1990-03-30

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) moved:: That this House condemn the government for its lack of a sincere commitment to the environment and for its vacuous discussion paper which completely fails to offer the concrete action that all Canadians would like to see implemented and, therefore, call on the government to end the rhetoric and to introduce a truly substantial environmental action plan.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we as members of the opposition tend to make political speeches and indulge in political rhetoric from time to time. However, when the Minister of the Environment was appointed by the Prime Minister, we had high hopes that he would be able to further the cause of the environment within the Conservative Party.
In 1984, the Prime Minister claimed to be concerned about the environment, but between 1984 and 1988, he started slashing funding-as much as 95 per cent in the budget for alternative resources.

We had a lot of hope for the Minister of the Environment when he was chosen by the Prime Minister. He was supposed to be a great friend of the Prime Minister. He was supposed to be close to the Prime Minister. He was supposed to be the minister who could put environmental action on the map in so far as this government is concerned.
In actual fact what we have seen is not only a first term chequered by environmental cuts, hatchet jobs and axes
but we have seen a year and a half in the second term of a majority Conservative government in which the new Minister of the Environment has done nothing more than talk about what he might do for environmental change.
He started off with a 200-page document which actually had some teeth.

This particular document mentioned some real solutions for dealing with PCBs and proposed a new energy consumption policy for Canada. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of the Environment is trying to cut back on garbage, because today, what we have is a mere 30 pages that are more or less garbage, don't mean a thing, and demonstrate that we Canadians are the most wasteful country in the world and the country that consumes the most energy. Whether we are talking about electricity, water or any source of energy at all, Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the most wasteful countries in the world, and I think it all starts here in the House. We know that words are wasted, because we just saw a member who was afraid to speak himself because he didn't want his own comments and environmental issues to be on the record. He is ashamed of his government's record on PCBs.
He is ashamed of his government's record on PCBs. He is ashamed of his government's record on oil spills, particularly oil spills off Vancouver Island.
I am sorry if his government has made Canada the dumping point of American refrigerators. You can walk through any-

-dump in the province of Quebec and you will see refrigerators full of CFCs in Canadian dumps, because the Government of Canada thinks it is good business to bring garbage from the United States to Canada.


An hon. member:: Shame!

March 30, 1990
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not only are we the Americans' dumping ground when it comes to our foreign policy, but now we are literally their garbage can.
What we expected from the environment minister, Mr. Speaker-and I know that it is very hard for the hon. member to face facts, because the hon. member for Abitibi is really caught now; the GST has 17 per cent support in the polls and 17 per cent is very low. I know it is hard when you have an "environmentalist" government.
I remember very well, Mr. Speaker-the Prime Minister himself said so last week and again yesterday in the House-I was shocked to hear him say that he had created the policy to clean up Hamilton Harbour.
Mr. Speaker, I had something to say about that, because as you recall, Mr. Speaker, the Hamilton Harbour issue dragged on for three years. The Prime Minister did not want to do anything. It took a by-election to get something done. It would be good if we could have by-elections in all ridings every year-then we might have an environmental policy. But we cannot wait for the government to make little promises during election campaigns.
For example, Mr. Speaker-

Listen to this if you want a chuckle, Mr. Speaker. Thank God it is printed on recycled paper because it is going to be used for many other things.
Canadians need to explore the ways governments, industry and
individuals can best contribute to a 50-per-cent reduction in waste.
Do you know what they want to do to reduce waste in government? They want to open an office of waste management so that they can put out more paper.
They are actually talking about opening an office of waste management to examine ways of how we can cut down on our waste.
In this document national regulations to control packaging and to require recycling are an option. On an issue as important as over-packaging, which is something that every consumer understands and every consumer is revolting against, why do they not introduce national regulations on the controlling of packaging and then let the public have a discussion?

We are not against a public debate, Mr. Speaker. Since 1984, the Conservatives have been promising a debate on it, but they do not have the courage to take a position on such an important issue as packaging.

The issue of the controlling of packaging is only one of the elements that has been raised in this document. Once again, they talk about, for example, the greenhouse effect. They ask themselves whether or not we should be developing on a national basis greenhouse gas emission targets.
We do not have time to ask ourselves that question. Of course we must establish greenhouse gas emission targets. We must set them in regulation so that Canadians can then have some input into what level they might be set at. But this document is nothing but a stall tactic.

I can see very clearly that the government will hold public hearings across Canada from now until June, while the debate goes on. But what will it do next fall? It will bring in an environmental policy that will take effect after the next federal election.
But the people of Canada believed the Prime Minister when he went to Burlington-

When the Prime Minister came within breathing space of my riding-he did not dare go into my riding-he actually went to the Canada Centre for Inland Waters and said that he was the environment Prime Minister for Canada. He promised that he would bring forward a green policy that would make Canada proud in the international arena for having a real green policy. Instead, what he has dropped with this document is a green bomb which does not give a single substantive piece of action on issues like greenhouse gases, global warming, old growth forests, national parks, water or energy.
This government does not have the guts to come forward with a single substantive policy because all it wants to do is talk out the clock. It would be amusing to watch the government talk out the clock if it were not for the fact that the global clock is ticking.
March 30, 1990

Friends of the Earth, along with a number of environmental groups across the country, put forward a document called "The Green Print for Canada". It has some teeth in it, although it is not a perfect document. There are some additions, omissions and addenda, but it is the basis for real environmental discussion, which should have been the basis for the document tabled by the Minister of the Environment.
I am not surprised that the Minister of the Environment was afraid to come into the House to defend his policy. It is an embarrassment. It is a recycled bunch of old promises that could verily be characterized as a green bomb for the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister.

You remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister appointed the environment minister, we talked about "mini-bouche" and "maxi-bouche". We know that "maxi-bouche" changed places and became transport minister-You know, Mr. Speaker, this document actually talks about a transport policy at the same time as the government cut VIA Rail!

They cut VIA Rail only a few months ago. Now they have the audacity to suggest that we should have a national transportation policy that reflects a clean environment. If anybody had seen the environmental assessment that was allegedly an addendum to the VIA Rail analysis, one could see quite clearly that they went ahead with the VIA cuts with absolutely no consideration for the environmental impact.
If any Canadian has had the displeasure recently of motoring between Windsor and Montreal in the so-called corridor area, they will know that with the increased traffic in the Toronto-Niagara belt alone we are choking in our own carbon dioxide fumes. We do not need more talk. We do not more questions. We need some specific emission reductions. We need some specific targets.
This document should not be a document asking questions. It should be a document providing answers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think that any Conservative whose heart is in the right place, because there must be some-


Mr. Gauthier:: Not many.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There are very few, but there are some. The right-minded Conservatives who are, for example, actually against the GST, who are against the government's policy of giving everything to the big cities-


Mr. Langlois:: Like Hamilton?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and nothing to the small towns of Canada. Those who are against the policy of-

-killing small town Canada. I am sure that all those members want to support our motion which calls upon the government to bring forward a substantive environmental policy with real teeth.
This is not a sincere commitment to the environment. It is a completely empty, vapid, vacuous discussion paper. We have had too many discussions. It fails to offer the concrete action that was promised.
Do you remember the great dreams that we had for Lucien Bouchard, the Minister of the Environment? He came in and in the first week he said he was going to sweep the federal House clean.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Clean, Mr. Clean.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Lucien Bouchard was able to overturn the decisions of any department.

He claimed that he had the divine authority of the Prime Minister to act on every single environmental dossier in the government. In fact, when the test came on the Rafferty-Alameda, who proved to have the guts and the capacity to uphold our laws? It was not the Minister of the Environment. It was not the Prime Minister. The Canadian Wildlife Federation had to take it to the courts on two occasions. It was not the Minister of the Environment who defended the right of Canadians to have a real environmental assessment before any megaproject of that nature was to be proceeded with. That particular right, that responsibility was totally abdicated by the Minister of the Environment and it became a responsibility for the courts.

March 30, 1990
Supply
Now, in this document, the Minister of the Environment says that he is going to make sure that future federal laws are respected and are strong enough to withstand the test of time. What we believe, and it was alluded to yesterday in the very excellent question by the member for Davenport, is the reason he wants to revise the requirements under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is because he wants to make it easier to flaunt the law, to get around the law, to find the loopholes in the same way-


Ms. Campbell:: Flout, not flaunt.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Flaunt, not flout. You may be a floutist. I say he is flaunting.


A. Kim Campbell: If he is flaunting it, that means he is brandishing it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is incredible that she is more interested in words than in real ideas. That is more or less the problem with the ministers in the Mulroney government: they are not even prepared to accept a court ruling as in the Rafferty-Alameda case that they have to abide by their own laws which they adopted so that there is at least an environmental assessment of all big projects.

It is not too much to ask. I am sure that all of those on the other side of the House who believe in a green Canada would realize that if we truly endorse the concept of sustainable development, if we truly recognize the meaning of Brundtland, then we must believe that the federal government must have the power of environmental review in every major megaproject of the nature of the Rafferty-Alameda. It seems to me that in the Rafferty-Alameda dossier we have a very good example of how the Minister of the Environment talks a very good game when it comes to the environment but is unprepared to act.
I think it is a tragedy that in the Rafferty-Alameda decision it was not the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada that protected the rights of the people to a full and fair environmental assessment, it was the courts. Now the Minister of the Environment is coming in with a proposal to water down the provisions of the law that require the federal government to undergo a full environmental assessment. He is parading
that under the guise of strengthening the law, when in actual fact the two successive decisions of the court have shown that the law provides the protection. It is the government that is not prepared to act when it comes to truly carrying out the responsibilities it was given under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is one way of ensuring that Canadians' rights to a clean environment are protected. But we need to go a step further.
Absent from this discussion paper-this vacuous discussion paper-is the capacity of Canadians to sue the government. I think we have to examine the possibility of class action legislation which will permit any Canadian to be granted intervenor status. When the air we breathe is poisoned and when the water we drink is full of toxins to the point that in the latest report of the International Joint Commission for the first time a direct link between neurological damage in human beings and the poison in the water we drink has been discovered, then we have the right and a responsibility as a society to make sure that every Canadian can pursue the government with the full intent of the law when the government fails to respect its own laws.
We recreate in the forests that absorb the greenhouse gases. Every time a tree is felled it does not touch one person, it touches all Canadians. We have a right and a responsibility as a society to make sure that every Canadian can pursue the government with the full intent of the law.
I can understand why this Conservative government would not want to move with an environmental auditor, in the same way as the Auditor General has shown himself to be independent of government.

I think that if we had an auditor general for the environment, like the auditor general we have for financial matters, we would have something specific that would give Canadians an opportunity to complain about the departments without dealing directly with the government.

We need some very specific legislative changes to reduce waste, not only in the disposing of waste or in finding ways of dealing with the toxins that we create but also to reduce waste at the input level. We need to develop solutions to the crisis that makes Canadians the

March 30, 1990

most wasteful people in the world. The solutions do not revolve around more questions.
We know that we are over-packaged in Canada. We know that when we pick products off the grocery shelf, in many instances there is a box within a box within a box. It is very simple to introduce regulations which could be subject to a broad range of public discussion. They should be real regulations to see not only recycling but reduction of waste at the input level.
One of the shocking omissions in this document is that there is no very specific plan for waste reduction at the federal government level. I commend the Speaker of the House of Commons who, in a very non-partisan way, has embarked upon the most progressive form of energy analysis in the House of Commons. Working in tandem with the environment committee the Speaker of the House has shown himself to be very green.
We are sitting in a green chamber. Is it not about time that the good will and the forward thinking that was demonstrated by the Speaker of the House be translated into action in all federal government departments?
We are not only talking about regulations that must be brought forward to deal with garbage and waste at the private sector level and at the community level. We must lead by example. That example is not in recycled promises, or what I would refer to as the green bomb of Lucien Bouchard, but rather real solutions to the real problems that are facing Canadians and for which the clock is ticking.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my compliments to the hon. member for Hamilton East. The hon. member said earlier that perhaps we weren't allowed to talk about the environment, so I have a comment. I have here some of my remarks made in the House in April 1989: objections to transfers of toxic waste in Abitibi.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who wrote that one for you?


Guy St-Julien: Another one on September 1988: the importance of setting up a national program to deal with PCBs.
Supply


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Lucien wrote it, and he isn't even here to listen.


Guy St-Julien: All my statements on hazardous substances: PCB storage sites in Abitibi-Temiscamjn-gue; the need for more protective measures in Abitibi; hazardous substances-people are asking for action to prevent storage of PCBs; the environment-another statement, Mr. Speaker. Another one: spill of viscous liquid in Abitibi. And there are many more. The concerns of Canadians.
The hon. member for Hamilton East said ealier that nothing was being done in Abitibi. I have another one here: transportation of hazardous substances. And last but not least, I have decided to send only one householder a year to save Canadian taxpayers's money. The one I sent this year was about a global perspective on local environmental issues, in English and in French.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to the hon. member for Hamilton East about PCBs in Canada. The only government that let PCBs enter the country were the Liberals-for 20 years. As for the Green Plan-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can see that this is Friday and that it is going to be a very wonderful debate. I think the hon. member should have at least a couple of minutes for comment and then he will put his question. But I will listen to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier first.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The debate must be genuine debate, so the Speaker must be firm. He did not ask his question. He is making a speech. He only has 10 minutes and he is wasting his time, and I wish he would put his question. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't even have his text in front of him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member please put his question, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton East.

March 30, 1990
Supply


Guy St-Julien: I don't need a text to tell you that for 20 years, the Liberal government sent us nothing but "b.s".
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. member for Hamilton East whom we haven't seen in the House for months.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who?


Guy St-Julien: The hon. member for Hamilton East who, I am glad to see, is in the House this morning.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: She was here yesterday but you weren't.


Guy St-Julien: I hope I get a chance to put my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The member knows the rules require that you not allude to the presence or absence of members in the House. I want to remind the hon. member that yesterday the member for Hamilton East was here. Where the heck was he?


Don Boudria: Where was the Minister of the Environment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member would please put his question, we will try to get an answer for him.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, at last. Actually, I haven't seen the hon. member for Hamilton East in a long time. In any case, is the hon. member for Hamilton East-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can't you ask questions that make more sense? You should come here more often.


Guy St-Julien: Is the hon. member capable of travelling across Canada with a list of proposals for every provincial Environment minister? The hon. member makes her comments here in the House, but it would be nice if she could meet with every single provincial Environment minister within the next two months and come up with some sound proposals for the provinces.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't here because I was very busy in Abitibi, convincing them to replace the hon. member with a decent member in the next election.


Guy St-Julien: You never went to Abitibi.


Sheila Maureen Copps: When we look at the major environmental issues the hon. member for Abitibi has been pursuing, it all goes to show how much clout his comments have within the Conservative Party. He has made a lot of proposals. He told us earlier that he spoke on a variety of subjects. So it is unfortunate that his government did not see fit to consider at least one of his many proposals.


Guy St-Julien: At least I made some suggestions.


An hon. member:: Nobody listens to him! He has no clout!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nobody listens to him, not even his own caucus. And incidentally, if he is so knowledgeable about PCBs and other issues, he should know that in 1985, the former federal Environment minister proposed a national strategy on PCBs, to be launched by the federal government, not by the provinces. This was almost five years ago, and the government has not moved on this issue. He wants to blame us for a policy that was promised by his government in 1985, and now it is 1990 and we are still waiting for a policy on PCBs. I think the hon. member for Abitibi should work a little harder and work on his ministers, since the Minister of the Environment just isn't listening to the hon. member's demands.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton East.


Guy St-Julien: Sure. What about PCBs? PCBs are "b.s".


Philip Edmonston: I realize that pollution is a problem that worries all Canadians, and I also realize that the Green Plan is a lot of garbage, to avoid the term used by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Saint-Julien). Since the hon. member for Hamilton East refered to what should be done, she must be aware of a problem faced by all political parties-donations and the companies that finance political parties.


Guy St-Julien: And the unions.
March 30, 1990


Philip Edmonston: The hon. member seems to think it's funny, but I am serious-


Guy St-Julien: So am I.


Philip Edmonston: -because it causes a conflitct of interest for political parties. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton East for raising this issue during her leadership campaign-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Edmonston: -where she said that to request a maximum of $1.7 million was absolutely shameful, especially for the Liberal Party, and I agree wholeheartedly.
My question for the hon. member is as follows: Since corporate donations may cause a conflict of interest for your party, is there a possibility that all your plans and ideas which theoretically are quite good might lead to a situation where you would be powerless to act, as you were before 1984?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the question is in order, but I think it is good question, because if anyone is hypocritical about the issue of donations, it is the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My brother, as a worker in the steel mills in Hamilton, had to give his pay directly to the New Democratic Party-


Don Boudria: Whether he wanted to or not!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -which was campaigning against me in my own riding, although he knew perfectly well that I was supporting the workers.
So if the New Democratic Party does not want to dirty its hands with anyone's donations-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Donations from the workers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -either from a big union or any other big corporation, I am quite ready, and I will be delighted to follow in the footsteps of a New Democratic Party that would refuse all donations from the union and corporate sector.
Since you mention being influenced, it is true the possibility exists just about everywhere in politics, wheth-
Supply
er we are talking about individuals, corporations or unions. But if we really want to see a change in party financing at all levels, it will also have to include corporations and the unions.
Let me tell you just one thing: in my campaign, I receive personal donations. Two days ago, I gave a benefit dinner at $125 a plate for 1,000 people in Toronto, because I prefer to collect $100,000 from 1,000 people-


An hon. member:: Right on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -instead of collecting it from two or three or four corporations. That happens to be my policy.


Don Boudria: Or two or three unions!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am prepared, as a leader of the Liberal party and as Prime Minister, to make the changes so we can have this policy.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off, as I am sure you would like me to, by congratulating my colleague for her excellent speech. Such substance and eloquence has seldom been heard in this House of Commons.
The people of Canada wanted a green environment; they got a Green Paper. They wanted clean water; they got watered down commitments from the government. They wanted recycling programs; they got recycled promises instead.
Does my colleague not think that it is hypocritical for the Tories across the way to have shut down VIA Rail, at least in part and probably will eventually kill the whole thing, an environmentally friendly system of transportation at the same time as they are pretending to be in favour of a greener environment?


Sheila Maureen Copps: At page 21 of the recycled document it states:
Transportation is a major source of carbon dioxide. The Royal
Commission on National Passenger Transportation will be examining
environmental issues as part of its own work on the future of
transportation in Canada.
Is it not a little late? It is incredible that this promise comes out just months after they have already nailed the last spike in the coffin of the great Canadian railway.

March 30, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Debate. The Hon. Minister of Forestry.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Minister of the Environment, who is absent today keeping a long-standing commitment to make a speech to the Inter-American Development Bank. We all know that is something very important because the issue we are discussing today has many international dimensions.
I want to start by welcoming the hon. member for Hamilton East back to the green chamber. I appreciate very much her plea for a non-partisan, rational, compassionate approach to the issue. I want to welcome her back with all her enthusiasm and partisan venom. She stated that she has been travelling in areas where environmental situations have caused neurological damage. It should suit her very well to be a leadership candidate, if that is the approach the Liberals will introduce to this critical debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That was the International Joint Commission.


Frank Oberle: She wants goodwill. Her speech hardly had any phrases that would bear any relationship to goodwill. The Liberals had been in power for 25 years and, if we are truly in such a mess, how can they stand up today and blame it all on other people?
Yesterday, on behalf of the Government of Canada, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, invited all Canadians to participate in the reshaping of our future. Judging from the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Hamilton East, there is a clear indication that more Canadians have to get involved in the debate if we want this debate to have any substance.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the minister today. The goal of the federal government is quite clear, and that is to make Canada by the year 2000 the world's most environmentally friendly country. That would be in keeping with the image that we still enjoy throughout the world. It is not one we have particularly earned, but one
that we inherited because of the vastness of our land and the pristine mountains, waters, streams and forests.
Let us take a look at what is proposed. The next steps are equally clear. The Green Plan is a national challenge, a framework for achieving this goal. It has four parts.
The first step is to inform Canadians about the challenges we are facing and the imperatives that must be addressed. Between mid-April and mid-May there will be information sessions in 30 cities across the country. We are hoping to engage every Canadian in every part of our country.
The second phase involves seeking the views of Canadians on specific issues raised in the framework for this discussion paper. This phase will last from May 21 to the end of June. We will be asking Canadians in groups or as individuals to make their submissions to us.
The third phase will involve the final formulation of the action plan which will be tabled in the House of Commons this fall.
Finally the plan will find implementation.
A clear goal, a clear timetable and a clear commitment to action, the plan is designed to position the federal government in a leadership role, to bridge the gap between those who have old fashioned views about development and those who say that all development must stop, that we must reach back to the dark ages and even beyond that where all of us could afford to live in a hunting and gathering economy.
This issue crosses political lines. It requires the co-operation of all Canadians. It requires us to put aside our partisan views about these issues and to engage ourselves in this dialogue.
All of us on this side of the House share the desire of Canadians, indeed the impatience that Canadians feel for action, but as the framework for discussion paper makes clear, the achievement of sustainable development requires more than the series of react and cure actions by government. If sustainable development is to become a reality we need a blueprint for lasting and long-term change.
We must also realize that going it alone as Canadians is not the solution. We are just now learning how inextricably our resources, the life sustaining systems, and the ecological zones and regions over which we claim sovereignty ourselves are interrelated with all the ecological zones of the planet; how Canadians will be affected by the destruction of the rain forests in the
March 30, 1990

Amazon; and how other people on the planet could be affected if we do not improve our custodial practices over our own resources.
At the turn of the century there were 1.5 billion people on the planet. By the end of this century there will be 6 billion people, and that figure will perhaps double by the year 2020. What a daunting challenge: all these people will lay claim to some of the scarce resources, the scarcity in what the planet can produce for its human species.
Everywhere we look we see the symptoms of a planet under stress: the thinning of the ozone layer, the threat of climate change, environmental emergencies, and the disappearance of plant and wildlife species. They make us wonder about our relationship with our environment and the future we are creating for our children. They make us raise fundamental questions about whether the living standards that we have worked so hard to achieve can really be maintained.
As Canadians we are blessed in both material and environmental terms. Much of our material well-being has its basis in our endowment of renewable and non-renewable resources. More than four million Canadians, one in every three working Canadians, are employed in our five main resource based industries: agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and energy. We are a product of the environment, a participant in its evolution, and a significant factor in its present character.
Canadians are the heaviest users of energy per capita in the world. In the process of burning fossil fuels, Canadians are the world's fourth largest producers of carbon dioxide on a per capita basis. The average Canadians produces almost two kilograms of solid waste per day, more than any other citizen of the world, and less than 10 per cent is recycled. A Canadian family of five produces, on average, more than 2,000 litres of waste water every day.
Canadian governments, business and individuals have not been indifferent to environmental issues. Over the past decade there has been a strong and a steady record of achievement in the environmental field, despite what the hon. member for Hamilton East says, yet the
Supply
symptoms of environmental degradation continue to multiply.
Clearly we have to change some of our most deeply ingrained assumptions and habits if we are to live up to our responsibilities as stewards of a large portion of the world's environment and continue to enjoy the quality of life to which we have become accustomed. Perhaps we have to liberate ourselves from that part of our North American culture in which only big is beautiful: big cars, big homes, big plants, big mills and factories, big corporations and big cities.
In the area of Canada from where I come, most people do a day's work by the time people in the large cities get to work, spending up to one and a half to two hours a day smelling the exhaust fumes from the automobiles in front of them. Can we really sustain this kind of senseless development?
We already know that it will cost billions of dollars- and no one has found a source for the money-to rebuild the municipal infrastructures, the sewers that discharge into our rivers, our lakes and our oceans. Can we really sustain that kind of culture, that kind of habit, that kind of lifestyle? It means nothing less than the restructuring of our everyday lives and our families and our homes from the time we get up in the morning until we retire at night.
I do not anticipate it to be much different in Canada, but I have a chart which shows the annual release of dioxins in the United States by various sectors.
In the United States municipal solid waste incineration makes up 60.3 per cent of all dioxins discharged into the atmosphere; fuel combustion, 15.4 per cent; secondary copper furnaces, 11.2 per cent; forest fires, 4.5 per cent, and I would think that it is a much higher percentage in Canada; publicly owned treatment works, 2.6 per cent; magnesium production, 2.4 per cent; hospital waste incineration, 1.4 per cent; and pulp and paper mills, 0.8 per cent. Of course multinational corporations operating pulp mills are easy targets for the environmentalist. The truth is that all of us as individuals in our collective activities, in our cumulative human activities in the large cities, are perhaps the biggest polluters. That is the nature of the environmental challenge we face.

March 30, 1990
Supply
We cannot afford the costs of environmental degradation and mismanagement, nor can we afford the costly react and cure approach to dealing with environmental problems.
The government firmly believes that sustainable development can only be achieved through fundamental changes in the way we make decisions at all levels, including our personal lives as individuals managing households and choosing lifestyles, as working people making choices about production processes, energy uses, waste disposal and packaging, and as elected officials setting the rules for economic activities and environmental management in pursuing our international agenda.
This government understands that environmental problems are the result of the failure of all of us to make decisions that fully take their environmental consequences into account. It is the countless day to day choices we make that shape our economy. In turn, the flow of energy, materials and waste set in motion by these decisions determine the impact of our actions on the natural environment and ultimately on our own well-being.
This is not wilful irresponsibility. Choices are often made without adequate knowledge or understanding of the ways in which we interact with the environment every day, but sustainable development requires that our decisions reflect the true value of our scarce environmental resources and the fragile ecosystems on which we depend for our health and well-being.
It is not good enough to point fingers every time a new discovery is made, every time we learn to measure in even more minute quantities. Back in the 1930s and 1940s we measured in parts per thousand or parts per million. Of course anything that was not detectable was safe as far as the environment was concerned. Then we began to measure in parts per billion and parts per trillion. Today we can measure in parts per quadrillion, and we can trace harmful agents through to living organisms. We do not yet understand the health effects in total, but nevertheless every time a new discovery is made a finger is pointed at someone asking why it has not been corrected.
There is more to it than that. Improved decision making is at the heart of the government's long-term strategy for sustainable development. Improved data,
improved information, improved science will be the basis of this decision-making process.
We need to forge and strengthen new partnerships. We all share the environment, and we need to work together to preserve and to protect it. Co-operative efforts are essential at the international level and domestically. We need to co-operate with the provinces that share and have most of the regulatory and legal powers to make some of the changes and the corrections that need to be made.
Of course action is also required to address immediate environmental problems related to the health concerns of Canadians, and action has been taken. In the House the Prime Minister gave us a very impressive list of some of the things that have been done over the last five years in the Great Lakes, in dealing with our air quality and with acid rain, and even in cleaning up the Hamilton harbour.
The government believes that action on environmental problems should be targeted at five broad areas: the key stresses on the environment and human health associated with toxic substances, waste and environmental emergencies; our shared environmental resources, air and water, including issues such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, toxic air pollutants and local air and water quality; managing our renewable resources of agriculture, forests and fisheries on a sustainable basis. This is perhaps our biggest challenge because we are so dependent on these prime resources for our economic well-being. We are aware now, all of a sudden, that we cannot decouple the economy from the environment, one in every three Canadians being directly or indirectly involved with these resource industries.
The fourth target is preserving and protecting Canada's unique ecological heritage resources, parks and wildlife. We are now learning that in Canada we have roughly 39 ecological zones, and they do not neatly fit within the artificial political boundaries within which the federal and provincial governments exercise jurisdiction. Here again there needs to be federal-provincial co-operation. In every one of the ecological zones we need to set aside areas that are critically important in protecting their natural features.
March 30, 1990

Canadians and indeed all citizens of the world are at a critical stage in the evolution toward sustainable development. The Government of Canada believes that sustainable development offers the promise of a lasting solution to environmental problems. To bring about sustainable development, Canadians and their governments must proceed to develop an action plan that removes obstacles for better decision making. The government is prepared to bring forward a comprehensive national framework for implementing sustainable development.
If The Green Plan is to succeed, however, it will require the commitment of Canadians both individually and collectively. It will require us to participate in an over-all global effort to make sure that other countries are making the same decisions. If Canadians are to be called upon to make that commitment and to pay the cost, then they have a right to expect to be involved in defining the problem and developing the solutions. This is why we have chosen this course of action. That is why the government and I urge all Canadians, including all the members of the opposition, to join us in this necessary exercise of consultation.
The Green Plan is this government's strategy for the environment. It is a strategy with a clear goal, a clear timetable and a clear commitment to action. We invite all Canadians to participate in the national challenge of reshaping our future for ourselves, for our children and for all future generations.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, on listening to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Forestry, I am impressed by his eloquence, but I am less impressed by this government's environmental record. I want to ask him more or less the same question I just asked my colleague from Elamilton East, the question about donations, the money that political parties receive which often places them in conflict of interest. I want to ask my colleague, the Minister of Forestry: Does he not see that the millions and millions of dollars that the Conservative Party receives every year put it in a direct conflict of interest with the program they want to launch? Incidentally, I want to say that I am not criticizing only the Conservative Party, because I think that all political parties have the same problems and the same opportunities for conflict of interest. But we, our party, do not form the government, and secondly, the Lortie Commission is studying the problem. My specific question for the
Minister of Forestry is: Does he not see a conflict of interest and is that the reason his government has not acted until now?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is fairly new to the political process and to the Chamber. I would ask him to reflect on whether his environmental agenda would include a restriction on which political party a Canadian citizen or a shareholder in a corporation can support. Should we place restrictions on what political party a union can support, a member of an environmental movement, or any kind of corporation? We have no intention of depriving Canadians of those kinds of choices that need to be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, while many of us are occupied these days with constitutional and other issues facing Canada in the 1990s, there is a growing population whose day to day challenge is to find enough to eat.
Hunger continues to be a major problem today. Each day it claims 35,000 to 40,000 victims around the world. Whether in Ottawa or in Africa, it is not hard to witness the wasted potential of people because there is insufficient food.
In one year in the national capital alone, from September of 1988 to September of 1989, the Ottawa Food Bank distributed 585 tonnes of food to people who were in need.
On the evening of April 6 and all day on Saturday, April 7, we in Ottawa South are organizing the Stop Hunger Fast, a non-partisan hunger awareness event that features a 24-hour liquid only fast. Over those days we hope to collect food, pledges and volunteers for the Ottawa Food Bank and UNICEF. Stop Hunger Fast will be held at the local Charlebois High School in Ottawa and we are hoping that our residents will take time to

March 30, 1990
learn and find out about the problems of hunger in the world.
Hunger need not exist. Children should not be prevented from academic success because of malnutrition, and senior citizens who made our success in the world possible should not have to live in poverty today.


SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring you a success story, one in which the federal government is playing a major role.
In November 1988, through Jobs Innovations, a part of the Labour Force Development Strategy, a pilot project in Simcoe Centre was funded to assist a Skills Training Program in high schools and colleges to meet the demand for more skilled workers.
A partnership was formed between industry, business, educators, government and the community. They deserve a round of applause for their effort and dedication to this cause. From such a small beginning, we now have 55 secondary schools from 14 school boards and nine colleges, a total membership of 1,400.
I had the honour of participating in their awards night, March 27. Winners will compete in skills Olympics in Hamilton on April 21. Winners from this round will go on to Tulsa, Oklahoma for international competition. I strongly support their continued efforts and say, well done.


WOMEN'S PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, last month's budget may well spell a disaster for countless women in Canada. The fact that $1.6 million has been slashed from the women's programs of the Secretary of State means the end of many centres throughout Canada.
One of the centres is the Women's Resource Centre in Antigonish, which has long been a refuge and a strength for women in northeastern Nova Scotia. The Women's Resource Centre provides referral services, interim counselling, educational materials and programs for women who are otherwise often isolated and abused.
The centre serves rural women and women in small towns such as Canso, where the crisis in the fishery will add to the family stresses which many women in rural areas already face.
The centre lost $43,000 in federal support through the Secretary of State with the last budget, a meagre sum which would have helped contribute to a valuable service in my constituency.

Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, Anne Caron, Marie-France Chabot, Danielle Pelletier and Claudia Premont, four law students at Laval University in Quebec City, will represent Canada at the moot court competition of the Commonwealth Law Conference in New Zealand from April 16 to 20.
These students qualified by winning the Gale Cup in Toronto in 1989.
The financial support given by the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Laval Alumni Association for this important event is a tribute to the excellence shown by these students and their professors.
I am sure that, thanks to our team of francophone students pleading in the language of Shakespeare, the Commonwealth countries participating in this international competition will see that Canada's legal system is bilingual and includes both civil law and common law.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to wish them bon voyage and good luck with their case.


FRUIT INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the fruit industry in British Columbia's Okanagan valley is in serious trouble.
A recent royal commission into the B.C. fruit industry found that the $675 million industry is on the verge of collapse. In the Okanagan Valley alone, the industry is
March 30, 1990

worth $130 million. With this region's unemployment rate at 13 per cent, every dollar and every job is needed.
B.C. fruit growers and those in other provinces are lobbying the government to establish a national apple marketing board. A marketing board would stabilize the industry by controlling prices and quality, and by halting the apple imports pouring into Canada because of world-wide over-production.
I urge the government to act now on the establishment of a national apple marketing board by speeding up the process needed to put this board into effect. The survival of a major industry and a way of life are at stake.


DEMOCRACY IN HAITI
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, this week, representatives of Carrefour Tiers-Monde came to Ottawa to meet members of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on External Affairs and International Trade and explain to us the urgency of giving substantial support to the democratic process in Haiti.
The Conservative government must respond positively to this request which is unanimously supported by such important organizations as the Association quebecoise des organismes de cooperation internationale, Development and Peace, Canada World Youth, the Haitian Christian community office of Montreal and the group to promote respect for the Haitian Constitution.
I must say that the emergency assistance sought for Haiti includes medical, food, security and immigration components. One of the greatest concerns for those who are interested in the situation in Haiti is to have a country like Canada that could act now to help the authorities there prepare for democratic elections which could be held in early 1991.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister of the Environment for his renewed commitment to the environmental imperative for Canada, announced yesterday as The Green Plan: A National Challenge.
In particular, I want to commend the minister for the process of specific and intensive national consultation which he has introduced as a prelude to final publication of The Green Plan. In so doing he recognizes that the first step toward sustainable development must be a clear and informed consensus about where we want to go. The real challenge is to develop the national consensus as well as we possibly can.
The minister states clearly that environmental considerations, as with economic ones, must be forethoughts to decision making, not post mortems as has so often been the case. In the debate which he is now initiating, Canadians will have the responsibility and the opportunity to reflect upon the difficult balance which we must find between mutually compelling goals for economic development and environmental sustenance. The Green Plan will show the way, but first all Canadians must help to find the destination.


MINISTER OF FINANCE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know it is unfair to quote the Minister of Finance using his own words but let me do it anyway. On May 1, 1984 the Minister of Finance said, who was then the opposition member for Etobicoke Centre, said the following:
- the only response the minister has made to that is to increase interest rates. That in itself led to further weakness in the already weakening economy over the past six months.
On March 13, 1984, the member for Etobicoke Centre said:
It does not make any sense at all for us to have this situation in Canada where interest rates are allowed to rise. Is the minister telling us there is no alternative, that the government has no flexibility and no other options but simply to follow the policy of the United States lock-step, and watch our economy fall into the doldrums again?
The member for Etobicoke Centre said on December 13, 1982:
The inflation rate in the marketplace, the non-government control part of the economy, is between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. The current interest rate at 13 per cent or 14 per cent is simply too high.

March 30, 1990
The member for Etobicoke Centre was right.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recently the GVRD, representing 50 per cent of British Columbians, passed the following resolution:
Canada was created by the federation of two linguistic groups from an English or French heritage;
It is important to work toward the goal of a country in which all Canadians, irrespective of their origin, can feel comfortable in every region. This requires respect for minority language rights;
Whereas we live in a period characterized by sharp and sometimes rancorous debate on constitutional language questions which threaten the unity and very existence of the nation;
And it is vitally important at this critical time that all Canadians in positions of leadership speak up in support of those principles which underlie the unity and character of Canada;
Therefore, the greater Vancouver Regional District, the third largest urban community in Canada, strongly supports the linguistic duality of our nation and urges all Canadians from coast to coast to display the tolerance and understanding necessary to the building of Canada as a unified nation and constructive member of both the English speaking and French speaking parts of the world community.


THE AMOS ELITE GALA
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, one of the goals of the Amos Elite Gala is public recognition of entrepreneurship, at a gala event. The first gala was held recently, attended by more than 400 guests who were unanimous in calling this event an unqualified success for the Amos Chamber of Commerce.
I would like to congratulate the winners and especially Les Serres de Guyenne who ranked first with the Elite award for manufacturers and for the year. The Elite for retail and wholesale businesses went to Gyva's La
Boutique du bureau. A. Bergeron and Son received the award for a service business and the Town of Amos the award for public and semi-public enterprise.
Congratulations also go to the Amosphere Hotel Complex, awarded the Elite for new businesses, and to Ginette Larochelle and Yvan Rose who received, respectively, the Elite for businesswoman and businessman of the year.


SEED PROGRAM
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 the federal government cut $41.8 million from the Summer Employment Experience Development Program. This program provided almost
72.000	summer jobs for students in the past year, thus giving students the opportunity to gain valuable work experience and to earn money to help fund their education.
By slashing $41 million from this program, a total of
17.000	fewer students will obtain jobs this summer. Once again the Tory government is abandoning a federal role in post-secondary education in this country. It is abandoning the students by cutting the program. It is abandoning the provinces by slashing billions from its contribution to post-secondary education. In short, it is abandoning the youth of Canada and jeopardizing the very future of our country.
Surely Canadians deserve better than the shortsighted, penny-wise, pound-foolish policies of this Tory administration.



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, we have now seen just how committed the government is to the future of Canada and the education of our young people.
Documents obtained through Access to Information show that because of cuts to the Summer Employment Experience Development Program, more than 17,000 employment opportunities for students will be lost, even though this program has proven to be successful in the provinces with traditionally higher student unemployment.

March 30, 1990

But, should we be surprised at this government's abandonment of students with its dismal record of supporting those seeking further education and training? The Tories have slashed $41 million from the over-all student employment program.
It have proposed a 3 per cent user fee for students receiving Canada student loans.
It will, if it gets its way, institute for the first time almost anywhere in the world, a tax on books and supplies, further pushing up the costs of an education. As it has placed limits on transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education, this will result in tuition fee increases.
It is time that this Conservative government recognize that the most important natural resource of this country is its young people. Rather than slashing programs to assist students in their education and training, we should be investing in our future and putting more money into summer job programs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am with the tabling of The Green Plan by the Minister of the Environment.
My riding of Cumberland-Colchester in Nova Scotia is made up of people from all walks of life who are very concerned about the environment and related issues. They want to work toward maintaining and improving the best area of Canada in which to live.
It is exciting and refreshing for me to receive letters, ranging from elementary school students to seniors and all ages in between expressing this concern for the environment. We are all concerned that Canadians are the highest users of energy in the world, that Canadians are the world's fourth largest producers of carbon dioxide and that the average Canadian produces almost two kilograms of waste per day, more than any other country.
The Green Plan lays out a direction, but also gives Canadians the opportunity to speak their points of view in 35 information sessions scheduled for across Canada. In every issue, be it GST or government cuts or the environment, people want and, in fact, are demanding
Oral Questions
the opportunity to be involved. I urge Nova Scotians to attend the session scheduled for Halifax on April 27, less than one month away, and express those views, make their recommendations and be a part of the process.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in December of last year the government forced through back-to-work legislation against certain Public Service workers, including ships' crews and hospital workers.
Part of the package was that there would be a report of the conciliation board within 90 days. The 90 days is now up. The Conciliation Board has asked for an extension.
The ships' crews and the hospital workers in Halifax, as well as in other places across this country, are waiting and they are losing patience. The ships' crews workers on the east coast have been waiting for parody. They have been waiting for a report. They have been waiting for some sign that this government realizes the incredible work they do for the people at sea, for the mariners and for the fishermen.
The ships' crews deserve better from this government and they deserve an answer soon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, after the Minister of the Environment, who still is not with us today, released not an action plan but what he called, "simply a framework for discussion on the environment", the reaction of environmental groups was uniformly negative.
For example, Janine Ferretti of Pollution Probe said: "The Canadian public has a right to ask, 'Where is the beef?'. This is the number one issue and there is absolutely no leadership in this document".
A respected environmental activist, Daniel Green said: "-we need incredible changes to be the cleanest. That will cost money and the fact that Mr. Bouchard

March 30, 1990
Oral Questions
refuses to tell us how much his government is willing to spend makes me very leery."
Yet, yesterday and again this morning on television, the Minister of the Environment said: "Yes, we have a commitment on the level of funding".
Will the minister tell us today exactly what that commitment is, exactly how much money the government has put aside for further environmental action? Does he not realize that if he will not give us that exact figure today, he is telling Canadians that the exercise of consultation which he wants them to take part in is nothing more than a sham, a smoke screen to hide the fact the government does not intend to do anything meaningful on the environment?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer my hon. friend to the passage in the budget speech where I clearly state that the Minister of the Environment would be putting forward a major document in an agenda for sustainable development. That document was put forward by the minister yesterday. It is a statement of consultation. It states that we want to listen very carefully to what Canadians have to say, be they other levels of government, members of the private sector, both from the NGOs and the industry, from individual Canadians. We want to listen to Canadians before we make these final decisions.
I think it is very clear from what I have read from a number of observers of the environment scene that consultation is desired, consultation is needed. There are changes that we are going to have to undergo in our lives, there are changes that industry will have to undergo. It is important that we have a degree of consultation so that we get the right environmental agenda package put together. That is leadership on the part of this government.
If he checks the budget papers he will see that we have set aside reserves to take account of emergencies that are facing us today in the fishery and agriculture. There are also very real needs in the environment. So we do have reserves set aside to take account of the expenditures which will have to be made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Michael Manolson, Executive Director of Greenpeace Canada, said the paper is, "an excuse for inaction". Kai Millyard, of Friends of the Earth, talking
about the paper, said, "What a lot of baloney. They look like they are trying to buy time."
The reserves the minister is talking about have been already committed to dealing with the crisis in the fishery, the crisis in agriculture, and now he is saying that same magic amount is going to be used to deal with the needs of the environment.
I do not see how Canadians can take that statement seriously, unless the Minister of Finance gets up today and gives us a specific amount. If Canadians do not have a specific amount I do not see how they are going to feel that the opinions the government is soliciting are going to be meaningful or taken seriously.
I ask the Minister of Finance, why the secrecy? What is the government hiding, or is it really trying to hide the fact that the government has no intention of doing anything new and meaningful on the environment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have an article here which talks about what Ottawa's green plan must include. It is an article by Mr. Donald Gamble, a leading expert on Canadian water policy. His final point is on consensus building: "Confrontation on environmental issues must not continue to frustrate progress toward a sustainable future. Consultation processes point the way for industry and government and how industry and government can co-operate."
Sustainable development means that there must be co-operation on the part of industry with government, with other interested parties in the private sector, so that together we can move ahead and make some real progress to build on the progress that was clearly in place in our efforts to improve the environment in our last mandate.
Now the hon. member is saying he wants to have a precise figure. If we have a precise figure, that can constrain what the consultations will actually provide. We want to listen to these consultations, respond to them in an effective way, and in that way build the consensus that will allow us to move forward in a strong future of sustainable development.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the article from which the Minister of Finance quoted was written and published before the government's framework for discussion came out. It would be interesting to know what the author had to say about this meaningless document now that he has had a chance to read it. I doubt if he would have anything slightly positive
March 30, 1990

to say about it. So, quoting it is not too useful for the purpose of this House.
The Minister of Finance says he wants to hear from Canadians before making decisions on the financial commitments. Yesterday in Montreal at his press conference the Minister of the Environment said, "Cabinet has already committed a specific dollar amount to the program."
The government cannot have it both ways with, the minister saying today that they are going to listen to people and then make up their minds, and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment saying that cabinet has already committed a specific amount. Which is it? If it is a specific amount, give us the figure.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the well-known environmental activist in Quebec, Daniel Green, said, and I quote: "It is high time the government put its money where its mouth is where the environment is concerned". Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government could tell the House today how much money it intends to spend. Doesn't he understand that without a public announcement today or the government's spending commitment, the whole consultation process will be just a big joke?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, our commitment to the environment in the past mandate was not a charade, nor is it a charade in this mandate. It is a very real commitment of action.
I refer the hon. member to a number of things that were said in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister, setting out very clearly the specific actions the government has taken over the past number of years in dealing directly with the environmental challenges that we as Canadians face today.
The Prime Minister also referred to the statements by Mrs. Brundtland on the clear leadership that we have been demonstrating to the world on environmental matters. This commitment will continue. It is very clearly demonstrated in the consensus seeking document that the Minister of the Environment put out yesterday. The fact that people might not agree with certain aspects of
Oral Questions
environmental policy does not negate in any way the need for consultation.
We are committed to consultation, so we can bring people together to be fully in support of an environmental action plan which will be announced by the Minister of the Environment after the consultation process has taken place.
I repeat that we have set aside reserves for this. Those reserves are significant. They are significant enough to support a strong environmental plan which will be announced after the consultation process.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multicultur-alism and Citizenship.
Previous reports of the Human Rights Commission have called the situation of native people a national tragedy. The commission, in releasing its 1989 report, stated that it had no reason to alter that judgment.
What immediate action is the government prepared to take to turn this tragedy around?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and certainly the people of Canada would agree with Commissioner Max Yalden when he says that the situation confronting aboriginal people in this country needs to be vastly improved. In fact, Mr. Yalden points out in his report that substantial improvements have been made in important areas of health, education, social status and economic opportunities available to native people.
He also points out that further improvement is required. The government is working diligently in these areas through the review of land revenues and trusts, through the completion of important and historic comprehensive agreements and through the implementation of provisions of Bill C-31. There is also the fact that the government has chosen to increase funding in significant ways to our aboriginal, especially Indian and Inuit, programs for which my department is responsible.

March 30, 1990
Oral Questions


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the commission's report calls for a new deal for the aboriginal people of this country, based on a commitment by non-aboriginal Canadians to meaningful political and cultural autonomy and much greater economic self-sufficiency for aboriginal Canadians. Will the government commit itself today, as a first step in this new deal, to reinstate the funding it recently cut to aboriginal political organizations and communications societies?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to cut any program was very difficult. In particular, I and many other Canadians know how important these societies have been. We wish them well and know that most likely they will continue to survive. They cannot get all their funding from the government because my department does not have the funding available that it had before.
We have a task force in place to bring together all departments of the government that have an interest in this particular area. We are carefully examining any way in which we can be helpful.
Yesterday, I raised the very important conversations I had with the minister for the Northwest Territories, Titus Allooloo, and how beneficial those were. We are now bringing forward an agreement which will provide some interim funding for the organizations. But in the long run, as Mr. Titus Allooloo says:
Now that the immediate funding needs of the communications organizations have been met, we must not rest with our satisfaction. The challenge ahead is to determine alternative methods of supporting native communications in the NWT in order to ensure their future viability.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should proceed. The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity- Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He knows by the letters I sent to him Wednesday and Thursday that the southern Ontario regional air transportation system is under study by the federal Environment Assessment Review Office. The Toronto Harbour Commission, over
the objections of Toronto residents, Toronto council and even the royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront, is preparing to begin on April Fool's Day to expand the number of flights by eight times from Toronto Island Airport starting next week and to build a new terminal five times the size of the previous one.
Knowing that transportation is the chief cause of carbon dioxide pollution and that airplanes contribute five to 10 times as much as trains do per passenger, will the minister direct the Toronto Harbour Commission to halt its expansion until the environmental assessment review is finished in 1991?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that the island airport is operated under an agreement with the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commission and Transport Canada.
In an effort to meet the existing demand by passengers and to reduce the operating deficit of the airport they are taking steps to augment the services that are already there. As far as we understand those are entirely within the agreement and they are operating in such a way.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, there is a more urgent matter, that of pollution of the atmosphere. I ask the minister to consider his powers as the Minister of Transport which overrides the matter of the agreement that the Toronto Harbour Commission is violating.
Will the minister act now not only for the sake of restricting more global warming by the airplane carbon dioxide pollution but also to protect the recreation areas, the industries on Toronto Island and the mainland, the Toronto core area traffic flow and the thousands of waterfront residents who built on the basis of that now-violated agreement? Will you intervene by ordering a freeze on increase of carriers, increase of flights and construction of that new terminal?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, there are several areas of my friend's question which could be corrected. As far as I know there is no industry on the Toronto Island. That is for sure, certainly not in the winter.
March 30, 1990

I am prepared to ask that violations be corrected if my hon. friend would be prepared to be specific-very specific-in actually what violations he alleges are taking place.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the deputy Prime Minister, the energy minister and the environment minister, I fear I must direct to-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it is for the finance minister. He is here.
The government's environment discussion paper highlights the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, echoing previous statements by the Prime Minister. Last fall the energy minister himself noted that: "The greatest reductions in carbon dioxide can be obtained through energy efficiency and conservation"-funding for which this government has cut by 92 per cent since 84.
Will the government now preclude otherwise justifiable charges of stunning hypocrisy by restoring funding for these programs to not less than their 1984 levels, which would almost immediately prevent energy waste and ensure Canada a competitive edge in tomorrow's more sustainable world?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the leader of the New Democratic Party, the party has sunk to new lows in trying to find some quality in its questioners.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think that the paper released yesterday by the Minister of Environment set out a number of ways that can be considered in dealing with influencing better environmental behaviour. There are some things that involve taxes, while other things involve regulation, user and polluter pay. These are a range of policy instruments that can be used that will improve the activities, actions and behaviour of Canadians, whether they are individuals or businesses, in dealing with things that relate to the cleanliness of our environment. These are all things that will be subject to
Oral Questions
the environmental discussions that will arise out of the consultations.
I am sure that we will have a very successful result from this consultation, and arising out of that we will have a strong action plan.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the minister very directly if he would respond to the previous, clear question which pointed out that over the last six years his government has cut the alternative energy budget by 93 per cent.
In a show of faith today, if he truly believes in this recycled document, will the minister order the reinstatement of the full budget which was cut 93 per cent by his government? Will he restore the full budget for alternative energy studies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, both this questioner and the previous one have focused in on one element of environmental policy. Our environmental policy covers quite a range of elements.
The resources that we are committing to the environment have increased since 1984 and they will continue to increase. As I indicated to the hon. member's leader, there are reserves in the budget that will allow for us to respond to the consultation process and develop a strong environmental action plan but that action plan will arise after we have gone through this consultation process.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own document says that Canadians are the heaviest users of energy in the world. By what possible skill could he justify a 93 per cent cut in alternative energy budgets by his government?

I looked around in this garbage for a couple of hours, trying to find solutions to environmental issues. What I found, Mr. Speaker-

Does the minister believe that we are actually going to control waste by the creation of an office of waste management as he is proposing in this document?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in a previous answer, there are a range of ways that you can influence the behaviour of people. Taxes are one. Regulation is another. Information that is provided to consumers is the third way. Polluter pay is another way and user pay is another yet

March 30, 1990
Oral Questions
way. All of these things are ways that are important elements, but they have to be combined together. They have to be effectively integrated into an over-all action plan.
We believe that we have made good progress over the last five years in improving the protection of the environment. We believe we have also made good progress in raising the awareness of Canadians to the importance of the environment. But this is going to continue through the consultation process. Arising out of the consultation process, there will be very real decisions taken as to precisely how we can continue this major progress, just as we have had over the last five and one-half years.


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of years, we have had an explosion in the population of seals off the north and east coasts of Canada. Together with the foreign fishing that is licensed by this government, we have seen the problem that we have in our fishery today. The Harris report, if it is ever released by this government, will prove those two points.
Is the Minister of Fisheries aware that this year the price to fishermen for seal pelts has dropped by 50 per cent? They have been waiting on this government for a response to their request for price support. Why doesn't the government support these fishermen with the request that they have made to this minister?
Do the fishermen have to go and jump into Meech Lake in order to get support from this government?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that these people jump into Meech Lake, but maybe the member should.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: The seal issue is a serious one. Our basic approach in this area is in line with the long-term development strategy that focuses on research and development activities rather than short-term solutions
in the form of subsidization. I am quoting the provincial minister of fisheries in Newfoundland. The hon. member is, today, contradicting his good Liberal friends there.
Is the member telling me that-


Some hon. members:: Come on.


Bernard Valcourt: Well, we know what happened after the Malouf report -that we have stuck to a policy?. Right now, I view the seal issue as a serious one. Proposals have been received by the fisheries price support board. The application is under review and no decision has been made. As soon as one is made, I will make it public.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a cowardly answer. There soon won't be any-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is a very experienced member and I know that he would not want to proceed that way, and I ask him to put his question in a more appropriate manner.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the seals now outnumber Atlantic Canadians two to one. It is the fishermen who have become the endangered species.

Does the minister realize we have seals here, there, and everywhere? Where is the government? Seals eat fish, not pizza!


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is true that seals do not eat pizza but the Hon. Member seems to eat more than his share.

The member seems to have discovered this new word in French, Mr. Speaker, but I want to warn him-you had to warn about a word he used previously- that this word is only parliamentary en frangais.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is usually up to the chair to issue the warnings that are needed in this place.
March 30, 1990


Bernard Valcourt: But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the seal population issue-

It is, indeed, a serious situation there, and I intend to intensify the research program initiated in 1988, in co-operation with the industry and the universities, to ensure that we can get rid of what people say is a fleau there, but we need much more scientific evidence and we are going to try to get it.
In the meantime, my parliamentary secretary has been very active on the seal question for a long time, and I would hope, within the next few days, to be able to give an answer, one way or the other.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Canadian Human Rights Commission's annual report tabled yesterday criticizes very strongly the Conservative government's indifference in this regard, which has contributed to a dangerous rise in racism, sexism and homophobia and to the marginalization of natives and the disabled.
My question is this: given the Commission's statement that further delay in proposed amendments to the legislation will surely bring into question the federal commitment to human rights principles, will the Minister assure this House that she will table these basic amendments this spring, as her predecessor had promised? When will she move toward equality?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to promise the hon. member that I will table those amendments this spring.
I will repeat what I said the previous time he asked this question, that the Canadian Human Rights Act is under comprehensive review in the Department of Justice, which has an enormous workload at the moment, and we are attempting to bring forward a number of pieces of legislation for consideration in this House.
Oral Questions
I think it is important that the hon. member remember that it was this government that instituted the process that came forward with the report called Toward Equality, and we are proceeding to act on those recommendations. I believe that the House will be pleased with the recommendations that we bring forward for the amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
For the second straight year, the Human Rights Commission chairman has described the status of aboriginal people as a national tragedy. He criticizes the cuts to post-secondary education, native media, and representative organizations as harsh and inappropriate. He says that, if there is any single issue on which Canada cannot hold its head high in the international community, it is in the area of aboriginal relations.
My question for the Minister of Justice and the former Associate Minister of Indian Affairs is this: This year, will she take the commissioner's recommendations seriously? Will she act on his recommendation for a royal commission? In the absence of any useful action on the budget cuts that came from the Secretary of State, will she act to reverse those funding cuts which have been characterized as a setback to equality and human rights for natives?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would also like to address this question.
But I would like, first of all, to correct a statement made by the hon. member that there were cuts in funding for post-secondary education. That is absolutely false. The post-secondary education budget was increased-


Some hon. members:: Come on.


A. Kim Campbell: If it is in the report, then it is an error and I am sure my colleague will want to address himself to that.
The issues raised by the Human Rights Commission are, of course, serious and, as I have mentioned in this House before in response to questions on the Donald Marshall inquiry, for example, that there are a number of departments in the government that are addressing

March 30, 1990
Oral Questions
the question of aboriginal rights, and concerns for aboriginal people.
It is not up to me to institute a royal commission. It should be a decision of the Prime Minister and the government. I think it is important to point out that many of the departments of this government are working now on the issues that have been identified by the Human Rights Commission; the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and my own ministry.
I think it is important that these policy initiatives be developed and acted upon, and that we choose the mechanisms that are most effective and will bring changes forward.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
In January 1990, 11 per cent of all immigrants to Canada came through Gander, Newfoundland. In February 1990, 56 per cent of all immigrants to Canada came through Gander, Newfoundland. It is costing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador $2.5 million per month. It is clear that this is an extraordinary situation. It is also clear that it is a national responsibility.
Why does the minister allow the cost of a national responsibility to rest on the shoulders of the province with the least capacity to pay? Why is she doing that?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, we are very well aware of the situation and are following it very closely. As minister responsible for immigration, I must say that we have asked for a staff increase and we are working in close co-operation with Newfoundland officials to strike a fair balance and to ensure that the people are processed as quickly as possible. We have speeded up the process and we are aware that, under an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland, we assume some of the responsibilities. Our department pays all the costs of the services of an adviser for refugee claimants. The federal government shares equally with the provinces the cost of housing and
the cost of keeping the applicants for refugee status while their claims are being considered. In short, we always try to abide by our first criterion, which is to deal with the applicants fairly and equitably and in close co-operation with the province.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is paying 50 per cent of this cost but it is equally clear that this is an extraordinary situation placed on the shoulders of the province which has the least capacity to bear that burden. Eighty per cent of all hotel rooms on the island of Newfoundland are full right now. We want tourists but we did not expect them to come this way.
Is the minister prepared to recognize that this is an extraordinary situation, accept her responsibilities and take extraordinary measures in the form of cash now?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we have been sharing some of the responsibilities and are continuing to do so while taking into account the economic benefits this situation could bring to the province.


INTEREST RATES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The discount rate increase announced yesterday by the Bank of Canada will be another blow to Canadian consumers. The new 13.51 per cent rate is the highest since the 1982 recession and will surely lead to a general increase in mortgage rates. I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what he intends to do to protect Canadian consumers from the ravages caused by his colleague, the Minister of Finance?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me this opportunity to report on the meeting I had this week. Contrary to what my hon. colleague said on interest rates, in the case of credit cards for instance, the Consumers Associ-
March 30, 1990

ation of Canada has always been opposed to controlling interest rates, as you were advocating.
What Canadian consumers want is healthy competition among financial institutions, as they would benefit from competitive interest rates. We are very happy with this.


Don Boudria: That is all very interesting, Mr. Speaker. Opposition members are usually accused of having prepared questions. This minister had a prepared answer for a question that I did not ask.
I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the following question. While accepting some of the recommendations of the committee earlier this week concerning consumer credit cards, why did the minister refuse to adopt the most important recommendation, namely to put a cap on credit card interest rates? Is this not proof that the government across the way is interested only in bankers and not consumers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had listened, I said that the Consumers' Association of Canada told the press and the people of Canada that it is not in favour of capping those interest rates because it is not in its best interest. We as a government must ensure that the benefits to consumers are the best we can obtain. In the specific case, we must have competitiveness in that sector which is in the best interest of consumers. I think that is what we have done and the Consumer's Association of Canada is on our side.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, Canada's environment minister announced a wide-ranging consultation on the Canadian Green Plan. My question is: Since all Canadians are concerned about the deterioration of their environment, when will the Canadian government take specific action to restore and protect the environment, following the tabling of this Green Plan?
Oral Questions


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the document made public yesterday indicates, there is a four-stage process now in place and a process which will involve all interested Canadians in being part of the solution. During the course of the next six weeks there will be information sessions taking place in 30 communities across Canada. That will be followed by consultations with provincial governments in all of the capitals with interested bodies, including environmental groups. Following that there will be a specific plan put in place which will be announced to Parliament early in the fall.
In addition, and very important, there will be new EARP legislation, environmental assessment legislation introduced to this House within the next few weeks that will replace the very inadequate EARP guidelines that have been such a barrier to this government during the course of the last two years.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment announced an environment plan that we see from the previous question is all talk and no action. In Canada the backlog of unplanted areas continues to grow. Despite this, the government has not renewed forest agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Tomorrow, British Columbia's agreement expires.
My question is to the Minister of Forestry. Will the minister use this occasion today to announce that he will sign those agreements? Will he announced today that he will sign a joint $700 million tree planting agreement with British Columbia?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it does point to the very significant achievements that have been made as a result of the action we took five years ago, not only in terms of restoring and rehabilitating some of our forests, but also in terms of the environmental impact such actions have.
I can tell my hon. friend today that we are one day closer to signing the agreement than we were yesterday.

March 30, 1990
Oral Questions


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of answers that the people of British Columbia and the other provinces do not accept.
I wonder if the minister could confirm for this House, in light of his negligence and the negligence of the Social Credit government in British Columbia, that they started the shut-down and slow-down of FERDA forest activity in British Columbia and the cancellation of advisory committee meetings, and also confirm to this House that in his view, with the cancellation of these agreements, we will see the amount of wood supply to industry from our forest communities decline and we will see layoffs in forest communities throughout British Columbia and across the country.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that these agreements will not be cancelled. They will be in place before another planting season starts.
I have an interesting article that I came across this morning, where the head of one of the major environmental committees says this about the NDP stand on the environment and some of the important issues in British Columbia.


An hon. member:: Who is it?


Frank Oberle: I will tell you in a moment. I just came across this. It is the chairman of the Western Wilderness Committee. He said:
I am really disappointed that the NDP have not formulated any
policy at all on how to deal with old growth forests and how to deal
with wilderness areas or parks, or how to deal with the Carmanah,
specifically.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the court has asked the government to review all the bids for the goods and services tax data centre. Instead, the government has changed the contract requirement by abandoning its policy for awarding the contract to the lowest qualified bidder. This has created a serious mistrust of the process.
Why has the government acted so unfairly?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the government has always acted in a way that
tries to get the best value for the government. The best value does not necessarily mean the lowest price. There are a number of other factors that are also important.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that by changing the rules half way through, his government decision has caused chaos for the bidders on the data centre? Will the government in light of that investigate allegations of unfairness and subjectivity in the bidding process? Also, will the government make its finding public?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the government has followed what the court has suggested. We have gone back and opened up the tendering process and gone back to retender. We have set things out very clearly in the requests for tenders this time and there should be no more problems. People have what they requested.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: In the
absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Acting Deputy Prime Minister.
Last month the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a $41 million cut-back in the student employment experience development program. We now know that these funding cuts will cost Canadian students over 17,000 jobs. How can this government justify the decision forcing 17,000 more students on to the unemployment lines this summer?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I would like to tell the hon. member first that there has been no reduction to the government's expenditure on youth. What we have done is to redirect funds from post-secondary students to high school students, a substantial number of whom we feel are at risk. We have set up a new initiative which is a stay-inschool initiative. Over all the budget for youth has increased from $198 million to $218 million.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is hoping that there will be fewer students to study this government's programs. The
March 30, 1990

2,000	students demonstrating in St. John's, Newfoundland, understand this government's policies very well.
On February 9 the Minister of Employment and Immigration told this House that the student employment program will remain "regionally sensitive in areas where there is higher unemployment among students." The truth of the matter is these cut-backs will affect precisely those areas where unemployment is at its highest. At a time when the government is pushing Canada even closer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will please put the question.


Albina Guarnieri: -does the minister not think it unfair to make students the cannon fodder of a misguided poorly planned policy and how can this government treat students in the poorer regions of this country with such callous disregard?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the member says that we are not sensitive to those areas of the country where students have the most problems. I would tell her that SEED money, which is what she was referring to, has been shifted to areas where the need exists the most, such as the example that she has given, Newfoundland. In 1988 they received a 90 per cent increase in SEED funds. There will be increases, not decreases. On top of that the unemployment rate for students has been reduced by more than five points since this government came into office.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table, in both official languages, an independent report commissioned by the Department of External Affairs on the loyalties of former Canadian diplomat E. Herbert Norman.
Routine Proceedings
This report was prepared by Professor Peyton Lyon, a prominent Canadian political scientist. Hon. members will recall that his terms of reference were explained in this House last January 25 during Private Members' Business.
Its conclusions, insofar as they relate to Mr. Norman's loyalty to Canada, are unequivocal and should lay to rest any lingering doubts. They confirm that as a distinguished Canadian public servant, Herbert Norman acted consistently in loyalty to Canada.
The views expressed in this report and the methodology employed are entirely those of Professor Lyon.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 137 separate petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. [



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held respecting the following motion. I think you will find there is agreement to the following motion:
Further to the order of the House made on Wednesday, March 28, 1990, respecting the plenary session and joint sessions of standing committees on the subject of global climate change, televised broadcasting of the sessions of the forum be authorized and that such broadcasting be according to established House of Commons principles and practices and the expenses of the forum be met from the block of funds assigned to the liaison committee for standing committee activities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Andre) agreed to.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent of the House in respect of Private Members' Business on Monday to treat the order of dealing with the measures to be discussed in Private Members' Business as follows:
Item No. 1 on today's Order Paper standing in the name of the hon.
member for Okanagan-Shuswap would go to the end of the list.
Item No. 2 on today's list standing in the name of the hon. member
for Waterloo would be No. 2 on the list, and No. 1 on the list would be
the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton
West.
Accordingly, that motion would be called for debate at one o'clock on Monday. I would ask that the appropriate adjustments be made in the Order Paper for Monday. I believe there is unanimous agreement that that be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. members heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Milliken) agreed to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just take this opportunity on a point of order to ask a question relating to House business. I would ask the Government House Leader when the government intends to return to the House with the proposals with respect to changes in the Divorce Act affecting the Jewish Get.
As the House Leader knows, these proposals are strongly supported on all sides of the House. I am certainly prepared to undertake our commitment to facilitate speedy passage. I wonder if perhaps he might indicate willingness to bring them forward early next week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that that bill and a considerable number of other bills are very important to Canadians and to the government as well as Canadians who await the passage of these bills. It is for that reason that I meet with the House leader of the Official Opposition and the House leader of the hon. member's party to sit and plan in a reasonable way the efficient conduct of business of this House.
I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion that he will be talking with his colleagues to facilitate those kinds of discussions and I look forward to that.


ASSOCIATION OF FRANCOPHONE PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table the sixth report of the International Association of Francophone Parliamentarians.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 34, to present to the House, in both official languages, the seventh report of the activities of the Canadian Section of the International Association of Francophone Parliamentarians.
This report deals with the planning for a meeting of the International Association of Francophone Parliamentarians to be held next fall on a topic submitted to a parliamentary committee that I have the honour to chair. I hope that this meeting next fall will be a major event for parliamentarians. The purpose of the meeting is to set up a parliamentary documentation network which is very important for countries in the South, and northern countries are invited to take an active part in this conference.
March 30, 1990


FINANCE
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, with amendments. The report culminates over two years of work with over 70 amendments.
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the committee clerk, Marie Carrier, the table officers and the committee officials for their tireless efforts. On behalf of all the parties of this all-party committee, I would like to thank also the hundreds of witnesses from all across Canada, from every province and region in Canada who appeared before the committee, as well as those thousands who offered submissions and briefs to the committee over the past three years.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise to you or to the House that I want to rise at this moment to draw to your attention our serious reservations about the receivability of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-62.
On Wednesday, March 21, the Speaker very kindly provided us with an opportunity to raise our concerns about the proceedings in the finance committee on the previous evening. I do not think a more detailed information from my point of view at this point needs to be given about that particular series of events, but I would like to ask for your generous time, Mr. Speaker, in order to make a very critical point.
Routine Proceedings
I do think, however, now that the bill, the committee's report, and the failure of the committee to pronounce itself on the chairman's conduct are all before the House, that we must address what happened and get some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, as to what this means for all future committee proceedings.
The finance committee held hearings and meetings on the goods and services tax both before the bill was introduced and after the bill was introduced. Many things have happened in that committee, many things which would make a procedural purist shudder, I might add.
Today, I think we can afford to ignore virtually all the procedural hiccups in that committee, with one exception: the ruling by the chair to impose time allocation in committee.
I do not think we can have an easy decision, as the chairman made it, in terms of something that we can accept.
I admit that he was faced with an extremely trying and tiring circumstance at that time, but I do not think that the provocation was justification for this extreme step. I do not think it is particularly relevant to the question I am asking you to review. Can a committee chairman invoke time allocation or closure in committee? Frankly I consider this to be one of the most important procedural questions that all members, including yourself, will have to consider in our term of office.
The finance committee chair mentioned last week the dilemma that faced Speaker Brandt before he invented closure more than 100 years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has brought another point to this debate, but I think the Speaker did rule on it previously. If there is something different, we could have a look at and then we could come back and rule on it.
I would hope that the hon. member would bring it to a conclusion right away.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if I may make the point, the Speaker indicated that while the matter was before the committee, it was a matter for the committee to resolve. This matter is now before the House.


Harvie Andre: No, it is not.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: The report has been submitted and accepted by the House. The point being, now that it is before us, it is an item on which we can comment. My view is that I ought to have the opportunity at least to be heard in terms of the procedural acceptability of the House receiving this report. It is the first opportunity we have had to make the point.
I look now to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not you will hear me for a few moments while I make the case, not to reiterate, I might add, what was raised in the House the other day but on a new point of order.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the New Democratic Party appears to be referring to citation 821 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which reads:
(1)	All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee.
(2)	There is no appeal to the House from the Chairman's ruling except by way of a report from the committee.
If the committee were to report to the House in respect of some matter; in other words, if the committee were to ask the House for a ruling, then it would be appropriate for the House to rule.
To suggest that in fact we could now go back and somehow annul the decision taken by the committee chairman, approved by the committee under a vote, because the general subject matter of the committee, namely the bill, is now back in the House is to distort the meaning of citation 821, very clearly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want the hon. member to know that I appreciate what the government House leader and the hon. member for Kamloops are saying.
He cannot re-argue what he has argued before. I would like him to state whether there are new arguments and, if so, I will give him the opportunity to present them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear that I am not asking that what was done in the committee be somehow undone today. As I indicated, I am not suggesting a repeat of the previous day's arguments.
I have a single point of order I wish to make. I want to take a few moments to make it because I believe this is a most important matter. I would suggest that the chair of a committee has no authority to invoke closure in that
committee the way it was done in this instance. What is being used by the chair of the committee as a precedent ought not to be accepted as a such. That is the point I want to make in some detail with the Chair at this point. I do not want to take up much time, because I recognize it is an opposition day and I want to keep my comments very brief.
As I said, I consider this matter to be one of the most important procedural questions that we will have to consider, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, in our term of office.
As I indicated, the chairman of the finance committee mentioned last week that Speaker Brandt raised this issue 100 years ago. Whether Speaker Brandt's solution was a service or a disservice to parliamentary democracy is a very debatable point. What is not debatable is that it changed forever the balance in the House of Commons. If the solution of the hon. member for Mississauga South as chairman of the committee becomes precedent, there is little doubt that it will leave as profound and long lasting a change to the equilibrium of this House as did Brandt's decision in Westminster.
For this reason, I think it is imperative for the House to reflect carefully on the proceedings of this committee and I hope you, Sir, will permit me a few moments to express our concerns.
I do not think we can in any way consider the proceedings in the finance committee last week to be merely a series of events and decisions, as you, Mr. Speaker, described the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs back in June 1984. I must say, like it or not, a precedent is now being set.
First,the chairman of the finance committee used the Lachance incident as a precedent. It was repeatedly referred to as such in the finance committee, even after the Speaker's caution last Monday that "neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms."
The point is that the chairman of the finance committee on numerous occasions, as I sat in on that committee proceeding, repeated time after time that this was the precedent he was quoting: the Lachance decision back in the justice committee in 1984. If this incident is now used as a precedent, what then will two such incidents become? They will obviously become tradition and con-
March 30, 1990

vention that will be used by chairs of committees from now on.
Because I do not think the attempted birth of a closure procedure in committee can at this time be reviewed as an isolated incident, I want to say that as a minority party in this Parliament we can only see it in concert with what has been to us an alarming increase in the use of closure and time allocation and a severe diminution of the ability of minority voices to be heard.
Six years have passed between the Lachance ruling and the ruling of the hon. member for Mississauga South, just as six years used to pass between one closure in this House and the next. In today's parliamentary environment we can expect that this tactic, if it is allowed to become a precedent, will be used again, again and again.
The question I would like to address is whether or not you as Speaker and the House have an obligation to review what transpired in the finance committee during the review of Bill C-62, the act to implement the goods and services tax.
You, Mr. Speaker, and previous Speakers have repeatedly decided that "matters and procedural issues that arise in committees ought to be settled in committee unless the committee reports them first to the House". It has been quoted time and time again by yourself and other Speakers.
There are countless precedents where complaints and grievances arising from committees have been brought to the attention of the Chair, and the decision of the Chair has remained always to remain disengaged from whatever the dispute may be.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I think there are important distinctions between this particular incidence and many of the precedents and compelling reasons for the Chair and the House to reflect and decide upon this particular case.
You have rarely been asked, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the actions of committee chairmen which were as serious or as irregular as those which we saw in the finance committee last week.
Routine Proceedings
The unfortunate ruling by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1984 was one occasion.
Another was a case in 1919 when the House considered the second report of the "Special Committee appointed for the purpose of an inquiry forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel and other necessities of life".
When concurrence was moved in that report in 1919 an hon. member raised his concerns about voting irregularities in the committee. Specifically, he was concerned that while he had the utmost confidence in the chair and did not mean to do anything which would denigrate the reputation of the chairperson, he pointed out that the chairman actually voted twice. He voted during the proceedings and again once to break a tie.
The member argued that "the report which purports to be the report of the committee on the cost of living is not the report of the committee, and that it should be sent back for further consideration". I am quoting from his comments in Hansard.
In other words, the member argued that the process was flawed, and that the committee should be told to go back and do it again.
On that occasion the Speaker in the chair did not buy that argument and permitted the House to concur in the committee report. Because that 1919 incident has like the 1974 incident become cited as precedent, I would like to point to an important distinction between the situations that faced the Speaker of that day and what faces us today.
On that occasion back on July 1, 1919, the Speaker ruled, and I quote:
The House is only seized of the proceedings of the committee from the report that it gets from the committee. There is no reference in the report whatever to any question having been raised in committee and therefore my ruling is that it is not competent for this House to go back of the report which is in its possession now.
The difference is that today this House is seized of the proceedings of the finance committee. They have just been tabled. There is reference in those proceedings to the question having been raised in the committee.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Therefore I submit that it is appropriate for the House to "go back of the report which is now in its possession".
Those in your chair, Mr. Speaker, have usually maintained that they can only deal with committee issues when a report is made to the House or when a report on a given issue is made to the House. I suggest that that has now happened. The chairman of the finance committee has through one of its members presented to the House not only Bill C-62, in its amended form, but also the minutes of the committee meetings in which the bill was studied. The House now has in its possession, referred to it, if you like, all the evidence presented to the committee, as well as a detailed report of how the committee's decisions were made.
Included in the evidence attached to the report is the ruling made by the chairman on Tuesday, March 20, which has been the focus of so much concern. Also included are the minutes which show that this ruling was sustained when it was challenged and the minutes which show that a motion of censure was put in the committee but never decided upon.
This motion of censure was debated for several hours. No member of the committee attempted to amend it or soften it in any way. The meeting was adjourned by a committee member before the question was put, and the committee decided to adjourn without having made a decision whether or not to censure the chair.
Where does this leave the House? The committee has failed to report formally on the chairman's unusual actions, either endorsing them or censuring them. The committee has failed utterly to reach a decision on whether or not the actions of the member for Mississauga South should be censured. We all recognize the importance of a decision being made on his actions, particularly the controversial ruling of March 20.
The committee may not have made a decision, but the House in some manner must now.
If you accept the argument, Mr. Speaker, that a decision must be made at this point either to ratify the process by which this committee arrived at its report and make it a precedent or nullify it to preserve the rules as they were applied up until last week, then I would like to make a few closing remarks on just how that decision could be made.
Some months ago, when ruling on a question of privilege raised by the former Leader of the Official Opposition, the Speaker referred to a difficulty familiar to those on this side of the House. Chiefly, if the government has made a mistake, even inadvertently, if a motion is put to the floor of the House which reflects poorly on the government, that motion will invariably be voted in the negative.
For example, Mr. Speaker, if I could have convinced you to accept a prima facie case of privilege had been established and you had permitted me to move a motion of censure in this House on the activities of the committee or the chair of that committee, you and I both know that that motion would have been defeated. And the precedent would have been firmly established that committee chairs when faced with circumstances they do not know how to handle can resort to unilateral and arbitrary rulings.
That is why most procedural points are not decided by the majority. Either the rules are followed as governed by the Chair or the House decides unanimously to suspend the rules. The majority has the right to govern and the right to control the House but reasonable limits are placed on those rights. Some things cannot be done by a simple majority as they were done in the committee. They must be done unanimously.
I think that this issue as to whether or not a committee chair can invoke closure cannot be decided by a majority of one committee late one night after a marathon sitting. Nor can it be decided fairly by this House when such a decision would be clouded by the circumstances surrounding it, a highly controversial money bill, a mistaken sense of it being a confidence issue, and an extreme sort of atmosphere of hostility between the parties.
Members of the House and, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians maintain that the House is by tradition and law a court, a very high court. We claim the right to oversee our own procedures and internal operations and take considerable measures to resist any infringement of our authority.
However, I am not convinced that we should maintain that authority-and I am sure many of those who elected us might agree-if we do not exercise our powers and authorities responsibly. If we are court, then we should act like a court. If we are masters of our own procedures
March 30,1990

and rules, then we must ensure that these are mastered, not mutilated.
I am not a lawyer but I hope others here who are will at the appropriate time tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in our justice system a natural justice is always enforced. If a process is followed in our courts that is seriously flawed and demonstrated to be unfair to one side, then the result of that process is appealable to a higher court.
I think of the recent examples Canadians have witnessed when the courts turned to the government and said: "The way you conducted your environmental assessment was flawed. You did not follow the rules. You did not play fair. Go back and do it again properly".
Similarly, if in a court of law witnesses are prevented from being heard or evidence is withheld in a manner which is not consistent with legal traditions and precedents, then the outcome of that proceeding is appealable. In the justice system a mandatory instruction can in fact be issued. A decision can in fact be overturned.
I suppose the question is: Is a lesser standard of justice then applied in this House? Will a lesser test be put in the process to decide to impose a tax on virtually every good and service than was applied to the process to decide on dams and pulp mills?
I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the following questions: Has a precedent been set by the chairman of the finance committee in his ruling of March 20, 1990? Does a committee chairman have the right to impose closure or time allocation without debate or without decision by the committee? Has the review of the finance committee of Bill C-62 been tainted by the chairman's March 20 ruling? Last, if it has been tainted, is the report of the committee still receivable by this House?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am also going to make a request. Your panel of chairs for legislative committees has been developing a code of conduct. In this House we notice that the chairs are voluntarily restraining themselves from even voting at second reading on bills and are taking other steps to ensure that they not only act impartially but are seen to act impartially. It would be most helpful, Mr. Speaker, to all members of this House if this protocol could be more formally codified, printed
Routine Proceedings
and distributed to all offices, to enhance all of our understanding of the role of chairs when legislation has been referred to committees. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your willingness to hear me out.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops has made a masterful presentation to the House, and I congratulate him on the points that he has raised.
I think the fourth question that he put to Your Honour is the crucial issue in this case. It goes to the very root of parliamentary democracy and our sense of justice, our rules of natural justice, as they are referred to in the courts, and our sense of fairness. I suggest to Your Honour that the report from the committee has been tainted significantly by the actions of the chairman, who in my submission has acted beyond the proper bounds of a committee chairman in this case, or at least that is what it appears.
I have not had the opportunity to review the evidence in the detail I would like in order to assist the House today. I think that the activities of the chairman have tainted this report, and have rendered it one that perhaps ought not to be received by the House. It may be that the proper course to follow in this case is for Your Honour to review the facts and refer the entire bill back to a new legislative committee for detailed study.
As I say, the hon. member for Kamloops has raised this most interesting point and I prefer to have some time to look at the precedents that may exist. I would like to review the evidence of the committee in some detail, and I wonder if Your Honour would not consider taking this matter under advisement for the moment so that we could continue the discussion on Monday when there would be some time for preparation. I would invite the House to adjourn the discussion at this point so that we could continue it on Monday.
Then I will come back with proper arguments. I am prepared to advance some now, but I prefer to wait so I have had an opportunity to review the committee's work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate that very much, if that is at all possible.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I will also recognize the hon. member for Esquimau- Juan de Fuca and the hon. member for Essex-Windsor if they have other arguments to present. I would think that the hon. member for Kamloops has brought forward a very documented argument in regard to what it is we are discussing here today.
I think if we left it at that, I would take it under advisement, and then at the same time, let us review what the hon. member for Kamloops has brought forward today in this Chamber and continue the argument again on Monday, at a more opportune time so we could allow the opposition day to go forward. Is that agreed?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be a fairly straightforward point of order, and to have the whole issue set aside for the weekend would seem to me to put in jeopardy the process that the House has launched upon where we have gone through a process of first reading, second reading, committee stage. The committee has now reported to the House.
This is one more example of the NDP and their jackboot tactics, their tyranny of the minority, coming up with a situation whereby they will not let the House continue on with the normal stages of the bill, that is, the stages that are to come, the report and the third stage.
That would be my reason for saying that I think that members can make their arguments today if they choose. The Speaker should hear which arguments it wants to, and then the Speaker can ponder on it and rule over the weekend. But to set the whole thing aside, to me would be just another example of using the tactics that we have seen in the last few weeks in this House to derail this particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, if you choose to hear the arguments today, I would like to make a few comments.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is very evident that the government does not want to hear the very long points of order that we are going to have on this particular issue.
It is a very complicated matter. Most of us have not been in a situation actually to have the report from the standing committee. It was just made a few minutes ago,
and I would submit that there is ample precedent for hearing arguments again or later, when notice is given.
On many occasions the Speaker has allowed arguments to be made one day later as long as notice is given. I would suggest that, under the circumstances since the Liberal party has asked for that, since there are a number of our people who would like to actually look at the report and because I am sure the Speaker would like to have a chance to examine the report himself, this would be very logical and helpful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think there is ample time to go ahead and present the arguments today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think you just made a great suggestion to the House that indeed it is an opposition day. We do not get many in a year. This is a very important opposition day dealing with environmental matters, dealing with a document that was tabled outside the House yesterday by the minister but, nevertheless one that touches every Canadian.
We would like to ask members of the government to concur with us. Indeed, the argument before the House touches on a report tabled by a committee which studied Bill C-62, the goods and services tax. We have asked, reasonably, that the debate on the procedural matters be put off until Monday so that we can proceed with our opposition day. I think this is a reasonable request to make since the report has just been tabled and none of us have had a chance to read it, as yet. I think it would be reasonable for us to read it. It would be good, logical procedure to have the arguments by the members for Kamloops and Kingston and the Islands put forward to the House. I would accept and we would agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that this debate should be put off until Monday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention to make.
I thought that it was important that some remarks on this one issue be made today. What we are asking you to rule on, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the procedure that occurred in the finance committee is now a precedent and can be used to allow chairs, forever in the future, to use similar procedures.
March 30, 1990

The point I am making is that we ought not to endorse that type of procedure. Because of the ruling that you would be required to make, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it would be in your interest to hear thoughtful remarks by members prior to making your decision.
As my hon. friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has indicated, perhaps we would all do well to reflect on this over the weekend, come back on Monday, or whenever appropriate, and simply have a chance then to assist the Chair in what I submit would be the making of an historic decision to set a precedent which will judge the behaviour to be followed by committee chairs forever in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think there is agreement to keep this over until Monday. Therefore, I will listen to the arguments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, one of the components that I wish to add to the evidence that my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, has presented, I do not think is a component that should be decided this afternoon. That component is that in the very committee that the member has raised these questions about, the chairman of the committee moved a motion himself in the middle of debate.
If we do not carefully deal with this process, then we could have a precedent established in the House whereby the chairperson of a committee could move motions at any single time, not wait for seconders, and rearrange the agenda by his or her intervention. We would then have the precedent that in any committee, at any time, the chairperson could just move a substantive motion, not one to adjourn or not even to ask for a motion, but just move a motion and that is it.
I do not think that we want to rush into a quick answer on this. I understand the government's need for urgency. I understand the agenda. I am not suggesting that the majority need be compromised by that urgency, as they see it. The danger and the argument that invalidates the minister's reference to Beauchesne's is that we are here at the time of report on the precipice of establishing a principle that could be referred to by succeeding Parliaments that would hamper important decisions being made properly.
Routine Proceedings
To quickly move into a decision that would encompass an experience that we have had, that may or may not have been intentional, of a chairperson actually moving a motion that would become an integral part of the business could mean that the Chair itself could use that reference in the House someday and the Chair's authority could be extended to absolute rule.
I was profoundly moved by the detailed presentation by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops. I was very, very interested in seeing the support from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the Liberal House leader. I think this kind of decision, albeit we have important matters in front of us, is the very foundation on which eastern European countries are examining parliamentary democracy.
These kinds of small, separate things begin to build up as precedents and erode and evaporate the power of the total House are matters of grave concern. A 48 hour delay to allow intelligent, thoughtful analysis, not only by the opposition, but by the government, is absolutely essential.
Some day the Tories may be in opposition again, and we do not want a repeat of Tories running down the centre of this Chamber yelling at the Chair with rule books in their hands because a motion overtook their reason and logic because the rule was not clear.
I am not suggesting that anybody would be as irresponsible on this side of the House and behave the way that group did at that time. But if we allow this kind of precedent to be established, then that benchmark of terrible behaviour as evidenced by the Tories could be emulated. We want to save the House from that kind of behaviour happening ever again. No one should behave like the Tories did at that time, ever again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you, we need the 48 hour delay. We need caution, prudence, wisdom and thoughtfulness before we allow this to slip into a precedent and allow ourselves to be bound by that precedent.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, this place always needs caution, prudence and thoughtfulness. If the members of the opposition had been a little more cautious, a little more prudent and a little more thoughtful, they might have been more satisfied with the

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
process. Instead, they chose to be obstructionists. The world knows, and it is all on the public record.
I do not believe there is a point of order here. I suggest that the report which was tabled today is the return of a bill as amended, period. That is the committee report, the bill as amended.
This discussion is not about the bill as amended. This discussion is about what went on or did not go on in the committee. It is a discussion which was held about a week ago. If there was a point of order about the report, then it would be proper to entertain it. I suggest that this discussion is not about the report which was tabled in this Chamber today.
The whole premise on which these arguments is being built is a false premise. The arguments should be dismissed. We should get on with some very important business.
I am sitting here waiting to present the report of the Striking Committee related to the special committee to examine the New Brunswick proposition.
There is other important business. I agree with my friends from the opposition that the topic of the environment is important.
I suggest that either we have a point of order about the report, or we do not. If we do not, and I suggest that we do not, then this argument is irrelevant. If hon. members want to raise at some other point something about committees and the way they should function, then that is a different argument.
This report is simply a report from a committee that has amendments to a bill. It has already been received by the House. They could have raised these arguments before reception. They chose not to. It was received. It is in the hands of the House. There is nothing hon. members can do about it and there is no point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will hear the hon. member for Essex-Windsor and then the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I think that-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting my friend.
This whole thing started with the member from Kingston and the Islands asking the Speaker if he would rule today and if we could not put this matter off until Monday.
At that time the member for Kingston and the Islands had the floor. He had not finished his arguments. He was seeking direction from the Chair as to whether the Chair felt that we could possibly put this whole debate off until Monday, because of the importance of the opposition motion dealing with the environment. I can understand the government not being interested in the environment. But I do think the opposition is very much interested in the environment.
I want to ask if you would not go back after the next speaker to the member for Kingston and the Islands so that he could get his chance to finish his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will take everything under advisement. I will listen to his argument. I am going to take all of the arguments under advisement so that I can rule on it Monday, or as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you say that you will take the arguments under advisement and rule perhaps on Monday. That raises another point.
The point of order that is being raised is with respect to the fact that this finance committee report which was tabled should not have been tabled because, in our view, it is not proper to table such a report.
Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that we can take it for granted that you have not accepted that report and that you will wait until Monday when you render your ruling before you accept that report? If that is what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, then I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not say that at all. The hon. member did not hear what I said. I said I would take all arguments under advisement, that I will hear arguments and give my ruling as soon as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said Monday.



March 30, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I said as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I speak as a member of the finance committee which was engaged in the study of this bill.
The points that I want to put in front of you, in addition to those which my House leader has so ably explained, are points which refer to the effects within committee of the ruling which was placed to control committee activity by the chair of the committee. It was a ruling which, certainly in our view, made it extremely difficult for there to be valid and full consideration of Bill C-62 to be given within the committee, as was required when it was referred to it by this House.
The points that I want to refer to are four in number. The first is to buttress the point which my House leader has put forward.
It should be quite clearly seen by you, Mr. Speaker, and by the House that after the statements referred to by which the chair imposed a certain order of procedure, which he thereafter referred to as the Lachance rule, the Speaker in his ruling on the matter this week made it quite clear that there was no precedent to be attached to what took place in the 1984 committee. In fact in his ruling he made it absolutely evident that one should attach, as he put it, any "procedural flags" to what should only be regarded as an incident which had occurred within a committee.
Despite this, there was continual reference by the chair of the committee throughout the period of consideration of the bill to this as a precedent and, indeed, to the Speaker's ruling as a ruling which supported him as chair of the committee in determining that it was a precedent.
He also pointed out, and I say this simply for purposes of your information, Mr. Speaker, that he had been told of the Lachance incident by the clerk of the committee and that it was on that basis that he moved forward. Despite the fact that the Speaker quite clearly indicated to the House that the affair in 1984 should be considered simply an incident, it was clearly taken as a precedent by the chair of the committee and consequently imposed throughout the remainder of the considerations.
Routine Proceedings
The second point which I want to make is that as a consequence of this order-and here we come to some of the rights of members of the House being undercut by what took place-a motion was moved by one of the Conservative members of the committee, Mr. Couture, to amend Bill C-62. That amendment was not permitted to be put before the committee, despite the fact that there was considerable interest in it on the part of a number of members of the committee representing all three parties.
Thus the consequence of the ruling has been to prevent a specific amendment from going forward to the floor of that committee despite the interest of all three parties in the amendment itself.
The third point I want to make to the Speaker is that as a consequence of the way in which the order was set out by the chair of this committee, it was not possible for the clerks of the committee and the clerks' branch to put in front of us as members of the committee prior to the start of clause by clause consideration of the bill the set of amendments which had been presented by all members of the committee to the committee clerk.
I raised this question in committee and the clerk was not able to give me a satisfactory explanation. Despite my request and that of other members that the amendments should be in front of us on Monday at the start of clause by clause consideration, the clerk was not able to give me any explanation as to why these amendments were not in front of us except on the day of the actual consideration of the group of clauses to which the amendments themselves referred.
Mr. Speaker, you can recognize that with the incredible complexity of the goods and services tax bill to have simply received at the last minute these amendments and to have to peruse them virtually as they were moved was not a satisfactory and acceptable way for members of this House to seriously perform their duties as members of Parliament and as members of the committee.
I could expand on that point, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the time I will not.
The fourth point that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is this. It has become clear in further detailed perusal of the 1984 decision of Mr. Lachance, which the member for Mississauga South claimed as a precedent for his actions as the chair of that committee,

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
that it was not in fact followed in the case of the actions of the hon. member for Mississauga South. I refer specifically to something which bothered me particularly. As my colleague for Edmonton East indicated in the discussion of this matter last week, one of the particular points which comes to be important is whether a chairperson of the committee can take action when that action is something which is already covered by the rules set down in our Standing Orders.
In the case of the particular action taken by the member for Mississauga South, his action was to deem withdrawn the motion which was on the floor of the committee. That, as the member for Edmonton East indicated, is something that is covered in the Standing Orders. For such a withdrawal of a motion to take place, unanimous consent is required. The member for Mississauga South claimed that the preceding incident as I will refer to it and as the Speaker referred to it, was, in fact, a precedent which permitted him, as chairman, to deem such a motion withdrawn. In fact, in further detailed checking the so-called Lachance incident in 1984, we find that no such action was taken by chairperson Lachance. Chairperson Lachance instead suspended the motion which was in front of the committee, and then announced his ruling with respect to the further points of importance to the committee's further activities. At that point, he put forward his intention to resign. What we find, Mr. Speaker, with further perusal of Mr. Lachance's decision is that the decision was not followed by the member for Mississauga South with respect to his procedures within this committee.
Therefore, we have without doubt a clear precedent, a clear breaking of the ice made by the chair of this committee, something which he claimed in committee when, following the suggestions of the Speaker, we raised these questions on Monday in committee and the chair of the finance committee claimed that it was Mr. Lachance who had broken the ice.
In fact, the chairman of the finance committee himself had taken a procedure with respect to deeming a motion withdrawn, something which is quite clearly set out in the rules that we have to follow in this House and in
committee. He took that position without any previous incident or event to which he could refer.
All of these questions have been raised in committee, so this is not the first time they have been raised. Having raised them in committee, I feel I must raise them here now because the only protection for the minority and ultimately for the majority is that the democratic rules which are set down for Parliament must be followed. They cannot be picked and chosen on the part of committee chairmen or the Speaker of the House. They are rules which govern us all. That is what the rule of law is about in my view and, as a member of the finance committee, that is why I feel that this is such a crucial issue to bring before the House of Commons itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East and then the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands.
I would just like to state for hon. members that the Speaker has already stated in his ruling that neither the Lachance incident nor the Blenkarn ruling should be treated as a precedent. The Chair has already stated that, so I concur with the hon. member's remarks.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I raised that point simply because even after the Speaker's ruling, the chairman of the finance committee continued to insist that in fact the Lachance ruling was a precedent and that the Speaker's ruling in this House on Monday had supported the chairman of the committee in making that point.
This is why it is especially important that this be dealt with in the Speaker's ruling on this further point of order.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, before briefly considering two aspects of the question before you, I wish to summarize the central contention, which is that the process by which the standing committee arrived at its report was so flawed and irregular as to render the report inadmissible in this House at this time. That is the central contention.
The report that is now to be laid before the House comes here solely by virtue of the clear violation of Standing Orders 64 and 67. That in itself should, I submit, be sufficient to deem the report inadmissible.
Further, there is the matter of the non-resolution of a privileged motion placed before the committee by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville this week. That that
March 30, 1990

motion has not yet been resolved leaves hanging the question of the committee's procedure within the committee. This is a further irregularity of substantial and significant proportions.
Finally, neither the violations of Standing Orders 64 and 67 nor the non-resolution of the privileged motion were accomplished by unanimous consent. To the degree that they were regularized at all, they were regularized solely by virtue of a vote by the majority on the committee when clearly it has been established through centuries of practice that the only way the Standing Orders can be varied, save on substantive motion, is by unanimous consent. Within that committee that consent was never sought and certainly never granted.
The bizarre procedural irregularities through which the committee conducted its business are, in our submission, sufficient by themselves to render the product of those proceedings inadmissible in this House.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention two considerations that may govern your decision in this regard. In delaying your decision fully to consider some of the extremely intricate arguments that have been made here today, you should as well rule that until your decision is made the report itself cannot be admitted. First, if your ruling is that it can be admitted, I submit that that will raise for the House these incidents in this committee to the level of precedent because it will put the stamp of approval both of the Speaker and thereafter of the House on the procedures whereby this report was brought forward.
I would ask you Mr. Speaker, to consider that very closely, very closely indeed, as you consider the merits of the case itself.
If you cause to be held off the introduction of the report in the House at this time, it will leave you unfettered in the reaching of your decision, free of considerations of having in a sense to retract this, what would at the very least be, implicit endorsement.
As well, Mr. Speaker, if you do not delay the receipt of this report and allow it to proceed at this point, thereafter consider your ruling and find yourself in agreement with the submission of the hon. member for Kamloops, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, you will then be placed in the extremely difficult position of
Routine Proceedings
having to devise a way to cause the retraction of the report that has already been received.
I stand to be enlightened in this regard. I confess that I am a new member here and certainly am by no means familiar-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I can listen to members of the NDP all day. I understood you to say that you were taking all these points of order under advisement until Monday. I wonder if we should go on to the very important subject of debating the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must listen to arguments before I take it under advisement. Therefore, I will allow the hon. member for Edmonton East to finish.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with the hon. member. I am trying to wrap this up as quickly as I can.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Long-winded, aren't you?


Ross Harvey: Well, I suppose some would deem me such. I don't.
I would again call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the problem that you may present to this House in allowing the report to be received now, should your ruling later today, Monday or whenever, be that the report is inadmissible. Therefore, I strongly urge you to hold off receipt of the report in this House at this time, until such time as you have a chance fully to consider the arguments presented to you and reach a considered ruling.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor some time ago and I asked a question of whether the matter could be deferred. Your Honour, instead of making a ruling on that, seems to have gone on with the other arguments. I feel that I have been undermined somewhat in my ability to do this now, because of the numerous arguments, some of them very able, that have been advanced by other members, particularly the hon. member for Edmonton East, who I think has quite succinctly put the points that Your Honour needs to decide.
I want to say right away that it does not require consent of the House for Your Honour to decide to defer hearing this matter. Your Honour has that full power on your own volition to make that decision. It does not require unanimous consent or agreement of the parties.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I made a suggestion that Your Honour do so, so that you could be fully versed in the facts and that the members who are putting arguments forward could also get the facts.
As I have indicated, we have not yet seen the report of this committee. It has been tabled, but copies are not yet available to me. I understand it is quite lengthy, but I do not know what it contains. I would like an opportunity to review the report so I can comment on it in making these submissions. I want to know if it says something about what went on in the committee. I want to know if it points to the procedural irregularities that make it such a repugnant document. We are not being given that opportunity before we advance arguments on it to your Honour.
If that is so, I will be raising more arguments on Monday, and if I discover other irregularities, I will raise more arguments whether or not Your Honour has ruled. I will bring another point of order and raise it on a separate point.
I suggest that it is unfair to require us to proceed today with this when there are other documents in existence which we have not seen. In addition, the proceedings in the committee have not yet been printed. I understand the committee finished its work yesterday, if I am not mistaken, and I do not know why members could not be allowed the courtesy of an opportunity to review those proceedings before they have to make submissions. It may be fine for the members of this House who are members of the committee to say what they know went on, but for those us who are to make procedural arguments on the basis of the improprieties of the chairman of the committee, it seems to me that we ought to have an opportunity to review those improprieties in detail.
That is being denied by the fact that I am now compelled to make arguments based on the evidence I hear from members who happened to be there and who give their versions of what happened. I am not disputing the accuracy, but anyone who has listened to witnesses know that people's recollections differ, people's view of what is important and unimportant differs, and various
people will make various comments and will remember different things; memory is slightly selective.
We are hearing bits and pieces of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied this bill. It would have been better had we waited until we had in hand the transcript of the proceedings so that we could discuss it intelligently and with all of us on an equal footing. But that is not to be the case, apparently. I am sorry that Your Honour feels compelled to hear this argument today rather than to defer it, since the ruling is going to be deferred, in any event.
Having said that, I want to deal with some of the substantive arguments that have been put forward. I suggest, as I did earlier in my submissions, that the important thing in this whole proceeding is whether or not this committee report is non-receivable by the House. I suggest that that is exactly what has happened.
The principle of the common law, Mr. Speaker, is quite clear, and that is that there is a requirement for natural justice, and this committee has been bulldozed by its chairman, who used bully tactics on the opposition. From the evidence we have heard, if you can call it evidence, but certainly from the witnesses who were there, on his own volition he chucked out some motion that was currently being debated before the committee, without seeking the consent of the committee, and the committee was seized with the motion.
Your Honour knows perfectly well that once this House is seized with a motion it cannot be withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the House; it has become, in some sense, the property of the House. I understand in this committee the motion that was the property of the committee and was being debated in the committee was withdrawn by the chairman, unilaterally.
That is highly improper and contrary to all of the traditions of this House. And then, this same bully chairman apparently on his own volition from what I am hearing, introduced a motion, not moved by any of the members of the committee, as I understand it. He simply introduced it on his own and said that the committee was now going to have to vote on this motion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He made a ruling.
March 30, 1990


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The chief government Whip indicates that this is not correct.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He made a ruling and it was challenged.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He indicates he made a ruling. Whether he made a ruling or not, he introduced the motion. That is all I am saying. Whether he did it by ruling or how he did it, he apparently put a motion before the committee and then said: "Now we are going to have a little vote, ladies and gentlemen", and he proceeded with the vote.
Of course, the group on his committee that supports the government acted as they always do when the government Whip cracks the whip and tells them to do this. They do it. They snap to it, except for a few free-thinking members like the hon. member for Calgary Northeast and I note that he was not on the committee. But had he been there, I am sure he would not have voted with this group.
The majority in the committee voted and supported the chairman in his ruling, upheld his ruling, and then in comes this closure motion, in effect, in that committee.
That was, in my view, an entirely improper exercise. We have discussed that before. The Chair has indicated that without a report from the committee, the Chair is unable to deal with it.
We now have a report from the committee. I do not know what it says, but I would hope that it has some words of censure of the chairman for these improprieties in the report. As I say, we have not had an opportunity to review it. If it does not, they should be there because clearly there have been things going on in the committee that, in terms of fairness, in terms of procedural fair play, in terms of the right of people to be heard, are improper. They were wrong and they should not have gone on. There was, as I say, a bully tactic. The members of the committee were denied their rights of free speech and that is one of the privileges of members of this House, Mr. Speaker, enshrined in all the authorities. In Erskine May and Beauchesne's freedom of speech is one of the privileges of members of Parliament.
I suggest to Your Honour that it was denied to the members of this committee by the actions of its chairman. He is supposed to be the servant of the committee not the whip, not the bully-boy. He is supposed to be the servant of the committee and he was obliged, in my submission, to act in accordance with the wishes of the
Routine Proceedings
committee, not just the majority, but in fact to ensure fairness as between the various parties who were participating in the proceedings in the committee.
I submit there was a failure on the part of the committee to come to a conclusion, to do a study on this bill that was in accordance with the rules of natural justice, that was in accordance with our privilege of freedom of speech, that was in accordance with our rights as members to debate fully and discuss intelligently these things and that was in accordance with the public's right to participate in the proceedings by coming and giving evidence.
The Minister of Supply and Services is mumbling from his seat again. I know that he would liked to have been a member of this committee.


An hon. member:: Was he mumbling or was he growling?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The parliamentary secretary says it was a growl. The Minister of Supply and Services is not a lion that terrifies this particular lamb I can tell him. I think that the Minister of Supply and Services should have got on the committee and participated in its proceedings. I am sure he would have made a very worthwhile contribution, and chances are if the minister had been there he would be voting against the goods and services tax because he would have heard the-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Peter, you waste more time in this House of Commons on these stupid things than everybody else put together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope that we could finalize this. This is an opposition day and I am sure there are other members who would like to speak. I would hope that the hon. member would come to the finality of these arguments so that the Speaker could at least have an opportunity to review some of this and come back with a ruling. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make, Sir, was that this committee report ought not to be received. I suggest that Your Honour review the report, the proceedings in the committee, the submissions that have been made by members in this House, and then reject the report. I suggest that the Chair then has the authority to refer this bill back to another committee, a new committee that will do a

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
proper study on this bill and then report it in due course, one way or the other, to the House.
I think that the procedural irregularities that have plagued this committee to date have rendered this report nugatoiy and I suggest it be refused in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Churchill on a further argument. I am sure he has heard all the arguments here. Does he have something new to add?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. As you know, when I entered the discussion earlier it was basically to ask for The Speaker's indulgence which has been given earlier on previous occasions when there is a complicated matter before us in order that the parties, including the government, would have the opportunity to make further argument on Monday, which is an appropriate measure and a measure which has certainly been bound and recognized in the traditions of this House.
As the previous speaker on behalf of the Liberal Party put it, there are number of things that happened in that standing committee of which members of the House are just becoming aware. We all know about the ruling that insisted that the committee in six hours would review clauses 13 to 66 of the bill and then vote on them and any amendments. We all know that the Chair in his order, in his ruling, a ruling that was not asked for by any member of the committee, ruled that the debate must finish by Thursday afternoon and that the committee must report today. We all know that he said that opposition parties would be allowed one minute per amendment and that other members of the committee would be allowed one minute per amendment.
I just discovered this morning that the Chair did not enforce that rule when he did not wish to enforce that rule. In other words, sometimes he would enforce his own ruling and force members of the opposition to speak on an amendment for less than one minute on an issue of this importance. Can you imagine dealing with Clause 12, or Clause 13, or Clause 14 of the goods and services tax bill and be told by a ruling of the Chair -unsought after as that ruling was, interrupting the debate on a motion put forward in a legitimate process -that you are
allowed to speak for only one minute, and to have that enforced by the Chair. And that same Chair, himself, on the next amendment, spoke for more than five, or six, or seven, or eight minutes. What kind of a rule of law, what kind of rule of precedent was that committee operating on? The Chair can tell other members that my ruling stands when you speak, but when I speak it does not matter, it does not count.
We had an intolerable situation in the committee. We are just finding out some of the things that the Chair did. There was a privilege motion. The Chair allowed himself to speak for more than one minute. He would not allow others to speak, except when he chose to let them speak for more than one minute. It was draconian. It was completely without precedent in the way that this House and the committees of this House have acted. I would submit that since the committee itself has not dealt with the privilege motion, the motion to have the member removed from the chair, that there are many things we have to worry about with regard to the conduct of the Chair, with regard to whether or not this report is admissible, whether or not the House can feel any confidence that we followed the process set out in the standing orders to have a report stage which is preceded by clause-by-clause study in a committee.
How can we go into report stage now when the document that is going to be submitted to this House is flawed? It did not follow the standing orders with regard to how a committee works. It did not follow the rules of the House in terms of how motions are made. It invoked rules which do not exist anywhere in the scope of the parliamentary practice and that those rules were not enforced in any uniform manner for all members of that committee.
We are making very serious charges against the conduct of that committee and the Chair of that committee. I would ask and request that the Speaker make sure that all members of this House and members of that committee have a full opportunity on Monday to explain their grievances against the Chair and against the committee and to explain why they believe that the committee report on the goods and services tax is inadmissible to this House of Commons.
March 30, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say to the hon. member for Churchill that the Speaker has already stated in his ruling that neither the Lachance incident nor the Blenkarn ruling should be treated as precedents.
However, the Chair will take the hon. member's comments under advisement and return to the House at a later time on points of order raised.
I want to thank the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Edmonton East, and all other members for their contribution in this particular debate. I will come back with a ruling as soon as possible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments but as my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands also indicated since the report has only been tabled we have not had a chance to examine it. If there is new information or evidence that we feel would be helpful in the Chair's ruling we would certainly feel an obligation to raise that on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is something further after the Speaker has made a ruling and if the hon. member does have another point of order or point of privilege that he would like to raise he may do so.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take overly long to intervene on this point of order because certainly this is an opposition day, the day provided for the Official Opposition. It is unfortunate that the NDP has decided to take up so much of that time but I think we as government members must respond to this point of order.
I have heard a lot of talk here this afternoon indicating that we are dealing here with fundamental principles. I agree with that. We are dealing with fundamental principles, but the fundamental principle that is being forgotten in this process, and the one that I think has been very clearly abused by the NDP members is this: There is a fundamental principle that the opposition has a right to oppose but the government must, in the end, have the right to govern. It must be able to proceed with its legislation.
That is the very fundamental and probably the most important principle of a parliamentary democracy. I think that is the question that we really are looking at
Routine Proceedings
here today. It is not what happened with the chairman's ruling in the committee. It is why the chairman had to rule as he did. Because, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the point of order that has been raised before us today, I think, first of all, there are a few things that have to be said.
First, as you have said several times, the Speaker has already ruled on the substantive part of this issue. The Speaker has clearly said that he does not accept this as a precedent of any longstanding. It is not a precedent with which this House is seized. I understand that argument and I am not prepared to argue that.
But the NDP members continue to insist that even after the Speaker has ruled, and even after that process was completed in the finance committee, somehow they should once again be allowed to derail and throw off the tracks this whole process. Of course, that is what this whole thing is really about. It is really a way of the minority once again acting in a tyrannical fashion or to use their own words, "putting the jackboots to Parliament". That is essentially the kind of activity that we are seeing.
You know, Sir, as Speaker, that one of the very important, fundamental roles of the Speaker is the obligation to maintain order. Of course that same principle applies to the chairman of a committee. The chairman must try through whatever means he or she has to maintain order in the committee.
What we were dealing with here in this particular committee was not your run of the mill committee behaviour. In fact, what you are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, was very extreme behaviour by the NDP party. Extreme to the point that I am not sure any of us, certainly in my memory, in my 10 years here in the House, have I seen that kind of behaviour of people running around with little pink pillows, slippers on their feet and bells on their toes! I mean, Mr. Speaker, surely, if ever there was an example of extreme childish behaviour, that certainly was the case.
Now, if my memory serves me, the committee had sat in a marathon sitting for something like 36 hours. Thirty-six hours of non-stop sitting simply because the NDP members were not prepared to deal with substantive debate to allow the House and committee to proceed. They wanted strictly to play games, not only as they had demonstrated in this committee, but as they

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
had demonstrated previously here in this House. That is what we have been living with now for several weeks, to the point that the third party have themselves so pumped up that they now think they are the Official Opposition. They now think they have the right to tie up the House of Commons, to tie up the committees, to do whatever they choose and totally frustrate the government from its right to govern. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, the right of the Official Opposition to perform their role. We see by the very fact that the NDP members have raised this point of order today that this is a demonstration of their arrogance and their callousness.
We have an issue which we consider important. It is an issue on the environment which has been raised by the Official Opposition. But what has happened? The NDP member chose to raise a point of order. They have now used up almost one hour and a half of time that could have been used to debate that issue. They chose to do that, I argue, not because of what happened in the finance committee but because they have chosen to demonstrate to this House that they are going to derail, threaten, intimidate and do whatever they have to do to delay this House, the government and even the Official Opposition from performing their roles.
Let us return to that basic fundamental principle of a government being able to govern, and a chairman being asked to maintain order. One of the things that I think we have to remember is that we were dealing with a very extreme circumstance. The behaviour of the chairman of the committee was not something that is done every day.
Why was it done this time? Because the circumstances in which the committee found itself was a circumstance that was in itself extreme. It required an unusual approach by the chairman. The chairman had to take some very unusual approaches in order to maintain order and decorum in that committee. The chairman had to keep order. The point we are making is that order had to be maintained with extreme actions.
One other point I want to make is that we have a very fine balance of rules in this House to protect the rights of the majority and to protect the rights of the minority. We had in this committee a demonstration of those rules working. What happened is the chairman took a very
unusual action to solve a very unusual problem caused by the childish behaviour of the NDP. What followed is what should happen. Immediately there was a challenge to the chairman's ruling. The question was put to the committee and the committee sustained the chairman. The rules were being followed in exactly the way that they should. There was the check and the balance that was necessary to make sure that the chairman did not in any way abuse his or her authority.
Not only have we got a ruling in the House on this particular issue, we also have a decision of the committee sustaining the role of the chairman and the action of the chairman because the chairman was dealing with extreme childish behaviour on the part of that third party, which was disrupting all of the rights and opportunities of both the government members and the Official Opposition members.
The House leader of the NDP, in raising his original point of order, asked four questions. Is it a precedent? If he had read the ruling of the Chair he would know that the Chair had already said no. It is not a precedent in this House.
Second, he asked whether the chairman can introduce closure. The chairman could do it, did do it and was sustained by the committee for having done it.
The third question was whether the report had somehow been tainted by this behaviour. If it has somehow been tainted, can it be accepted? No. The report has not been tainted. I will tell you what has been tainted in this process. What has been tainted is the reputation of the NDP party. They have gone beyond-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River has referred to the NDP party. That reference does not make any sense. The letters NDP refer to the New Democratic Party. To refer to the NDP party means he is referring to the New Democratic Party party. That does not make any sense. I ask the hon. member to think when he is talking and think about what he is saying. To refer to the NDP party, granted, some of my colleagues were taking moments of that committee rather lightly but I would not call it a party that they were having. It was not an NDP party, it was the NDP attempting to bring some sense to that committee so that the people of Canada could be heard.


March 30, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has really heard wonderful arguments today.
I think we should lay it to rest so I may assess the matter and come back.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for referring to the NDP party. I do keep referring to the NDP party, and it is because I think of the New Democratic People's party. The fact is that, whatever you call it, they have been acting in a childish and tyrannical fashion, and really have been abusing the rights of both the government and the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I want to leave you with three questions that I think need to be considered, since you are considering the four questions that were put on the floor by the NDP House leader.
I think there are three questions that need to be examined because they go to this fundamental principle. First, were the NDP exceeding acceptable standards of behaviour by not allowing debate but instead grandstanding, filibustering and delaying, not only in the committee, but in the House previously. I think they have been doing that. I think the answer to that question is yes.
Second, if their behaviour was abnormal-as it certainly was- then did it not require an unusual response? I think the answer to that question is also yes.
The third question then, is: Does the third party have the right to filibuster, delay and prevent the real opposition from debating, or the government from governing? That is the question that goes to the fundamental principle that the Opposition does have a right to oppose, but the government has a right to govern. That is the very fundamental principle that these characters, in their childish, jackboot tactics and approaches, have forgotten.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I made the statement not too long ago that I felt there really was not a point of order here.
I have listened now to interventions by very many people, and I would just like to spend a minute or two to deal with the substance of the issue. When I first was elected to this Chamber some 11 years ago, I read a lot about it. I read a lot about the precedents of the House of Commons.
Routine Proceedings
It has been a longstanding practice, going back to the beginning of the parliamentary system, that Speakers from time to time make rulings that are not covered in any kind of exact way by the Orders of the Day. The House then can divide on whether or not to uphold the Speaker. Speakers, going back for hundreds of years, have ruled that the tyranny of the minority must be brought to a close, and have submitted that ruling to the Chamber and the majority in the Chamber rules.
That is what happened in committee. It is not the first time it has happened in committee. I suggest to you it will not be the last time. The minority cannot be allowed to hijack the business of the people, to cause extra expense for the people, and on and on and on.
We have dealt, in this Chamber, with the provision of two rules that have to deal with the issue before us today. We have had for many years a closure rule that is put without debate or amendment, and the House divides. That could have been done. We have another form of limiting debate called time allocation. Members will know that this Chamber decided that the maximum length of time for debate on time allocation is two hours in the Chamber.
That party, with its pillows, blankets and bells on their toes debated a time allocation motion for better than 31 hours, 15 times the allowable time in this Chamber, at great cost to the taxpayers of this nation.
Perhaps the Chamber should entertain a motion of appreciation for the chairman of the finance committee for his tolerance as a chairman in protecting the third party, the NDP party-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -for as many hours as he protected them in their decision to blockade this Chamber and the business of this Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will entertain another point of order but I think the Chair has heard enough arguments in regard to this and I think that we should carry on. I will listen to arguments, but I feel that members are taxing the Chair a little today. I would hope that members would come to a conclusion so that I can make a ruling on behalf of the Chamber. The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to add one additional point to the debate. A member who spoke indicated, in directing a comment to you, Mr. Speaker, that the chair of the finance committee referred to the Lichens precedent and that the Speaker in this House indicated in his ruling the other day that the Lachance circumstance would not be considered a precedent.
He said nothing about the Blenkarn incident. I just want to make that clear that he was referring to the Lachance justice committee circumstance when he said this must not be considered a precedent. The hon. member for Mississauga South indicated that he considered it to be a precedent but the Chair indicated that it ought not be and he certainly said nothing about the Blenkarn incident. That is the point we are trying to make. We do not want that to become a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not going to argue with the hon. member but I think that when he referred to the Lachance committee he knew who the chairman was in the committee. I would suggest to the hon. member-I may be wrong-that he might have referred to Blenkarn.
In any event, was the hon. member for Chambly rising on this point or was he going to ask the hon. minister a question or comment?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make a comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A comment in regard to this point of order?


Philip Edmonston: Addressed to one of the principles that were raised by the parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think I have heard enough arguments today in regard to the matter here today. I think we should carry on. I will listen to the hon. member's point of order. The hon. member for Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: I will be very brief. I have also been very patient listening to the arguments raised on both sides of the House but I find that one of the principles that has been overlooked is the principle of audi alteram partem. I would appreciate if you take a look at that principle, Mr. Speaker, which means that all parties should be heard.
The opposition, whichever party we are talking about in opposition, argues that this principle of audi alteram partem has to be respected. If we take away the tools of the opposition so that the parties be heard, we cannot be in opposition. It is a farce.
We hear the argument that might makes right, that we have to govern, but one of the principal ingredients of governing correctly is listening to all parties. One of the reasons for this situation is that the parties were not listened to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will now conclude by thanking hon. members: the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. Whip, the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton East, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, all the hon. gentleman who have contributed. I appreciate all the arguments that have taken place here today and I will take everything under advisement and come back as soon as possible to make a ruling.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-fifth report of the Striking Committee and if the House will give its consent, later this day I intend to move concurrence in that report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STRIKING COMMITTEE
M. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
That the Thirty-fifth report of the Striking Committee, tabled
earlier today, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
March 30, 1990


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that the important committee has been struck and the members identified, at an earlier House leaders' meeting there was an undertaking by the government House leader that there be consultations between the parties as there normally is when we are appointing such an important committee regarding the chair of the committee.
I have been reading news reports that presumably a chair has been decided. Because we had these discussions in the House leaders' meeting that indeed there would be consultations, I want to ask the Whip whether there have been consultations. I am not aware of consultations but perhaps they have been going on around me and I am not aware of them.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader convened a meeting with the member for Ottawa-Vanier who is both House leader and Whip, and the Whip of the New Democratic Party last Friday. The meeting took place around four o'clock, shortly after the Chamber had shut down last Friday, where we discussed the motion and so on.
There was no undertaking. I was present at that meeting as the Whip of the government party, and there was no undertaking at that point to discuss specifically the issue of chair. We talked about the substitution principle, the number of members, the allocation of members, the 72 hours for the striking committee to meet and those kinds of things, but there was no formal undertaking. I was not at Tuesday's House leaders' meeting of this week to know if there was an undertaking made on Tuesday of this week. Because of business in the Chamber I was not there.
Routine Proceedings
I see my friends opposite indicating that there was no such undertaking made at Tuesday's House leaders' meeting as well. Certainly, as the Whip of the government party, if I could bring the House up to date, I have asked the clerk responsible for committees to consult with all three parties about a suitable time to hold an organizational meeting and I have suggested that Monday or Tuesday would be appropriate, if that was agreeable to the other two parties. I made that suggestion to the Table.
When we are dealing with a special committee we do not have the same sense of process laid out as we do with a legislative committee or a standing committee, but I thought the standing committee process of the clerk chairing the election of a chairman would be appropriate in this circumstance and that is the advice that I provided to the Table. But I asked the Table to consult with the other two parties and if there is a problem we will be glad to meet. If the leader of the New Democratic Party would like to meet with me to discuss possible chair people, I would be glad to do that as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Whip misunderstood my question. In an earlier House leaders' meeting, the government House leader gave us his commitment that there would be consultations regarding the chair of this important committee. Because of the nature of this committee it is not following the normal channels. I think that the process being followed has been appropriate.
However, I was given an undertaking by the government House leader that there would be consultations. There have been no consultations and that is why I say, when I was reading in the media reports that a Chair had been selected or would be appointed, I thought that perhaps there had been consultations that I was not aware of. However the Whip has said that there really had been no consultations. My concern was that a commitment had been made by the government House leader and it appears not to have been kept.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the House that Tuesday was the day the Prime Minister made his speech on the McKenna proposition, the companion resolution, which is the object of discussion in this committee. There were no

March 30, 1990
Routine Proceedings
regular House leader meetings because we were interested in the comments by the Prime Minister.
There were two ad hoc meetings. They were not regular patterned meetings of all the people present. We had a meeting later in the afternoon around five o'clock with the House leader. If there was an undertaking given to the House leader of the NDP, I was not aware of it, as I was not there. I think that the process would be much better served if there were consultations with the opposition parties in chairing such important committees. I think there has been a tradition for House leaders to consult with other House leaders as to who should be the chair.
We do not object to the government wanting to chair that committee, but we would like to feel that the subject matter is so important and of such great interest to Canadians, that all parties will agree to a consultative process before the chair is named or elected by the majority. Whether the government likes it or not, it is going to have its way. It is going to win this debate because it has eight members; we only have four and the NDP only have two.
What we are pleading for, Mr. Speaker, is understanding, co-operation, reasonableness, intelligence and possibly some wisdom.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think one thing we all understand is that the choice of chairperson is limited to the 15 members who were just named and approved by the House. That happened about 10 minutes ago. I would be quite happy myself, or my House leader, to meet and consult with the opposition. I see it as an electoral process which will take place no sooner than Monday, and maybe not until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, but there will be a normal organization meeting when the election of a chairman will take place.
I would assume some vice-chairman will be glad to talk about that. I think it serves the nation well if we are all comfortable with the way that that committee proceeds and with the chairmanship of it. We would be pleased to try and facilitate it with our colleagues.
We have only known the entire membership in any kind of an official way for about 10 minutes. Maybe we are not behind time yet in terms of consultations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Petitions.


PETITIONS
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing under 36 to present-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Was the motion carried?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Yes, the motion was carried.
I do not wish to argue with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, but I recognized the hon. member on a point of order after it was carried. The hon. member for Edmonton East on petitions.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is disrupt the proceedings of the House.
I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a pride of petitions signed by a total of 1,452 Canadians, most of whom are Albertans and most of whom are Edmontonians who sort of call into question the assessment of the hon. member for Mississauga South, as reported in today's papers that popular opposition to the GST has died. It has not. That popular opposition is still out there and growing every day. These papers are testament to that.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from my province, the province of Quebec, indicating as my colleague from Alberta has said, the popular opposition to the GST is not dying down, in fact it is increasing.
I have 3,639 names here from places such as Matane, St. Hyacinthe, Chambly and elsewhere in the province of Quebec.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, in Quebec, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient with regard to the purpose of the North-
March 30, 1990

ern tax benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions today. This is among the hundreds that I have tabled over the last few months dealing with this very unacceptable and intolerable GST, the government's proposal to impose the goods and services tax on all goods and services that Canadians purchase, starting in January 1991.
These petitioners say that the federal government's imposition of this 7 per cent sales tax will virtually apply to everything, will be unfair to low and middle income Canadians and will create an onerous burden on small businesses.
The people who have signed this petition strongly oppose this goods and services tax which is in their opinion an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians. They will be hit not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from students in my riding at the University of Ottawa. It is a petition I have tabled in the House many times before, in which your petitioners beg the House of Commons to do something for postsecondary education and improve the quality of and access to our universities, colleges and educational institutions for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the petition is rather long, but basically it argues in favour of a federal-provincial conference between the federal government and the provinces that would clearly establish the financial responsibilities of both levels of government with respect to postsecondary education and would end the present shameful neglect of postsecondary education in this country.
Routine Proceedings


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. One is from 1,000 residents of Canada who point out that, ever since Confederation, the Government of Canada has applied a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers which it now proposes to include in the goods and services tax.
They also point out that uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST application. Therefore they ask Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in free tax status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations for the printed word.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from 200 Canadians who join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in opposing use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training.
They ask this Parliament to oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, especially at Goose Bay, and to redirect funding used for this toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and for promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from 140 Canadians concerning VIA Rail who oppose the reduction or elimination of VIA Rail service.
They ask Parliament to modernize the existing equipment so that VIA Rail can provide a world-class service to Canadians and to build a high speed passenger train between Montreal and Windsor.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table five separate petitions.

March 30,1990
Routine Proceedings
The first one is a timely one. It concerns the closure of the fish plant in Canso. It has the signatures of over 200 persons who are calling upon Parliament to intervene wherever necessary to ensure this fish plant, which is now closed, is re-opened on an urgent basis to provide employment for the more than 700 fish plant workers and 140 trawler workers from this community.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition to present on behalf of the students of St. Francis Xavier University, as well a separate one on behalf of the town and county of Antigonish.
It concerns the closure of the VIA Rail trunk between Sydney and Truro. I would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of this area have not forgotten and are still calling upon Parliament to insist that this government reverse this wrong decision.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the third petition bears upon the question of abortion. It is from constituents who join with many other constituents who have signed their names on previous petitions to call upon Parliament to uphold the sanctity of human life from conception onward.
Francis G. LeBlanc: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last petition concerns the onerous and unfair goods and services tax.
My constituents are in solidarity with the rest of Canadians who oppose this tax and call upon the government to withdraw this measure urgently.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by a number of people from the Halifax-Dartmouth area. This petition was given to my very distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, who represents the people of his area so well in this House.
These people are asking the Parliament of Canada to reject the federal government's proposed GST, which of course stands for the grief and suffering tax of the Conservative Party. They call upon all of us to oppose vigorously this most unfair measure of the government across the way.
Obviously it is very timely to present this petition today when the government is trying to ram this unfair tax through the House of Commons. I am proudly in solidarity with the people who have signed this petition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, again it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from Kamloops, British Columbia; Chase, British Columbia; and Logan Lake, British Columbia, all of whom point out that the government's goods and services tax is a mean, cruel, brutal, uncaring, undemocratic, regressive tax with a special bias against western Canadians. They ask the government, for those reasons as well as others, to rethink it and abandon it.
I have other petitions but I will leave them for another day. I would like to get on to the opposition day.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by residents of Windsor who are represented in this House by my hon. and learned colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, the Leader of the Opposition. I can say he is responsible for gathering the signatures on this petition through his diligent work in his riding of Windsor West.
These Canadians object to the goods and services tax being introduced by this government. To use the adjectives applied by the hon. member for Kamloops would be putting it mildly. These residents are outraged that the government is proceeding with this tax and call upon Parliament to reject it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally will be indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 240 and 250.
March 30, 1990


Mr. Harvard: Does the government intend to take any action (a) to ensure that cyanide complexes of mercury and other heavy metals have not entered the food chain on Shoal Lake (b) to stop the transport of hazardous materials across the lake on ice roads over which no authority has designated jurisdiction and on unmanned barges which do not require a certificate of inspection and, if so, what action?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed by the Departments of National Health & Welfare and Transport as follows:
(a)	At the present time, no.
(b)	There was some preliminary drilling exploration at Shoal Lake, but the exploration was stopped when the site was designated as requiring an environmental assessment by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. There is no transportation of dangerous goods taking place at the moment.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is continuously under review; some of the amendments being considered would ensure that all transportation of dangerous goods would be covered, including transport on ice roads.


Mr. Comuzzi: 1.	Is Mr. Hugh D. Segal, who has been identified on recent public affairs programs on Canadian and United States networks (CBC and PBS) as "communications and strategic advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada", in the employ of the government and, if so (a) is he on the Prime Minister's exempt staff (b) is he an indeterminate employee of the (i) Privy Council Office (ii) the Prime Minister's Office (c) is he at present, or has he recently been, under contract to either agency (i) individually (ii) through any firm of consultants or lobbyists (d) what are the terms of his employment, including (i) duration (ii) remuneration (iii) definition of tasks or duties?
2.	If there are no such arrangements providing for Mr. Segal to be an advisor or consultant to the Prime Minister, are steps being considered to stop this identification of Mr. Segal with the Prime Minister of Canada?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1.	No
(a), (b) and (c) no (d) N/A
2.	N/A
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have an application under Standing Order 52. I will hear the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. As you so rightfully said, I wrote to you this morning, under the provisions of Standing Order 52, essentially to draw to the attention of Parliament and to call for an emergency debate on the expiry tomorrow of the forest agreement between British Columbia and the Government of Canada.
Other forest agreements in this country expired a year ago as of tomorrow and have yet to be renewed. It is most critical that this Parliament, on the last sitting day before that agreement expires, has an opportunity to debate this agreement and to debate how critical it is to British Columbia and to this country.
In light of indications I have that the lapse of this agreement is causing concern within government, we have the senior Forestry Canada official in British Columbia and the senior administrative official in British Columbia meeting to cancel meetings. In light of the question around this agreement, I think it is important that this Parliament debate the renewal of that agreement today.
I ask that you rule favourably on this matter. I hope you will consider it so that we can indicate that we really care for our environment and our forests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have had an opportunity to review the hon. member's request. Although I consider it to be very important, I really feel that at this time we just cannot have a debate.

March 30, 1990
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Ms. Copps:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of a sincere commitment to the environment and for its vacuous discussion paper which completely fails to offer the concrete action that all Canadians would like to see implemented and, therefore, call on the government to end the rhetoric and to introduce a truly substantial environmental action plan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there were nine minutes left in the hon. minister's questions and comments, and I think the hon. member for Chamb-ly had the floor on a question or comment.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on. I was addressing my question to the hon. Minister of Forestry. The Green Plan on the environment released by the hon. Minister of the Environment yesterday seems to indicate that the government is long on rhetoric and short on action.
I was asking my hon. colleague, the Minister of Forestry, whether that lack of action is not directly related to the funding by the huge corporations that we know the Conservatives have been receiving for quite some time. That funding seems to present a conflict of interest. Even The Globe and Mail has come out with reports that Environment Canada has been given special lists of those companies which it should really not go after for pollution infractions and environmental problems that they have created.
Does this not present a logical response to the question that many Canadians are asking: Why is the government not doing anything for the environment? Could it not be because the corporate interests are more important to the Conservative Party than Canadians' interests?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I answered my hon. friend's similar question just before the end of the debate.
First of all, these people make up their minds before they actually read the documents that are before them. The more objective observer is somebody who writes, to be honest, on the staff of The Ottawa Citizen. A staff
report says: "Environment minister Lucien Bouchard's Green Plan makes several specific proposals which include a safe drinking water act, national standards for all industries, regulations for biotechnology, a promise to complete at least five new parks by 1995 and complete the entire park system by the year 2000", which I spoke about in my comments.
The hon. minister announced in the House that there will be, even before this action plan is put into place, strict regulations on pulp mill emissions which will be announced shortly.
These are firm commitments, strong commitments, that are celebrated throughout the country, and, speaking of action plans, I made this reference earlier and the Speaker cut me off.
We talk about the commitments members of the NDP had to the environment. Of course, they jump up and down here and put on a great show, but Mr. Derek Young who is the director of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee had this to say. This is from this morning's press. There are reports like that every day. He said: "I am really disappointed that the NDP has not formulated a policy on how to deal with old growth forests, and how to deal with wilderness areas or parks, or how to deal with the Carmanah Valley which has become such a focal point for the environmental movement throughout the country." This is what Mr. Young said, and he is no stranger to the NDP.
Being in politics in a political party, as the hon. member will discover since he has joined this particular political party, is like a religion. You cannot choose the people who want to join. At least this party is open to everybody who wants to join, everybody who feels strongly about the commitment that a particular political party has, its philosophy and its ideology, and who from time to time, makes a contribution, either in terms of a personal commitment in time, or knocking on doors, or a financial contribution. That is the essence of our British parliamentary system.
I am sure there are people who join the socialist party and cause them embarrassment. Luckily, in our party we do not have people like that. We have Canadians from all walks of life who want to join us. Of course, that is
March 30, 1990

reflected in the numbers of people who represent these kinds of people in the House of Commons and who are spilling over even onto the other side. You have enough seats for these members. They want to join us and they want to contribute and they want to celebrate and support the kind of things we are doing, which, in the long run, will prove to be very, very positive for the future of all Canadians and the future of our children.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, maybe the last member who spoke for the government has not quite kept track of what the Canadian public has to say in reference to the party that is spilling over to this side of the House.
I would like to refer to last night's Journal, if I may. I believe it was one of the representatives of Friends of the Earth who said that the report of the minister yesterday was really inadequate. It had not gone anywhere near far enough. In fact, he said it said very little, and certainly said very little that was new.
The questions the government asks in there have already been answered. To do anything along the lines that the government is proposing is simply to delay. That is obvious. The answers to the questions are already there. There are technological improvements already in existence which go far beyond, for example, the energy needs of the nation, if they would only be implemented. These range all the way from energy efficient light bulbs to other forms of illumination, transportation and energy use.
It is hypocritical of the government and it is hypocritical of the minister yesterday, and I might also add, arrogant, not to have presented the paper in Parliament. But it is hypocritical for them to come out with a paper claiming to be so innovative and so consultative, when they had the opportunity previously to do consultation, when there were previous opportunities to listen to what the people of Canada were saying, and when they had the opportunity to listen to the experts in the fields, which the paper is supposed to address. Most of the information that is available has already been supplied. They ignored that and came out yesterday to say that they are doing something new. They say they are going into the 21st century, making Canada a leader in care-


An hon. member:: Having just arrived in the 20th.
Supply


Ron Fisher: Precisely, leading the world into the 20th century. The same old rhetoric, when really less is more, from their point of view. In the context of more is less, less is more. It does not matter what it is; it is always the best. This government is doing the best that has ever been done in this nation.
This paper is a prime example of how that is exactly not true. I ask the member opposite who just spoke: Why on earth have you not listened previously to the people who are experts in the field of the environment? Pay attention to the information that is already available.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not a speed reader. This thing just came out yesterday. But, if he had read it, he would probably discover that we are laying out some very specific questions here that Canadians need to address, questions around very specific propositions that this paper concludes. I just read them out. Do you want me to read them again?
Instead, it would tell him that some of the questions and some of the propositions that are in this paper relate to the cost, in human terms, potential job losses; the cost in giving up some of the lifestyles that many generations of Canadians have become accustomed to. There are real dollar costs in some of these things. The potential of a designated carbon tax. My hon. friends over there, 10 minutes ago, defended with their lives the principle of allowing people to be heard. We are giving six months to allow the people to be heard on some of the very specific propositions that are laid out in these papers. In the fall, we will have an environmental agenda and we can only assume and hope that, by that time, even that party will be enlightened enough to support these initiatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I have to interrupt the minister.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add that I did read the report, and I would like to direct my remarks to the Minister of Forestry. The report is not that difficult to read. It is 30 pages long, and there are two pages for notes in French and there are two pages, which are blank, for notes in English. I suppose that is if you want to write in English or in French on the notes pages.
Frankly speaking, this is a very disappointing document. I understand the hon. minister's discomfort in having to defend such a document. It is almost a document that should be carefully examined by the

March 30, 1990
Supply
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department, for misleading advertising.
The real question here is how can the minister respond to the question that many Canadians are asking: is more consultation not a substitute for action when we already know the answers?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has used up three minutes of his debate. I wish he would carry on with the debate.


Philip Edmonston: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was in debate stage. Now I know better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member now has the floor on debate.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make it perhaps not as profound but at least as educating as I can. I believe that the document we are looking at is a document which should be examined not only for misleading advertising but for the only relationship it has to the environment, that is it uses recycled rhetoric. On the solution to environmental problems, it essentially takes an approach which is garbage in itself. The reason I am saying that is that 16 years ago the other government, the Liberal government, said essentially the same thing: that we need to be consulted before action is taken. It is a bit much, after 16 years, to have a Conservative government, two years after being re-elected on an environmental platform, coming out with the same need for consultation. Many people expected the government to put the accent on action. A number of consumer groups and environmental groups have criticized the government, and I respect the hon. minister's response that there were a number of groups which have supported the government's lack of action. There are also a number of groups, such as Friends of the Earth, which say that there is no action at the moment but just a way to delay action in the future.
There are people who expected action from this government. The people from Saint-Basile-le-Grand expected action from this government. I have a letter here from the mayor of Saint-Basile-le-Grand who is still waiting to see the government show leadership on the treatment of PCBs. There are two resolutions from the city of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, asking the government to act. Unfortunately, the document that has been given to us in The Green Plan has nothing that would
benefit the people of Saint-Basile. It has nothing that will benefit the people of Saint-Amable, where there are problems with mounds of tires.
I know that whenever we are uncomfortable with the response on the government side, we can say that it is provincial responsibility, but even then we are coming into a serious situation because the province is not accepting this. I can tell you that even in dealing with James Bay, Phase II, the government is faced with a serious problem and that it cannot even get its act together with the provincial Government of Quebec as to how to hold hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I may add that I was very disappointed in the Green Plan released by the Minister of the Environment yesterday. I have known the minister for a long time, and I know him as a man of integrity, and a very competent man, who is not being used to best advantage by this government. I am sure he was very disappointed to see the action plan's initial 250 pages-whose contents were no secret-reduced to 30 pages with four pages of notes, two in French and two in English. I think it is unfortunate to see an Environment minister reduced to endorsing lack of action on the part of the federal government.
All I can say is, we have no answers to the questions the government wishes to raise-because basically, the document contains only questions-we have only questions. These questions have been asked before, and I have the paper here. They were asked during a CROP poll, and I am referring to the one in May 1988, which is a good example.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House and particularly to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Forestry, that the questions he is asking in this Green Paper have already been asked two years ago, and the answers were very surprising.
For example, the willingness to pay is a very major question: the willingness of Canadians to pay. What is it? Well according to this survey, a national survey, 8 out of 10 Canadians are willing to pay extra for environmental
March 30, 1990

protection. How can my hon. colleague, the Minister of Forestry, say that that question has not been answered? It has been answered. In fact it seems that Canadians across the country are more in favour of paying for controlling pollution than polluters themselves or even the government. It is not the time to re-ask the question.
But I just want to bring to the minister's attention several points here about willingness to pay. Not only 8 out of 10 Canadians, approximately 78 per cent, said they were willing to pay extra for increased spending on environmental protection, but when Canadians were asked to choose between alternative mechanisms for this contribution, almost one in two, almost 50 per cent, said they would be willing to accept a 1 per cent surcharge on their income taxes. Canadians are willing to pay extra to clean up the environment. Is the government doing its part? Not by re-asking the question it is not.
In addition, Canadians have expressed themselves very clearly about toxic chemicals, another question which is asked in the minister's Green Paper, and is being asked again after two years. In the survey that was done two years ago, toxic chemical pollution came out as being at the very top of the list of environmental concerns, along with clean water supply. It even surpassed acid rain as an issue in 1988, and only one-third of Canadians believed that the mechanisms now in place to control toxic chemicals are adequate to ensure public safety. Over two-thirds of Canadians feel that in the toxic chemical area the government is not doing its job.
Environmental health is one question that concerns most Canadians. The concern about environmental health is one to which Canadians responded most emphatically, and that is another question being re-asked two years later. Asked about how concerned they were about environmental pollution, eight out of ten Canadians again said they are very concerned about human health and safety. Their second major concern is for future generations. Further questions on possible impacts of pollution reveal that nine out of ten Canadians believe that many peoples' health has already been affected by existing pollution levels. That means that they feel that the cancer that is going to be caused, and the people who are going to be affected have already
Supply
become affected. What a sad thought, that we are already at the point of no return. No wonder that this is one of the major concerns of Canadians because of the health aspects.
With respect to the role of government, and this is what I would like to put the emphasis on, Canadians want government to get tougher with polluting industries, not as this paper seems to indicate and to enforce the law. In a poll two years ago, Canadians said obviously we want you to get tough. We want you to apply the law to polluting industries. Seven in ten Canadians currently believe that governments usually side with the industries that pollute rather than siding with the affected public.
Let us look at this. Over two-thirds of our citizens believe that the government is on the side of the polluters. Does that have any relationship to the Conservatives' low standing in the polls? The government does not have the confidence of the people on the question of the role of government and pollution control.
I would just like to close here by saying that I think the government had a choice. It could have done better. I have tried to raise the point that because of its corporate donations, its corporate ties, it has a tendency to side with polluters. Everybody knows it. Rather than coming out with actions, it comes out with recycled rhetoric. It is unfortunate. I suppose the only way that that problem can be addressed is through the ballot box. Therefore I would just like to present my opinion that the government has a chance. It has another chance. It has three years perhaps left in government. It can do a better job. The people of Quebec and the people of Canada are expecting the government to do a good job. It is awfully unfortunate that our friend and colleague, the Minister of the Environment, would be so badly used by this government and abused when he was brought into this government to do a good job.
In conclusion I would like to I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of considering the motion standing in
the name of the member for Hamilton East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And less than 15 members having risen:

March 30, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There not being 15 members rising in objection to the motion, the motion is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Edmonston) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions and comments. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Technically speaking, Mr. Speaker, a motion was put by the member for Chambly. It was carried. Therefore, that motion makes it impossible for us to ask him questions, although we would like to ask him questions. He has now lost the floor. Unless there is unanimous consent to do that, I would hesitate to break the rules and neither would he.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Technically, we will allow the hon. member to answer questions or comments if we get unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by quoting from Hansard. I hope these words sound familiar to the members of the government. I think they should re-read them.
The ozone layer above that protects the earth from the sun's ultra-violet rays is diminishing. TWenty-two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are being pumped into the world's atmosphere each year. This C02 is heating up our climate, with hazards we are only beginning to understand. Moreover, forests which process carbon dioxide are disappearing at a breathtaking rate: Tventy-five million tons of sulphur dioxide fall every year in Canada and the United States in the form of acid rain that is destroying our lakes and rivers, damaging our forests and monuments, and threatening our health.
It is well past the time that these issues be not only addressed but resolved.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard for April 6, 1989.
What do we have as a result of all that deep understanding of the seriousness, the urgency and the immediacy of the problem and the need for action now? What we have nearly a year later is still no environmental protection legislation or environmental assessment legislation. There is still no action plan on the environment. We have instead cuts to environmental programs and cuts in budgets.
It is a great pleasure today to rise and expose this green plan for the sham it is, for the contradiction it presents to every action of the government since it took office in 1984.
This green plan is a litany of broken promises. That is what it is. It is going back five years. It is contradicting everything the government has said it is going to do. It is full of words like "could consider", "might consider", "could consider proposing", "should we", "could we". It is too late for all that. The Prime Minister knew that a year ago. He said it clearly. Yet what has he done about it?
Yesterday, we had a litany of the supposed accomplishments of this government on the environment. I want to go through a litany of failures-not only of failures, which implies lack of action, but actions damaging to the environment.
The Green Plan talks about the preservation of wildlife. Yet the government cut $3.8 million from the budget of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
We have lots of discussion about parks and expanding our national parks system. This is the government which weeks ago voted against a motion to expand the parks system to make a real firm commitment to parks consistent with our international commitments.
The report talks about shipping and disposal. Can I remind the government that it was five years ago that the spill of PCBs at Kenora occurred, and that for three years following that nothing more was heard about PCBs except promises of action? There was no action taken until weeks before the 1988 national election when suddenly disaster hit Saint-Basile-le-Grand and PCBs were again a problem and suddenly they were on the public agenda. This time it was right before an election and there was some interim action.
March 30, 1990

But do we have a comprehensive plan for handling the disposal and transportation of PCBs? No, we do not- five years after the spill at Kenora.
There is talk in this report about toxic substances and protecting the health of Canadians. This is the same government that is now saying that the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety should become a selfsupporting income-generating institution and that in fact it should not be available to Canadian workers to give them information on toxic substances and other health hazards in their workplaces.
This report talks about research. Yet we have seen virtually the decimation of research at the National Research Council. In fact, we have seen the breaking down of that institution that has been fundamental to the progress of science, research and technology in this country for decades.
The government appears not to be aware that in fact Canada's environmental work-indeed the space program-started with atmospheric research by the National Research Council in the mid-thirties when we started looking at what was happening in the Arctic and began studying the aurora borealis. Now, about 55 years later, this government is systematically dismantling the National Research Council. How dare it publish a document like this and talk about improving science and research?
The document talks a lot about information and the importance of it. This is the very government that suppressed a major report on toxic substances called "Storm Warning". It suppressed it for over a year, keeping it from the people of Canada.
This government talks about better environmental assessment. I have heard comments in Question Period today and yesterday, as well as the debate today, about the weakness of the current legislation and the current environmental assessment process. If it is weak, it is weak because the government and its ministers refuse to meet their legal obligations under that legislation. Those legal obligations have been spelled out by the courts, not once but three times. It is about to happen again. Once again, the government is not fulfilling its responsibilities for the environment, responsibilities it has been reminded of three times by the Federal Court. Instead, it is leaving it to voluntary organizations with their own
Supply
resources and on their own initiative to do what the government is legally obligated to do.
It is over two weeks since the decision of the court on the Oldman River dam which said, first, the federal permit allowing that construction was cancelled; and, second, that two ministers of the Crown were obliged to conduct environmental assessments. The government has done nothing. It is still considering the implications of the decision.
I will tell you the implications of the decision. It is this simple. A multi-million dollar project in Alberta with severe environmental impacts has gone ahead for an additional two and one-half weeks and this government has done nothing about the fact that it is proceeding absolutely illegally without a permit that it is required to have under the Navigable Waters Act.
If the government was serious it would look at that decision on the Oldman River dam. It would say what the courts have clearly said, that it has not only the right but the responsibility to carry out an environmental assessment on every project that touches an area of federal responsibility. It would be environmentally assessing James Bay, II, if it would stop fooling around with discussions that are going nowhere with the province of Quebec and get on with its responsibility and its job. It would be environmentally assessing Point Aconi. It would be looking at its options for the Carmanah Valley.
Actions speak louder than words. Thirty pages of words do not say much against four years of not only inaction but negative action against the environment.
The plan purports to deal with the question of CO2 emissions. Members of the government may not be aware of this, but the environment committee of the House has been looking intensively at global warming. There is one clear message-and it is not new-the single, most efficient, most effective, most cost effective thing we can do to stop global warming is to cut the emissions of CO2.
Action on that front is clear. By conservation alone, we could cut 52 per cent of CO2 emissions. This government has known now for five years what needs to be done. It is not doing it.
Instead, it has cut wind energy research at the National Research Council. It has cut the environmental secretariat at the National Research Council. It has, over-all, cut money spent on alternative energy and

March 30, 1990
Supply
conservation-the single most effective thing that we can do to save this planet-from $500 million to a miserly $50 million.
The Minister of Finance can get up and talk about the financial reserves all he wants. That is window-dressing. There are no financial reserves. The reserves in this year's budget, as he knows perfectly well, have but cut and not increased to accommodate the environment or anything else.
The Green Plan talks about biological diversity. Just this past week, 10 people at the National Research Council, including five senior research officers in the biological section, were laid off.
We have broken promises. We have had repeated promises over the last year, and I am sure before I entered this House, to table environmental assessment legislation. We have repeated promises that we will have a strong action plan by this spring. March 21 was over a week ago. That was the beginning of spring, and this is all we have.
It is also important to talk about what is not here. What is not here is any strong commitment by the government itself to act on its own, to ensure that all governmental practices are in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. What minister has said to his department: "Before you produce your budget, I want to know everything you are doing that has an impact on the environment. Where it is a negative impact, I want you to change it. I want to know how we are using the world's resources. Where it is excessive I want you to change it. I will not approve a budget until I have those answers." Not one minister has said that to his or her department. That is the way this government needs to operate.
We have the Minister of the Environment saying: "Environment is the responsibility of every minister". Then we have the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology saying instead: "The environment is nice. It is like poetry and flowers, kind of fun to have but it has nothing to do with the economy".
This is the government that says it believes in sustainable development. What does it do instead? It votes down, in this House, a motion that would have made the Department of Industry, Science and Technology responsible, among other things, for sustainable development.
Obviously, it does not understand the question. How can the government, at this stage, say: "Should Canada commit itself to targets for the emission of carbon dioxide?" How can it even ask that question? How can we have the Minister of Energy out in Vancouver saying: "Should Canada act before the rest of the world acts, or should we wait for everybody else? Should the government seek to establish agreements with the western provinces on emissions?" How can those questions even be asked when we know how urgent and serious this situation is?
This report does not at all address sustainable development. It does not address the problems of the Third World. We know that one of the greatest causes of environmental degradation is poverty. Does this plan talk about what kinds of aid we provide to the Third World, ensuring that that aid is done in an environmentally compatible way, in fact, specifically directing our aid towards projects that assist Third World countries to avoid environmental damage?
Does it talk about the millions of dollars that we provide through the Export Development Corporation to do major projects abroad in China, India, Indonesia and Thailand? Does it put any limits on how we spend that money and make sure that we are not exporting environmentally damaging technology? It does not. In fact, one of the things holding up environmental assessment legislation is that the Export Development Corporation, for the purposes of aiding business clients, is specifically seeking to exempt itself from that legislation.
It does not talk about what we import and whether we encourage pollution in the Third World by importing goods that perhaps we would be better off not importing. It does not talk about how we control our exports to ensure that we are not exporting damaging goods or goods that can be used in a way that is damaging to the environment.
It does not talk about aboriginal rights. A small country like New Zealand can bring in comprehensive environmental legislation which gives prime importance to the rights of aboriginal peoples, their land rights, their treaty rights and their cultural traditions and a country like Canada cannot. It is appalling that that is not even discussed in this paper.
March 30, 1990

The report talks about consultation. The minister who spoke this morning said consultation is desired and needed. Consultation gets off to a bad start when the report on which it is to be based ignores the consultation, ignores the thousands and perhaps millions of words of input this government has received over the years it has been in office from environmental groups. Options which they have developed and put forward are not in this plan. How can they expect the consultation is going to mean anything?
The report said: "Women are a real key to decisionmaking. Aboriginal peoples need to be involved in our discussions. Youth need to be part of our solutions." Just look at what this government has done to those groups. It has diminished the ability of women's groups to participate in society as groups. It has cut funding to women's organizations. It has cut funding for conferences. It has cut funding for women's centres. It is undermining their ability to be informed, to communicate with each other and to communicate with government.
What has it done to aboriginal peoples? A year ago it was cutting its commitment to meet the educational needs of aboriginal peoples and it is still true that a native person in Canada has a much better chance of going to prison than to university. That is a crying indictment of our society. Now it has cut broadcasting, it has cut newspapers, it has cut the means by which natives inform themselves and communicate with each other. It has cut their tools to participate in the democratic process. How dare this paper then say that we want the involvement of aboriginal peoples.
It has cut NGOs' budgets and yet it is saying that they are the crux to our doing something about this problem.
What has it done to youth? Oh, yes, the minister wants youth employment for summer employment programs, he says, summer employment programs on the environment. I am sitting in a riding where summer employment programs this year are one-tenth of what they were last year; $23,000 for a community of 70,000 people for summer employment. How do we expect youth to feel a part of this society when money that could have employed them for the summer and sent them back to school this fall is being pulled out of summer employment for them?
Supply
This is a new kind of consultation. I think the normal process, when there is a discussion paper, is for the parliamentary committee to hold hearings and report back to Parliament. I really want some answers on why that is not being done. Is it that these are going to be secret consultations? Why is the environment committee not being asked to take this document, to consult and to report to Parliament?
I want to close with one final point. Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to Madam Bruntland's comments about Canada and the leadership role we have played. That was a nice comment from a lead speaker at a conference to the host country. What the Prime Minister failed to say is that Canada essentially holds great conferences, exercises great rhetorical leadership. But what she went on to say was that it was time for Canada to get on with action and demonstrate that its leadership is more than words. This plan is a betrayal of that call to action for Canada and the world.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend for Ottawa West on an excellent presentation.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was a well thought-out speech and given with the usual seriousness she attaches to these questions as our critic for environmental matters. I want to thank her for the work she has done today.
There is, indeed, a serious problem with the environmental issues in Canada today. There is little commitment from the government in the framework for discussion on the environment in the discussion paper. The leadership is lacking. There is, as the member said, no ministerial leadership just to clean up our own act.
I can remember asking questions of departments of this government, Public Works and others, about dumping toxic wastes into the Ottawa River. We had to rise in this place and push and push and repeatedly bring them to their senses until they acted. Today there are still wastes being dumped by the federal government into the environment. If we are going to start preaching to Canadians, we had better start practising here in our own jurisdiction. That is the federal jurisdiction-federal government departments.

March 30, 1990
Supply
The paper, the framework for discussion on the environment, proposes, and I quote from page 17:
Canadians need to explore the ways governments, industry and
individuals can best contribute to a 50 per cent reduction in waste.
One mechanism is an Office of Waste Management -
I repeat-
-an Office of Waste Management to expand the national waste
exchange program and to promote waste reduction and recycling.
Some of us believe we have an office of waste management here in this administration of the federal government right now. I think the Prime Minister's office is a good example of waste management. So is the Minister of Finance, in the way they manage the economy of this country.
I take exception that they set up an office, another bureaucracy to manage their own waste programs when the government shows little leadership.


An hon. member:: Look at all the waste at 24 Sussex, for instance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We know that they want to talk about a new transportation policy. They have just cut VIA Rail, one of the most environmentally friendly systems there is. They just cut VIA Rail.
I want to talk about the green environment we are supposed to be looking towards and The Green Paper we got. The recycling program has not been put by this government to Canadians yet. We have paper recycling projects. And clean water. Well, this is a watered down set of promises.
I want to ask the member, since she has knowledge of government and knowledge as the spokesperson for the environment: Does she not believe, as I do, that it is about time this government put its money where its mouth is and practised environmentally friendly things such as waste management in its own federal government buildings. Should that not be under control?


Marlene Catterall: That is exactly why I put the challenge to all ministers opposite or all those who occasionally speak to them, because I think that is exactly where it has to start. We cannot preach to Canadians what they should be doing in their homes, offices or factories, until we have our own house in order. This is the largest employer in the country. It employs a quarter of a million people directly, and another quarter of a million
people indirectly. We use more paper, more of everything that can be used in an office or laboratory environment than any other employer in Canada. We use more vehicles, we use more energy and, therefore, we should be leading the way.
This also gives me the opportunity to talk about costs. The Minister of Forestry and the Minister of the Environment have said we have got to talk about trade-offs. We have got to talk about costs.
The reason it is so important for the government to act as a leader and as an example is to demonstrate the fact that when things are done in an environmentally sustainable way, money is saved. If factories are built that use fewer resources and less energy, they operate more efficiently and are more productive. Innovative companies that have taken these steps are proving exactly that.
I challenge the government to prove that as a major corporation in this country, the largest corporation, we can demonstrate that it is cheaper and not more expensive to do things the right way. I will challenge that it is going to cost more money. We keep saying that to people and we keep scaring people with it. We keep pretending that we cannot act because it is going to cost too much money.
There are many ways in which it is cheaper. So let us stop pretending.


Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, in her eloquent speech the hon. member identified a very important element in our common efforts to achieve the very worthy environmental goals that we have in Canada.
Specifically that very important element is the relationship between the federal government and the governments of our provinces and territories. The hon. member knows that it is this relationship that is fundamental, not only for success in environmental policy development, but in determining the degree of success in other policy areas.
Would the hon. member share with this House and with Canadians her vision and the vision of her party, with respect to a workable, reasonable and effective framework that would ensure co-operative federal-provincial policy development in the very important area of Canada's environment.
March 30, 1990


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not have time left to deal with that. However, as the municipal politician who was involved with provincial governments all over the country, I certainly think I have some very valuable ideas to bring not only to a bi-level approach but a tri-level approach to the environment. It was that experience at the local level of government that led me to propose one useful suggestion which I note the minister has adopted for a participaction program on the environment.
To stand aside, do nothing and absolve oneself of any responsibility for the environment is not at all helpful to federal-provincial relationships, or to public confidence in government at all levels. I certainly do not think that the federal government should be dithering around asking silly questions such as whether or not we should reach agreement with the provinces on emissions. Of course we should. Where is the leadership in this country? Who speaks for the nation any more? What are we? Do we just sit here in this House to let the provinces go off and do exactly what they want no matter what the risk to the world, to the helpless Canadians, to the future survival of humanity? Where is the leadership?
You want an answer to your question. Step aside and let me show you.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that most Canadians and probably many citizens throughout the world have concluded that environmental issues should not be partisan issues. They believe that the importance of preserving our future is one which must go beyond the lines of party politics.
I am not so certain, however, that the introductory speech by the hon. member for Hamilton East today furthered the cause of trying to keep environmental issues within this House in as non-partisan a manner as possible.
I believe that most members of the House and most Canadians very much share the common objective of wanting to ensure that the environment upon which we are dependent for our very life itself is conserved and protected. The challenge of finding a means to direct society to the road of an environmentally sustainable future is the most important challenge of our lives. At stake, as Madam Brundtland said, is our common future.
Supply
A challenge is evident. What is less evident, however, is the question of how we should collectively meet that challenge. The behaviour and assumptions which have contributed to the environmental crisis which is very much a part of our life are deeply ingrained in our society's most cherished institutions and values. Consequently, there is no simple change, no single change that will set matters right. What must occur instead is a renaissance of awareness with respect to the restraints that must be respected if our society is to continue to evolve and to progress on an environmentally sustainable path.
A sustainable future is not within the powers of the Minister of the Environment alone, nor is it within the powers of the federal government alone to achieve and to deliver. The scale of the challenge which is before us dwarfs the abilities of any one actor to resolve. All of us, at all levels of government, in all walks of life, wherever we may live in this country and throughout the global community, have a role to play and we are seeking to play that role to the best of our abilities. We, as a government, are committed to doing what is in our power to move Canadians onto a sustainable path.
Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment released a document called "A Framework for Discussion on the Environment". This framework summarizes issues which will be addressed in The Green Plan. It outlines a range of possible solutions which could contribute to the national objective of ensuring the effective integration of economic and environmentally sustainable decision-making, of ensuring that we have sustainable development. Through this document, we hope to engage all Canadians in a national dialogue on our common future.
Throughout the spring, we will be holding consultations with Canadians, in 30 or 40 communities throughout the country, to allow them to express their views on the policies and priorities which should be contained in The Green Plan. It is our hope that through this process of establishing a national dialogue we can achieve the broadest possible consensus on the key elements of this national action plan to ensure a sustainable future for Canada. There will be a full action plan by this fall. It will be substantial, meaningful, and will build on the solid record of achievement of this government. In addition, it will be constructed as a result of a process of consulta-

March 30, 1990
Supply
tion with Canadians, the likes of which has not occurred before in this country.
In this national green plan we will seek creative partnerships with the provinces, with interest groups and with industries. We are willing to consider participation in any arrangement which will set an example to others or which will promote collective progress. We will continue to work internationally through whatever means that are available to us whether it be the G-7, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Francophonie, NATO, the World Bank, or in co-operation with the Inter-American Development Bank to whom the Minister of the Environment is speaking today. We will do all of this in order to promote the need for environmen-tally-sustainable development.
Our environmental destiny here in Canada is tied to the global environmental destiny. We must recognize the essentiality of that fact. All Canadians must adopt the principle of thinking globally while acting locally. In a global sense, Canada has not only been an active participant on the international scene but has been a leader in that international environmental arena. Canada's leading role in the development of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer is well known to all parliamentarians and to most Canadians.
In the following year, Canada hosted an international conference on "The Changing Atmosphere, Implications for Global Security". While addressing that conference, the Prime Minister was the first to call for an international convention to protect the atmosphere to be held by 1992. The concept of the need for that convention is now supported by President Bush, Prime Minister Thatcher, President Mitterand and many other national leaders.
Last March the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment represented Canada at the Environmental Summit at The Hague, where world leaders agreed to develop within the United Nations an enhanced authority to combat global warming. Also in March of last year, this government was one of 34 signatories to a landmark United Nations convention, which controls the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.
Last July in Paris, Canada joined other economic leaders in placing the environment at the top of the international agenda.
In Kuala Lumpur, in October, leaders of all 49 Commonwealth nations endorsed the concept of sustainable development.
Looking ahead to 1992, the world will gather for what is probably going to be the most important environmental conference held since the landmark Stockholm conference of 1972. That conference will be the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development which will be held in Brazil and of which a distinguished Canadian, Maurice Strong, will be the chairman.
It is expected that world leaders will meet at this conference to conclude a landmark convention on climate change, if indeed that convention is not concurred with prior to the meetings in 1992. Scientific and legal work for this convention has been under way for some time and good progress is being made.
We want Canada to set an example for the world, but we must be realistic and recognize that our efforts alone cannot achieve worldwide change. We must work co-operatively with other countries and also through all international organizations that can mobilize actions on a global scale. We recognize the need as well to work co-operatively to protect the environment of the North American continent. One example of such co-operation between Canada and the United States is the establishment of the North America Waterfowl Management Plan, a plan which provides for $1.5 billion over 15 years to protect almost 4 million acres of wetland habitat in Canada.
Canada is also working closely with the United States to clean up the Great Lakes. Our share of that program is $125 million to be spent over the next five years to protect human health, to clean up toxic contamination and to prevent future pollution of these important shared resources.
I am encouraged by recent news stories coming out of the United States with respect to the progress which the American Congress is making towards the passage of President Bush's Clean Air Bill. This government has worked closely with our counterparts in the United States, encouraging them to pass that bill. I hope that
March 30, 1990

that will not only be a reality in the near future but it will be followed as well by an accord between our two countries.
Closer to home, despite what you may have heard earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this government has a solid record of achievement on which to build.
In June, 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was proclaimed, the strongest piece of environmental legislation ever sponsored by a federal government in Canada. CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, establishes very stringent controls for chemical substances manufactured in or imported into Canada and provides for a "cradle to grave" mechanism for managing such substances from their manufacture to their disposal.
In addition, the federal and provincial governments are working co-operatively on a number of environmental issues through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. That group met last week at Globe 90 in Vancouver. Last October, the council established the creation of a $250 million fund based upon a 50-50 federal-provincial cost sharing formula to clean up high risk abandoned contaminated land sites, the sites that we refer to as orphan sites.
At the same time, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment announced a joint decision to implement standards to control automobile emissions of oxides of nitrogen and gasoline fumes, which will match, by 1994, the toughest standards in North America. We generally refer to those standards as the California standards.
Another example of federal-provincial co-operation which is noteworthy is the agreement to clean up the St. Lawrence River. In June, 1988 this federal government announced a $110 million action plan to tackle industrial pollution in this major waterway.
Throughout Canada and the world, national parks have proved to be one of the most effective ways of protecting wilderness, wildlife and other important heritage resources. Since 1984, this government has added greatly to that national park system. Three new national parks and park reserves have been established: Ellesmere on Canada's most northerly lands; Bruce Peninsula near the heart-of Ontario and within easy reach of
Supply
millions of Canadians; and South Moresby on the spectacular Queen Charlotte Islands.
In addition, park establishment agreements for two other areas were renegotiated so that the parks could realize their full potential, helping to consolidate the system: Grasslands, protecting a remnant of the wild prairie ecosystem in the western part of Saskatchewan; and Pacific Rim, preserving an unspoiled example of the west coast on Vancouver Island.
In addition, a policy for establishing, developing and operating national marine parks has been approved, and Canada's first national marine park, Fathom Five, was established in Georgian Bay, Ontario. One of the most important aspects of the document which was tabled by the minister yesterday was the commitment that five additional national parks should be created during the course of the next five years.
I would hope in passing, Mr. Speaker, although it is too early to tell, that one of those additional parks might indeed be in my own home province of Manitoba near the community of Churchill.
Much remains to be done and this government is committed to doing it. For example, the federal government will be introducing shortly a regulatory package that will limit pollution from pulp and paper mills. These new regulations will achieve the virtual elimination of dioxin and furan discharges in mill effluents.
If there is a special role for the federal government in environmental protection, I would suggest it is the development of national standards and practices. This is clear from our current efforts to reform the federal Environmental Assessment Review Process, or what we commonly refer to as EARP.
The objective of EARP is to enable the government to encourage environmentally appropriate development. That objective, however, cannot be achieved if the process is flawed and unclear, as has now been demonstrated to be the case. New EARP legislation, as I indicated earlier in the House today, will be introduced this spring. I know that members of the House will look forward to supporting that legislation because they understand that there is a very real need for clarity and certainty in the vital matter of assessing the environmental implications of government decisions especially on major projects.

March 30, 1990
Supply
Environmental stewardship is not only an individual effort. Partners, by working together, can achieve great results. I think, for example, of the $50 million Environmental Partners Fund whose goal is to tap the creative talents of Canadians and establish community-oriented environmental projects, with up to half of that fund being provided by the federal government. Some $3.6 million has already been approved for 76 projects across Canada, and I am delighted that one of them is my own constituency of Brandon-Souris which is enabling members of the Virden community to expand the recycling project that they have had in place for some time.
Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment released a framework for discussion on the environment. We are inviting all Canadians to participate in the challenge of developing a long-term action plan for Canada's environment. The goal is to translate the concept of the sustainable development into a concrete reality. The Green Plan must be based upon a comprehensive policy which will be taking tough decisions on sensitive issues. The Green Plan will provide a decision-making framework for planning so we can anticipate and prevent problems before they occur. It will alter the federal government's own day-to-day environmental behaviour.
The Green Plan is based on the knowledge that balancing economic and environmental concerns will without a doubt be the greatest challenge of our time. Moreover, if sustainable development is going to work, then all sectors of society, governments, business and individuals must work together.
The achievement of an environmentally sustainable economic development will require change by all Canadians, acting individually or collectively within governments or the business community. It will require new attitudes towards the environment and its relationship to our own day-to-day activities. It will demand a commitment to take action.
The Green Plan for Canada will provide the basis for that change. It will enable Canadians to make wiser decisions about the use of the environment through better science and technology, better information and education and tougher regulations.
The Green Plan will be developed as a result of a process of consulting together. All sectors of Canada are invited to be a part of that process. We will achieve a broad consensus on what should be done and we will have the support of Canadians when we bring that plan into this House in the fall.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Seeing the paper that the government came out with concerning the environment, the protection of the environment, and toxic waste, I am not going to try and pretend that I have a great knowledge of the different kinds of systems we need for the environment. When I was in the Quebec National Assembly, I lived through many problems of the environment that arose, such as toxic wastes that created a crisis that used to last for weeks and then subside.
It seems that it is only the government which can have the political will and the power to show to all Canadians that the environment is our number one issue. The paper that came out seems to be very vague. It seems to me that the federal government, of all the governments in this country, should be the first to have the most stringent rules of all and there should be nothing vague. The message should go out to all industries as clear as a bell that protecting the environment 100 per cent is the cost of doing business in this country. That might sound idealistic, but because of the way the environment is being affected, we are going to face that inevitability very soon.
Why can the federal government not take it upon itself to send the message out across this country that we want an environmental policy that is virtually foolproof?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with my hon. friend's objective that indeed there should be a message sent to all Canadians not just to business, because business is only a part of the process, where the rules are very clear, where there can be no confusion whatsoever as to which level of government has which responsibility. Quite frankly, that is part of the difficulty right now with the EARP process.
It is exceedingly important that Canadians feel comfortable with the result that they are part of the process. When The Green Plan, which will be the by-product of this consultation process, is tabled in the House this fall, if it does not meet the objective which the hon. member has stated, then he will have every right to be on his feet
March 30, 1990

complaining. In the meantime, what we have developed in the framework announced yesterday is a process by which we hope to achieve that end. We hope to work with both levels of government because the natural resources are a part of the prerogative of the provinces, according to the constitution.
They have responsibility themselves for protecting the environment. The classic example is the debate which is occurring right now between the federal government and the province of Quebec with respect to our desires that James Bay be assessed according to federal regulations as well as provincial regulations. The two levels of government need to work together in co-operation with business and with interested groups, but the final result must be that clear signal so that we all understand what our responsibilities are and where the powers are very clear. I truly believe that that will be the end result.
In the meantime, I would ask the hon. member to be a part of the process of developing that end result. I think that is what this framework is asking of Canadians. It is providing them with an opportunity to be a part of the solution. All governments have been guilty, but what has happened too often in this country is a government or perhaps bureaucrats who have tried to lay a solution on to other people, perhaps without their understanding of what is required and often without their co-operation.
The environment is something which is of vital importance to all of us. Surely we all understand that and surely there will be a willingness to work together towards a common solution, if we can achieve a broad national consensus on what needs to be done. I would readily concede that many environmental groups have led the way in demonstrating the need. Governments are often slow to respond. I would suggest that previous federal governments have been slow to respond, and some provincial governments are slow to respond.
I think the most important question is, what is on the table when we are finished? If we work together in this House and throughout the country and participate in the consultation process, I honestly believe we will have The Green Plan in place in the fall in which we can all share some sense of pride in being a part of what I hope will be a good solution.
Supply


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a good consultative process, it is important not to put out vague questions, which the plan does, but clear alternatives for action within some analysis of the pros and cons. Then communities, business and whoever else is a stakeholder in the situation has something to respond to. Clearly, the paper does not do that, even though those possible solutions are well known. Others will come forward, but it has been a mistake to withhold from Canadians the debate that needs to happen between one solution versus another.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer two questions. First, the consultative process is extremely unclear. We start with a series of information sessions. Then it is not clear who is consulting with whom. What is going to be the result of that? The normal process of consultation is the parliamentary committee. It conducts hearings and reports to Parliament, so Parliament knows the views of the people. Then the government responds. If that is not the process at this stage, if it is intended that that will be the process when the action plan is tabled, could we have a commitment on that?
Second, are we going to wait for that action plan for the government itself to act? Has the Minister of the Environment, much less, have all ministers directed their officials to look at the environmental impact of their own operations to correct those operations where they have negative impacts.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two or three points in response to what I think are very appropriate questions.
I would suggest to the hon. member that it is important to understand that the questions asked in the framework provided to Canadians yesterday need not in any way be an exclusive list. I would hope that one of the results of the consultation process will be the establishment of additional questions. What will be provided by way of questions need not in any way preclude any other form of discussion.
I would remind the hon. member that the standing committee is entirely a power unto itself. The standing committee can certainly study the process. It can study the action plan, The Green Plan when it is tabled in the House at any point in time. One of the traditions of this

March 30, 1990
Supply
place is that standing committees are masters of their own destiny. They determine their own agenda.
One of the important things which I hope the standing committee will be addressing in the very near future is new EARP legislation. It is up to the House to determine whether or not that EARP legislation goes to a special legislative committee or to the standing committee. I have a preference that it go to the standing committee rather than the legislative committee, because I happen to be one who is not wildly enthusiastic about legislative committees. I simply say that in passing, Mr. Speaker. I would assume that that legislation will be introduced in the House in four or five weeks. That is a very concrete response on the part of government.
In addition, I can advise the hon. member that as a result of the Oldman decision, even though I believe that the Government of Alberta has requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, there has been no decision on that request according to my understanding. However, assuming the Oldman decision stands, I do know that departmental officials are very closely examining all of the federal projects for which we have some responsibility to determine the implications of that particular decision for our own ongoing projects. The federal government is very active at the moment. The department is very active. Even at the same time as it established the framework for consultation with respect to The Green Plan, other activities are carrying forth.
For example, the announcement at Globe 90 last week by the council of ministers to reduce packaging by 50 per cent by the end of the decade. There is a very important meeting coming up in London in June with respect to the extension of the CFCs of the Montreal Protocol, of vital importance.


Marlene Catterall: Where Canada is taking a lesser position than the European Community.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I think we are taking a very important role with respect to the Montreal Protocol because we have already made a commitment. Although the process is not in place, we have understood that as part of the industrial world, we have a financial obligation to assist the developing world with either transfers of technology, or whatever the case may be, to permit them to ensure that CFC emissions will in fact be
virtually eliminated by the end of the decade. There is a series of ongoing steps. What was released yesterday is a very important part of the whole package.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Chambly earlier said that the minister was a good and sincere man, a minister of the environment who finds himself in a very bad environment.
It seems to me it is clear that we are faced with this almost ridiculous situation by virtue of the fact that those on the government side who should have provided him with the support in putting forth the kind of environmental strategy that we expected did not give him that support. We are left with a document that we could be trite about and say that it is fatally flawed, but in fact its structure is not substantial enough even to exhibit flaws. It is incomplete. It has not hardly begun the process of a strategy. As a matter of fact, considering all of the resources that are available to a government, all of the resources that ought to have been provided to this minister, given the urgency of what is at issue here, the document The Green Plan for Canada, a federal agenda prepared by voluntary organizations, would have been a far superior document to present to the Canadian people even within this context of consultation because at least they would have had some meat with which to deal as they have not here.
Many have cited the fact that a lot of questions have been posed for which answers have already, at least in large measure, been provided. But there are some questions so ludicrous that no one in his right mind would have asked them in the first place.
Let me give you an example. I want you to pay attention to this, Mr. Speaker, because there are no subtleties in this that would make it sensible to ask this question: Should Canada commit itself to greenhouse gas emission targets? Should we or should we not? Should we allow the earth to warm up over the next two or three decades? Do we want those dramatic changes in weather and climate that have been predicted by all of those who have been engaged in the study of the earth's
March 30, 1990

atmosphere? I do not think there is a single Canadian who would not say that this is a silly question.
Then there is the question: What role should alternative energy and energy efficiency play? Give me a break. This is a question posed by a minister who is supposed to be in charge of Canada's environmental policy. Should there be alternative energy? I suppose that there is only one basis for the government asking this question. Having already closed down research on alternative energy, the government is now scratching its head and saying, "should we have done that?". Of course this is one of those questions the answer to which has already been provided. The people have said that there should be a commitment to alternative energy and efficiency and the government has said, no there should not be. We have the Minister of the Environment hastening back, puzzled altogether, not knowing what to do, the two sides having different responses so he is going to pose the question again.
I can tell him right now that there should be an emphasis on alternative energy and there should be greater investment in energy efficiency. My goodness, it is not more than a year and a half ago that all sides of this House approved a motion to have a hydrogen technology project in this country. That is one example of alternative energy, the research into which has been cut by this government.
To give you another example of the absurd, Mr. Speaker, is the proposal that additional assistance should be given to developing countries to adopt sustainable forestry practices. I do not know whether the Minister of Forestry is here. He was a little while ago, but I guess he could not stand the heat. Now we are going to help the Third World nations do something to enhance sustainable forestry and we have a question in this document that is as follows: How should Canada move towards sustainable forest management? It certainly cannot be by allowing forestry agreements to lapse tomorrow. This document holds not only itself up to ridicule, but the government which authored it, and it is an insult to Canadians.
My colleague next to me says that the Government of Canada must lead by example. This gives me an opportunity to draw to your attention a situation in which the government has not provided a very good example.
Supply
This is an example that comes out of southwestern Ontario, in Windsor, where the government has not provided a very good example in the way it has confronted the issue of the incinerator in Detroit which still, after four years, is a problem which has not been confronted by our government. I note that the document talks about the need for negotiating a trans-boundary air pollution agreement with the United States. I am glad to hear the government is finally getting the message. We have been asking for that for four years. It is the only tenable way of attacking that issue.
We have the issue of the FERMI nuclear plant, and we have been trying to get the government to negotiate some kind of general agreement in recognition of the fact that this government has apparently just learned that pollution and environmental damage knows no national boundaries. But not much has been happening there either.
We have been trying to get the Minister of Transport to address the fact that barges will be going back and forth between Detroit and Windsor, carrying railway cars with hazardous substances. But he does not know anything about that. He does not know what he is supposed to do about that, nor does he know who is supposed to do anything about that. This is government by example.
I want to tie this business of government by example in with its proposition that innovative science and technology must be supported. I would just like to say in passing that one of the things that this document suggests is to put some emphasis on research into the environment, into the programs of the granting councils which provide funding for basic research in the universities.
The government has already ignored recommendations for vastly enhanced investment in that. Now, I suppose it is going to cut that by half, turn that over to environmental research with no net increase in research, and announce that it has put that $200 million into environmental research whenever it gets around to it. That is the kind of example, that is the kind of innovative science and technology we have.
In 1981 Environment Canada reported the dangers and risks involved in a contamination of the Great Lakes by biota from European waters. It was noted that if one looked in the ballasts of ships coursing the Atlantic Ocean, they were a virtual zoo of aquatic animals which might adapt to the Great Lakes environment, but constitute a severe disturbance to the ecological balance. That is the ecosystem which is the Great Lakes. They warned

March 30, 1990
Supply
particularly of the zebra mussel. They said that there ought to be imposed strict regulations on the emptying of ballast tanks from sea-going vessels from Europe into the Great Lakes. That was in 1981.
By 1986 those mussels were found. In the meantime, in 1985, at the behest of this government the scientists who made the recommendation were let go. The first of these mussels was detected in 1986. In 1988 there were indications that there was going to be a problem. Now, when each of these little critters produces 40,000 eggs a piece, it is possible to find in areas of the Great Lakes and in some areas at the bottom 700,000 of these sharp shelled, ugly, sticky little critters. Now they are fouling the water intakes of towns such as Leamington, Sarnia and so on.
In Leamington they are spending a million dollars in order to make it possible to bring water into the water supply system so great is the fouling of the intakes by these precocious multipliers. Their numbers will double again by next year.
It is not just a matter of the inconvenience of fouling the water intakes. They affected Lake St. Clair first because apparently the emptying of the ballast occurred in the neighbourhood of Sarnia, just previous to a deliveiy to Sarnia. Now they are found in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair.
One of the things one notices as a result of the infestation of these lakes is that the lakes have become more clear. They have become clear because these critters eat algae in copious quantities. The food of commercial fish in Lake Erie is being consumed by these foreigners and it is likely that the economic value of the fisheries in Lake Erie will be halved as a consequence of the invasion of these mussels.
I do not want to give the impression that the emptying of ballast tanks in the Great Lakes has only led to zebra mussels. That is a serious enough problem. But there is also a little perch-like fish that will replace the perch, a fish of commercial value, in Lake Erie. Again they were introduced by the emptying of ballast tanks. What has been the response of the government that governs by example? There has been a refusal to impose any
regulations or voluntary guidelines that we are told are 85 per cent effective.
Ninety-nine per cent adherence to those voluntary guidelines could still lead to the introduction of one critter into the Great Lakes of similar damaging characteristics and that would be all that is necessary. It must be clear to you as it is clear to any sensible person that there must be something more than guidelines. There must be stiff regulations to ensure that no other foreign critters can be introduced to the Great Lakes which will destroy the Great Lakes ecosystem.
In addition to this being the example of government by example, you should note that it is the IJC's role to ensure the quality of the Great Lakes. Of course we know, as many environmental groups have pointed out, our government has failed, as has the American government, to do its job.
The Americans are not standing still. Senator Glenn has introduced legislation to provide $40 million in research to help those municipalities that have to pick up the costs of the changes in the water intake systems which are going to be imposed upon them by government failure.
There should also be an intensive research program on Canada's part, jointly with the United States, to deal with this problem. We will never rid the lakes of zebra mussels but we can do some things to decrease and control their population.
Diving ducks such as the canvas back and others feed on these things. It may be that controls on the hunting of these birds would be helpful. There may be other techniques.
The point is that we have not got time for questions and answers or any similar games that the government imposes on the minister rather than action. We want action whether we are municipal taxpayers or commercial fishermen in the Great Lakes. We want action if it be only because we love the Great Lakes and the ecosystem in its balance, which presents so much beauty to us.
We do not want a government which, by example, does nothing. We do not want a government that talks about the necessary research to address the problem instead of
March 30, 1990

doing something about the problem. I have set out only example of the failure of this government and of the previous government. The people are getting tired of it.
In Windsor, where there is a particular environmental consciousness, we are sick to death of questions. We want answers.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make a few comments on the speech of my hon. colleague. I know that the government ministers sitting across the way were listening attentively to this speech. I am surprised that none of them rose at that moment in order to challenge our colleague. No minister rose just now in the House of Commons to challenge the speech of the member for Windsor-St. Clair.
The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair represents a constituency on the St. Lawrence river system as I do in the riding that I represent. My riding is east-south-north, everything but west of the city of Cornwall.
He will know of course that there is a tremendous ecological problem there on the St. Lawrence River. We have in my constituency the Akwesasne Indian reserve or the St. Regis Indian reserve for those who still call it that way. There is a community of our aboriginal peoples living there and, apart from all their other problems, they have had to pay the cost, literally speaking, of some of the mismanagement of our ecology. When I say "our" I mean Europeans who came later, and I refer more particularly to the damage caused by some of the factories on the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence River.
There are three plants across from Cornwall Island, one of them being an aluminum plant, Alcoa. The others are Reynolds and General Foundry, which is a part of General Motors.
From one or more of these plants chemicals, dioxins and other such products have been leaching into the St. Lawrence River. From another plant emissions have been coming out of the smoke stacks and falling on the island, damaging the ecology to such an extent that the cattle on the island some years ago were so contaminated that their milk was no longer suitable for human consumption and neither was the meat. Imagine what that did to the citizens living there.
Supply
Does my colleague not think that the way in which we have negotiated with the United States, particularly over recent years, to try and encourage or force them to reduce some of that horrible emission is totally inappropriate or severely lacking in light of that kind of devastation that I have just described? I hope such devastation does not occur in my hon. colleague's riding as well. I hope no other Canadian has been subjected to what the Akwesasne people have been subjected to there.
In the event that he has problems of that kind does he not feel that our government is lacking and that we generally, as a society, have been extremely derelict when we allow this kind of thing to happen to some of our people?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member said he was surprised that there are no ministers on the other side to challenge me, I thought he was going to take the government side for a moment. It looks as if there are no ministers on that side who would challenge. I suspect, with what we have left over there, there will be no rise unless the mussels wear turbans. But that is okay.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Now, in answer to the question. Of course, I agree with what the hon. member says. I do not think that I could say it any more eloquently than he did. What he emphasized was the impact upon people as a result of failure to care for the ecosystem.
I could not help but think of what is one of the most potent television commercials that has ever been made. It is the one that shows an aboriginal person with a tear running down one cheek as he looks at the devastation brought to an environment, the care of which is such an inherent part of his religious culture.
I agree with the thesis that, yes, we have failed to negotiate appropriate cross-boundary pollution control agreements with the United States. That, of course, suggests that the fault lies exclusively with the United States. Down our way, my colleague from Essex-Windsor called attention to the gross pollution that was put into the Great Lakes from the chemical valley in Sarnia, demonstrating that on the Canadian side we are just as bad.
We should not distort the issue either by placing exclusive responsibility upon government because each one of us has become used to a lifestyle that does severe damage daily to the environment. No, I do not omit those considerations. Indeed, I hope that in the course of

March 30, 1990
Supply
this and subsequent debates on this document we will shed light on all of those areas of responsibilities that must be addressed.
I chose today, in the circumstances, to bring attention of the House to a particular example that shows how a little bad decision can lead to great catastrophe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Chambly.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very brief supplementary comment only to indicate to my colleague that the purpose of my intervention was not to shed blame exclusively on the governments of other countries, but indeed to highlight the fact that collectively, and individually, I suppose to a degree, we have all been negligent in that regard.
I was using that example to illustrate how in the case of Akwesasne the damage was indeed created by those factories on the U.S. side. I accept that there are likely regions of our country in which we have probably done similar things which have affected U.S. residents or Canadian citizens as well. The situation could very well have happened in reverse.
I want to stress again that this particular situation here is largely, if not totally, caused by factories which are only a few hundred feet away, but in another country in that particular case. It is just a comment I wanted to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member want a rebuttal on the comment?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that because my hon. colleague from Essex County is sitting beside me, I wanted to reiterate that we are only a few hundred yards from Detroit. Detroit has a grossly inadequate sewage disposal system.
Just a few months ago they started dumping millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes. Yes, there needs to be a concerted effort along the Canadian-American border to have an arrangement that ensures that we respect one another's environment. This can only come through a coherent trans-boundary environmental control agreement that covers many areas, including air pollution, water pollution, the installation of nuclear plants and the like, because there are no limits that are drawn by any border or any boundaries.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the hon. member for Windsor-St-Clair and his grasp of the problem. I too have questions for the government about the Green Plan released yesterday by the Minister of the Environment, and my constituents are also anxious for more information.
I would like to ask a question about pesticides because I realize the hon. member for Windsor-St-Clair has a background in science, Mr. Speaker. According to an article published in le Journal Vert, it seems a very-well informed source in the Union des producteurs agricoles, who prefers to remain anonymous, has revealed that certain onion and apple producers use pesticides that are not approved by Ottawa. A representative of Agriculture Canada, Mr. Jacques Audet, seems to have said that although they were not able to prove it, there was every reason to believe, on the basis of field samples, that the unlawful use of non-approved pesticides was in some cases taking place on a large scale. So my question for the hon. member for Windsor-St-Clair is: Is he aware of the problem? And does he think the government has really dealt with the problem in its Green Plan?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair would reply very shortly, in a very succinct manner, please.
[Translation)


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The answer, of course, is no, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as leader of the opposition in the House and as Whip, I want to thank the members of the House for allowing this debate to continue today. It is an important debate but, nevertheless, it is Friday and a lot of members would like to get home for the weekend. It is difficult sometimes for members to catch
March 30, 1990

planes. With the storm out there it may be difficult for some of us to get home.
Given the weather and other circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition would like to split the the following 20 minutes into two 10 minute periods where the member for Halifax will take the floor for us and the member for Nunatsiaq would also speak. After that we will fold our tent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I guess it was the encouragement of the government members earlier that we were anxious to get into the debate and encouraged us to suggest that perhaps we could extend the debate somewhat into the afternoon to allow those members who have remarks on this important issue to have ample time to complete those remarks.
We will support, certainly with enthusiasm, the suggestion of our hon. colleague. I think, however, that we would just as soon prefer to continue with the 20 and 10 format. We have a number of people who wish yet to speak and we have lots to say but, again, we have no hesitation to support the Official Opposition's request for tens and fives.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly quite willing to support the Official Opposition in its position to split its time.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks on this extremely important motion, I would just like to pay a compliment to our newest colleague in the House on his maiden speech, the hon. member for Chambly, although I warn him his last remarks were so long that I almost changed my mind about the compliment. However, I do offer it in good faith and good spirit.
This is a crucially important motion. It is a crucially important matter. This is possibly the most important matter facing Parliament and the people of Canada today as we enter into the last decade of the 20th century.
As most people know, I represent the city of Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia. The Province of Nova Scotia is known and acknowledged far and wide across this country as one of the most beautiful places, not just
Supply
in this beautiful country of Canada, but one of the most beautiful places on earth.
Our licence plates proclaim us as "Canada's Ocean Playground". We are almost an island. We are connected to the rest of Canada by the isthmus of Chignecto, a scant 12 miles wide, and we are surrounded almost completely by the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, the Bay of Fundy and the Northumberland Strait. We have within our province the beautiful Bradore Lakes, a number of rivers that once, and I say sadly, were teaming with Atlantic salmon, and the wonderful chains of lakes that make up part and parcel of the Kedgemakooge National Park in the southern part of our province.
When Europeans first came to the shores of Nova Scotia in the year 1603, they knew what a beautiful and magnificent country they had settled in. When the first Europeans, the French, came to Nova Scotia, followed soon after by Scots, Irish, English, Germans and many other nations, they settled in this province and they farmed, fished and did some logging.
In the northern part of the province they began the coal mines that go three, four, five and six miles out under the sea, and the steelworks. Even in those early days when they began the steelworks and the coal mines, they were concerned about the environmental reaction, about the way the land, the sky and the water would react to the industrial development in that most beautiful of provinces, Nova Scotia.
To a degree, we do not have so much to worry about from our own home-grown industry any more because the coal industry is almost dead and the steel industry in danger of dying. The beauties of Nova Scotia are imperilled on a daily basis and the change over the last few years has been frightening to those of us who live within this province.
My family has a house 30 miles outside the city of Halifax on the shores of St. Margaret's Bay, very close to one of the most famous landmarks in Nova Scotia, and I refer to Peggy's Cove. Those of you who have not been there, I invite you to come. But I invite you to come fairly quickly while its beauty is still evident to all.
I tell you that on the shores of St. Margaret's Bay, for years people from Halifax and the surrounding area and tourists who come to our province, have used the beaches, gone swimming, sailing, fishing and all the various recreational activities that can be done in Cana-

March 30, 1990
Supply
da's Ocean Playground. Those days are dying because of what is happening to those waters.
Last summer, on one of the few days when I had a chance to spend some time at this house, I came out early in the morning to look at the harbour in front of my house and I saw, washing up with the tide, milk cartons, garbage and the detritus of every day life in our overpackaged, garbage-choked society.
Our hon. colleague from Windsor-St. Clair talk about the ad with the aboriginal North American with the tear running down his face because of the damage to the environment. That is a very moving advertisement, I agree.
The one I was reminded of is one that is equally familiar to many Canadians. That was one for which a former CBC broadcaster, Stanley Burke, did the voice over. You saw the earth, garbage being poured on the earth, garbage being thrown at the earth, and I think the final visual was a cigar butt being put out on the side of the globe. I remember that ad from when I was a university student which, in spite of my youthful appearance, was not yesterday.
The knowledge that the protection of the environment has to be and must be the A-l priority for government's world-wide is not new. It is not something that was bom in the minds of politicians and governments yesterday. It certainly is not something born in the minds of only Canadians, but of people world-wide.
The environmental movement has been a moving force on our earth for many years. In the last couple of years many involved in the environmental movement began to feel a greater sense of accomplishment, purpose and enthusiasm because suddenly we realized that politicians, elected officials and governments recognized the fact that environmental questions were of major concern.
The framework of the government's discussion on the environment is a blow to the sense of light, purpose, accomplishment and hope. We do not need a framework for discussion. That is fine. It is all very well and good. It is printed on recycled paper, which we applaud. But, what we need is action. We do not need to discuss any longer. We know what the problems are. We know what
we have to do. We know what is necessary to stop poisoning our lakes, rivers and oceans.
We know what is necessary to end acid rain. We know what is necessary to stop oil spills. We have the answers. Environmentalists have told us time and again that we also have the technology. What the framework for discussion on the environment manifests to all Canadians today is the lack of political will.
I see my colleague and my friend from Cumberland- Colchester has come into the House. I know he would agree with me because just two weeks ago I drove through his beautiful riding of Cumberland-Colchester with the wonderful rolling hills and waterways and the beautiful Bay of Fundy. But, the garbage is rolling up on the beaches in Cumberland county, just as it is rolling up on the beaches of Halifax county, just as it is rolling up on the beautiful beaches within the riding of the member for South Shore, the member for Halifax West and the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The Conservative members from the province of Nova Scotia know what pollution, over-packaging, acid rain and oil spills are doing to what was once a pristine environment in the province of Nova Scotia. We were given this land to nurture us and to nurture our children. What we are doing by refusing to create the political will that will preserve this land is committing long-term suicide for ourselves and for future generations. When the planet is laid waste, if we do not take action now, today in 1990, there will be no one else to blame but the men and women who sat in the House today and proceeded to do nothing more than discuss.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, an outstanding spokesperson from the maritimes, who has expressed herself most eloquently on this question. I would like to know from her what kind of readjustment schedules will be necessary in her region as it move towards more sustainable growth in developing alternate uses of fuel, alternate methods of local and indigenous economic development.
How can it be possible when the government is cutting back on regional programs? How can it be possible and what kind of problems are going to be faced when this paper asks you to meet this challenge with talk, talk, talk and no action. I would like to hear from you, Madam Member, through the Chair, exactly how you are going
March 30, 1990

to deal with this when the government has a double standard. One, they talk, but two, no action.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I realize that in his own experience as a provincial premier he knows the difficulties in dealing with federal governments. One of the things I mentioned in my speech is that the former industrial strategies in the province of Nova Scotia had perhaps less than full environmental approval. I am referring of course to both the steel plants and the coal mines. That, as I said, is no longer a problem.
The ideas of alternate energy sources in Nova Scotia at the moment include coal. As the hon. member is aware, there are several coal mines running in the province. Unfortunately, they are running at a loss. The products from these coal mines are firing a number of electrical generating plants in the province of Nova Scotia, but sadly these plants have to be subsidized because there is no real plan for alternate fuel other than fossil fuel. There is no real commitment from either the provincial government in the province of Nova Scotia or from the federal government to assist hard-pressed, economically depressed provinces like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
These are some of the most beautiful places on earth and we are throwing them away because there is no political will and there is no plan. Those before such as Nova Scotia's Ecology Action Centre have long and noble service in giving advice to government, which is virtually ignored. As the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca was saying, those people are ignored both by provincial governments and certainly by this federal government. We have various environmental strategies but nothing but deaf ears do they fall on, here with the Mulroney government and back home with the Buchanan government.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my hon. colleague for a most important discourse on this important subject of the environment. It also taught me a few new things about another part of the country with which I was not that familiar. But I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question dealing with how Canadians see the role of government which was touched upon throughout The
Supply
Green Paper. I would like to begin my question by referring to a poll that was taken two years ago. They discovered that, if a company repeatedly pollutes at unsafe levels, over nine out of ten Canadians want corporate executives held personally and I emphasize that, personally responsible. Sixty three per cent favour fines but a whopping 19 per cent of Canadians say corporate executives should be jailed. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she agrees with the assessment of two out of ten Canadians that corporate polluters who flout the regulations on a federal level or on a provincial level should go to jail?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I think the responsibility of board members of corporations should be more serious than merely a financial burden. With jail sentences we get into jurisdictional problems vis-a-vis criminal law and civil law. Should there be criminal sanctions for environmental infractions? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Whether it should be jail or not, I think would depend on the infraction and what happened exactly.
I think we should have a section of the Criminal Code relating to environmental crime. I think sanctions should not merely be in the form of fines against a corporation but the people who run the corporation should be held liable personally. I am not prepared to go as far as jail. We will have to see the individual situation.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I find myself a little puzzled by the contradiction that appears here. Perhaps the hon. member can help me out.


Mary Catherine Clancy: With pleasure.


William D. (Bill) Casey: I am sure it will be. On issues such as the GST, VTA Rail and government cut-backs, the opposition insists on consultation with the people. It wants hearings across Canada. It wants the public to have its say.
The Green Plan does exactly that. It gives the people in my riding an opportunity to have a say in what can be done to address environmental problems in our area. There are 35 meetings scheduled and more may be added. I find it a contradiction that the GST is important enough to let people voice their opinions as is VIA Rail

March 30, 1990
Supply
cut-backs, but the environment is not important enough to let people have a say.
Some areas in my riding experience 40 per cent unemployment. If the government were to impose environmental regulations without consultation, there could be detrimental effects which hurt a lot of people.
Is the member in favour of hearings across Canada and why are they not as important as hearings on the GST and VIA?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, first, in answer to the member for Cumberland-Colchester, the people of Canada have been telling governments for 20 years their opinions on the environment. Unfortunately, the people of Canada did not have an opportunity to tell the government their opinions on the GST because it was sprung on them a scant two years ago in embryo.
With regard to the environment not being important enough, that is not worthy of the member for Cumberland-Colchester. He knows we all feel the environment is important. I do not deny that. What I deny is the way they go about working it through.
This is similar to a suggestion that we hold more hearings on child care. Clean out your ears, gentlemen. The people of Canada have told you, and told you, and told you, what they want the government to do about child care. They have told you, and told you, and told you, what they want the government to do about the environment. They want it cleaned up. They want it cleaned up now, and they want it clean for their kids. They do not want a 7 per cent goods and services tax, but you brought that up, I did not.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I would also like to say that on The Green Plan the government says it wants to consult with the aboriginal people. It is good that it finally wants to do that. However, we have been waiting for that for years. We have been waiting for somebody to ask us what we think of the environment because we are intimately involved with the environment. They should have been asking us when they were debating the Oldman River Dam, the Rafferty-Alameda, James Bay and the proposed pulp mills in Alberta. We have just been waiting to be asked.
Another issue that I would like to touch on is the issue of the Inuit people and the environment. Some years ago, a French movie star started the whole thing. Brigitte Bardot, with the help of Greenpeace, destroyed a livelihood that the Newfoundland people had as well as the Inuit people in the north, without asking us, without asking us what we thought about whether there should be seal hunts in Newfoundland, never realizing that it was going to destroy two livelihoods-the Inuit and the Newfoundland people.
Again we could have given them some advice on how to go about dealing with the environment, but they did not choose to do that. Now, in retrospect, they say: "Well, we did not mean to destroy the Inuit way of life''. Generous, very generous after the fact. So what do we say to people like the environmentalists? We have no problems with the environmentalists as long as we can work with them and the government is willing to listen to us. But to people like Greenpeace and others, what we would say to them is: "Don't call us we will call you".
Now the same thing is happening with the anti-fur movement. What really bothers me is that these people think they know best, either environmentalists or antifur movement, animal rights people. All these guys are saying is: "We do not want you to hunt; we do not want you to trap". The animal rights group think, I am sure, that steaks come from the supermarket. I mean that is how they think, that chickens come from the supermarket, that they do not need to be killed or plucked or skinned, and all that. It boggles the mind as to how insensitive, for lack of a better word, these people can be.
In terms of the anti-fur and animal rights group, what they do not realize is that we do not contribute to the
Supply
damage to the environment. In getting the fur or the seal skin there is very little damage if any to the environment. However, I should say that those people who are animal rights groups should think about what they are wearing in terms of manufacturing, what it did to the environment in manufacturing their jacket, their shirt, whatever, their rayon, nylon, whatever. I think they should be thinking more along that line.
I would just like to touch on the contamination of food. In the north, which I have mentioned previously, the people of Broughton Island, a small community of about 450, are concerned about PCBs and other chemicals in their food chain. They have absolutely nothing to do with the contamination of that food chain. This food chain was through the polar bear or other animals. They got contaminated from the fall down of chemicals that do not know any international boundaries. PCBs do not know that they are not supposed to fall in Canada. They are not supposed to, but they do not know that. Meanwhile, more contamination is happening because there are not enough environmental programs being instituted in various governments, whether it is the federal government or other governments.
I would like to touch on the tanker traffic proposals in the north. When they are talking about the environment in the north, people have to realize it is a very fragile ecological system. We call it Nunatsiaq, the good land. However, Mr. Speaker, if I were to describe Nunatsiaq to you, I would say the beautiful land. I say the good land because it gives us life. That is the difference in how we see the land. We use it and call it the good land.
It is always an honour to address the people here about various issues. I am glad that I had this opportunity to say a few things about the environment.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Nunatsiaq on his remarks. In particular, I want to raise the fact that last summer, when our colleague hosted our caucus in his riding on Baffin Island, we were told about some other environmental dangers up there such as the dumping of leftover machinery belonging to American military personnel. I am wondering if he would like to make any comments about that this afternoon.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

March 30, 1990
Supply
We have had promises from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I must admit that I am not sure which minister made a statement about those abandoned Distant Early Warning sites, but the minister said that they would be cleaned up. I do not want to give credit to the wrong minister. It was either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who said: "We will clean these sites up until only our footprints are left". I am waiting to see that happen. So far nothing has happened in that regard. Unfortunately there has been a change of ministers in one department so we will wait.
I would like to carry on a little further concerning the issue of how environmentally cautious we are in the north. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which is the international arm of the Inuit, received a Global 500 Award from the United Nations Environmental Program for: "Outstanding achievements, protection and improvement of the environment".
The work of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference was cited as an example of the world conservation strategy in action. I would hope that measures are taken to clean up the sites that my hon. colleague mentioned, and that
they will be taken soon. This will give us our beautiful land back to its natural state, once it has been used as a Distant Early Warning site or by any other group.
Mr. Nelson A. Rii& (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am delighted to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to this motion. It has been some time since we read the motion. Perhaps it would be worth while to take a moment or two to read what the motion is all about. It states:
That this House condemn the government for its lack of sincere
commitment to the environment and for its vacuous discussion
paper which completely fails to offer the-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe I see a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not either. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask the Deputy Clerk to count the members present.
And there being only 13 members present including the Acting Speaker, the names were taken down and the House adjourned at 4.45 p.m.