and have provided this program with a $21 million budget.
In Nova Scotia, for example, we launched a $34 million clean-up program of the Sydney tar ponds.
The Government has also been able to benefit from a dialogue with the provinces. We do not fight with the provinces. That is one of the main benefits of this open and civilized policy which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) established four years ago. The provinces are no longer an enemy of the federal Government. They are part of Canada and we can talk with them and work together for the environment in Canada.
One of the main benefits of this is that we now have devised a national PCB phase-out strategy and within five years we will get rid of all PCBs in Canada. As well, a few weeks ago in Montreal we had a meeting with all the Ministers of Environment in Canada, where we agreed to set up a waste action plan to reduce by 50 per cent all municipal waste in Canada by the year 2000. This action is taken without legal fights in the Supreme

June 8, 1989
Supply
Court. It is done without political feuds between the different Governments. It is done quietly in meetings with serious people who are talking about the future of Canada and our environment.
By the year 2000 Canada will have reduced municipal waste by 50 per cent. This is very important because Canada holds two infamous records. We are on record as the most wasteful country in the world, more wasteful than the Americans. Canadians are so rich and so used to spending and using material that we produce the biggest amount of municipal waste per capita in the world.
The second terrible record we have is that we are the least recycling country. If we would recycle our municipal waste at the same rate as Japan, for example, we would spare the total number of trees taken in Ontario for one year. We have much to do and this policy is a step in the right direction.
Of course we agree with the purpose and intent of the resolution. The Opposition is perfectly right to be worried about the necessity to tighten and improve our record as far as waste and toxic waste is concerned. At the same time, we must fear demagoguery. We must admit that sometimes some of us in the House are tempted by that demagoguery, and sometimes some succumb.
I deplore the fact that the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has succumbed to that temptation today, as she has sometimes in the past. I am surprised that she complains about what was said by this official in our Washington embassy. One of the purposes of that American Bill is to control and devise the specifications of the Canadian sites while giving the American Government the power to send American inspectors to Canada to control our own sites. This young Canadian diplomat thought he should discuss this with our American friends and tell them not to do that.
He said: "This is our country." Canada is not a state of the United States. They cannot adopt a law for us. We have a Parliament to do that. We have great concern for our Canadian environment. We cannot do that alone. I do not understand what the Member for Hamilton East is doing. She is very clever. She is trying to blur the lines of discretion.
The reality is that this young diplomatic read this Bill, and he said: "Well, that does not make sense. I am a Canadian. I am paid to protect the sovereignty of Canada abroad. I will tell the Americans not to do that." He does not need special instructions from the Minister of the Environment to do that. I was an ambassador in France.
The Member from Hamilton East is right in saying that when people are Canadian diplomats who are posted in foreign countries, they must act on instructions, and most of the time specific instructions from the political masters of the Government. Some things are very obvious.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the day I would have seen a French Bill trying to give French inspectors the right to go to Canada and impose new laws and inspect our facilities, I would not have waited for instructions from a Department, I would have jumped and told them: "Do not do that. This is not your business. This is Canada's business, do not touch our sovereignty." This young diplomat should receive the congratulations of the Member for Hamilton East. I cannot imagine that the Member for Hamilton East would not protest if she were a diplomat. Maybe under a very different appearance, she has great diplomatic talents. I cannot imagine the Member for Hamilton East not protecting the Canadian sovereignty when it is threatened by a foreign country. That is what this diplomat did. I completely endorse what he did.
As far as the purpose of the Bill is concerned-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame!


Lucien Bouchard: It is a shame to protect Canada's sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, you have heard what she said.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame. I will say it again.


Lucien Bouchard: It is a shame. The Liberal Party has a campaign to scare Canadians. That Party has told Canadians that we in the Conservative Party were threatening the Canadian sovereignty with the trade Bill. She is crying shame because a young Canadian diplomat has defended Canada's sovereignty in Washington.
This is politics. We all know that. The problem is that we are not dealing with politics now, we are dealing with the environment. When it comes to the environment we should be faithful to our commitments.
June 8, 1989



Mr. Speaker, the third point of the resolution deals with Canadian fresh and costal waters. The House is aware that 18 months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister defined an all inclusive policy for the Federal Government dealing with the quality of water and Canadian waters. This policy provides for general guidelines which were later refined by the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers. Moreover, last April, we announced that to protect the quality of Canadian waters, we had been involved in the last few months, in fact close to two years in a quality impact study of papermill wastes.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, papermill wastes are responsible for one of the major pollution problems in Canada. Our Government, our Department, together with the provincial governments is carrying out a testing program that will tell us exactly what is discharged by pulp and paper mills into our rivers. We know there are two very serious problems, and I am referring to dioxin and furan, two very dangerous toxic substances. So far, on the basis of the information requested and received from the pulp and paper mills, we know that furan and dioxin levels in Canadian rivers are far too high, sometimes alarmingly so. In some cases, this has lead to a ban on fishing, and in others, I am thinking of the St. Maurice River, for instance, people have been advised not to eat too much of a certain type of fish.
When the testing program has been completed, Mr. Speaker, by the end of 1990 we will be able to draft a set of very strict regulations that will apply to all pulp and paper mills throughout Canada, to control furan and dioxin levels.
We know there is a set of regulations adopted under the Fisheries Act which, since 1971, is supposed to regulate the problem of toxic substances in water, covering the entire range of toxic substances, in addition to furan and dioxin.
The problem is that these regulations are obsolete and do not apply to pulp and paper mills built before 1971, which happen to be the majority as well as the worst polluters.
We are also working on a set of regulations that will apply to all pulp and paper mills in respect of all other
Supply
toxic substances, and we think we will be ready in two or three years, since this is an extremely complex operation.
Today, in Montreal, I had the pleasure of announcing a very special program which illustrates the kind of action we want to take. We have now entered the age of environmental action. People are concerned, and they want us to give them a sense of direction.
People want to know what governments are prepared to do, how, and why.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is now in the active mode. We have passed legislation, approved regulations, and provided for clean-up programs. Today, I announced that the $110 million for the clean-up of the St. Lawrence is now operational. We have signed a harmonization agreement with Quebec, so that Quebec can complement the efforts of the federal action plan. Mr. Speaker, concrete action is now the order of the day.
We have all made too many speeches. Everybody makes speeches on the environment. What we need now is action! I hope that from now on, we will only hear about action plans and that such plans will be integrated into a master plan. As I see it, my responsibility as Environment Minister is to respond to these expectations and to translate the concern of citizens into concrete action within a comprehensive plan, which I intend to submit to the Government within the next few months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am sorry to interrupt the question, Mr. Speaker. There have been consultations among the Parties and I think you would find unanimous consent in the Chamber for the following statement. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young):
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 45(5)(a), any recorded division on today's allotted day motion be deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, June 12, 1989.
I think the Chamber would be well served with that certitude.

June 8, 1989
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposal made by the Member for Calgary West. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
The Member for Beaches-Woodbine on the same point of order.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order that the Parliamentary Secretary raised, the reason that this Party has agreed to this highly unusual process is to allow the Government Members to have an additional four days to seriously give thought to the implications of this motion. Hopefully, in the finest of parliamentary tradition, some brave soul over there will lead a parliamentary revolt against what this Cabinet is apparently trying to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments, the Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the month of February the Minister announced that he was going to be moving immediately to examine the drafting of new regulations with respect to CFCs. As he will know, CFCs are at the root of some of the problems that we have been having with respect to the ozone layer in the atmosphere.
I would like to ask him what he did between February and June with respect to the CFC regulations.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this Government entered into an agreement in Montreal in 1987 to control and protect the ozone layer. The obligation was to the effect of reducing by 1989 the CFC emissions by 50 per cent. I announced a few months ago that not only would we comply with this obligation, but we would exceed it and increase our reduction effort to 85 per cent.
I also announced that if, as we believe, we find alternative technologies and substances that we will be able to eliminate practically all use of CFCs and emissions in Canada by the year 2000. Thus I proceeded to issue the new regulations restricting the use of CFCs.
In this process my departmental lawyers discovered that when Parliament enacted the Canadian Environmental Protection Act last year that a technical problem was introduced into the Bill. This technical problem is to
the effect that for a certain number of specific substances, among them CFCs, which are listed in the law, we cannot move to modify the regulations without coming back to Parliament. Instead of proceeding by way of regulation, which is the normal way to do it and which was the purpose contemplated by the law, there are technical problems and we must amend the law. That was told to me by my departmental lawyers and confirmed by the Department of Justice.
I moved to meet my fellow Members of the House. I courteously informed them that I would have to table an amendment and I requested their help. The only answer I got from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was an inflammatory statement as reported in the papers saying that the Government was inefficient, that it would not move on CFCs, et cetera. That was the answer to a friendly request for collaboration from the Opposition to fight CFCs and to protect the ozone layer. They built politics into their reaction. Thus today they dare to ask a question about it.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is on record as having made a commitment that all economic decisions should be environmentally assessed. I would like to ask the Minister's interpretation of whether or not budgetary decisions are economic decisions.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that is a grey zone in the assessment process. The assessment process which was in effect under the guidelines four years ago dealt with projects. It is true that policies and programs were also mentioned in the process. What we know is that a court of law recently announced that the provisions to the guidelines dealing with projects were legally binding. Of course, the Government's position is that budget decisions and, mainly, deficit decreasing measures built into the Budget are decisions of the Department of Finance and are located at the core of the Government's sovereignty. It is absolutely certain that no country in the world should or could be able to submit to a prior environmental assessment the definition and the construction of a Budget. The Budget is at the heart of the Government's actions. It deals with the margin of manoeuvre of a Government. It does not have to be preceded by an environmental assessment. The position of the Government is that ERP does not create any legal obligation for the Government to submit to a prior assessment of budget decisions.
June 8, 1989

That being said, we care for these kind of considerations. We are concerned about them. We know that in some cases financial decisions have economic results. They might also have environmental consequences. This is the kind of consideration we have to deal with in the process of establishing or devising a new law on environmental assessment.
We think that as far as policies and programs are concerned there should also be an assessment process. However, we do not think that this assessment process should be identical to the process dealing with projects.
These are interesting and fundamental questions. They will have to be dealt with by Parliament when we have our debate on the enactment of the new law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last question and comment will be from the Hon. Member for Davenport.


M. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister for his participation in the environment debate on an opposition day, because it is probably the first time since November 1984 that a Minister of Environment takes part in an opposition day on this issue. I really congratulate him.
I would like to ask him a question following the last one. When is the Government, which the Minister is a member of, going to give the mandate of environmental protection and sustainable development promotion, which ought to be the concern and the mandate of each federal Department? I am not talking about an assessment system, but about a mandate for each Department.
Therefore, I would also like to ask him if he agrees with the spirit and the essence of the policy on energy megaprojects, which are now proposed by his colleague, the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp).


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the kind words he had for me and for recognizing that fact. I think it is very important that the Minister of Environment be present for this kind of debate which gives us an opportunity to go beyond those simple questions and answers during Oral Question
Supply
Period and to elaborate on the Government's intentions about future projects.
That being said, as for the first part of the question, the interdepartmental committee on environment which I chair does have, I think, the primary responsibility of recommanding to the Government the adoption of new rules for it's decision-making process.
I believe it is important that under the new decisionmaking framework each department have a basic responsibility with regard to environment. I agree with the Hon. Member that environment should not and shall never be the Department of Environment's only concern. It is a basic concern which goes to the very heart of governmental responsibility, and that must be reflected in the adoption of a new decision-making process which permits each department to play its role to the fullest and to assume its responsibilities. We are aware of the fact that this way of seeing things implies radical changes and that basically what the situation asks for is to make fundamental alterations and mutations to the way governments work. There is need to change drastically bureaucratic attitudes. There is need also, something certainly more difficult, to change political attitudes.
That is the way things are and I intend, in fact I already started, to suggest some amendments and a decisionmaking frawework to the Cabinet.
On the other hand, the Hon. Member alluded to policy statements on energy from my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Whether we like it or not, the energy problem goes to the heart of environmental concerns. There will be no environmental solution to the real problems we are faced with, that is the global warming trend and the thinning of the ozone layer, nor will there be any solution to those great issues without going through a new definition of energy policies.
My colleague, who is involved with the Interdepartmental Committee on the Environment, agrees completely with me that energy policies do have immediate effects on the environnment, but more importantly, that they also have long term, effects on the way we act towards our ecosystem and natural heritage. On the one hand, that means that we are experiencing some kind of

June 8, 1989
Supply
conflict and, on the other hand, that we must resolve that conflict through daring policies aimed at the future.
So, why this conflict, why this dilemma? There is a dilemma, Mr. Speaker, because we are in a period of economic development dating back in history more that 150 years and, suddenly, we would have to stop this development, to change radically the way the economy works. We know it is not possible, because the impact would be too disruptive and would not allow us to keep people employed, for example. Consequently, we have to make a transition and plan for the future, which means devising an energy policy which would anticipate the development of new forms of energy and would allow for a smooth but strong transition towards forms of energy more respectful of the environment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate. A point of order, the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want the consent of this House. Since the environment is such an important issue, could we put questions to the Minister of the Environment for ten more minutes and get answers from him?


An Hon. Member:: He is a good minister!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the request by the Hon. Member for Port Moody- Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) to the effect that we would extend the question and comment period for 10 minutes for the Hon. Minister. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will give the first question to the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I might say in English, I have a comment and a question.
The Minister mentioned the Environmental Protection Act and he mentioned that we have to work with the provinces. I sat on that committee before he came to the House in the last Parliament for a couple of weeks. The Bill was really a very strong one. The then Minister, Mr. McMillan, changed it quite dramatically because of the objections of the provinces.
I agree we have to live with the provinces because that is our system. The Bill, I think, fell in the cracks between the federal Government and the provinces. The Minister has to watch that. I think the public will demand strong action from the federal Government on the environment because it has real national power and some international clout to act. I ask the Minister to look at that.
I would trade with him in a minute to be the Environment Minister. What a chance he has. What a great portfolio it is. Why is he being a Minister who reacts to things rather than one who initiates? He reacted to the oil crisis. He had to. Suddenly there is an oil crisis there, but he reacted to it. He reacted to the toxic gasoline that was coming in from the United States. We understand that one has to react to crises, but why is the Minister not becoming a Minister who initiates?
Here is a perfect example, as the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) has said. Here is a resolution. It is not quite motherhood; I will not call it that or use that expression, but it is almost. This is not a very radical proposition that we have put on the floor today, to reform our own House, our own Parliament, Parliament Hill, to make it environmentally conscious, if you like. We are going to set the trend. Why doesn't he as the Minister say, "We are going to support this. We are going to make it even better. We are going to take this initiative"? He could then be a Minister who initiates rather than reacts.


Lucien Bouchard: What else could the Government have done about this crisis? This crisis was an oil spill resulting from an accident which occurred up north involving an American oil tanker in American waters. We monitored the situation for weeks, every hour, almost every minute. We knew what was happening with the oil spill and, happily for us, Canada was spared. What is the meaning of saying this Minister is a reactive Minister because he only reacted to the Valdez crisis? Who on earth could have prevented this accident? The only thing that God is asking from the Minister, as any ordinary man, is to react swiftly to an act of God, sometimes human error, as was the case of the Valdez crisis.
We are bold sometimes and we will be bolder when the Budget allows us to do so. We know we are operating under very difficult fiscal restraints and that we must be responsible for the future of Canada and the financial health of any provincial government in Canada. But at the same time, we will be bold. The Member must understand that sometimes it is very difficult.
In Montreal today, I announced a plan under which a brand new team of 25 people will be set up to cover the St. Lawrence. We have today published a list of 50 companies that are located along the St. Lawrence which pollute that river. These 25 commandos will in a few weeks be investigating each company and defining new norms and technology requirements in order to cut pollution and to establish pollution protocol. The cost will be borne by the companies themselves, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Representatives from these companies said that this new plan would be very difficult and worrisome. It is. I know that. Everything will have to be done within five years with an objective to reduce the St. Lawrence pollution by 90 per cent. The Government is doing all it can and it will do more. We know we have to be tough. We must not cancel the job.
In my riding there is an aluminum smelter plant which employs 500 to 600 people. It is one of the two major employers in the City of Alma. This plant is not on the list of polluters which was published today, but it does pollute the environment. The Government could close this plant, but it would put 500 or 600 peres de famille out of their jobs. What we must do is to say to Alcan "Well, you have five years to reduce pollution by 90 per cent.
Supply
We have a fund of $50 million to help you define and develop new technology, but the company will have to pay for the pollution". That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the Minister for his participation in this debate today, and I want to ask him this question. A few moments ago, the Minister was talking about his clean-up program for the St. Lawrence River. As he probably knows, I represent an area that borders the river, an area which may be the most polluted on the river. I am talking about Cornwall Island, where the Akwesasne Saint-Regis Indian reserve is located. The Minister is certainly aware of all the pollution problems originating mostly from plants on the American side, in Massena, particularly from the Reynolds plant and from General Foundries, a General Motors plant in the United States.
I would like to know from the Minister whether the St. Lawrence River depollution program he was referring to earlier only includes the Quebec part of the river, because often, on the matter of the St. Lawrence River depollution, the reference is to the River in Quebec and the Great Lakes in Ontario. There is however a part of the River in Ontario that extends between the Great Lakes and the Quebec border, which is my riding and one or two others to the West. Can the Minister tell me whether his program includes the Ontario section and whether his "commando team" as he referred to them himself this morning will also be in my riding and elsewhere? I see the Minister is going through his notes, but if he is not in a position to give me an answer today, would he be kind enough to send that information along, because our area is neither in the great Lakes nor the Quebec River; it is that part of the River between the Great Lakes and the Quebec border, and sometimes we feel a bit left out in the whole process. I hope this will not be the case this time.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I promise to provide a list of firms that were identified as the most serious polluters before the end of the afternoon. Unfortunately, I do not have the list with me. I hoped I had, but I will be pleased to make it available to the Hon. Member.

June 8, 1989
Supply
This being said, let me add that indeed it is not good enough to clean-up one part of the St. Lawrence-we must depollute it overall. It is not good enough to clean-up the St. Lawrence River, we should also be concerned with the Great Lakes. One of the facets of the program we announced today would ensure that we can identify the contribution of Great Lake pollution to the pollution of the River.
Furthermore, we as a Government have provided for the establishment of a Great Lakes clean-up plan, which has already been operational for some time; it is now entering Phase II and will be significantly strengthened over the coming months, when we announce corrective plans for specific situations, the 17 hot spots on the shores of Lake Ontario in particular. But let me repeat my promise to provide the Hon. Member with the information he requested.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this motion is very clear. It makes very practical suggestions. They are most desirable at a time when talk about sustainable development is still wrapped in a lot of rhetoric and vague thoughts. I support it. I regret that the Government does not see fit to do so.
In particular, the portion of the motion that is particularly commendable is the creation of a parliamentary commissioner for the environment. That is an excellent proposal.
New Zealand created such a commissioner just recently, as you know, in 1986. We seek your support to make this idea become a reality for the benefit of parliamentarians and of Canadians at large.
In making contributions to environmentally sustainable development, as the motion reads, and actually attain an environmentally sustainable future, we have to examine the structure of Government and the mandate of its Departments. We have to examine its energy policies and incentives to develop the technology to come closer to zero rather than minimum discharge. We have to look at its lack of ecological tax reform in the present tax system. We have to look at the weak enforcement and compliance of environmental laws. We
have to look at how we have managed until now and are running the risk now to change in the approach to our forestry, fisheries, soil and water.
Mr. Speaker, I will briefly go over some of these facets of an environmentally sustainable policy then propose amendments at the end.
It seems to me that it can be said, as has been stressed in Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, that an environmentally sustainable future can hardly be achieved if the present mandate of government Departments remains unchanged, because it relegates their responsibility for the environment to one Department, that of the Environment. Regardless of the sincerity and compassion of the Minister of the Environment-and this one has a lot of both-he does not have the legislative mandate to override critical policy recommendations or decisions that are not environmentally sustainable but which are proposed by his colleagues in Cabinet every week, almost every day.
In fact, when he appeared before the Environment Committee a few weeks ago, the Minister himself admitted that while federal projects will be reviewed for environmental impact, what will not be reviewed are policies and programs. Even this afternoon, he confirmed that a Budget cannot be examined from an environmental point of view. I disagree with him. I apologize if I am somehow interrupting his dialogue with colleagues, but I think it is important for this very keen Minister of the Environment to disagree with his own Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as to the untouchabil-ity and independence of the Minister of Finance to come forward with a Budget that may be counterproductive in ecological terms instead of producing one that contains what one could describe as ecological tax reform.
It would help him, as Minister of the Environment, to introduce incentives that he needs, for instance, to improve the quality of water or to remove existing disincentives from the tax system. In effect, he will then have achieved what is the ultimate desire and passion of any Minister of the Environment, which is to transform the Minister of Finance into an environmentalist. That is not bad for anybody.
June 8, 1989

Mr. Speaker, we all know that very important and far-reaching decisions are made every day by the Department of Energy. This is why we are constantly grilling this Minister on the question of megaprojects.
The same is true for the Department of Agriculture. We know that certain agricultural practices are damaging the environment, particular topsoil and water. The same can be said about forestry. The same can also be said about practices in the past in the fishing industry.
The Minister and Department of Transport make decisions that have far-reaching implications, for instance, on air quality. Perhaps most important of them all is the Department of Finance, to whom I alluded a moment ago. It is through Budgets, through fiscal measures, through incentives or disincentives that exist in the system and which should be examined and where possible, offered or removed to consumers as well as to industry at large.
Mr. Speaker, we can therefore see what I would call the inadequacy of the way in which governments-and not just the federal Government-operate today. It is therefore necessary to change mandates of the Departments so as to spread the responsibility for the environment across the board, to making environmentally sustainable development the mandate of each and every government Department and agency. Every Minister of the Crown and every Department should, in effect, be made responsible for environmental objectives.
The Department would thus be relieved from the competitive struggle with other Departments. It is quite a heavy burden. They would be able to dedicate energy and time to the development of long-term policies, to the co-ordination of activities between Departments, where necessary, and to anticipate and prevent environmental problems instead of reacting to crises most of the time, as my colleague from Vancouver alluded to a moment ago.
There is even a special rule for a Department such as Supply and Services. The Prime Minister's endorsement last year of sustainable development gives this Department of Supply and Services a special mandate. It is one of the largest purchasers of goods in Canada. Does the Department purchase environmentally friendly prod-
Supply
ucts? Does it have a procurement policy to purchase recycled paper or recycled oil? At least, is recycled oil given priority when the purchase has to take effect? Does it apply a policy that new government buildings be equipped with the latest in energy and water conservation technology? Is the environmental record of the company that wishes to have the Government of Canada as its customer made a factor in the eligibility of that company for government contracts? If the Department of Supply and Services has developed such a policy, it is the best kept secret in the country.
We all know that global warming is a reality. Not only is it a threat to Canada, but to the entire globe. Energy policies can have other devastating impacts on the environment and will play a key role on whether or not we will succeed in attaining an environmentally sustainable future as indicated in the preamble of this motion.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that energy policy should be the flagship policy of sustainability. At the present time we have the absurd and very alarming situation whereby the Government, while committed to the idea of sustainable development, is pursuing an outdated energy policy which, among other issues, includes the abandonment of any effort in renewable energy promotion research and development. Not only that, but it is committed to the abandonment of energy efficiency as a goal. To make it even worse, it has a commitment to very expensive megaprojects which will increase our dependency on fossil fuels and make carbon dioxide pollution worse. This in turn will add to the greenhouse effect and increase the momentum of global climate warming.
This paradox is captured in the headline of an article in today's Ottawa Citizen. It states: "Fossil-fuel energy vital to Canada's future, Epp says''. Toward the end of the article, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Epp) argues that Canada must also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. He cannot have it both ways. In addition, the Minister proclaims a belief in the market setting Canada's energy policy. Yet he defends $5-billion worth of subsidies to fossil-fuel megaprojects. How can he reconcile those two positions? It is mind-boggling to me. It takes the acrobatic feat of a major performer in a circus. However, here we are dealing with serious matters, and a statement made by today's Minister of Energy who is giving us profound reasons to be extremely worried about him and his policy.

June 8, 1989
Supply
Therefore, it is clear that there is what I would term utter confusion at the helm of the Department of Energy. No one seems to be paying any attention to the Prime Minister's commitment to sustainable development, judging from the behaviour and the statements that I referred to a moment ago. The Minister of Energy, and perhaps Cabinet, seem to have failed to realize that energy policy is environmental policy at its best. It is of particular significance because of its impact on the environment.
Therefore, to give this motion extra teeth in terms of an environmentally-sustainable future, I propose some amendments that will bring energy to the very centre of the thrust of this particular motion. The motion before us calls on the Government to produce a plan to achieve a minimal discharge of deleterious substances into the environment. That is fine.
How can such a plan, desirable as it is and as urgent as the matter is, be successful without ecological tax reform and without powerful disincentives for those who do not comply? It seems to me that achieving minimal discharges for activities inside and, even more importantly, outside the scope of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, requires the establishment of enforceable national standards. Not guidelines, not codes, but standards. The ability to establish national standards was dropped at a time when the environmental protection Bill was in committee and went through the House last year. That was because of the virulence at that time of the Meech Lake virus. For this reason, paragraph 3 in the motion before us today needs to be strengthened.
In conclusion, the motion is a very good one. The following amendment is offered to strengthen the desirability for the House to support and to approve it.
Therefore, I move that the motion before us today be amended by adding, after the last line, the following:
(4)	Each Department and Agency of the Government review its policies, programs, projects and budgets to determine their contribution to a sustainable future and the Government table, by June 5, 1990, the findings;
June 5, 1990 would be the beginning of Environment Week next year. Keeping in mind that anniversary, the motion further states:
(5)	The Government table, by June 5,1990, a strategy to reduce by at least 20 per cent Canada's carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005 based on 1988 levels;
(6)	The Government introduce, by September 30, 1989, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to allow Canada to have enforceable national standards to prevent pollution.
Only with enforceable national standards will we be able to get somewhere in doing the cleanup and in maintaining the standards that we wish to achieve in our country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will consider the admissibility of the proposed amendments of the Hon. Member for Davenport and make a ruling shortly.
In the meantime, we will proceed to the question and comment period. The Hon. Member for Mississauga West.


Mr. Horner:: We all agree with a lot of things that have been said by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). We know when we sit day after day and pass legislation that it is not worth a thing if we do not look after the environmental issues that face this country today. However, I think the Opposition is being simplistic about the whole situation. The Member from Davenport has since 1984 doggedly brought up environmental issues. For that, I congratulate him. Mr. Speaker, since you and I were elected in 1984, we have recognized his work in this field. But prior to that the Member for Davenport was the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask him a number of specific questions.
Why were there no specific emission control plans in place and Canadian actions to reduce emissions were contingent upon the United States taking action? Why was there no specific financial assistance to develop much needed new pollution control technology? Why was there no financial assistance available for industry to clean up major emission sources? Why was funding for vital acid rain research, monitoring and communications activities about to lapse? There were many things that were wrong then and that does not make it right now that action is not being taken fast enough. How can he put a time limit on as of June 5, the start of environment week next year, when emissions standards for new cars and trucks had not been tightened in almost 10 years?
June 8, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Member for Mississauga West but I have counted five or six questions so far. The Member for Davenport will only have six or seven minutes. I would suggest that the Member not ask too many more.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I will finish off by saying that I want to know from the Member for Davenport why significant amounts of lead were still being allowed in gasoline in 1984?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising these questions. Since his premise was that we all agree on the motion before us, if I understood him, I hope that he will be here on the appropriate day and vote for this motion since he is favour of it.
To answer these very legitimate questions, let me start with lead. It was the Liberal Government in December, 1983 that launched the reduction of lead to bring it down from .76 milligrams per litre at that time to .29 milligrams. I am glad to say that that measure was continued by the present Government to bring it down further. In this business, we must reinforce each other and not be distracted by rhetoric.
As to funding, we provided in 1981 the funds for the modernization of pulp and paper companies. We felt that was one way of reducing the pollution in our water. As it turned out, that program ought to have been done in a more sophisticated manner but nevertheless it was a form of funding that had the environment in mind.
Who brought through this Parliament the Ocean Dumping Control Act? It was a Liberal Government. Who brought to this House the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act? Imagine, the word prevention was in the name of the Act. It was a Liberal Government in the seventies. Who was it that launched in 1970 a Bill for the creation of the Department of the Environment over which the present Minister now presides? It was Prime Minister Trudeau. Who was it who introduced the Clean Air Act which was subsequently incorporated into the Canadian Environment Protection Act last year. The pioneering legislation was the Clean Air Act and it was passed by the Liberal Government through this House. The same can be said about the law on national parks which was passed for the first time by the then Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, now the retired Mr. Chretien, through this House in the late sixties.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Charles L. Caccia: I would not want to be accused of making commercials in the process of answering these questions.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga mentioned car emissions and quite rightly so because we were slow on that. However when the Party of which the Member for Mississauga is a Member came into power in September 1984, we had in that summer started to launch the public hearings that broke the ground for the control policy that came into effect the following year.
Finally, because I do not want to blow too much the Liberal trumpet but this opportunity comes only once in every Parliament, the memorandum of intent on acid rain was signed in August 1980. I don't need to ask you who was in power in Canada at that time. At that time we had President Carter south of the border who was quite receptive and we had very keen public opinion. The Liberal Party was glad to be able to move on that initiative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: In March 1984 two things happened in Ottawa that should not be erased from the collective memory of all of us. Representatives of nine European nations that came to Ottawa on our invitation to sign a declaration with Canada that would cut S02 pollution by 30 per cent by 1993 as a minimum. That was a fine Liberal initiative. This is the last item. It is important to make the point because in the Minister's mind there is this erroneous notion that before 1984, federal-provincial relations were negative.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: Before you laugh, it was in March 1984 here in Ottawa that seven provinces and the Government of Canada agreed on a joint action on acid rain and to go it alone. I see the Member for Muskoka is in the House. His memory can reach back to when the then Minister of Environment for Ontario, Mr. Brant, and the other six provincial Ministers, agreed with Canada that even though there was indecision south of the border, we wanted very badly to have the Americans come on board with us. Obviously we were assuming a burden on our own rather than jointly with them. It was our hope that they would as long as Mr. Ruckelshaus was the head of EPA. Once he left in despair at his lack of success in convincing President Reagan to move, then it was the seven provincial Ministers, to their credit and that of Canada, that in March 1980 made that commitment to go it alone and to cut by 50 per cent S02 pollution by 1994.

June 8. 1989
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate, the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, particularly on the provision urging the federal Government to table, within five days of the resumption of the parliamentary session, a plan for the safe disposal of toxic wastes in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the handling of hazardous and toxic wastes creates problems with which industrialized nations, including Canada, are anxious to come to grips. We all know it is imperative to set up an effective waste management system, but we must first appreciate the extent of the problem before moving trite and overly simplistic motions such as coming up with a controlled disposal plan within the next three months.
Depending on where it comes from, Mr. Speaker, hazardous waste falls into four categories: (1) by-products of manufacturing processes; (2) consumer products which have become useless or contaminated; (3) residues of dangerous substances accidentally spilled in the environment in the course of transport or storage operations; (4) waste chemicals from laboratories and other specialized institutions.
Among the most common dangerous waste products we include acids generated by metallurgic processes, caustic soda from pulp and paper mills, and oil refining residues. These waste products contain oils, phenol, arsenic, mercury, lead and a number of other chemicals.
There are also such dangerous products as PCBs and pesticides which, owing to their toxicity and lasting presence in the environment, must be subjected to special neutralization or disposal processes.
A simplistic motion does not give us a clue as to how we can achieve the controlled disposal of toxic waste. What we need are sound and logical solutions which will not pollute our atmosphere, our water, and our soil. We must not act with undue haste lest we harm the environment and imperil human, plant and animal life.
What are the environmental and health considerations? Unless they are confined in a space especially
designed for that purpose, waste products dumped in landfill sites may contaminate both ground and surface water. We now know that certain chemical substances contained in these products may enter the food chain as a result of being absorbed by plants, which are then eaten by animals and fish. These substances, Mr. Speaker, become increasingly concentrated as they progress up the food chain. This increased concentration in turn increases the risk of biological, physical and physiological changes that may lead to serious problems such as mutations, cancer and sterility, not only in animals but also in man who, as we know, is at the top of the food pyramid.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, is not simple. We must see to it that hazardous waste products that cannot be treated or disposed of locally are monitored from their initial appearance as a result of industrial processing until they are treated or disposed of in licensed facilities.
Mr. Speaker, our objective is to switch from the common practice of crisis management to planned management. Canadians must realize that facilities for the treatment and disposal of waste products provide a practical solution. These facilities should not be perceived negatively, especially since current technology provides for efficient and safe operation of well-designed treatment systems equipped with the best possible anti-pollution devices.
So we have the technology for waste treatment and the destruction of waste products by incineration, but the problem is choosing the location of facilities and plants that will receive the end products of the treatment process.
Aware of the reservations of Canadians with respect to this technology, the Department of the Environment, with the participation of the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers, has set up a municipal incinerator testing and evaluation program. Canadian communities have started to consider incinerators with energy-from-waste facilities as a major component of a comprehensive waste management plan. About 16 million tonnes of solid waste is produced in our urban communities every year. Every tonne of garbage, when burnt, produces a little more energy than a barrel of crude oil. At today's prices, Mr. Speaker, this adds up to $350 million annually-
June 8, 1989

Properly designed and operated, incinerators with EFW can reduce the need for expensive landfill sites. However, since waste products contain toxic substances that may be produced by the incinerator, we must monitor what comes out of these incinerators. We must have very strict standards that require full combustion of waste products, thus minimizing the possibility of toxic emissions.
Last year, the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers published its report on incinerators with en-ergy-from-waste facilities. The report contains recommendations for guidelines and deals with a broad range of subjects, including the design and operation of this type of incinerator. It recognizes also the important role that reduction, reprocessing, recycling and re-use can play in waste management, for a national waste management system must put a particular emphasis on reduction and recycling, the prefered means of keeping dangerous wastes to a minimum.
Our recycling programs are still in their infancy. Only 2 per cent of our wastes are recycled, Mr. Speaker, while Western European countries are recycling 30 per cent of their waste and the Japanese more than 50 per cent. We can now recycle almost 300 000 tonnes a year of waste products, but that would naturally have to increase by 25 per cent every year.
Take for example the Waste Exchange which helps transform one company's waste into another's profits. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that that allows for the exchange of 280 000 tonnes of waste a year, a volume that will increase by 70 000 tonnes a year approximately. The value of raw matter reprocessed this way is of some $10 millions per year. That is a real success if one considers that the annual running costs of the Waste Exchange is only $60 000. Furthermore, the Provinces and the Canadian Government are keeping their firm commitment concerning the efficient and profitable management of waste products.
In July 1985, the Minister of Transport promulgated regulations on the transport of dangerous waste under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Those regulations set national uniform standards for the transportation of dangerous waste, be it by boat, train, plane or truck. They establish a national system of manifests which enables us to keep track of every shipment from its
Supply
point of departure to its destination. The Act covers only interprovincial and international transportation. All intraprovincial transportation is of course under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have either adopted all the regulations promulgated under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act or have made regulations similar to the federal ones.
This is a wonderful example of federal-provincial cooperation that our government continues to promote since environmental protection concerns us all.
Furthermore, in October 1986, in Banff, Alberta, at the meeting of the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers, both levels of government approved a national dangerous waste management plan because they recognize the need to work together in order to make great strides in this area.
The national plan has four objectives. Firstly, to harmonize nationally all dangerous and toxic waste legislation as well as policies and programs, like in the case of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which I just mentioned. Secondly, to reduce the quantities of dangerous wastes which need to be treated, and that is another objective that has been at least partially achieved through the waste materials exchange I spoke about earlier. Thirdly, to promote cooperation in the location and establishment of centralized dangerous waste treatment and disposal facilities. And fourthly, to promote public awareness of the complexity of the problem of dangerous wastes.
But, Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial ministers have not been idle since their 1986 meeting in Banff. On June 30 1988, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act came into effect. It enables us to regulate all aspects of the life cycle of toxic wastes from their production to their final disposal. That act is something else! As far as the government of Canada is concerned, it serves as the framework for its future initiatives, policies and programs relating to environemental protection. We are prepared to recognize the fact that the legislation is not perfect, that it can still be improved. However, as we learn more about the most efficient ways of protecting our environment, including the best possible waste management system, we will undoubtedly act in the best interests of all Canadians.

June 8, 1989
Supply
The St. Basile-le-Grand disaster, in Quebec, on August 23, 1988, reniforced the federal and provincial government joint efforts to get rid of PCBs in Canada. In September, the federal and provincial Environment Ministers agreed to intensify their efforts to eliminate this type of pollutant.
For one, the federal Minister issued an emergency order, in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to regulate storage of PBC waste. The standards for storing PCB and gaining access to the storage areas are tough, but necessary.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the federal government announced it would rent two mobile incinerators to dispose of waste containing PCB, in order to destroy as soon as possible the waste stored in federal sites. The renting cost is $21 million. The first mobile incinerator will go to Goose Bay, Newfoundland, where it will start burning off PCB waste now stored in federal sites in Eastern Canada. We will start with 3,000 tonnes of PCB-contaminated soil. Naturally, we work with the people in the communities and hold public meetings to make sure that they understand the need to dispose of all waste contaminated by this very harmful pollutant.
In the next few months, our government will introduce, in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, regulations concerning the operation of the mobile incinerators used to destroy PCB waste.
These regulations will relate only to federal facilities and organizations, federal Crown Corporations and federal land and waters.
Last March, representatives of countries from all over the world met in Basle, Zwitzerland, under the aegis of the United Nation Organization on the Environment, in order to put into place a convention to regulate the transport of hazardous waste from one country to another. This is an important achievement because all the participating countries recognize that the environment is a matter of concern for everyone. There is not probably one area in the World which is not affected by the problem of toxic and contaminated waste. We do not exaggerate when we say, Mr. Speaker, that all the
countries in the World will benefit from the convention signed in Basle.
At its April 19, 1989 meeting, the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers examined the alternatives to improve the hazardous and toxic waste management system in Canada. All the Ministers recognized the challenges we will have to meet in the present and in the years to come. Therefore they decided to set programs to reduce waste produced in Canada by 50 percent by the year 2000.
Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to mention some provincial projects and programs in the area of hazardous waste management. First, in Swan Hills, in Alberta, there is a centre for the handling, treating and disposing of toxic waste. This centre uses state-of-the-art technology and sets an example for the other provinces.
In Ontario, there is a centre for treating and disposing of inorganic and organic waste. In addition, in recent years, the Ontario Waste Management Society has been getting ready to build and open a centre similar to Swan Hills.
In Quebec, the Stablex company handles inorganic waste only. The Western provinces such as Manitoba and British Columbia have set up programs to find appropriate sites to build centres for processing and eliminating hazardous waste. As I already explained to you, the technology is not lacking, but there is no consensus on where to locate the facilities. However, we are making progress, Mr. Speaker, we are making progress!
Even at the municipal level, the authorities are organizing in many communities throughout Canada to have residents get rid of solvents, oils, paints and pesticides that are no longer needed and require careful handling if they are to be disposed of safely. These municipalities bring in special trucks or large containers that are then carried by truck to an appropriate treatment centre. The public does not hesitate to take part in this kind of program to collect and recycle these hazardous substances and materials because Canadians recognize, perhaps more today than ever before, how precious and irreplaceable the environment is.
June 8. 1989

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have managed-I hope-to explain that the national plan which the Hon. Member calls for in her motion is not at all necessary and will not be the solution required in the Canadian context.
Our Government has an active role to play in managing hazardous and toxic waste and it is not neglecting its responsibilities. In the years to come, we will continue our efforts to adopt policies, set up programs and pass the legislation and regulations required for us to have an effective waste management system which will be safe both for Canadians and for the environment. The provinces also have their role to play. In Canada, we have a confederation and it is not up to the federal Government to act unilaterally and hastily to impose on the country plans and projects that will not eliminate the problem of hazardous and toxic waste in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member and I would like to ask him a question because I think that he didn't mention the municipal infrastructure and the need to improve it in order to protect the environment.
For example, in my riding as well as in many others, municipalities sometimes spill polluted waters in our rivers, in the St. Lawrence River, and so on.
Would the hon. Member opposite agree with me that the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) during the last election campaign which called for a joint action by the federal, provincial and municipal governments was an excellent initiative for the environment? And I will give the following example to try to make my hon. friend understand why that is important.
In my riding, near Lancaster in Ontario, or Saint-Ani-cet if you are on the Quebec side, there is Lake Saint-Frangois which is a broadening of the St. Lawrence River. Lake Saint-Frangois in that region has serious erosion and pollution problems, which could be alleviated by the infrastructure improvement program. Every year serious erosion problems eat away at the shores of Lake Saint-Frangois and increase the lake area.
That problem has caused considerable damage to lakeside property. There is no local solution. A small municipality can certainly not spend thousands of dollars to protect lakeside property. Property owners don't have a solution either. After all, it is the St. Lawrence Seaway
Supply
passing through the middle of the lake which is mainly responsible for erosion damage.
Would my colleague agree with me that the plan proposed by the Right Hen. Leader of the Opposition could be used to restore the shores of Lake Saint-Frangois, like I just said, or to improve municipal sewer service, and that the Government should adopt that excellent initiative? Even if the Government were slightly guilty of stealing the Opposition's ideas, we would be willing to give up our copyright, Mr. Speaker, because it would be a good initiative.
What does my colleague opposite think of that idea?


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying at the end of my speech, Canada is a federal state. Just as federal-provincial relations are important, as I think my colleague opposite will realize, federal-municipal relations are even more important, and we have had examples of this.
Mr. Speaker, it makes me think of trying to define virtue. As I said in my speech, everyone is in favour of the environment and environmental protection. But how to do it is another matter!
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) in his eloquent talk just told us of the challenge facing us and the complexity of the situation.
When the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign suggested a plan, he forgot something important-the municipalities' consent. He forgot to consult the municipalities, just as when he was in power himself, he forgot to consult the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, that is one reason why in Quebec we have Bill 38 which, as a consequence of the doings of the Liberal Party when they were in power, forbids direct or indirect (federal) intervention in municipal jurisdiction. It is all very well to propose virtue, but you still have to be credible!
What we are proposing in fact- I just mentioned many examples of cooperation, not only with the provinces but also with the municipalities, because since 1984, we have credibility in our relations with the provinces and municipalities. That is why our overall project has the best credibility. There is no question of plagiarizing. There is no magic formula. No extraordinary invention is needed. What is needed is steady work by effective, competent people and by a serious-minded government.

June 8. 1989
Supply


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to have heard the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay). I believe that he has been a Member of this House since 1984. Thus he was here during the passage of the Parliamentary Relations and Staff Relations Act in June of 1986, almost exactly three years ago. This is relevant to the matter before us today, particularly in respect to the first part of the motion proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has placed the motion before us today which relates to the appointment of an environmental officer of the House of Commons whose duties shall include the responsibility of reporting to the Speaker on ways in which the House of Commons can contribute to a safe and environmentally healthy future.
I am pleased that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil) is here since that particular Act, if it were all proclaimed, would fulfil part of the purpose of the motion before us, particularly with regard to asbestos within the House of Commons.
The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians represents some 60 or so employees on the Hill who provide television coverage and the in-house Oasis network information systems that are used by all Members of the House. These employees work literally behind the walls of the House of Commons installing wires in the communications system. As a result of that they get face to face with the asbestos insulation that Governments generally only recognized as a problem just a few years ago. That is to say, the life threatening nature of this substance which the life insurance industry recognized as far back as 1918. It took a long time for governments to catch up.
One of the problems is that when the House of Commons passed Bill C-45 on June 25, 1986, it proclaimed Part 1 of the Act only. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere has said, as previous Members on his side of the House have said, that it takes time to do these things. However, we passed the legislation. Part I has been proclaimed. Part II and Part III which, in particular, deals
with occupational safety and health have still to be proclaimed. The legislation is in place. We have been waiting now for three years to protect the lives of people who work here on the Hill.
Just a little while ago workers were working up above the ceilings across from Room 147 in the West Block, which used to be my office before 1984 and which is now the office of our agriculture critic. It is right next to the messengers who service the West Block. Some of the asbestos insulation simply started falling out of the ceiling. These were contractors who had not been advised of the substances they were going to have to be dealing with. Finally, work was stopped in that instance, but in many cases contractors have been brought into the House to do work and are simply not aware of the hazards that exist. Oftentimes when they come with complaints to the responsible officers of the House they are met with the answer: "What is the problem? There is not a problem". Does the Hon. Member know-or perhaps the Minister of Labour at some point on questions or comments can tell us-when we are going to have Part III of the Act proclaimed in order that we can protect the lives and health of people who work for us here on Parliament Hill?


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, my Hon. friend refers to that part of the motion I could not of course oppose. The best proof of that, as he says, is that we passed that act.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I am not an inspector myself and cannot determine whether indeed in our own premises there are or are not dangerous goods that could infringe upon the act. But if that were the case, Mr. Speaker, every party of course, eveiy individual would be in a position to use those provisions. Now, he is referring to cases where the inspectors, if they were made aware, did not follow up. The inspectors involved and their comments as experts have not been determined.
So, Mr. Speaker, all those regulations or provisions already are in place. If ever complaints come up they should be filed with the authorities concerned.
June 8, 1989


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) proposed to move an amendment to the motion on the environment which we have been debating throughout the day. I am now prepared to rule on the acceptability of the proposed amendment.
An examination of the wording of the proposed amendment suggests to the Chair that the Hon. Member is attempting to expand and add to the proposition envisaged in the original motion.
If I may remind Hon. Members of Beauchesne's citation 437(2), it is not in order by means of an amendment to raise new questions which should be considered as distinct motions moved after proper notice. With regret, I must therefore rule the proposed amendment of the Hon. Member for Davenport out of order.
Now to the second ruling. Earlier today, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House rose to object to the wording of the Opposition motion under discussion today on the grounds that a motion which might, if agreed to, become an Order binding on the Government, was out of order.
After deliberation, I am ready to rule on the point of order.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at citation 412 says:
By its orders the House directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons they concern-
It appears to the Chair that there are instances in which the House, in directing "the order of its own proceedings", also gives orders to the Government. Such instances are found in Standing Order 36(8), which directs the Ministry to answer petitions; Standing Order 111(4), which directs a Minister's office to produce documents; and Standing Order 123(1), which specifies that a committee report on delegated legislation, when concurred in, becomes an Order of the House to the Ministry.
The Chair notes that the relevant parts of the motion proposed today involve the introduction of a Bill and the tabling of documents, processes which are, at least arguably, parts of the procedure of the House in the same way as the examples cited above. Furthermore, both Speaker Lamoureux, on March 6, 1973 and Speaker Jerome, on November 14, 1975, have expressed strong reluctance to interfere with the freedom of the Opposi-
Supply
tion to choose the motion to be debated on an allotted day.
For these reasons, I am also reluctant to infringe this freedom, except in the clearest cases of irregularity. I therefore find that this particular motion is in order.
Before closing, however, I wish to advise the House that this decision should not be taken as a precedent by which any Opposition motion could order or instruct the Government on a particular course of action. The Chair will continue to examine each motion before the House with close attention as to its form and content, and will not hesitate to rule against any motion that it finds irregular.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in having the opportunity today to say a few words about the motion that was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter).
The purpose of the motion itself is to embrace the principles that this Government has already accepted, and those are the principles that were put forward in the Brundtland Commission report from the United Nations. The Government itself has said that it supports the thrust of that report and all that this motion is doing is allowing the Government the opportunity to take some concrete action on the recommendations that the Brundtland Commission made on sustainable development.
In the course of the Minister's comments earlier this afternoon, I was encouraged to hear him say that finally this Government will be moving on establishing regulations on the quality of water and, in particular, drinking water.
Several years ago under the Liberal administration, I chaired an environmental task force on the quality of water in the Great Lakes system. I asked the then Minister of Health, Monique Begin, why we in Canada had established a level of what was considered to be safe contamination of dioxins in fish at 20 parts per trillion when the United States established a safe contamination level of ten parts per trillion, 50 per cent less than Canada. The rationale behind the establishment of those standards was that Canadians on a per capita basis ate less fish than Americans. That was the response. Therefore, our bodies could absorb twice as much contamination from fish. That response did not make too much sense to me so I pursued the matter with the Minister and her officials in meetings of the Standing Committee on Health. The Minister repeated the same answer that

June 8, 1989
Supply
she had given in the House and seemed to be supported by her officials.
I am of the same opinion today as I was then. I hope someone who happens to like fish understands that if he or she eats twice as much fish as an American he will be in deep trouble. I am pleased to hear the Minister say the Government is finally going to bring in realistic standards based on, I hope, scientific data rather than some figure that someone plucks out of his head when trying to come up with a response to questions from people seriously concerned about the safety of drinking water, particularly in the area of the Great Lakes.
I was less than pleased when I read a report in the newspaper the other day quoting the Minister in committee as saying; "But nobody yet knows how a government can make it happen within its own jurisdiction and not-". He was commenting on how the Government could launch an offensive against pollution of the environment. I found that to be a bit strange, to say the least, for a number of reasons.
There have been a number of proposals made over the years. One of them came from myself and members of my caucus at the time, following the task force to which I just referred that we led in the Niagara region into the quality of water in Lake Ontario in particular, the Great Lakes system generally and the Niagara River specifically-
After we had done that there was a debate in the House on a New Democratic Party motion similar to the one before us today. I asked the House at that time whether I could table that report in the House because no doubt there may be some disagreement particularly from the Government side as to the conclusions arrived at in the report. I felt the information on the environment in the report would be useful to the House when it considers what has developed into one of the major concerns of Canadians, namely, the environmental front. At that time the House agreed to table the report for the information of Members and it was useful. The Minister
told me privately that it was useful to both him, his Department and, I assume, to members of his caucus.
Earlier this week our critic for the environment, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), after extensive consultations across the country with Canadians, environmental groups and others, presented a report on his consultations. It is a full document which is very helpful. I found it very informative and it reflected what I heard myself when I joined the Member for Skeena in the Toronto area to hear the delegation express their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, in the interests of adding to the debate in the House, I wish to be helpful and offer to table this report in the House for the consideration of the Minister and Members. If there are no objections from any side of the House, I would indeed be pleased to table this report for the edification and use of Members from all sides of the House on a non-partisan basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what kind of formalities we should go through to do this, or whether the Members of the Government and Official Opposition would consider it a contribution in a non-partisan way. That is the way I mean it to be.
Mr. Speaker, if I could have your attention, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to in fact do that: to table this report on the environment that was put together by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: I am
informed that it is not up to a single Member to table a document. I regret that there is no precedent for it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point that the Hon. Member has made and is asking. He is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to table the environmental report. With unanimous consent, I submit that it can be accepted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: understand quite well that that was the point of the Hon. Member. However, I am informed that the document is
June 8, 1989

not in both official languages. It is the policy of the House that documents to be tabled must be in both official languages.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in an effort to be helpful, we might simply note that indeed when the request was made, there was no objection from the House. You might want to defer the request of the Hon. Member to the Speaker on his return. We would certainly, I would assume, be willing to accept that decision. Naturally, I am sure all Members of the House would want to stand by the ruling of the Chair, but there was no objection in the House to the request.


Don Boudria: Mr Speaker, I simply wish to reiterate that as far as I am concerned, the document is unacceptable if it is not bilingual whatever the circumstances under which it is tabled. Let me repeat that, and hopefully all Hon. Members are agreed on that. After all, this is an established tradition that should be upheld.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the thought would never occur to table a document in this House that would not be in both official languages. I want to make that perfectly clear. It was the intent of the Hon. Member, when he asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the tabling, that it would of course be tabled in both official languages.


Don Boudria: Then it is agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to express my appreciation on all sides of the House for that courtesy. I know it is unusual and therefore much more appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister says that he is not sure whether a Government can really make environmental concerns a major part of its agenda, I think there is a good place to start. For example, on some of the
Supply
reductions in Government programs already, it would be a good thing for the Government to reconsider the actions they have taken which, in my view, will be seriously detrimental to the advances that were made over the years, small though they may be. They would be seriously detrimental to future advancements on the environmental front.
The Hon. Member from Saanich-Gulf Islands listed some of the program cuts the Government has already made which we would like to see reinstated.
Another thing I would like to refer the Government to is a motion that has been put on the Order Paper by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan) which I would recommend for reading to Members on all sides of the House. It refers directly to possible programs that the federal Government could initiate, such as establishing policies to only use recyclable products.
The Hon. Member from Mission-Coquitlam will be speaking directly after me and will address that more fully. But in the interests of doing something in a very concrete way, I would highly recommend to all Members that we take a look at that particular motion.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling to me that my time has practically expired. I will not take up much more of your time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: I am
sorry, but pursuant to an understanding you had with your colleague from Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan) on the sharing of your time, I do now provide for five minutes for questions, after which I shall recognize another Member. So, five minutes for questions.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the procedural discussion cut into the Hon. Member's time to the tune of about four minutes. It would seem that the Hon. Member should have time to finish his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: regret, but the information I was left with was that the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) had ten minutes, which I even let overrun by a few seconds. Again, I will allow the Hon. Member five minutes for questions.

June 8, 1989
Supply


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that in fact my hon. colleague had utilized his time at the point where the discussion of House proceedings did in fact take place whereas, with all due respect, I happened to be timing the Member at that point. It was in fact seven minutes and 30 seconds. Given the fact that considerable debate did take place on the point of order that was raised at that point, I would estimate that the time left for the Member was in fact two and a half to three minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere)):: With deepest regrets according to the information available to me I complied with the directions I received when Mr. Speaker left the Chair, and again I will allow five minutes for questions from Hon. Members.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have been listening very carefully to the comments of people from different regions of this country. Perhaps I can share at this time, in response to the last speaker, some of the concerns that have been raised on the Prairies about the environmental issues that we have raised directly in our motion.
For example, consider what this Government has done in not following up its promises for the Centre for Sustainable Development. They moved from the language that they are going to be sponsoring this centre into the language that they may be participating. Right now, we have no centre.
Second, right now the Quebec and Alberta Governments are negotiating the transport of PCB liquids and solids from Quebec to in and around the City of Edmonton. That goes through the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Where are the Minister of Transport (Mr. B. Bouchard) and Minister of Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard) on that issue? They are silent.
Third, the City of Winnipeg right now has the problem of the Shoal Lake water system being threatened by a mining venture in the middle of the lake. Is there any environmental impact assessment being undertaken by the federal Government? The answer is no. Are they asking the provincial Government to undertake one? The answer is no. They are silent again on that issue.
Another issue facing us in the West is the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. The Government had to be yanked into court by the Canadian Wildlife Federation in order to get it to agree to do an environmental assessment. Lo and behold, what was found out in that environmental assessment? Sure enough, there would be a lot more damage than the Government anticipated, and maybe now it will conduct public hearings into the process.
The Alberta Government has announced that if the federal Government is going to adhere to the stronger environmental protection regulations, it will not allow its forestry industry developments to be influenced in any way, shape or form by those new regulations. In other words, the federal Government cannot convince its close political allies to participate in environmental impact studies when that is the essence of the way that we should be making decisions nowadays.
The federal Government has been very slow to take up on a new project in northwestern Manitoba. A smelter needs to be modernized in Flin Flon. Many jobs are dependent upon it. There is acid rain pollution throughout the central part of this continent which comes from this plant. The Government has been willing to modernize plants in other areas, but has not been able to come to an agreement on this one. It is a very important project for Manitobans.
I wanted to raise those issues in the House in this debate on the environment. We must become very national in our orientation and very sensitive to how the environmental issues affect not only people in large cities, but also people in isolated communities. These concerns are equally important for all Canadians.


Neil Young: I am not sure if the Hon. Member had a question, as much as it was a comment. However, I certainly appreciate the concerns the Hon. Member expresses on behalf of his own constituents, and certainly the people in western Canada.
In the whole thrust of this debate, I do not think there is any strong disagreement along partisan lines in the House. Most legislators have now come to the conclusion that the environment does not belong to us. We borrow the environment from future generations. We have absolutely no right at all to despoil it by our irresponsible actions. That is something that Members on all sides of the House can readily agree with.
June 8. 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) made the very important observation that indeed we borrow the environment from future families, from our children, and from our grandchildren.
I wish to speak to the motion before us today from the point of view of protection of the environment as it begins in the House of Commons. I want to speak about what happens in the House, and what happens in numerous houses in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam.
When I inquired at the House of Commons Printing about having my Householder and stationery printed on recycled paper, I was told there were no Canadian suppliers for recycled paper. In fact, we would have to import recycled paper to use it in the amounts that we need in the House of Commons.
If the House were to put the pulp and paper industry on notice that, on a certain date in the future, the House and the Government would only use recycled paper, the sheer volume of government paper use would have the entire pulp and paper industry clamouring to get the first mill up and running to produce recycled paper in order to get that lucrative government contract.
There are a number of matters that can be raised about the health and safety and environmentally sound practices in the House of Commons. Are the plastic bags degradable that are used in recycling bins in our corridors, in our kitchens, and for garbage pickup in the precincts of the House? Do the kitchens separate paper, bottles, cans, and are they recycled? What about the paint, stains, and glue containers used by the many people who keep the House together. Are they disposed of properly by the House? Then there are the styrofoam cups. They are in every cafeteria. In the Opposition lobby and in the Government lobby surely it is possible for us to be using a more safe and environmentally sound container from which to drink water, juice, or coffee?
In the corridors there are recycle bins for papers. Tried, the company which picks up all the House of Commons garbage, does not recycle garbage or anything else. We have attempted to check and double-check to
Supply
see where the recycle bins in the corridors are sent. We have been unable to find that out. I would very much appreciate if, in future, we could be told where the contents of the recycled paper bins in the House of Commons are sent.
Has the Government examined more energy-efficient and environmentally-sound ways to run the buses? Have we thought about natural gas for the green buses that run us around the Hill?
I wonder if it would make some sense for Ministers' cars to be shut off while waiting for Ministers who are in the House, especially during the winter months. I know it might be inconvenient for them to have to put on their coats, but it would certainly be more environmentally sound to put on a coat rather than getting into a warmed up car.
One of the most serious points that clearly dlustrates why we need an environmental officer in the House of Commons is the numerous areas within the parliamentary precincts where asbestos materials have been found. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West- Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen) raised this question earlier today. It was brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works months ago. The response has been that the asbestos will be removed in good time. Walls in this temple of democracy are filled with asbestos insulation. The endless renovations that are going on in this building are being handled unsafely daily. Workers are not protected. The Department of Public Works is not responding in a way that is occupationally healthy or safe.
I now wish to speak about recycling at home in our ridings. My riding of Mission-Coquitlam has the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society. It has won numerous awards for the efforts it has made as a small society toward recycling. Yet, it is a victim of fickle markets, of the lack of interest at higher levels of Government, and a victim of doing a lot of work to recycle paper, glass, cans, and plastic goods and then not be able to have a market. It has to depend on grants from the federal Government, and when possible, the provincial Government just to hang together. That is not good enough. In my view, it does not show Government leadership. It is putting a band-aid on an idea instead of promoting it.

June 8, 1989
Supply
It is time we began to think about requiring producers to be responsible for recycling a portion of what they produce. It is time the Government of Canada made recycling a priority and made it clear to Canadians that recycling is required, and make it clear to companies that they are expected to do their share in recycling what they produce.
It is time that we establish a national waste reduction goal which will see a 50 per cent reduction in waste by the year 2000, and no waste within 50 years.
It is time to introduce legislation that will regulate and reduce packaging used for consumer and other goods. It is possible to purchase endless products that have cellophane over a box over a foil package over individual cellophane packages. Many packages are produced for all manner of products with between three and five layers. Almost all of that packaging material has a long decomposition life and with toxic ink used in printing on every layer. This packaging often has little value except for promotion.
It is time that we develop a cradle-to-grave policy for manufacturers in order to provide a market for goods once they serve their original purpose.
I have spoken of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society and its work. The work of this society would not be possible if the whole community were not committed to participating and supporting recycling.
In Mission all Grade 5 students have launched an environmental week project to clean up local streams. They are spray-painting symbols of salmon on storm sewer covers in Mission to remind people to think about the kind of waste they are dumping into our sewer system. Next fall they will be working on a salmon fry project. The schools in Maple Ridge are participating in a love a tree project where they recycle the school paper. All communities on the north side of the Fraser River are vitally concerned about the disposal of cedar hog fuel that sits in huge piles along the side of the mighty Fraser River and streams that feed into the Fraser. Hog fuel has a toxic leachate that has a devastating consequence for the aquatic habitat. The people of my riding are looking to the federal Government to move to protect this tidal waterway, and are very conscious of the sensitivity of the environment. They know that protecting the environment begins at home, and they believe they have started. Now it is time for the Government to support then-efforts through effective legislation. They believe it is time we set an example and put our own house in order within the precincts of Parliament.
This House has to become conscious and include in its program federal Government procurement practices which encourage the use of recycled materials; in particular that a minimum percentage of post-consumer waste paper be utilized, that there be introduction of legislation which will regulate and reduce the amount of packaging used for consumer and other goods, that there be the establishment of a national waste reduction goal which will see a 50 per cent reduction in waste by the year 2000 and no waste within 50 years and the development of a cradle-to-grave policy for manufacturers in order to provide a market for goods once they no longer serve their original purpose.


Mr. Kaplan:: I want to ask the Hon. Member about one of her ideas which sounded like quite a good idea. That is that the Government seek to award contracts for recycled paper as a way of providing an incentive to the Government and to government employees to use recycled paper. What she neglected to mention is that such a contract would never be awarded unless there was some Conservative firm in the country that was in the business of preparing recycled paper. I want to ask her if she has looked into whether there are any Conservative firms in the paper recycling business.


Joy Langan: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for what I am sure is a tongue in cheek question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No.


Joy Langan: Indeed there are no companies that are in any major way in the recycling of paper business. When you speak to companies, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise which are in the pulp and paper business about recycling, usually the question that is raised refers to the contaminants that leach out of and are the result of recycling of bleached paper and the inks and so on. There is the technology, however, albeit somewhat expensive, to protect the environment from those contaminants and to in fact recycle paper in a safe manner and to save numbers of trees in so doing.


Mr. Boyer:: The answer was much better than the question.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises some veiy salient points about the difficulties in recycling that we are experiencing right across this country. It brings to mind an incident which occurred in my family in the Ottawa area when my children were visiting here. I think it is a good example of some of the problems that we have. As a parent I try to discourage my children from drinking pop as much as possible but they always manage to get a can of Coke once in a while.
June 8, 1989

On one of the days that we happened to be touring the Ottawa area, my daughter had just finished a can of Coca-Cola or Pepsi and wanted to return the can. In British Columbia we have a five cent return on the cans. It is the law in British Columbia that if you purchase a bottle or can of pop that in fact the retail outlet that sold you that commodity will in fact take the recycled material back. We found to our dismay, because she came out looking quite perplexed, that in fact there was no refund policy in Ottawa, no refund policy I assume throughout the Province of Ontario. I think it brings to question what is happening province by province across this country. Perhaps it is indicative that the federal Government needs to send a very strong message throughout the country that we do need encouragement of the recycling of our non-renewable resources.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock Monday, June 12, 1989.
It being 5.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.