1992-04-03

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House today to represent the Minister of Transport as we begin second reading debate of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
The minister had rather hoped to be here himself for this particular debate, as he has addressed the House previously on the importance of transportation to Canada and the role it plays in our competitiveness and prosperity, and he wanted to extend that debate to this important piece of legislation.
However, he is in Vancouver today, as most members already know, for the signing of an agreement to transfer Vancouver International Airport to a local airport authority. This is a task he completed yesterday in Calgary and in Edmonton with the transfer of those two airports to local authorities.
The minister nonetheless wanted me to convey to the House his appreciation that this debate is going forward today, as it will certainly be of benefit to Canadians to have this bill move expeditiously through the parliamen-taiy process and on to implementation.
Today I am addressing the need to regulate certain transportation activities to promote the safety of people, property and the environment. As we are all aware, our standard of living depends on a sound transportation infrastucture and its ability to move all cargoes safely and efficiently.
The production of many goods we use, whether or not in themselves dangerous in their finished state, may involve the transportation of hazardous products at some time in their manufacture or production. This could include explosives, acids or pressure-liquefied gases.
Our concern, as the Department of Transport, is to ensure that such dangerous goods are transported in a manner which ensures public safety with no undue burden on industry.
In 1980 Parliament passed the first Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Ten years of experience with that legislation prompted us to initiate consultations with industry, the provincial governments, interest groups and the general public on possible amendments to the act.
In July 1990 the present Minister of Transport, then minister of state, had 19,000 copies of a discussion paper distributed to industry organizations, provincial governments, federal departments, interest groups and the general public.
That paper contributed significantly to the development of Bill C-45, which is intended to replace the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1980 with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
Transport Canada has maintained an excellent partnership with the provinces in the administration of a single, national dangerous goods program which com-

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
prises federal and provincial legislation and a variety of joint activities.
The primary focus of Bill C-45 is to prevent accidents during the transportation of dangerous goods. It is a realistic bill and takes into account what should happen when, despite everyone's best efforts, accidents occur.
For certain circumstances, it requires that industry establish emergency response assistance plans and file with Transport Canada, for approval, summaries of these plans. A similar provision has been in place for the past several years and I must tell the House that I was extremely impressed when I learned of the excellent work done by Canadian industry associations.
For example, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association has established a national transportation emergency assistance plan that allows a member company to call upon another member company anywhere in Canada to provide assistance at an accident.
I am very pleased to be in a position to advise the House that this made-in-Canada approach, which ensures a very rapid, professional response, has been adopted in the United States and is finding acceptance in several European countries as well.
Bill C-45 will ensure that industry will respond effectively to transportation access. It also provides that any emergency responders such as volunteer fire departments will receive adequate information on the products involved. This happens through the established placarding, labelling, and documentation system.
In addition, Transport Canada will continue to operate the Canadian Transportation Emergency Centre, known throughout the industry as CANUTEC, which operates 24 hours a day to provide information and guidance to whatever technical depth is required by those who are responding to an emergency situation.
Bill C-45 will ensure that, when importers bring into Canada material that is regulated in Canada, they must satisfy our regulations.
Under Bill C-45 Canada's national transportation of dangerous goods program will remain in harmony with international programs such as those of the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, as well as those of the United States and other countries.
This will be done to ensure that Canadians will not be placed at a disadvantage in the international market by domestic requirements which either over-regulate or under-regulate transportation activities.
With respect to compliance, Bill C-45 maintains the severity of fines and jail terms provided under the 1980 legislation but two new elements are added.
First, it provides that an offence can be viewed as a new offence on each day it continues. This will ensure that an incentive remains for a company to correct an infraction quickly following its discovery.
Second, the bill allows court orders to be issued to persons convicted under indictment to (a) prohibit the person from engaging in some or all activities regulated by the bill for up to one year, (b) compensate for damages such as to volunteer fire departments for extended supplies, (c) to restore the environment, or (d) require the person to conduct or pay for technical research and development relating to the safe transportation of dangerous goods.
Except for the prohibition to engage in certain activities, the maximum penalty for the remaining three items is not to exceed $1 million per infraction.
I am very pleased with the excellent work and consultations which have led to these improvements to Canada's transportation of dangerous goods program.
I am sure the text merits the attention of all members of Parliament who will recognize the importance of assuring speedy passage and adoption of this bill.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I am privileged to rise on debate at second reading of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
As the bill's title indicates, it deals with the transportation of dangerous goods in all modes of transportation, by rail, road, sea or air.
The safe transportation of all types of dangerous goods is of great concern to many people. Canada is a vast nation with hundreds of thousands of hectares of uninhabited land. However, all transportation routes emanate from our cities and towns, and it is especially in these populated areas that extreme care must be given for the proper handling of dangerous noxious substances.
April 3, 1992

Many Canadians, especially those in southern Ontario, do not have to look back too far to recall an event which brought great concern to this important issue of the carriage of dangerous goods.
In 1979, a train derailed in Mississauga. It was carrying chlorine gas. Twenty-four cars of that train derailed at a level crossing at Mavis Road after a journal box responsible for the lubrication of axles overheated and dislodged. Two propane- filled cars exploded into a huge fireball of chlorine gas. Over 225,000 Mississauga residents were forced to leave their homes for several days. That image is burned into my mind because at that time I was a reporter for a local television station in Hamilton. I was assigned the reporting duties of going to Mississauga to cover the accident, what had happened and then the follow-up stories of the evacuation of all those hundreds of thousands of individuals from their homes.
I do not want to have this House think that I draw the following comparisons for partisan reasons. Not at all. I draw the comparison because, like the very motion before this House yesterday dealing with deregulation and safety, all things involved in transportation require, first and foremost, safety. As I stated in this House yesterday, you cannot fudge on safety. The parallels are these.
First of all, like the Diyden crash, the Mississauga train derailment was cause for a judicial inquiry, headed by Samuel Grange. Second, like the Dryden inquiry, the accident was attributed in part to safety standards or the lack thereof relating to inspection and proper maintenance of rolling stock. Like the Dryden inquiry, there were no warning signals. Fortunately though, in the case of the Mississauga train derailment, there were no serious injuries.
In 1970, there were three serious accidents in Ontario which caused much public concern and resulted in public inquiries. The first was a derailment at Cobourg, Ontario, that involved 25 cars. The second was a derailment of 14 cars caused by a plain bearing failure. The third was a collision.
In the 1979 report into the Mississauga train derailment, the commissioner had this to say about the Canadian Transportation Commission, the CTC, now the National Transportation Agency. I quote:
Government Orders
(k) The Question of Funding:
The reason for this inactivity, if such it can called, is twofold. First there is a lack of money and manpower. In this connection a submission has, I understand, gone into Treasury Board seeking provision for more salaries to expand the accident investigation, inspection, planning and standards development programs including the engaging of specially qualified officers to go into shippers and manufacturers' plants and railway yards throughout Canada to ensure compliance with Red Book regulations. I have no knowledge of the priorities and 1 do not wish to intrude upon Treasury Board decisions. But surely at the very least, the CTC should have the funds to find answers not dependent on information or advice supplied by the railways. The railways are answerable to their shareholders; the CTC is answerable to the public.
The other reason is philosophical. It was very clear from the evidence of Mr. David Jones, the former chairman, and Mr. John Gray, the present chairman of the RTC, that there is an ingrained reluctance to take any action involving expenditure or loss to the railways without a complete investigation of the amount of that expenditure or loss and an assurance that the benefit to be gained will fully compensate for that loss-I cannot understand how the Commissioner could leave to the railways the regulation of the speed and length of trains. A long, fast train is a profitable one; it is not necessarily a safe one.
Wise words, Madam Speaker. Does it sound familiar? Dollars versus safety? Guess which one has been winning with this government as of late?
Let us not forget as well that transportation is becoming increasingly intermodal and high-tech. On the roads, tractor trailer trucks sometimes have two full-length cars behind them travelling, some would say, faster than the speed limit. In the U.S., they have triple car trailers behind trucks. Trains carry freight boxes from trucks stacked too high. Cabooses have disappeared, replaced by sophisticated detection devices. All of these factors obviously increase the risk of an accident occurring. So, caution is the watchword.
However, let me go back to my comments to the safety issue. The Brotherhood of Railway Carmen in 1989 stated in a report that fewer inspectors and less stringent inspection could cause another accident involving dangerous goods. They stated in the report that since the 1979 Mississauga accident, 2,000 safety inspectors had been cut by the railways. That is no way to be thinking about safety.
Again, in 1989, this House was concerned with the issue of contaminated fuels entering this country by

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
road. Apparently there were not enough safety inspectors at our borders to deal with the inspection of the transportation of dangerous goods. Perhaps there are alternatives to resource allocation which could keep up with these incidents. Perhaps where centralization is concerned, there could also be a devolution of control. One suggestion put to me just this morning from the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McAllion, was that safety inspection and related mandatory supervision of dangerous goods transportation could be decentralized.
She said to me on the telephone this morning: "We have an opportunity here to ensure that there are enough inspectors and there is the enforcement of what the inspectors must do in the field. However, the government is going to have to provide all these inspectors and, of course, the related enforcement". In her words: "This is a huge country. We know where the rail lines are; we know where the train travels. We know where the ships are; we can board them and see all their cargo, but what of trucking? We do not know where all the trucks are all the time. There are no specifically designated routes that they always follow". She has seen a bit of a complication here in trying to ensure that there is adequate inspection and enforcement of safety regulations on the industries, on the carriers.
She went so far as to suggest maybe we should decentralize and put the responsibility of inspection and enforcement on the local fire and police departments. I am not saying whether that is right or that is wrong or whether it is a good idea or whether it is not a good idea, but I have got an open mind to these kinds of things.
She does have a caveat, of course. Hazel says: "If we put the whole idea of decentralizing inspection and enforcement into the hands of police departments and fire departments and special units within those units, we had better have the federal funding allocated to them in order to carry out the job". The unfortunate part, and there are complications that you can see immediately in that how do you supervise all of these many different fire departments and police departments to ensure that the job is being done, et cetera. That one idea she came up with indicated again to me the statement she made that this country is huge. There are many modes of transportation. There is considerable transportation of these dangerous and noxious substances.
We could have the best regulations in the world. We could have volumes of material, regulations and rules that say we had better be making sure, if we are to transport these particular substances which are dangerous or noxious, they are contained in this fashion, labelled in this fashion, and transported in that fashion.
However, in order to ensure that is happening, we need the inspectors and then, if there are inconsistencies in the law, there must be enforcement. That is going to take a commitment by this government, a commitment that just yesterday in this House we demonstrated in the airline industry was not there. Why? It was because the government has one agenda, an ideology of economic restraint.
On the other hand, this government preaches at the same time that the need or priority of Transport Canada is safety and that we cannot fudge on it. Unfortunately the two collide. It was stated not only by me and my colleagues in the House yesterday. It was stated by Justice Moshansky in his report. It has been indicated by witnesses to Justice Moshansky and the inquiry that there is a philosophical difference between the two.
There are opinions which we should discuss, and I suggest that among witnesses who will appear before the legislative committee of this House to study this bill are municipal leaders like Hazel McAllion from Mississauga who has extensive knowledge in these areas. We could discuss her ideas further and set them out there.
For example, clause 6 of the bill would require emergency response plans by carriers of dangerous goods in case of an accident. Perhaps through this vehicle carriers of dangerous goods travelling along known routes and alternative routes could, in conjunction with local authorities, put into place such a plan as would be capable of dealing with a disaster should one occur.
Clause 9 of the bill gives powers to inspectors. The minister may invoke or revoke an inspector's licence. The minister may authorize and designate persons to approve emergency response plans or to issue directions or permits for inspectors.
There are many other requirements of inspectors such as obtaining a warrant for a search of a premises for noxious substances, for example, and powers of the minister to follow under this bill. The inspectors will have to comply with a great series of regulations
April 3, 1992

throughout the course of their duties both to ensure safety and respond to an accident.
A new provision would provide that where an inspector believed it was necessary to prevent an accident from happening, he or she could take appropriate measures to prevent harm to the environment, people and property. For the record, and I want to say it again, I have heard the government has consulted widely on this bill and it has support.
As gold plated as this bill is today at second reading before going to committee for full discussion, it will not mean anything to the safety of Canadians or their property or their environment if proper monetary resources are not given for all these safety inspections and the enforcement that may follow.
That is our message. I look forward to following this bill in legislative committee. We will be very attentive to all the witnesses who appear before the committee on it. We will ask the necessary questions including those questions, I hope, to the minister responsible, the Minister of Transport, to assure Canadians just how far this government will go to ensure that the funds are allocated and to ensure that safety and enforcement are truly the priority of this minister, the priority of Transport Canada and the priority of this government.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
I am pleased that the government has brought forward this legislation. When the original bill was passed in this House a number of years ago, my caucus supported it but also argued that it did not go far enough. Surprise, surprise, I will make the same arguments today.
We support the changes that have been introduced: the clarification of the coverage through a new proclamation certainly giving inspectors greater authority to act in order to prevent injury or damage to people, property and the environment; the requirement that industry must put together response plans; the recall system for containers, transport packages, gas cylinders,
Government Orders
tanks, et cetera; and a wider range of penalties, in fact some innovative penalties that would require someone who is found guilty of a breach of this act actually to spend money to provide the necessary public prevention or clean-up equipment.
I want to outline some of the additional steps we believe the Government of Canada should be taking. A lot of them focus on those men and women who are the front line of defence when there is an accident involving hazardous goods.
I am talking about the emergency response personnel, fire-fighters, police and the medical teams inevitably found at the scene of an accident involving hazardous goods, whether it is road, rail or perhaps even air. They are the first ones there. They are the ones who are responsible for (a) trying to determine what they are dealing with and (b) trying to do something about it either in terms of containment or in terms of control or elimination of the problem.
Fire-fighters are very concerned about the lack of information. This act and its predecessor act require some form of placarding on the equipment. We have all seen the rectangular signs on their edge, but most of us do not know what they mean. The fire-fighters and police are required to know.
I am also told that in the cab of the vehicle or the cab of the train-it used to be the caboose of the train; we do not have those any more-is a manifest outlining the chemicals, the hazardous goods, and how to deal with them. We have seen a number of occasions where the cab has been destroyed and there is no direct access to what is contained in the vehicle that is now leaking or oozing something.
Fire-fighters are proposing a national computerized registry that would be instantly accessible by the emergency response personnel at the site of an accident. That registry would be required to contain all the information about every shipment of hazardous goods moving by whatever mode in this country.
Before shippers could place that material into a transportation vehicle, they would have to register the information with the computer bank. They would also be required to place a unique identifier that directly related

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
to the information placed in the data bank in a number of locations on the vehicle. If there were an accident involving a tank truck or a truck carrying low level or high level nuclear waste or any fuel or hazardous good, the emergency response team would quickly locate the bar code, feed it into the computer, and immediately know not only what was in that truck but would have a print-out as to the action it would have to take.
That action would delineate things like the kind of material to use to extinguish a fire. I am not sure if most people realize that water cannot be used on a lot of these things, that specialized foam materials or other chemicals are used to counter a fire when dealing with hazardous goods, particularly a chemical.
It would also warn the team about the toxicity of what it was dealing with, whether it becomes airborne and therefore whether all emergency personnel have to wear respirators, or whether there is the potential of contamination through the skin and whether or not they would have to wear protective clothing.
Right now we are sending our emergency response personnel into unknown hazardous situations. Quite frankly they do not know. The fire-fighters' association has documented evidence of case after case after case of fire-fighters who have eventually been diagnosed as having cancer that has been related back to a specific fire that they attended to.
We ask these men and women to put their lives on the line every time they leave the fire station, the police station or the hospital to attend to a hazardous goods accident. If we look at the breakdown of line of duty deaths for fire-fighters, we find that nearly 15 per cent are due to burns and asphyxiation, 44 per cent due to heart attack and stroke, 12 per cent due to apparatus failures, and falls by about 12 per cent as well.
Injuries due to exposure to hazardous materials of the non-inhalation kind, in other words contact with the skin, are about 2 per cent of the over-all injuries. To us it does not seem like a very large amount. However, we should think of the kind of long-term damage that can be done by fumes, by contact with cancerous agents in the line of work. It might not show up for a number of years but it can be very deadly. We need to do something about that. If we can put bar codes on every roll of toilet paper it will be very simple for us to have bar codes tied into a computerized system for every vehicle transporting hazardous goods in this country. It is a very simple process.
We have the technology to do it. All we need is the will. Bill C-45 gives us the tool to incorporate that kind of suggestion into the system. It is clearly a question of having the right to know and it will allow fire-fighters and other emergency response personnel to better ensure that public safety is promoted. The clear intent of the title of this bill is the promotion of public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
We can make those changes and I certainly will be pursuing that, as my colleagues will in committee.
The other area I would like to briefly mention is what happens to our emergency response personnel in the line of duty. A number of fire-fighters are killed every year in the line of duty. A number of fire-fighters are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and never return to work. The International Association of Fire Fighters has proposed the creation of a one-time compensation benefit paid to the survivors of those killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. I would like to quote from one of its legislative fact sheets:
Fire fighters and other public safety officers risk their lives daily in an effort to save the lives and property of their fellow citizens. When these brave men and women are killed in the line of duty, as they are with alarming frequency, their deaths are in defence of the citizens of their country, just as surely as a soldier who is struck down by an enemy.
Currently, Canada has no way to acknowledge the supreme sacrifice paid by these heroes who are killed or permanently disabled in service to their country. The only compensation available to them or their families is the benefits normally available to workers injured on the job.
One way for a grateful nation to pay its respect to these brave victims is to provide a one-time compensation benefit to the survivors of those killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.
I know that we cannot do that within the context of Bill C-45. However I flag it as an issue that I believe the legislative committee should examine and then perhaps provide some guidance to the government.
The other area I want to deal with is infectious disease notification, and I believe we can do that by amending Bill C-45. Exposure to infectious disease is a major reason that fire-fighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Fire-fighters and other emergency response personnel routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary conditions on patients they know nothing about. This results in fire-fighters being
April 3, 1992

occupationally exposed to a variety of dangerous contagious diseases.
Fire-fighters who have been exposed to infectious diseases need to be informed of this fact so that they can seek medical monitoring and modify their behaviour to avoid further transmission.
To address this concern the Government of the United States recently enacted a law requiring that hospitals notify emergency response personnel about the infectious status of patients treated by emergency workers. The law prohibits involuntary testing of patients and only requires the hospital to share any such information in its possession. The program is also structured to protect the confidentiality of patients. It is a balancing act.
Those men and women who are on our front lines when it comes to emergency responses, primarily with regard to the transportation of hazardous goods but also in a broader context, should have the right to know. They should know if they have inadvertently been dealing with someone who has a contagious disease and that they may have been infected either through their pores, through breathing, or other ways.
I would like to see this legislation changed to accommodate that concern so that we can provide them with, not protection but the knowledge of the diseases to which they may have been exposed. In some ways, it is no different than the chemicals which they have been exposed to in the course of their activities.
One of the other areas I want to discuss is the role of Emergency Preparedness Canada. Nothing in this legislation provides an automatic linkage to Emergency Preparedness Canada. It used to be called the Emergency Measures Organization.
In each community it is responsible for disaster plans. Its people are the ones with the expertise. They are the ones who have done the planning to evacuate the Mississaugas, to evacuate parts of Thunder Bay. That is their role. Yet there is nothing in this bill requiring then-notification of any major shipments of hazardous goods coming through their area of jurisdiction. I think it has to be changed to include that notification.
Another area I want to just briefly discuss is the shipment of blood samples. Most communities do not have laboratories to analyze blood. Yet on a daily basis
Government Orders
blood is shipped from community to community to be tested. Most of the blood would not cause any problems if someone were exposed to it, but we do not know.
A lot of this blood, certainly in northwestern Ontario, is being shipped on Greyhound buses in unmarked containers. In the winter it is not shipped in the luggage compartment but is brought inside the bus and put on the racks.
There are no specific controls. This bill needs to address that concern. Workers handle it and passengers may be exposed to it without even knowing it is there. This creates a unique situation.
The other problem is that shippers must be totally responsible. It should not just be the responsibility of the transportation company. There have been situations reported to me in which hazardous goods have been purposefully disguised as something else and transported on a Greyhound bus.
Aerosol paint cans, which have the potential to explode, are regularly being transported on Greyhound buses. That is not Greyhound's fault. It does not and is not required to ask everybody to open their parcels. It is the shipper who has decided to take the cheap route to get product from community A to community B who is violating the spirit of the act. We need to tighten that up as well.
The bill is a good progression but we have additional work to do. Certainly I would hope that in committee we have the opportunity to call the people who I have been talking about, the front line troops who have to handle the hazardous goods after there is an accident, and not just the people from the industry who come in to clean it up with their specific plans of action.
It is the people who are there within minutes of the accident happening who need to know what they are dealing with. Let us hear from them firsthand so that we can get a sense of the changes we need to make to this legislation to make it the best possible legislation to protect the public and the public's employees.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the speech just given by the member from the New Democratic Party was a very enlightening one. It contained a number of ideas. If I were to express myself on this bill with that amount of time I would probably echo a lot of the comments he made.

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
Dangerous goods and the transport of dangerous goods is a concern for all Canadians, more so in some regions than others.
I would like to provide a local riding perspective. There is a chemical plant in my hometown, not more than a quarter of a mile away from my place of residence. At that place, the ICI plant, there is a very professional response team that is very well qualified. In fact, it is recognized as the assigned response team for any accidents in Atlantic Canada and even the eastern part of the province of Quebec. It has responded to a number of train derailments involving chemicals in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick.
This is a concern. The member outlined some of the problems these response teams have when they get to that site. I certainly appreciated him mentioning the ideas of bar codes, proper clothing, and whatnot.
My question relates more specifically to the bill with the question of inspections-

As you know, Madam Speaker, the bill authorizes the designation of inspectors whose duties consist of monitoring compliance with the provisions of the act.

I know that the hon. member is quite concerned with transportation and that he participated quite extensively in the debate yesterday on air deregulation. I know that he is quite aware that we are talking about some types of deregulation in the transport industry in all modes.
I am wondering if the member could assist me and members of the House by advising us whether he feels that there is an undertaking by the government to ensure that we have enough inspectors and whether there will be proper training for those inspectors. I would also like him to comment on whether he thinks that the government would provide the money. Yesterday we heard in the debate, time and time again, people questioning whether the government had the commitment to ensure that inspectors were definitely in place.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his questions.
In examining the Department of Transport estimates for the current fiscal year it was clear, at least on the rail side, that it had made a conscious decision to increase the level of funding for rail safety and I applaud that. This is not something that people normally expect me to say in this House, but when it does a good thing it should be complimented for it.
However, only time will tell whether the continuing cutbacks by the railroads themselves, as they cut comers and find ways to be more competitive with their competitors in the United States and with trucking, will mean that we will see an increase in accidents in spite of the number of inspectors.
Keep in mind that the railroads themselves have their own inspection crews to monitor the safety of the operations. This has changed from a situation in which an individual would walk the whole length of the train and then the other side to check all the important components to one in which there is a drive-by inspection in which somebody just stands and watches to see if anything is hanging down. The railroads are doing that.
The government inspectors check the inspectors. I do not believe that the system is more safe today than it was 10 years ago, in fact I would suggest the opposite.
Also with regard to the member's comments, there was an article in The Ottawa Citizen on March 16, just a couple of weeks ago, about the closing of a stretch of highway 401 west of Cornwall. It was closed for 13 hours when a cylinder of chemicals fell off a flatbed trailer truck.
The mishap late Saturday afternoon had police and fire-fighters from nearby Ingleside scrambling to prepare for possible explosions and toxic gas leaks. They believed that the 20,000 kilogram cylinder contained highly explosive liquid nitro-oxyacetylene. The Ingleside fire chief, Shaw Lalonde, said that later information revealed that the chemical was in less dangerous gel form. He said that there was mass confusion as to what was in that container and blamed the trouble on incorrect paperwork.
This is a classic example showing that we need bar codes and a national computerized registry so that we do not have this kind of confusion, chaos, and danger.
April 3, 1992


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I thought the member gave a very interesting speech demonstrating his knowledge of the area.
I would like to ask him another question concerning this issue. I am sure he is aware of the private members' bill introduced by the member for Mission-Coquitlam, Bill C-334, an act respecting the identification of dangerous goods and to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
I wonder if he could clarify the need for such legislation in Canada. I know that in the province of Manitoba there have been many incidents that have scared people in Winnipeg and in rural areas in which towns have had to be evacuated because there is not adequate protection at the present. I wonder if the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan could provide more of an explanation on this issue. I am sure that his explanation of the importance of the bill of the member for Mission-Coquitlam would be beneficial not only to the House but to other Canadians.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
While the private members' bill put forward by my colleague is extremely important and relevant we have agreed, in consultation with her, to attempt to incorporate her suggestions into Bill C-45 so that the legislation could proceed to the benefit of the public and the emergency response personnel which we have to rely on.


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to clarify a point made in the hon. member's address about the dissemination of initial emergency response guides provided by CANUTEC. This has been developed in my remarks.
Initial Emergency Response Guide is a book in its third edition. I want to point out to the hon. member that Transport Canada provides it free to all fire department vehicles, including volunteer fire departments, police highway vehicles and emergency response organizations. I am pleased to provide it to the hon. member with our compliments.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trans-
Government Orders
port. However, I want to point out that a handbook does not tell us what is in that truck if the placards have been destroyed as a result of the accident.
The whole point of my intervention about the computerized registry is to take that book and incorporate that information into it with the addition of any specific updates on specific loads on specific days.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be able to participate in the debate on this bill. Before I begin I would like to congratulate the administration on a job very well done in addressing some of the issues ignored by the previous bill, the 1980 act.
As well, I want to thank my colleague for Hamilton West who very nicely addressed some of the concerns our party has about this bill.
['Translation\
Finally, this bill identifies nine classes of dangerous goods and regulates their transportation in terms of securing the safety of the public, property and the environment. The nine classes of dangerous goods are as follows: explosives, compressed gases, inflammable liquids, inflammable solids, oxidizing substances, toxic substances, radioactive materials, corrosives and miscellaneous dangerous goods, including environmental pollutants.

This bill attempts to deal with a variety of issues concerning the transportation of dangerous goods from one location to the next. It attempts to strengthen the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. It also attempts to provide a clearer legal framework for regulating the transportation of dangerous goods. It seeks to place additional emphasis on taking steps prior to transportation to protect the safety of people, property and environment.
The 1980 act that was in place attempted to bring in partners such as the territorial and provincial governments to set up some standards dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry. I will have to interrupt the hon. member who will be given the floor after Question Period.

April 3, 1992
It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I promised myself that I would stay clear of the arts this session, but today I am going to break my vow.
In front of the House of Commons today stands on display part of a painting by Ken Kirby called: "Isuma-taq". If those gorgeous people down at the National Gallery could give their heads a shake, this real piece of art could be hanging in the place of "Stripe of Ire with no Voice". Our art gallery could become Canadian again representing this land, true north strong and free.
As I see it Ken Kirby should be given the Order of Canada and "Isumataq" could become the new voice of unity at our National Gallery before it is purchased by the United States of America.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of all Canadians the plight of the commercial printing industry in Canada.
Since the free trade agreement came into effect, U.S. customs harassment based on country of origin markings has cost our printers 1,700 jobs and $160 million in lost exports. Since the FTA was implemented, Canada's annual print deficit with the U.S. has reached $330 million. That is a 200 per cent increase since 1988.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. The country of origin marking regulations in the U.S. are far too strict and are not always applied fairly. On the other hand, Canada's regulations need to be tightened to ensure that imported products are properly marked.
Canadian commercial printers want a level playing field with the Americans. They do not have that now. The problem cannot be wished away. It requires government action now.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House some of the advice my constituents are giving me.
Heather and Dennis Sheehan of Caledon East write:
We are optimists. We love Canada. We know we are Canadians. Quebec is very much a part of Canada. We all came here from somewhere else. The more we travel and meet others the more we appreciate what we have here.
Paul Lonergan of Milton writes:
We are certainly creating a debt legacy at every level of government that will stifle and strangle future generations. Governments must begin saying no to social net programs and individuals must be made more responsible for their own welfare.
Finally, Roger Lang of Burlington writes:
I want to see this country be one I can be proud of personally and internationally. We may have family differences but we must rise to a best for all positions rather than repeatedly studying and trying to satisfy every vocal group. We need to change the political system so elected officials work together for Canada rather than trying to make sure they only get re-elected.


EARTH SUMMIT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, the UNCED Earth Summit in Brazil in June is an opportunity for Canada and all nations to make a strong commitment to our shared environment and to take real action to protect it. Yet Canada is not standing up for meaningful international agreements on such important issues as global warming.
Instead of putting forward solid proposals to meet its own commitment to reduce the emission of CO2 gases, Canada is asking for credit for tree planting, wanting to deal with the symptoms of the problem rather than deal with the fundamental causes, energy production and use in Canada.
We have joined other nations in blocking a proposal to put environmental controls on international corporations. It is fine to talk about sustainable development, but where was Canada when GAIT decided that environmental protection was not necessarily an acceptable
April 3, 1992

trade impediment? Where are we in our argument for an integrated environmental-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Portneuf.


THE BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, next week, the Prime Minister, President Mitterand of France and a dozen very special veterans will attend a ceremony at Vimy Ridge, the site of the inspiring victory that took place 75 years ago. The veterans of Vimy will be represented by the few that remain of those who fought at Vimy Ridge and covered their country with glory.
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether they remember the promise made by Prime Minister Robert Borden before the battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917. He said that government and country would consider it their sacred duty to ensure that Canadians would appreciate to the fullest their efforts and courage and that no soldier, whether he returned to Canada or remained in Flanders, would be able to say the government did not keep its word, both to those who came back victorious and to those who died.
Madam Speaker, I trust that subsequent governments have done their best to keep this promise. When we think back 75 years, we should not forget that although our gratitude knows no limits, nevertheless-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, why is the Canadian government rushing to sign away Canadian jobs and sovereignty to Mexico, whose government imprisons its citizens for peacefully demonstrating on behalf of workers and farmers?
Senor Luis Aguilar Salazar was arrested on March 17 during a peaceful protest demonstration. He is a candidate of the opposition PRD for the local congress. He is also a counsellor to the Frente Democratico Campesino, a peasant group supported by Canadian NGOs. He was charged with criminal offences relating to a previous peaceful demonstration of peasants.
He is now known in Mexico as the first political prisoner of the North American free trade agreement because President Salinas fears public demonstrations.
I call on the Prime Minister to demand that President Salinas release Senor Aguilar Salazar and stop the police from harassing critics of the government.


SERVICE CHARGES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the most recent report from Statistics Canada is critical of the increase in service charges, which have tripled service charge revenues in chartered banks since 1980.
My constituent, A1 Deruiter, owner of the Port Col-borne Catering and Vending Company, will not be surprised at this. Mr. Deruiter, quite rightly, objects to paying $2.15 per $100 for rolled and counted coins when sorted currency is $1.40 per $1,000. He now has an added cost of $150 a month, a cost he can ill afford.
Service charges are destroying relations between business and bankers at a time when the business community should be working together. I plead with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to consider this matter seriously and to take appropriate action.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, yet another deadline is going to pass and the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations will remain unresolved. I urge the government to keep maximum pressure on GATT participants to stress the importance of strengthening and clarifying article XI.
The Prime Minister is obliged to personally explain Canada's balance position to President Bush, but this has yet to happen. Meanwhile, the anxiousness of Canadian farmers in the agrifood industry is increasing. This uncertainty must not continue, as the cost is too great. I urge the government to get the job done.


BORDEN CATELLI LTD. COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
April 3, 1992
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the announcement by the U.S. pasta company Borden Catel-li Ltd. that it will close its plant in Winnipeg is more bad news for the food processing industry in Manitoba.
What is more frustrating about this closure is that it could have been avoided. Other groups, including the employees, have indicated they would buy the factory and keep the plant working. However, Catelli refuses to sell the plant. Instead, the factory will be stripped, the empty building will be sold and the jobs will be lost.
The attitude of this American company is disgraceful. It shows what little loyalty American companies have to Canadian workers and for the communities that are devastated by such arrogant moves.
The provincial Conservative government is standing aside and doing nothing for Manitoba on this issue. What will it take for the Conservatives to stand up for the farm families and the workers? If a U.S. company will not maintain a Canadian factory, it should be required to sell to those who are willing to buy it. If the Conservatives will not support Manitoba workers, they should hand over the government to somebody who will.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of Parliament a matter that is of great concern to many Canadians and citizens of other countries, namely the intention of the government to further weaken its position of respect in the world by pulling out more peacekeeping troops from NATO.
There are press reports citing a spokesperson for the Secretary of State for External Affairs stating the opinion that the Canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus should be removed since, and I quote: "There doesn't seem to be much progress nor effort at times being spent by the parties concerned to come to a resolution". I
would like to ask the minister on what facts she bases this assertion or lack of effort on in light of previous assurances that the government was not planning to remove the troops from Cyprus.
I would like to know what has changed. Canada's commitment to ensuring a peaceful settlement of the dispute in Cyprus must not be weakened by shortsighted cost-saving measures.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate Veterans Affairs on the television ad it has produced to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Vimy Ridge. Veterans in my riding have often complained that Canadians are not taught enough about our own history. They say that our kids know more about American victories than our own.
That is why it is so refreshing to see us telling the story of one of the greatest victories in our history. Seventy-five years ago this week the Canadian Corps succeeded where other armies had failed and showed the world what a young country called Canada could accomplish.
I am also delighted that Canadians will also have the chance to learn more about the Dieppe raid. Fifty years ago this year Canadians were chosen to test Hitler's Fortress Europe and, like the Canadian Corps at Vimy, our forces responded with great courage and discipline.
These campaigns have left us with an enduring lesson for, as the commercial says about the Vimy victory, "This is the spirit of Canadians working together".


RAILTECH LTD.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, this government is about to embark on yet another silly, expensive and wrong-headed crossborder shopping trip. Some months ago, the government announced that it was tendering for the construction of the space agency in Montreal. Railtech Ltd., a manufacturer in my riding, was pleased that it was going to have
April 3, 1992

an opportunity to bid for the curtain walls of the space agency. However, it now appears that the government will award the $1.5 million contract for curtain walls to a U.S. supplier. Worse yet, it is not reciprocal. Similar products made by Railtech cannot be used in many contracts for rail cars in the United States, for instance, because of a "Buy American" policy that many cities and state jurisdictions have.
This government has to answer why it is continuously exporting Canadian jobs south of the border.


INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, last week I had the privilege as a parliamentarian, representing Parliamentarians for Global Action, to attend a meeting in Italy on a proposal to create an international criminal court. Members of the International Law Commission of the United Nations, distinguished diplomats, expert law professors from all over the world, including Professor Sharon Williams of Canada and Cherif Bassiouni of the United States, legal advisers and judges put forward a proposal for an international criminal court and a model international criminal code to go with it. Surely this is an idea whose time has come.
Take the current problem of the Libyan nationals accused of blowing up western airliners, including the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. Clearly, there is some doubt whether the Libyans could get a fair trial in Libya and Libya is reluctant to surrender them to a U.K. or a U.S. court. The solution is a world criminal court.
Take the case of international drug dealers, genocide or criminal environmental acts like what we saw during the gulf war, cases again for such a court.
Madam Speaker, I call on the House to urge the Government of Canada to support at the United Nations Sixth Committee this fall the proposal for an international criminal court, an idea whose time has come.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


MERCHANT MARINERS
Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I rise to offer congratulations. Last week we were given the welcome news that merchant mariners were to receive veteran status and, of course, all of the benefits that flow from that status. I congratulate the leaders of various merchant navy organizations and associations for winning what had been a long and frustrating fight for equal status.
I also congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for giving merchant mariners attention and justice. In November we had another instance of veterans winning a lengthy fight when Korean war veterans belatedly received a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal. Just like the merchant mariners, the Korean veterans had been turned down by government after government. In contrast, this government and this Minister of Veterans Affairs find solutions, not excuses. I wish to congratulate him.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, last week the Department of National Defence announced that it will consolidate armed forces supply depot operations by moving the Toronto and Moncton depots to Montreal.
In February 1990 a private research consultant was paid by the Department of National Defence to examine depot consolidation. This study, which examined operational costs, freight distribution costs, real estate values and construction costs concluded that both the Montreal and Toronto depots should be closed down and I quote: "The site for the new facility should be within the proximity of the city of Kingston, Ontario".
What is the point in paying private research consultants to carry out detailed technical evaluations of military operations when their recommendations are ignored for political purposes? What is the point in arguing that the government and national defence are doing all they can to be cost effective when ministers can override decisions which save Canadians millions?

April 3, 1992
Oral Questions
Canadians are demanding cost effective, efficient government. Instead, all they get from this group is empty rhetoric, broken promises and patronage for Tory fat cats.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries concerning the so-called offers made by the European Community yesterday on overfishing.
We know the minister has characterized these offers as an insult and a political gimmick. The bottom line is, these are not offers. They are a slap in the face to Canadian fishermen. We know the minister can deliver on rhetoric.
What we would like to know today is what action he specifically intends to take to tell these Europeans that these offers are a joke and that we want real action.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, we have received no offer from the European Community as yet. There are reports in the newspapers that the commissioner for fisheries is to suggest to the ministers of fisheries of the European Community, who are meeting, that some kind of an offer be made to Canada, that they would reduce by some percentage their quota for northern cod.
Since they have no proper quota for northern cod outside 200 miles, since they are ignoring a moratorium with respect to cod that was imposed by NAFO, the international body for the area that manages fisheries matters, and they have been ignoring that since 1986, we can hardly be impressed by their suggestion that they would reduce their quota.
In addition, the facts are that on March 16 the European Community issued a report with respect to surveillance and enforcement of their own European Community waters and they frankly admitted that they are unable to enforce their own rules in their own European Community waters. If they are unable to enforce the rules on Spain and Portugal in their own community waters, what must the situation be with respect to surveillance and enforcement outside 200 miles?
Such an offer is obviously not one that we are interested in. Number one, they have no quota to offer us to reduce and number two, they have no powers of surveillance and enforcement over Spain and Portugal. This is not anything in which anyone is going to be fooled.
With respect to action-


An hon. member:: Time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, I will get to action if the hon. lady ever gets to a sensible question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the minister may sit there as a puffed up sculpin, which is about the level of his reaction to date. I want to ask him this question. He has just made the case very specifically for Canadians to take custodial management of our own waters and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Given the minister's vicious attack on the plan yesterday, which we in fact agreed with, given his assessment of the non-offers by the Europeans, will he today declare custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would prefer to be a sculpin than a blow-fish.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the first thing I do in the mornings is not necessarily read Jeffrey Simpson. That is something I would rather do in the evenings so that I have time to contemplate the points that are being made.
I will just give you some idea of the action being taken. For two weeks now we have invited and arranged for European journalists to visit Newfoundland to see for themselves the effects of the actions of the European Community with respect to our fishing industry.
April 3, 1992

We are pressing in New York our resolution with respect to the rights of the coastal state to manage straddling stocks.
This week we had Premier Wells down there as a witness. We are quite willing to use anyone at all who is interested in this issue to make our point, so we are pressing this resolution before international bodies. We are continuing our diplomatic approaches in various capitals.
The Prime Minister himself will be taking this matter up with Mr. Delors, the president of the European Community on April 23 when he meets President Mitterrand and other leaders of the European Community. There is a very vigorous campaign under way in connection with this issue.
We first have to persuade the rest of the world that it would be right for us to extend fishery jurisdiction before we take that step, because at the present time the rest of the world does not recognize the rights of anyone to manage fishery resources beyond the 200-mile economic zone provided for in the Law of the Sea Convention.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will be happy to know that the minister would rather be a sculpin than a blow-fish.
Since 1986 the Europeans have ignored a moratorium on fishing. They have ignored international law. They have ignored NAFO. Once again, in the House today, we heard the minister saying he wants to talk this thing through diplomatically.
Has he not understood, by the results of these insulting offers, that the time for talk is ended, the time for action is now and we, as Canadians, must extend custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
Oral Questions
hear the hon. member say that she is against rhetoric, but she should certainly start to apply it to herself.
With reference to this situation, we are proceeding by diplomatic means to try to settle this issue, which is the normal way that civilized countries, particularly of the democratic persuasion, proceed.
If using diplomacy bilaterally and multilaterally in every way that we can, we still fail to achieve our objective then we will have to consider whether some kind of unilateral action will have to be taken or not. At that stage, we would want to have the majority of the world's countries support what we are doing in the realization that we have made every other possible effort to solve this situation by peaceful and diplomatic processes.
Canada is a country that believes in peacekeeping. Canada is not a country that believes in the use of violence and force. We are not trying to settle this matter-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who said violence?


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, if we say that we have a management regime beyond 200 miles and we tell some country that it cannot fish or it can only catch a certain amount of fish beyond the 200 miles because that is our management regime and it says we do not recognize it what is the next step?
Everything the hon. member says is replete with the use of the threat of force if other countries do not accept our management regime. Let us be sensible, drop the rhetoric. Let us get on with the kind of campaign that we are waging. If that fails to be successful-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we should go on.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I would preface it by saying that surely by this time he should realize that his approach has failed. When is the government going to do something about it?
I want to also say, with great regret, that the mishandling of the fishery on the east coast is now being repeated on the west coast. I have correspondence from Canadian officials to their U.S. counterparts on the Fraser panel which says that the U.S. quota this year should be
360,000	fish. The U.S. response is that it intends to authorize 870,000 salmon being caught, a clear repudiation of its obligations under the salmon treaty.

April 3, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister this question. Considering the important loss this will represent to the west coast fishery, why is the minister and this government allowing the U.S. to repudiate its U.S. treaty obligations? Why is it allowing the U.S. to overfish the west coast salmon stocks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, one listens to these questions with incredulity.
We are said to be allowing the U.S. to do this and allowing the U.S. to do that. Surely the United States does not seek the permission of other countries when it decides whether it is going to observe a treaty or violate a treaty, so we are not allowing the U.S. to do anything.
In fact, we are disagreeing with the U.S. forcefully with respect to its suggested attitude to the Pacific salmon treaty. That treaty clearly states that the U.S. catch of Fraser River sockeye is to be capped at seven million between 1989 and 1992. The treaty says that the catch includes Fraser River sockeye wherever they are caught, including Fraser bound sockeye caught in Alaskan waters.
The United States wishes to make a change now. It says it does not intend to include Fraser River bound sockeye which were harvested in Alaskan waters over the past three years as part of the seven million allocation. That would obviously be a breach of this treaty and we are strenuously objecting.
We will take what action is necessary to counteract it if the United States attempts to do that. We are not allowing the Americans to do this. The opposition is not allowing it. The opposition's rhetoric is really veiy, very careless.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the minister is certainly right when he says he is not a blow-fish.
He is a head-waiter to other countries, simply allowing them to break their treaty obligations and to go ahead and unilaterally assert their right to overfish the Pacific salmon fishery.
I want to ask the minister a question. If the government is so intent on asserting its rights, will the minister undertake direct representation to his counterpart in Washington? Will he be calling in the U.S. ambassador?
Will he be taking action at the ministerial level in order to ensure that the fishing season which starts in a matter of weeks will not find itself with the Americans putting the boots to Canadian fisheries like he has done on the east coast?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman reminds me of a puff-fish, not a blow-fish.
With respect to this question, this is a matter that we are taking up with the United States, using the usual means by which one takes up matters with neighbours and friends and those who one has treaties with.
We are making it very clear to the United States that it has left only 360,000 sockeye if it observes the provisions of this treaty. That is our position, and we continue to put that to the United States.
It is deplorable that the Americans do not seem to want to observe obligations that they enter into solemnly. This is not something that has happened in connection with the salmon treaty, but that does not mean to say that one cuts off all relationships with the United States.
We have to remind ourselves that it is the market for 75 per cent of our exports, no matter how much the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg huffs and puffs. The way he huffs and puffs, the only house he is going to blow down is his own.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
This week a delegation of New Democratic members of Parliament, at their own expense, met in Washington with American government and industry officials regarding softwood lumber.
They were there, of course, because thousands of jobs are at stake and are being threatened by U.S. harassment on the softwood lumber issue.
What this delegation found was that the U.S. government and the industry are really demanding the wholesale export of raw logs from Canada into the United States. The wholesale export of raw logs means the export of Canadian jobs.
April 3, 1992

My question for the minister is this. What has the Canadian government done to make it very clear that we will not accept this demand, and that we will not accept free trade in logs?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, what we have done on the broad softwood lumber issue is to take the Americans to the GATT on three issues related to the softwood lumber issue.
We have also vigorously challenged the countervailing duty action, working with the provinces and with the industry as it relates to the injection of the log export controls as a countervailable subsidy.
We have objected strenuously to the U.S. administration and pointed out to them that in 1983 and in 1986 there was no suggestion that log export controls were a countervailable subsidy. In this case they brought this in and we are pointing out to them that it looks to us that they want to see a result at the end and they are using all means to arrive at that end result.
What is most ridiculous about the position of the Americans on this is that they have log export controls themselves. We are pointing out that discrepancy between the two positions they have taken.
I think the leader of the New Democratic Party can be absolutely sure that we are taking the strongest possible action that we can to fight this one.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the minister of course is quite right when he says that the American federal government has its own ban on the export of raw logs. But it seems clear both through the industry and through the Bush administration's initiated action on softwood lumber that they are trying to use the fact that certain provinces have a ban on the export of raw logs as constituting an effective subsidy.
I am pleased that the minister says he is fighting this vigorously but this is a very serious issue. It does affect Canadian jobs and Canadian sovereignty. Americans are protecting American sovereignty and American jobs.
Oral Questions
The minister says he is standing up for Canadians on this particular issue but what action is he prepared to take to ensure that Canada's position is put forward very forcefully on behalf of Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not understand the question. I just stated what the actions were. If my hon. friend has any further suggestions based on her colleagues' trip to Washington, let her put forward those proposals.
In the GATT there are the actions we are taking against the countervailing duty action by the United States.
There is also the promotion campaign we have in the United States ensuring that Americans understand the result of this countervailing action that it is causing an increase in the price of lumber. It is causing an increase in the price of houses at a time when they are trying to get the U.S. economy going.
What I said when I commented on this in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago was that the Americans are shooting themselves in the foot with the actions they have taken.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the minister is aware I am sure that there is a very strong feeling both in the government administration and in the industry that the wholesale exportation of raw logs from Canada is the ultimate aim.
Certainly both of those groups told our delegation very clearly that, even if Canada were to win in this particular dispute this time, in two years they would continue the harassment on this because that is the ultimate aim.
It is a question of whether we Canadians can have control over our own economy to build up the secondary industry that we have to do. It is absolutely essential that the government assure every Canadian that we are not going to export our jobs and that we will have an economic strategy that means there will be Canadian jobs and secondary industry in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of support that the hon. member is providing for the positions we are taking.

April 3, 1992
Oral Questions
It is precisely because we wanted to have that sovereign control over the management of our forest industry that we took the decision to terminate the memorandum of understanding, I should say strictly according to its terms.
We are in full agreement with the sentiments she is expressing. We are working closely with the provinces and the industry to put forward the strongest possible case. I say to her again, if she has any suggestions as to how we can strengthen our case, I would welcome them.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
He has reacted to the European Community suggestion that cod quotas should be cut as a political gesture with the words insult, provocation and subterfuge. Those are tough words. The question is: Why is the minister not acting as tough?
If he says we have to be civilized little Canadians going on negotiating for years and years, I remind him that Iceland, one of the oldest democracies in the world and hardly a warmonger, asserted its rights when diplomacy failed.
Why is he on behalf of the Government of Canada not willing to assert similar rights for Canadian fishermen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the rhetoric is certainly flowing strongly this morning.
With respect to the way of proceeding, I believe in the old adage, speak softly and carry a big stick.


Ms. Clancy:: Where is the big stick?


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, the big stick will be produced when speaking softly no longer works.


An hon. member:: It is not working John.


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the hon. gentleman's question, what course of action is he suggesting we adopt that we are not adopting now?
We have a resolution before the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development which, by the way, originated in a meeting we called in St. John's, Newfoundland two years ago to start this process. We have convinced 40 other countries to associate themselves with this resolution that would resolve the problem.
We have been dealing with the European Community on a diplomatic level for several years. The Prime Minister is going to carry on intensive discussions of this issue with leaders of the various European Community countries. We have had the foreign media over to Newfoundland to see with their own eyes what the situation is so they can explain it at home.
This is the course of action we are on. What is wrong with our course of action? What more does the hon. gentleman think we can do at the moment?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the course of action is not working. It has not worked and is obviously not going to work.
What I fail to understand is that the way he talks is not in the character of the minister. He is not that kind of person. Why does he not admit now, the same as Iceland did, that diplomacy has not worked, is not going to work and we must take unilateral action to assert the rights of our people now.
The difference between us and him is that he feels at some point in the future we have to take action. We say take it now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if we are going to appeal to history we should at least have it accurate.
When this situation occurred before, when there was a huge fishing effort on the stocks in the northwest Atlantic in the 1960s and 1970s when the hon. gentleman's government was in power, they took in excess of
1,800,000	tonnes of codfish from the northwest Atlantic.
During that period there was a negotiation for 10, 12 or 14 years to achieve the Law of the Sea Convention. Then the hon. gentleman's government entered into an agreement with the European Community in 1977 to
April 3, 1992

give the European Community the right to fish within our 200-mile limit. That did not expire until 1986.
When they were in power they were not the powerful tigers, the ferocious, violent desperadoes they want to say that we should be, now that we are in power. When they were in power they did not act in the way they are now advising us to act.
We are pursuing diplomacy' and as long as the diplomatic efforts have a chance to succeed, that is the route we are going. Canadians are not a people who resort to force and violence. We are peacekeepers and that is the course we are going to continue on.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. I want to ask the minister about these trade wars that Canada is losing.
Canadian-made computers have become the latest target of U.S. protectionism. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was supposed to protect these industries, but instead they continually find themselves in trade disputes.
I want to ask the minister: Did the minister tell his American counterpart at the NAFTA negotiations that he was unwilling to open up Canadian computer content rules?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this is a proposal that was put on the table during the NAFTA negotiations. It is a rule that is a good deal more restrictive than has been the case under the FTA.
We rejected it at the negotiating table. At the meetings next week when I will be meeting with my counterpart from the United States I propose to reiterate that rejection. It is something we do not accept.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be unaware that Canada is in a trade war. Look at lobster, softwood lumber, steel, wheat, salmon, Hondas, beer, computers and the list goes on.
Oral Questions
When will the minister wake up to the reality that Canadians do not have faith in him to protect then-interests in international trade? When will he take some real action against the Americans on these issues?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this sort of a question does nothing to further the debate. We have taken specific actions that have successfully defended the rights of the people in his constituency.
In the pork countervail action where we were being beaten by the Americans through their process, we took it to the dispute settlement panel and we won. They took it back. We won a second time. What has happened is that the Americans have paid back the duties to the pork producers.
That is one example, that I spell out in detail, of how we have protected the interests of Canadians and particularly the interests in his community. We are continuing to fight these battles whether it is in softwood lumber, whether it is in Honda, whether it is in magnesium, whatever the actions are.
I just point out to my hon. friend when you have the largest single bilateral trading relationship in the world, you do have these disputes. What we do have now that we did not have before in the free trade agreement is a dispute settlement panel which makes binding decisions which have affected Canada very positively.



Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo -Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, Friday is fish day so I would like to go back to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Manuel Marin, the European fisheries commissioner said that the European Community has volunteered to have the evidence on stocks and EC damage to them examined by the scientific committee of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization but Canada refused.
That statement left as it is could be damaging. I invite the minister to comment on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, with respect to this question, when we started pressing the European Community in January 1989, after the half-sacked report of that year in connection with this matter, their first line of

April 3, 1992
Oral Questions
defence was that these were findings by Canadian scientists not necessarily agreed to by the European Community scientists. Therefore, we said that was fine.
All that information is available to the NAFO scientists. We are making it available to the European Community scientists. We have made all of our information fully available to the scientists of the European Community.
We have just had Ambassador Gherson and the chief of our science branch visit the European Community, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom to go over all of this material and evidence with them.
This is simply an excuse dredged up by the European Community suggesting that there should now be a meeting of the NAFO scientific committee. The NAFO scientific committee will be meeting in any event and we will be there.
All of our information is available to anyone that wants it. We have not had any disagreement from European Community scientists with respect to our information. There has been no disagreement in the last several years. So this is just an attempt to confuse the issue.
The evidence is plain. Last year we had a quota of
190.000	tonnes for northern cod and we could only catch
127.000	tonnes. Who needs more evidence, scientific or otherwise, than the fact that the fish are not there to be caught?


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, the minister's last statement indicates we are out of fish. Yet the European Community seems to be catching more than its quota every year which would seem to indicate their stocks are in good shape.
In any case, I wanted to ask a question of the minister. There has been a lot of talk. He spoke on March 30, as reported in Hansard at page 9017, about other methods and he has been talking about that today. Before we get into those other methods, could the minister tell us what is the level of support we are getting in NAFO itself?
There are 10 members, one of them being the EC. What about the other nine members? Are they supportive of our position or not? How about the European Community itself? Are there any members of the European Community that will support us in this fight before we have to resort to these other methods?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, with reference to NAFO, I believe there are either 12 or 13 members of NAFO. All the others have been supportive of our position and have accepted NAFO quotas.
The one exception is the European Community, has refused, ever since Spain and Portugal joined the European Community in 1986, to accept the decisions of NAFO with respect to the northern cod and with respect to certain flounder, redfish stocks, and American plaice. The other countries involved have been supportive of conservation measures and of NAFO decisions. That is the position up to the moment.
With respect to the other members of the European Community, I have to report frankly that we have not received any enthusiastic support from them. I have visited the United Kingdom, for example, France and Germany. Their ministers are sympathetic when we are there but they never take any steps at the internal meetings of the European Community to raise this question or to put pressure on Spain and Portugal to stop these practices.
That is why we are asking them now at the very top, that is when the Prime Minister meets with them, to put pressure on Spain and Portugal to act like civilized countries and not despoilers of the environment and destroyers of certain animal species that are going to disappear if their actions do not cease.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The town of Fort Erie and the Peace Bridge Authority have both made
April 3, 1992

representations to me with regard to the special designated lanes to speed up traffic.
Since this method has proven to be very successful, will the minister inform the House today whether he will continue with the designated lanes program?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, these initiatives were put in place as a result of extensive consultations with the border communities. As a result of the implementation of these special tourist lanes, both the tourist industry as well as the border communities have accepted them as being very beneficial.
In fact the mayor of Fort Erie stated just the other day, and I will quote briefly: "The special tourist lane put in place to respond to traffic problems has been extremely successful".
With endorsements like these of course we are going to continue to keep those tourist lanes in place wherever applicable and wherever necessary.


MURATA ERIE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, Trenton, Ontario in my riding has been devastated in the last months by the loss of hundreds of jobs. Trentonians have had enough and today as I speak hundreds are demonstrating in the streets asking for assistance.
The cause of today's demonstration is the announcement by MuRata Erie on Wednesday of this week of the closure of its plant and the loss of its last 300 jobs.
My question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Since 1987 MuRata Erie has been the recipient of more than $1 million in government defence industry subsidies under DIPR Will the government commit today to use MuRata Erie's DIPP funding in conjunction with a portion of UI benefits to go to employees and work with the community of Trenton to convert MuRata Erie's site and available human resources to a new peacetime productive activity?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, no one is happy when they see the
Oral Questions
lay-off of people from a company that is an important employer in a community.
What my hon. friend has suggested is something that we have been doing. We have been working with companies that have been active in the military field to try to help them to make a transition into non-military products. The program that has been used by and large has been the Defence Industry Productivity Program which does provide for that type of funding of research projects that provide the base for employment in new fields of activity.
If my hon. friend wants to encourage this company, MuRata Erie, to come to the government with a proposal, we would certainly look upon that with great interest.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, the MuRata Company has announced its closure and we are hoping that this minister will use DIPP funding to help the community to convert that industry.
Last week the Citizens' Inquiry into Peace and Security in its report entitled Transformation Moment called for a national economic conversion effort targeted at our defence industries. Our own leader and party have consistently called for conversion and global arms control initiatives.
Will the government commit today to bringing forward a security policy green paper response to these critical issues and demonstrate how it intends to respond in a meaningful way to Canadians' concerns for conversion of our defence industries and the promotion of global arms controls?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think my first answer responded in part to her second question.
The Prime Minister has taken an active position on arms control and the importance of reducing the levels of armaments, particularly in the so-called hot spots of the world. Our international actions and activities are dedicated in that direction.
As far as internally or domestically is concerned, the Canadian military industry or the Canadian high-tech industry is much less reliant on military than many other countries. We do not have nearly the same challenge as

April 3, 1992
Oral Questions
other countries do in transforming companies from military purposes to non-military purposes.
Just to repeat my earlier answer, the Defence Industry Productivity Program is set up to help companies make that transition. I would encourage the member to work with the people of MuRata Erie to see whether there is some basis on which we can provide funding.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
In Winnipeg and in virtually every other major Canadian city there are waiting lists for training programs of two years or more. These Canadians want training so that they can get jobs.
Despite this, the government has cut $100 million from its Canadian Jobs Strategy this year on top of the $100 million cut last year, affecting the disabled, immigrants, and those people who are social welfare recipients.
The co-chair of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board has said that this contradicts stated government policy to improve global competitiveness. What precisely is this government prepared to do now to eliminate those waiting lists and to provide jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is incredible that people would stand up in this House and lead Canadians and unemployed people out there to believe that we are actually spending less money to train Canadians than in the past, when in fact people ought to know that political party opposed this government trying to provide more funding for training unemployed Canadians.
The result is that this year we have increased the funding, the over-all training budget, by $300 million. It is $1.8 billion that will be spent under the unemployment insurance fund to train unemployed Canadians.
If the hon. member is trying to suggest that we are doing less, I do not think he is telling the truth.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
We must remember that there are over 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed at this very moment. There are more Canadians unemployed than there were before and there is less money per capita being spent.
In the last Speech from the Throne the government stated: "Governments will be asked to develop a learning culture to equip Canadian men and women to participate fully in creating and sharing Canadian prosperity".
How then can a $200 million cut in training, coupled with a $250 million cut to colleges and universities, the continuation of the GST on books and other learning materials, adding six months' interest to student loans and cutting $66 million from the SEED program since 1985, achieve more competitiveness, increase productivity, and create a learning culture? How?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the Liberals are at it again: increase the deficit, mortgage the future of Canadians, or increase taxes the old Liberal way.
Canada is spending close to $50 billion a year on learning and training. Only one country in the world spends a little bit more-Denmark. Yet when we consider the learning and training system in Canada, we find that we are slipping in comparison to our international competitors.
In the prosperity initiative we are seeking stakeholders in the economy, educators, individual Canadians, labour, business and government to work together to try to identify and come up with an action plan which will result in a bigger bang for the buck. The money is there. The issue is: let's spend smarter, not more like the Liberals would want us to do.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
During the last few weeks I have given the minister and his department documents outlining the Green Party's and the Reform Party's dangerous abuse of the political tax credit. Despite the fact that we support the right of Canadians to give to causes of political parties of their choice, I am very concerned about the precedent setting loophole that has been created.

Will the minister confirm what he has said to me in private, that his department is powerless under the present Elections Act to close this loophole, and ensure that taxpayers' money is only used for electoral purposes or for the purposes of supporting the ongoing operations of political parties?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, no new loophole has been created. As the law now stands, I want to make it very clear that if a contribution is made to a political party in cash or a negotiable instrument, issuance of a political tax credit is appropriate.
However, if a political contribution is made to a political party, through a political party to another organization for other purposes, then it is inappropriate to issue a tax credit.
Having said that, we are always anxious to improve on any law. Because of numerous recent allegations on this matter, I have spoken to the Chief Electoral Officer as recently as yesterday. I have asked him to review the whole matter of issuance of tax credits throughout the Elections Act, and because of these allegations I would be happy to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and review the Income Thx Act as well.
We are always willing and anxious to improve the law whenever we can.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, further to the minister's response, I have also talked to Elections Canada along with Revenue Canada and I believe it is the law that has to be changed as a result of that.
My supplementary question is for the chair of the committee of the House of Commons that is looking into electoral reform. Will the member ensure that the committee gives special attention next week to ensuring that we close this loophole and that the legislation be amended in a way that taxpayers' money is only used for the ongoing operations of political parties and for electoral purposes, the purposes that legislation was set up for in the first place?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have been here 13 years and I have never had the chance to answer a question in Question Period before.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I guess I have about two and a half minutes. I want to thank the member for the question.
The House in its wisdom put together a committee to review the Elections Act. All parties chose experienced members with long experience in politics and in this House. I detect a predisposition in members of all parties to do several things. One is to continue a tax credit system because it establishes a broad base of support for the political process. Instead of a few people with a lot of money controlling it, it belongs to the people. I think we are all agreed with those kinds of clauses.
We do have suggestions from the Lortie commission about a clause for change that would do a great deal of what the member is suggesting.
I would go one step further and say, not just for political parties, but if the receipt is for a tax credit at the federal level, then the money should be spent for federal purposes only. If it is provincial, it should be provincial purposes only.
In today's Quorum you will note that the Reform Party of Canada in Alberta claims it is not running any candidates but it has been registered and has been given the power to give tax receipts for provincial purposes. Maybe the provinces should look at this as well.


HARBOURS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, the last question of the day is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
According to the main estimates tabled in the House of Commons, 70 per cent of the entire small craft harbours' budget for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador from March 1991 to March 1992 was spent in one constituency in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say that he is behaving in a manner that is fair to all fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador when 70 per cent of the

April 3, 1992
Routine Proceedings
budget in that province went to one constituency, the minister's?


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have not heard of this before. My staff must be doing an outstanding job.
With respect to this matter, I am certainly very prepared to have a breakdown done of all spending on small craft harbours in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was one major project done in St. John's West, the only one in 100 years in the city of St. John's, when a small craft facility was completed in the city of St. John's last year at Prosser Rock.
It is being used by boats from all over the province. The hon. member mentions Ming's Bight. It is very close to my heart. I wish that Ming would bite a lot of other people over there as well.


POINT OF ORDER
Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, with the NHL action suspended due to the player's strike, hockey aficionados were riveted last night to the annual contest between the parliamentary pages and members of Parliament. For a change, the "Page Pacers" gave us a game.
Brett Ballah, Brad Rylder, Andre Thomas, Geoff Pearcey, Davit "Elbows" Akman, Carlo Spadafora, Wade Aucoin, Serge Melanson, Carol Middleton, Patrick Folz, Pierre Joyal, Jake Irving, Daniel Leger and Matthew Breech for a change provided the toughest competition in years.
It was not tough enough, however. Physical fitness and athletic prowess prevailed. Members of Parliament Bill Rompkey, David Dingwall with two goals and five goal posts, Lome Nystrom very briefly, Pat Sobeski, Doug Fee, Brian Alexander O'Kurley, Willie Littlechild and I scored three unanswered goals in the final minutes of the game to win 7-4.
The MPs received only modest assistance from former MP and national team member Leo Duguay, gold medalist Alwyn Morris and goalie Tbny Baldinelli from Rob Nicholson's office.
Mike Richardson played for the pages, and our thanks to Bob Allen from Hansard who handled a very enjoyable and penalty free game.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Of course this was not a point of order, but we were delighted to hear of this event. We thank our pages.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
11TH REPORT OF CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT SUSPENSION ACT
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Andre moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
April 3, 1992


VICTIMS OF CRIME COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act respecting compensation for Canadian victims of crime travelling or posted abroad.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, this is precisely the same bill I introduced earlier in the session but it did not receive the approval of the House on second reading so I am trying again.
The bill is designed to establish a criminal injuries compensation fund that would cover Canadians who are working or travelling abroad. At this point Canadians are only covered at the provincial level for injuries received at home, but if Canadians are working or travelling abroad, as they do now in large numbers, they are largely unprotected. It is within the federal jurisdiction.
I believe this is an important bill which will have the support I am sure of all members of the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Brewin moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(91), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, it is with sadness I rise in this House to introduce a petition. This is a result of the tremendous number of refugees who have been deported in masses, especially lately.
These refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardship. Their future was and is still undecided as they are being sent back to their homeland.
These petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pressure the government to exercise compassion.
Routine Proceedings DOMESTIC WORKERS


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from my riding in Yukon. This petition is signed by employers of domestics, domestic workers and residents of Canada.
The petition is to draw to the attention of the House that the Department of External Affairs, as we know, has decided to discontinue the practice of processing applications of domestic workers under rules that would give them the right to apply for permanent status.
My constituents strongly object to this and request that the House immediately rescind this particular regulation to a more fair and equitable regulation which will make it possible for foreign domestic workers to remain because they have contributed substantially to the country.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the people of North Vancouver.
The petitioners believe that constitutions are for people and they call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately 300 Edmontonians dealing with Croatia. It was approved on March 13 and I do not know whether the delay was my fault or the clerk's.
In any event, the 300 people are concerned that Croatia has instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election. Ninety-four per cent of the population voted for independence. They point out that Croa-tians, like all other people, are entitled to freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination. They call upon this Parliament to take the initiative in officially recognizing Croatia as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.

April 3, 1992
Point of Order EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to table a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who have requested that the government of Canada work out a deal with the government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and, of course, this has now happened.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. One is from a large group of my constituents regarding the independence vote in the Ukraine and a very supportive position in terms of Ukrainian independence and about our diplomatic ties with Ukraine.
It is with a great deal of pride that I table this, as I come from the riding that has probably more Canadians of Ukrainian background in it than any other riding in this country with the possible exception of the Dauphin-Swan River riding.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with the GST and says that the petitioners, again all from my constituency of Yorkton-Melville, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider removing the goods and service tax from women's sanitary products. I table this petition in the Elouse today as well.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa area including Nepean, Gloucester, Ottawa, Aylmer, Kanata, Stittsville and other communities in this area.
The petitioners object to the fact that gas prices in the Ottawa area are significantly higher than those in southern Ontario. I may say the same complaint is made by many members of the Kingston community. They call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I should have raised this point earlier when the Secretary of State was in the House, but I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader would perhaps give an undertaking to the House with regard to the Voyageur program.
The Government of Canada has sent out a number of invitations for students or for young people between the ages of 16 to 21. It is my understanding that a large number of applications have gone out across the country.
I wonder if it is possible for the Secretary of State to provide to each member of this House a constituency breakdown to show where those invitations or applications have gone on a constituency basis, whether it be the Legions, the Kiwanis Club, whatever.
It is my understanding that a number of groups have received them. Some groups have not received them and, of course, members' offices will be involved in the process. I wonder if that information is available, which I presume it is. Someone must have the mailing list that could be provided to members of Parliament.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. friend who has raised a very important and special program for the Canadian youth. All of us are anxious to support it. Being one of those who has not received any applications, my understanding is that those applications will flow to committees that are established by individual members in their constituencies.
I can check into the information that the hon. member has relayed to me and we will see what we can do to get this information to him as quickly as possible.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to belabour this, but I do want to tell the hon. member that a number of groups across the countiy have now received the applications, well beyond the committees which have been set up, for instance, Legions, and rightly so. I just bring that to the attention of the hon. member. I think it would be appropriate if the information that is now out there be shared with all members of Parliament. I thank
April 3, 1992

him for taking this under active consideration. Of course, I know he will report back to the House expeditiously, perhaps later this day, if not early Monday morning.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I wish to reiterate that in fact I will check out that information. It is very clearly the understanding I had of the program, that it was to be the role of members of Parliament to establish these committees. We will find out exactly what is going on and have that clarified, not only for the hon. member but for all members of this House who I know will be concerned about the issue.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, as you will probably recall, about 11.55 a.m. I was addressing this issue. I started by congratulating the minister and his staff as well as the administration for their work on this piece of legislation which is, in fact, fairly similar to the act which was introduced in 1980, with quite a few exceptions and a few new proposals.
Government Orders
What really intrigues me with this bill is the fact that it addresses two partners, the provincial government and the federal government. Throughout this bill there is one partner missing, the municipal government or regional government.
When we are dealing with questions affecting the environment, this particular issue falls under the jurisdiction of three levels of government, the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, the community as a whole. This piece of legislation does not seem to put it in black and white that a third partner is included.
There are some very good aspects of the proposed legislation, especially when we look at the areas of safety requirements, standard marks, emergency response assistance plans and means of containment. For example, this bill would make it an offence for a person to handle, offer for transport, transport or import any dangerous goods unless the person, the goods and the means of containment satisfy the requirements of the bill.
The bill introduces a concept of a standardized means of containment. This particular term would be defined to mean a container for which safety standards have been prescribed in the regulations and which was used or intended to be used for the transportation of dangerous goods.
It goes on to say that no person would be permitted to sell, offer for sale, deliver, distribute, import or use a standardized means of containment unless it displayed all the applicable prescribed safety marks.
That is good, but it goes further to add a new provision which would require manufacturers or importers of standardized means of containment to keep records of the persons to whom they distributed their product. If it were later found that these means of containment were unsafe for handling or transporting dangerous goods, suppliers could be required to issue notices of defective construction or recall to their customers.
These are excellent proposals in the legislation. What is missing, unfortunately, is the third partner, the municipal government, as it deals with the question of transport.

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
One other aspect which I found to be intriguing is that while there are a lot of new provisions, when it comes to the area of inspection whereby we are giving the inspectors authority, rightly so, when they believe there are reasonable grounds that dangerous goods are being handled, offered for transport or transported in a way that does not comply with the bill, they could detain the goods until they were in compliance, it also gives the inspector the authority to take any measures necessary to remedy non-compliance and allow them to direct any qualified person to take them. That is good, but what is missing is the enforcement, to provide the necessary funds for inspectors in order to apply the rules as set by the legislation.
For any piece of legislation or any proposal, it does not matter whether it is introduced at the federal level, provincial level or municipal level, the key is to have the mechanism for enforcement. That brings us to the human aspect. We have to ensure that we not only have enough inspectors, but that we have the tools that are necessary so they can do their jobs properly.
What has been lacking throughout this whole discussion is the matter of the necessary funds in order to make sure that the bill is enforced and inspectors are capable of doing their jobs.
I do not know how many more inspectors the government is planning to hire. I do not know whether it has thought about that aspect of the legislation. I do not know whether the government has gone as far as trying to do some work with the different levels of government in terms of their enforcement in the difficulties they are having.
I can tell you on the question of environmental impact, the transfer or transport of dangerous goods from one location to another has been identified as a priority for the people of this country. In particular, it has been identified as a priority for the people in my riding of Ottawa Centre and throughout the province of Ontario. I say this because unfortunately quite often what we are seeing is that the transportation method, whether that is by truck or train, is passing through urban centres without making sure that certain provisions and requirements are met. When it comes to that, it is extremely important, at least at the municipal level, to be aware of what is at stake for employees in terms of the transportation of dangerous material going through that particular city, town or area.
Setting up standards is a key when it comes to the environment. If there is any need for national standards, I would say that the environmental needs are there. This should in fact serve as a notice. As we are introducing the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, perhaps the federal government should use this as a first step toward negotiation with all levels of government with a view to setting up standards when it comes to the environment.
The reason I say this is because as you go from one part of the country to the next, there are different environmental standards. For instance, what is a priority for one region when it comes to the cleaning up of the environment or taking care of dangerous goods in one area might not be treated the same way in other parts of the country or in other areas.
Environmental standards are very important, especially at this point in time. In 1988 and thereafter there has been a lot of talk about the clean up of dangerous material from major urban centres throughout Canada. I have not yet really seen any direct action taken. I have not seen the results. If there has been any work on the part of the government, any government, we have not seen any impact study to show that. In fact, if we have cleaned up our urban centres of hazardous material, we have simply moved the waste material that could be stored from one part of the country or another.
To that extent, it is high time for the federal government to start discussion with different levels of government, provincial and municipal, in order to deal with the question of stored dangerous materials, especially in major urban centres, in order to set up a strategy where this material could be moved to another location where the safety of the public as well as the safety of the environment would not be at stake.
The question of enforcement is important. Far more important than the question of enforcement is the question of prevention. As you know, our legislation at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level seems at all times to deal with the problem at hand. Unfortunately, we do not seem to see a lot of legislation at the different levels dealing with the question of prevention. When we talk about the question of prevention, we are talking about the questions of education,
April 3, 1992

public awareness, and outreach programs. Whether that is at the high school level, whether that is in the community, in the business sector or in different parts of society, we have to take an aggressive step and move one step further to say that from now on every single piece of legislation that is introduced to deal with every single issue has got to have as part and parcel of it a preventive measure.
That would apply to any kind of legislation, whether the legislation is dealing with the question of the environment, or whatever. It must contain that element, the issue of education and the issue of prevention.
I spoke a little bit about the absence of the third component. A little earlier today my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier brought to my attention a very important issue. Probably in the period of question and answer he will be very much interested in sharing his concerns, not only with this House but also with Canadians across the country, to give an example of what is happening in one of the ridings in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
There are a lot of good things in this legislation. What is missing, as I indicated, are the questions of enforcement, outreach, prevention and education. When I spoke about enforcement I mean the lack of funds in order to do the actual enforcement.
I understand that the government is planning after second reading to have a public hearing. This would be an excellent opportunity for all of us in government, as well as the community as a whole, to bring forward to the committee during those hearings any concerns they might have regarding the transfer of dangerous material and the transfer of waste from one point to the next.
At hand here is a piece of legislation that, in my view, is a good start, the beginning I hope of what might lead to a discussion with the different levels of government whereby eventually we would have a national environmental standard throughout Canada so that we can protect the interests of the public and deal with the question of safety in a tangible and effective way.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre on his statement. When the bill was
Government Orders
tabled last December, I immediately communicated with regional and municipal groups concerned to find out if the bill would have an impact on my riding. My first concern at that time was the transportation of hazardous materials.
I was concerned then with the transportation of dangerous materials in my riding because, as we know, Ottawa-Vanier is the natural corridor for trucks carrying goods that are sometimes considered dangerous. I wrote to Peter Clark, the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on January 15. He answered me on March 4.

In his letter to me Mr. Clark brings out some very interesting facts concerning the transportation of goods in general and dangerous goods in particular. I want to share with the House some of the comments he makes in his letter dealing with Bill C-45, a bill which we know will strengthen the rules and regulations pertaining to the transportation of dangerous goods. Over a 12-hour period, that is half a day, in my riding the heavy truck traffic on the MacDonald-Cartier bridge, which is an interprovincial bridge linking Ontario and Quebec, is approximately 2,200 vehicles or trucks representing about 5 per cent of all the vehicles using the bridge during that time frame. To quote from the letter:
During the morning and evening commuter peak hours the hourly heavy truck volume is approximately 200 vehicles per hour, again representing three to five per cent-
In my own riding, the letter continues:
Truck volumes on Nicholas Street (south of Laurier) are slightly higher at 2,500 (two-way flow) between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and represent seven to nine per cent of total traffic flows for that period. During the morning and evening peak hours, hourly volumes range from 180 to 270 vehicles per hour and again approximately seven to nine per cent of the total traffic flows.
Last year 24 per cent of all accidents in that corridor were with trucks. There are some serious preoccupations with the problem in my riding. I know the member for Ottawa Centre appreciates it because he was there. He was a member of Ottawa council. He was a member of regional council. He understands this problem. My preoccupation has mainly been with the transportation of dangerous goods.

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
In the letter I received from Mr. Clark, he said that 2.1 per cent, approximately between 45 and 50 trucks, a day transport dangerous goods. Dangerous goods, as defined in the letter from Mr. Clark could be anything from solvents to propane, oxygen, fuels, petroleum products, et cetera.
My preoccupation is with clause 3(1) of the bill which reads:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a
province.
I underline "or a province". We are dealing with essentially an interprovincial problem between Ontario and Quebec. I guess it could happen between any province. Does the member have any suggestions as to how we can involve the regional municipalities and the municipalities in addressing the problem of transportation of dangerous goods, so that we can assure ourselves that we are not dealing with a potential risk for which municipalities will have to carry some blame and which the provinces will have to resolve in some way? The authority of the federal government would be paramount. As far as I am concerned, there would be a responsibility with inspectors to make sure that transportation is safe and that transportation is done in a co-ordinated and secure manner. Mostly the regional governments, along with the provinces, have to stop using downtown corridors to transport dangerous goods because of the inherent difficulty that exists. An accident could cause undue damage to our environment, undue damage to the quality of life of the people in that community, and possibly undue damage to our over-all well-being because of loss of life or something else.
Has the member in his experience as a member of the municipal council and as a former member of the regional council addressed this problem? Can he give me a reason or some kind of satisfaction that indeed we can look forward to federal, provincial and municipal co-operation to resolve this issue?
particular on questions of transportation and questions affecting the environment.
I must say that the best approach to solving any kind of a problem is direct consultation. All of the different partners should be brought together to look at their concerns and to try to deal with them.
My colleagues have for example set before us the question of the interprovincial transfer of goods. In the hon. member's riding of Ottawa-Vanier there is a north-south connection. I might suggest that there is a lot of truck traffic on the routes my colleague has indicated from the province of Ontario to the province of Quebec.
There is nothing in this legislation that would really address the question of urban safety as it relates to the transfer of goods. Also, there is nothing in the legislation that would deal with the transfer of hazardous material from one province to the next, who is responsible, and at what point one province will take over the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the trucks or the safety of the community.
To that extent not only do I want to commend my colleague for raising it, but also I want to assure him that it has been a concern of the municipalities in the past. As we have seen in the communication from the municipalities in this region, there is concern about the tremendous amount of traffic flow and the rise of truck traffic accidents.
I wonder what the government is planning to do in order to address those concerns, especially in light of the fact that the federal government has washed its hands of its responsibility as a full partner when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to transportation links, when it comes to interprovincial connections, and when it comes to the question of helping out municipalities to deal with their sewage treatment plants, with the overflow of their sewer systems and so on.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my My colleague raised this point. He brought to my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier who continuously attention another question on the lack of federal govem-speaks out on behalf of his constituents on issues that ment involvement at the municipal level in the question affect their daily lives and their safety. Even from the of infrastructure. Of course one could attribute an days when I was on municipal council the hon. member accident that has taken place to the lack of good roads, communicated with me on a regular basis verbally and in large enough roads or safe enough roads for trucks writing, raising the concerns of his constituents, in transporting waste material.
April 3, 1992

The question of the environment again is not and never will be the responsibility of one level of government. It must and has to become the responsibility of all the three levels of government. One component which is missing in this legislation, as I have indicated and as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier has clearly put before us, is the third component, that is the municipal level and safety when it comes to transfers of dangerous material through urban centres.
I do not know the answer except that I think the federal government has a responsibility through the Department of Transport, as well as through other departments, to address this question with the municipalities and with the provinces as it relates to environmental standards.
That brings me to the second point which my colleague raised with me a little earlier today, that is, what are we going to do with the dangerous material presently in storage in major urban centres across Canada? What are the plans? When is the government planning to start removing these dangerous materials from major centres in Canada in order to ensure the safety of the public for today and tomorrow?
I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier for his question.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on the second reading of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. As the House will know, this bill seeks to bring into legislation a number of important ideas and recommendations. As far as it goes, it does have my support and the support of our party, as our critic in the area has already explained.
I wish to make a couple of comments if I can arising out of an interest in the issue on the west coast of Canada. A couple of years ago public attention was drawn to the fact that dangerous goods were often transmitted on B.C. ferries and that they were being transmitted without adequate inspection, supervision or compliance with the regulations. In that context, therefore, we had a very careful look at the situation. It became very clear that it is all very well to have a good piece of legislation or to have good regulations, but it is even more important to have adequate personnel provided by the Government of Canada to ensure that the act and the regulations are complied with.
Government Orders
There is still no report back to this House about the situation on the B.C. ferries, and in particular whether the government has acted on the public concern expressed at the time to see that the regulations are complied with and the public is being protected. We will look forward to hearing at committee state from the minister and from the department on this issue and trying to get some commitment from the government that it will couple with this legislation adequate resources and adequate staff to see that the public is in fact protected and that Bill C-45 is not simply words and window dressing.
The next contribution I would like to make deals with a couple of the inadequacies of the bill, particularly because the bill fails to reflect the very effective representations that have been made to all members of Parliament by the International Association of Fire Fighters. In particular is the proposition that there should be included in federal legislation the creation of a public safety officers benefit which should be indexed and payable to the survivors of fire-fighters who are killed in the line of duty, or to the family of an officer who is permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty.
Second is the requirement that hospitals should be given a mandate to notify emergency response personnel of possible exposure to infectious diseases. Third is the need to create a computerized response information system so that fire-fighters can have access to accurate and instant information at the scene of a hazardous materials incident.
These provisions should be in the bill. The government should advise the House and the public how come it was left out. On the face of it, these very important concepts and provisions should be reflected in the bill. They are already reflected in the private member's bill of the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and it is important these ideas get the full consideration of the House.
With those comments we will certainly support second reading so that this bill can go before the committee in the hope that at that stage we can get the necessary improvements.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate for a few minutes. I want to raise two or three items that will be of particular concern to all members,

April 3, 1992
Government Orders
to the industry and to all workers involved in the shipment of hazardous products. These items will undoubtedly arise during the course of committee consideration.
I just preface with a few general remarks on the bill. The bill before us, the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 is a redrafted version of the current Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to promote the safety of people, property and the environment during the transportation of dangerous goods.
Among other items that the bill addresses are the handling, transporting and importing of dangerous goods, safety marks, safety requirements and safety standards, emergency response assistance plans, regulation of standardized means of containment, financial responsibility, actions during emergency response and inspection and intervention authorities of federal inspectors.
Bill C-45 would strengthen the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. We fully admit that, and we are pleased to see some progress made.
It would provide a clear legal framework for regulating the transportation of dangerous goods. It would place additional emphasis on measures which would have to be taken prior to the transportation activity itself in order to protect the safety of people, property and the environment.
In addressing the last point mentioned, I would just like to comment briefly on the matter raised under section 6 of the inspector's guide to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
Section 6 reads:
Some dangerous goods involved in an accident may continue to cause harm or hold the potential for harm after the initial accident has occurred. For example, a tank car containing a compressed or flammable gas may be in such a position or circumstance that there is concern about the tank itself rupturing and causing a secondary accident effect. For some special dangerous goods, as described in Schedule XII of the Regulations, emergency response assistance plans must be in place before these products are shipped. Essentially this places a burden on the consignor of a product to be prepared to respond in case there is an accident with this product.
This burden falls upon the consignor, who is often the manufacturer, as he is the person who is the expert with respect to the characteristics of the product and he is the person who should know what is required to effectively respond to such an accident. If the consignor is not in Canada, the importer is essentially viewed as
the consignor. (This principle holds throughout the Act such that anything which occurred or should have occurred outside of Canada is the responsibility of the importer. Note that this provides for better protection and enforcement than dealing with an agent. Consequently the requirements concerning agents have been deleted.)
Our major concern here is covered in the next one to two paragraphs:
The way this section will work is that when someone wishes to ship a Schedule XII substance he will submit a summary of an emergency response assistance plan and will "immediately" receive temporary approval. Once the plan has been examined carefully by a Remedial Measures Specialist and found to be acceptable the approval will continue. If the plan turns out to be unacceptable, approval of the plan would then be cancelled and the result would be that the shipper would have to cease shipping that dangerous good.
That particular paragraph gives us some cause for concern. It appears from this documentation that immediate temporary approval will be given to the transport of Schedule XII goods, the most hazardous products, before careful examination by a remedial measures specialist.
If the intent of this is, and it is made clear that it is simply to give preliminary approval, the actual shipment cannot take place until the careful examination, that may be well and good. It will be of little consolation to safety personnel or to communities through which hazardous products are shipped if the turnaround in the decision and the cancellation of the shipping takes place after an accident has occurred because those goods are already in shipment.
Obviously that is one of the areas that we want to look at carefully during committee consideration, to ensure that the immediate approval that is given only gives rise to prior clearance and not to shipping itself until there has been, as it is put here, a careful examination of the conditions.
There are a number of other concerns that have been mentioned briefly by my colleagues which I would also like to touch on.
In my own constituency of Kootenay West-Revels-toke we do have a large number of very hazardous goods in transit. Our area is mountainous. Whether those goods are travelling by truck or by rail, and most of them are shipped on one of those two mediums, we have some of the more difficult stretches of rail in the country and certainly many of the steepest grades in the highway system.
April 3, 1992

What we have seen partly through the policies of this federal government when it comes to transport regulations and legislation is an increasing use of our highways by heavy transport trucks, often on steep grades into urban areas. Many of them carry dangerous goods such as chlorine gas in large quantities.
Rail is a relatively safer means of transport. It is more controllable because there is no competing, generally speaking, on the roadbeds with passenger traffic which is much more unpredictable in its behaviour. The conditions of the roadways and the highways are also very often much more hazardous than is the condition that exists on rail. The abandonment of many spur lines serving industrial areas has caused this transference away from rail and on to the roads.
We have had a number of incidents. Luckily there were no major releases of substances which would cause a grave and immediate health hazard to civilian populations. But we have had a number of serious accidents involving trucks carrying industrial materials, some of them safety related, right into the communities of Trail and Castlegar.
Because we have had a bit of a propensity in times past we have also had situations where we have had not accidental explosions take place from time to time on some of the rail lines in our area. These often caused disruptions to major industrial transport by rail and by truck. That is something we hope to never see repeated. But we do have the problem taking place on the highways with increasing incidence.
One of the other matters that my colleague, the member for Kootenay East, raised yesterday in consideration of another subject is also of concern on this matter. That is the change that has taken place in the railway industry, with the elimination of cabooses to getting rid of flashing lights or strobe lights at the end of trains and their replacement by reflectors. Some of those trains transport dangerous goods.
One may wonder what this has direct relevance to in relation to this bill. If we have an increasing number of accidents-and that is almost surely going to happen as a
Government Orders
result of the relaxation of some of these regulations in transport-then the incidence of releases of hazardous materials into fast-flowing waterways in the mountains of British Columbia is surely going to occur.
If there are reflectors instead of flashing strobe lights on the ends of trains, which ends of trains are no longer manned by individuals who can give constant reports back and forth between units, then in a mountainous area where there are not only steep grades but also a great amount of cloud, fog, mud, snow and curves, there is simply no opportunity to respond. Long braking distances are required on steep grades if there is no clear sign from the end of the train that it has come to a halt or slowed down in order to apply the brakes to avoid a major collision.
Those are in areas again that where those railway carriers are carrying hazardous products and there are releases in the fast-flowing waterways, the damage is done before any emergency response team can get to it.
Those matters are relevant even though they are not directly involved in the consideration of the bill before us.
Finally, I would like to touch once more upon the matter of the submission made to a number of my colleagues, both in the New Democratic Party and I am sure in other caucuses last May by the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Their appeal links in to some degree with a study, the "Electronic Waybill for Rail Transport of Dangerous Goods," which was prepared for the Transportation Development Centre, policy and co-ordination, Transport Canada by ATG, Automation Technologies Group Ltd., and submitted in August 1991.
That system primarily would provide for electronic monitoring of hazardous products and the shipment of hazardous products in a computerized system. That is vital in this day and age with large amounts of very dangerous goods being shipped so that communities, the officials responsible for the permits and the emergency response teams including fire-fighters, will know at a moment's notice just what they have to deal with and how they should deal with it.

Government Orders
A submission was made by the International Association of Fire Fighters to us last year. My colleague, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, has a private member's bill dealing with this topic and perhaps that could, because it is directly relevant to the government bill before us, be considered in some detail when we get into committee.
Just as a background the fire-fighters entitled their proposal "Right to Know". They point out:
The most dangerous aspect of fire fighting is responding to incidents involving hazardous materials. Fire-fighters in Canada are especially hampered by a lack of information available at such incidents. Accurate, accessible information is crucial to saving lives and property at the scene of these incidents since the appropriate response for one hazardous material could prove catastrophic if another substance is present.
A variety of technologically advanced systems are available which would enable fire-fighters to learn the exact nature of hazardous materials present at any location and provide guidance on responding to the specific incident. Such systems can be designed for both hazardous materials at stationary structures and hazardous materials in transit.
Information provided by such systems not only aids in identifying what hazardous materials are present, but also offer detailed information on appropriate emergency response techniques. Some systems can even provide guidance on evacuating specific communities.
Implementation of a hazardous materials identification system would ensure that the fire-fighters have the information they need to effectively respond to any incident enabling them to protect lives, property, and the environment.
The IAFF supports the creation of a computerized national emergency response information system which would enable firefighters to obtain accurate, instant information at the scene of a hazardous materials incident.
I would just say by way of analogy, and I am not suggesting it is quite as simple, but the same principle applies. If supermarkets can use computers to scan for price and inventory purposes, surely it is not too much to expect that that same kind of technology transmitted to a national level be used in order that fire-fighters and their emergency response crews and communities could do the same for their purposes.
That seems to me a rather minimal objective. The technology is now available. The government has some good major studies now at its disposal. There are further studies along these lines being done in the republic to
the south that we can fit in on an international basis to ensure that the very best technology is available.
We have no doubts that there is going to be some significant cost to such a system. If we consider the cost of just one major disaster, such as happened, luckily without major loss of life in the community of Mississauga a few years ago, or could happen, at any time in any major community in Canada, then the cost of implementing such a system for which technologies are now available fades into insignificance. All we need is one major incident to show us that whatever costs are involved in implementing this kind of system, it would be a bargain for all of us.
In conclusion, we generally support the thrust of the bill. We realize that it goes some way toward improving the current regime. However, we feel that there could be some improvements to ensure that lives can be saved, the environment can be saved, and communities can be saved across Canada. We will be making proposals in committee to that end.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
Iain Francis Angus: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you will find agreement to call it three o'clock so we can proceed to Private Members' Business.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed in today's Order Paper.
April 3, 1992



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Guy H. Arseneault: that Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry act and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
He said: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to lead off the debate on the private member's bill I had the privilege of tabling. As you know, the purpose of this bill is to substitute the name "Department of Forests" for the name "Department of Forestry". It would probably be helpful if I provided a brief outline of the reasons that inspired this legislation.
First of all, as you will no doubt recall, Madam Speaker, in 1989 the government agreed to include a definition of the term "sustainable development" in the terms of reference of the new Department of Forestry. I may point out, in all modesty, that this definition was included as a result of an amendment I tabled in the legislative committee that was examining the legislation.
In fact, the inclusion in the bill of the definition that sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is a major step forward for the environment.
The definition gives us the assurance that the Department of Forestry will play a key role in preserving Canada's valuable forests. It also ensures that when federal governments use the term, they will have a clear and precise definition.
Second, in its report entitled Canada's Forests: The Federal Role, the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries emphasized the importance of sustainable development. In its first recommendation, the committee said that the principles of sustainable development and stewardship must be the basis for public policy concerning the management of Canada's forests.
Private Members' Business
In its second recommendation, the committee urged that the new federal Department of Forestry be charged with initiating and developing a process and a structure for the design, planning and implementation of sustainable development in Canada's forests.
In its third recommendation, the committee says, and I quote: "-in the context of its mission and to fully embrace a comprehensive vision of Canada's forest resources, the new Department of Forestry should be renamed the Federal Department of Forests (Forests Canada)".
During the debate on this recommendation, the committee pointed out that the English designation of the new department was considerably removed from its designation in French. You will agree, Madam Speaker, that Forestry Canada has a connotation that is entirely different from "Forets Canada".
Still according to the committee's report, the term forestry was confusing because it did not mean the same thing to everyone. To many environmentalists, the term applies to the lumber industry, while most departmental officials and representatives of the industry feel it covers all forestry operations and the management of these operations.
For instance, one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Mr. Mathew Wright, vice-president of the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association, made the point that the word "forestry" seems to focus far more on industrial development than the word "forests", which has a far more general meaning and a much broader connotation.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, the change is necessary because the English and French versions are not identical; because the term forestry is confusing; and because the name of the department should reflect its mandate.

I introduced this bill for reasons related to the forestry subcommittee report tabled in the House in November 1990.
I would like to quote recommendation No. 3:
"The committee recommends that in the context of its mission and to fully embrace a comprehensive vision of
April 3, 1992

Private Members' Business
Canada's forest resources the new Department of Forestry should be renamed the Federal Department of Forests or Forest Canada".
It goes on to say:
"It should be noted that this change would only be applicable in the English language as the new department is now called Foret Canada in the French language and Bill C-29 is entitled loi sur le ministere des forets. In fact, the English and French names of the department will be closer in meaning as a result of this recommendation. For the purposes of consistency and so as not to anticipate any future decisions-", and the report goes on to say that it will use the name Forestry Canada for now.
The report was signed by all parties, all members of that committee. The chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, signed it, as did the members for Cochrane-Superior, Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Bonaven-ture-fles-de-la-Madeleine, and Elgin-Norfolk. It was supported at that time by those individuals.
The second report of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries recommended that change in the context of the mission of the Department of Forestry and said that it should be renamed the Department of Forests.
The new Department of Forestry Act contains the words: "sustainable development". Accordingly, the name of the department to which it applies should reflect that principle. According to the second report of the standing committee on forests there exists widespread misunderstanding about the word "forestry" and the values which it reflects. For many people the word denotes only commercial forest exploitation, therefore it was felt that "forests" would be a more appropriate and accurate term.
Finally, the English and French names of the department are not consistent. In French the name ministere des Forets translates as Department of Forests. I am certain that members will agree that the English and French names of a department should convey the same meaning to avoid confusion.
Another reason I am interested in this issue is because of the sustainable development issue, which the new department is beginning to address. I tabled an amendment in committee concerning sustainable development which now forms part of the act. I am very proud of that. I am also very proud that the amendment was again supported by all parties. That shows the co-operation in the House on non-partisan issues especially.
Basically the name change is put in there because of my interest in sustainable development and because of the mission that the department now has. It is also because of the language difference between the French and English versions.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the seconder of the bill today-

I wish to thank the hon. member for Champlain for his support today.

I would also like to note the support of the minister for this bill. I would like to note the support of members from all parties. Without mentioning names and whatever, I would like to say that I have received a lot of encouragement and a lot of support and I suppose a real honourable mention to-

-to the hon. member for Champlain for his co-operation in preparing the debate today.

I believe later we will find that there could be unanimous consent to move this directly to the standing committee and we will probably make that commitment later on. The intention is to get it to committee with the idea that the bill be amended somewhat to reflect some of the discussions that we have had to make sure that the implementation is cost-effective, not to change the name overnight because that has certain cost implications and we are willing to abide by that.
I would again thank all the members and my colleagues here this afternoon for their anticipated support.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise to indicate the support of my caucus for the private member's bill particularly on behalf of the
April 3, 1992

member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley who is actually at a forestry conference in northern B.C. today.
I am not going to-


Don Boudria: He is with us in thought.


Iain Francis Angus: He is with us in thought, yes. I am not going to reiterate the purpose of the bill, I think it is very clear from the mover. I just want to say that we will not only support it but assist in expediting it on to the standing' committee.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak for a few moments on Bill C-306, whose purpose is to change the name of Forestry Canada to Forests Canada. This bill was presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
I am even more pleased to support this bill, because it is fully in keeping with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Forestry published in 1990 that the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur had in his hand. This bill, as you know, proposes to change the English name "Forestry Canada" to "Forests Canada". After discussing it at length with our caucus and the minister, we concluded that the bill was very appropriate and that we should follow it up, of course, with all the reservations that my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur mentioned.
Changing the department's name, minor though the change is, is important. You know, Madam Speaker, that it is being done for some essential reasons. First of all, this change fits in with the department's changing role. In addition, it reflects the new emphasis that the federal government places on forest management as part of sustainable development. Finally, it expresses the growing popularity in Canada of using our forests for many purposes.
On the first point, the role of the department has changed considerably since it was created in 1960.
Originally the department concentrated on supporting the forest industry and the provinces that conducted research and implemented joint forest development programs. However, in the last few years the government has expanded the mandate of the department in order to put more emphasis on dialogue between the various forest interest groups in Canada.
We need only look at some of the recent laudable efforts made by the department and the minister to see
Private Members' Business
how Forestry Canada has succeeded in playing this valuable role.
For example, last year the minister, through the department, organized a successful parliamentary conference on Canada's forestry resources. This event brought competing interests to the same table to discuss the future of forest resources in Canada.
The government also co-operated with the provinces and industry, as well as with environmentalists, nature lovers and others, to develop the national strategy on forests.
Lately, the department has shown that, at a time when the future of our forests is hotly debated, it has done more and more to facilitate dialogue in order to find realistic solutions. The department has approached both complementary and competing groups within the government and industry and among environmental groups. We very much want to bring all those stakeholders together.
It is therefore appropriate that the department be renamed Forests Canada. The new designation will reflect the expanded perspective in which we now view the central role of the federal government in the field of forestry. Also, the name Forests Canada puts the focus of our action more clearly on the forests and therefore more accurately reflects the federal government's priorities and concerns.

The new name also makes sense as it provides the department with an opportunity to more clearly exemplify the federal approach to our forests.
We all recognize the critical importance of Canada's forests. They are one of our greatest natural resources. They are of immense importance to Canada as a nation and they are undoubtedly becoming a resource which is of ongoing interest to the world.
Canada's forests cover 10 per cent of the world's forested area. With growing concerns about the viability of the forest industry and the increasing concern about climate change and threats to bio-diversity, Canada's forest management practices are followed with keen interest, both at home and abroad.

April 3, 1992
Private Members' Business
The government, through the department, is defining its policy approach in this new, more national and indeed, more global context.

That is why the federal government participates more actively in the development and promotion of sustainable development strategies.
Madam Speaker, we know that the government has taken measures in that direction. The department, through its contribution to the green plan, will lead the way by implementing strategies based on the sustainable development of Canadian forests.
Moreover, the department strives to support Canadian participation in the development of international policies and conventions on sustainable development, including the Conference on the Environment and Development that will be held in Rio next June.
Under the name Forests Canada, the department will be able to relate the policies for the sustainable development of our forests to a national objective and, more generally, to act as a national leader in the management of our forests.
I believe the new name would put the department more in line with the new principles guiding forest management, such as multiple use and sustainable development.
Finally, the new name makes sense in that it reflects a growing movement in Canada advocating the use of our forests for a wide range of purposes, as well as the development of those forests in accordance with a whole series of values.
Madam Speaker, I want to support the new name of the department. It is a minor change. Yet, as I have tried to show, minor changes must not be neglected, because they can sometimes indicate and impel larger positive changes.
Madam Speaker, I hope that my intervention will have been useful and that we will all be able to contribute in some way to making our forests a living heritage.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the motion for second reading of Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be amended so as to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry instead of to Legislative Committee D.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: To make sure that everything is in order, I think that perhaps I should take a vote on the motion. Mr. Arseneault, seconded by Mr. Champagne (Champlain), moved:
That Bill C-306, an act to amend the Department of Forestry Act and to make related amendments to other acts, now be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since there are no other items on the order of the day, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 6,1992