1993-05-13

[Stage Direction]
94TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present the 94th report of the Standing Committee on House Management on the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-124.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement, with amendments.
Madam Speaker, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank members who sat on the committee, especially those members of the opposition whose co-operation made it possible for us to finish consideration and adoption of the committee's report several days ahead of schedule.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (child pornography and corrupting morals).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Blais 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 ordered to be printed.


ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC FISHERIES BOARDS ACT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-129, an act to establish the Atlantic Fisheries Board and the Pacific Fisheries Board, to amend the Fisheries Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.


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

May 13, 1993
Routine Proceedings SPENDING CONTROL ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-130, an act to amend the Spending Control Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Crosbie (for the Minister of Finance) 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.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:
Madam Speaker, I move:
That, three members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and one staff person be authorized to travel to Toronto from July 4 to July 7, 1993 to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts committees.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: ,
That four members of the Subcommittee on Development and Human Rights of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade, and one staff person, be authorized to travel to Vienna, Austria, from June 14 to 19, 1993 in order to take part in the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to present the motion?


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has not been given.


PETITIONS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding section 745 of the Criminal Code.
If one is convicted of first degree murder the penalty is life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. Under section 745 of the Criminal Code an inmate can apply for a reduction in the number of years of eligibility. In effect a convicted murderer can be released after serving only 15 years of incarceration. So life does not mean life when one is convicted of first degree or second degree murder.
The petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada eliminate or remove section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows for this reduction in the parole eligibility for first degree murderers and second degree murder.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first one is from a very large number of petitioners in British Columbia who are concerned that the environmental assessment and review process guidelines passed by Order in Council on June 22, 1984 require that a public review be held of any federal activity where there is significant potential adverse effect or public concern about the proposal.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to urgently conduct a public environmental review of the federal policy of allowing nuclear powered and/or nuclear armed vessels in Canadian waters and harbours. The examples are Dixon Entrance, Georgia Strait and the harbours of Nanoose, Esquimalt and Halifax.
May 13, 1993


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the second petition is from a large number of British Columbians from my constituency who are concerned about the link that has been shown to exist between violence and entertainment and desensitization to violence in society.
They are particularly concerned about the culture of violence demonstrated in the serial killer board game, a game which comes with a bag of 25 babies. The point of the game is to murder as many defenceless children and adults as possible.
Since the laws of Canada do not deal with banning the sale of these materials portraying torture, rape and murder, the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game cannot be distributed in Canada.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions on behalf of 236 residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior; more specifically the residents of Homepayne, Longlac and Hearst. The residents of this area are greatly concerned about the possible closure of the northern railway line.
The petitioners have grave concerns about the devastating impact on the lives of the workers, the citizens and the communities along this line in northern Ontario.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to reaffirm that the Canadian National Railways will continue to have rail service in northern Ontario, and specifically retain the northern line.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to present a number of petitions signed by residents in the Sudbury area in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers. We will recall Nina de Villiers was murdered in August 1991 and the culprit had been released on bail.
They ask that the current criminal law require bail hearings in crimes of violence and that these bail hearings be presided over by judges. They also seek much closer scrutiny of the way these accused are
Routine Proceedings
treated in order to protect those innocent people who may become their victims.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, the petitioners in this first instance are concerned with Bill C-93 which advocates the merger of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council.
They believe that no real money will be saved by this merger, that there will be no increase in efficiency, and further that the social sciences efforts in research will be thwarted and possibly considerably reduced.
The petitioners want the merger delayed. I hope the senators in the other House will do so.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have petitioners who are concerned with the degree of violence on television and radio, whether it be depicted in inappropriate language or acts of violence. The petitioners believe that this must be reduced and preferably eliminated.
The petitioners go on to indicate that neither is necessary in order to inform or entertain.

They think that violence on radio or television goes against what they are doing to raise their families their way.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by about 2,000 petitioners concerning the memory of children who have suffered at the hands of others.
These petitioners strongly request capital punishment for child murderers and stiffer penalties for child molesters. They say if we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these heinous crimes then who will?
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against these types of offenders. I support this type of a petition.
I have another series of petitions signed by 2,000 Calgarians in memory of Shannon Dawn Morrissette-Bird.

May 13, 1993
Routine Proceedings
They request as well that this petition be taken as the peoples' vote to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and to stiffen penalties for child molesters. They say that if we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these heinous crimes then who will?
Therefore the petitioners call for Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender.
I have a third series of petitions signed by over 1,000 people from Calgary in memory of Corine Punkie Gustavson and all children who have suffered at the hands of others.
They request that the petition be taken as a vote to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and stiffen penalties for child molesters.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Question No. 505 will be answered today.


Mr. Lee: During the period from April 1, 1988 to February 28, 1993, what were the total expenditures made by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for the Malvern contaminated soil project in Scarborough, Ontario including the expenditures for (a) soil cleaning (b) rentals (c) salaries (d) communications/public relations (e) technical consultation?
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
The Malvern Remedial Project is a jointly funded federal and province of Ontario project, supported by the city of Scarborough, for the clean-up of historic radioactive contamination on McClure Crescent and on a largely undeveloped site in McLevin Avenue, both located in Scarborough. In 1983, a memorandum of understanding, which was signed by the federal and Ontario governments, identified their respective responsibilities regarding the Malvern clean-up project. The Ontario government would provide a site for the interim storage of the contaminated soils and the federal government, through the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, would be responsible for permanent disposal of the contaminated soils.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has no financial responsibilities with respect to the Malvern Remedial Project in Scarborough.
(a) - (e)
Expenditures - Malvern Clean Up Project Activities
1988-89	1989-90	1990-91	1991-92	1992-93$	$	$	$	$Soil cleaning (including surveys and remedial work)	-	38,744	695,033	97,664	299,860Salaries	-	-	20,521	5,094	93,869Communications	-	-	114,478	42,715	161,455Technical Consultation	-	385	42,903	1,333	7,612Total	-	39,129	872,935*	146,806*	562,796*Note:	Rental costs are relatively minor and are included in the figures shown for Soil Cleaning and
Connunications.
Costs paid by the federal and Ontario governments and private property owners.
** Costs paid by the federal and Ontario governments according to a 1992 agreement.

May 13, 1993


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have a problem here and I need some guidance. On February 12,19931 placed a question on the Order Paper that reads as follows: What is the total number of aboriginal women employed in a legal
capacity within (a) the Department of Justice (b) other federal
departments (c) Crown corporations and governmental agencies (d)
human rights commissions?
It has been over three months now since this question was posed. As we well know, that is twice the amount of time that is allowed.
This is not the first time this has happened to me. I suspect it has happened to other colleagues as well. I do not pose these questions simply to raise them and to have people work. I raise these questions because I have constituents who want answers.
I am asking for some sort of guidance here. What does one do? I feel as if this should have been resolved much sooner.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and I can tell him that research has been and is now going on to obtain the information he wants for his question. I can assure him that those responsible for providing answers are doing their jobs and according to the list I have here, I expect that the government will be able to answer his question soon.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West) moved:: That this House regrets that, despite many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and one-half years since the launch of the green plan, the government has failed
Supply
to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal
of public policy.
She said: Madam Speaker, to begin my comments this morning, I am going to quote from the minutes of the environment committee of the House of Commons earlier this week. The quote is from our witness, Mr. Jim MacNeill, who was among other things secretary-general of the Brundtland commission which produced the report Our Common Future that led ultimately to the conference in Rio earlier this year.
One quote from Mr. MacNeill demonstrates clearly the reason for this morning's motion. He said: "The gap between our international rhetoric in Canada and our domestic policies is growing wider, not narrower. If more of the committee's recommendations had been acted upon, I think the reverse would have been the case. Canada would now have brought some of its truly perverse domestic policies in line with our truly advanced environmental rhetoric and Canada would be in a much more effective position to provide strong and credible international leadership".
We have indeed had some superb rhetoric from the government over the last five years in particular that I have been here, and pitifully little action in my view.
I want to quote Mr. MacNeill because I think he had the faith of the committee. This is fundamental to why we have seen so little action, why our climate continues to disintegrate, why we continue to have fundamental inadequate legislative programs to protect our water, our land and the survivability of life on this planet.
Mr. MacNeill said: "I have been struck by the fact that our leaders always find it easy to embrace environmental rhetoric under the guise of principles and then support continuing processes of conferences, studies and negotiations under the guise of action. As a political strategy it is a proven success but as a strategy for a transition to more sustainable forms of development or environmental protection it leaves just about eveiything to be desired".
Canada likes to boast of having excelled at the earth summit in Rio and indeed we did play an important role. I think our leadership on the biodiversity convention and to some extent our leadership on the climate change convention helped ensure that this was the largest attended conference by heads of state ever in the history of the world, particularly when the President of the United States having to some extent without collaboration destroyed the climate change convention that meant anything and would accomplish anything finally did,

May 13, 1993
Supply
nonetheless, attend the conference and that was important.
When we look to the substance again we have done veiy little. Nearly a year after the earth summit Canada has set in place a number of processes. We have our new project de societe where people come together and talk. I do not undermine the importance of that because it is important for many segments of society to become partners, to become co-actors in solving our environmental problems because the sources of the problems are varied and the solutions are varied.
When all we have is process we are betraying our obligation to future generations to leave them a world in which they can live. We have failed totally on some specific environmental issues but much more fundamentally we have failed to integrate environment and development.
We often talk about sustainable development as integrating the environment and the economy. It is much more than that. The Brundtland commission gave us the concept of sustainable development and described it as a three-legged stool. It is economy. It is environment. It is people. It is human development as well as economic development.
We are far from that in this country. We have no approach yet to policies that automatically and routinely assess their impact on the environment, the impact on depletion of resources, the impact on overconsumption of resources and the impact on increasing poverty that leads to continuing the spiralling of environmental degradation. These simply are not ingrained yet in how we make decisions in every single area.
Let me talk about some specific areas in which action is needed and has not taken place and try to demonstrate how failing to act in these vital areas is important to protecting life on the planet. It is betraying our hopes for an economically prosperous future. It is also betraying the hopes of two-thirds of the world's people who live in poverty so that we can prosper in the industrialized world.
On global climate change we know that our atmosphere is deteriorating to the point where life on earth may no longer be possible. We know drastic action is needed now to reduce the damage we are doing. Yet the best the international community was able to come up with and the best Canada as a national policy has been
able to come up with is stabilizing our emissions at 1990 levels.
This is not now, not today, but seven years from now. We know that is not adequate. We know a growing population on the planet will in a very short period of time demand six times the energy that is now consumed if existing patterns of development are followed. We know consumption and emissions from fossil fuel consumption are destroying the atmosphere.
I do not think I need to tell anybody who has been out in the sun so far this year that we have a serious problem over the northern hemisphere of ozone depletion this year. There are actions to be taken to further reduce the damage we are doing to the ozone layer that have not been taken by the Government of Canada.
We signed biodiversity conventions at Rio. Yet we have not in place the policies and the plans to protect habitat. We know very little about the species of the globe, even in our own country. We have taken no action to collect that knowledge or to even begin to understand what it is we need to protect. When immediate issues come up like preserving Clayoquot Sound, one of the largest remaining original old growth forests on the face of the earth, our federal government fails to take any action.
On more important issues such as international poverty I have seen no sign that we have even started to understand the depths of the problem, that we have even started to understand we are impoverishing the poorest of the world by our lifestyle, our trade policies and our aid policies.
We know that 3.5 million children die from lack of something as basic as clean water. We know that we continue as the richest countries in the world not to give but to take $52 billion from the poorest of the world. What does that have to do with the protection of the human environment?
People who are struggling barely to subsist, to survive, destroy forests to grow food. They accept our exports of toxic wastes for jobs. They continue to export their raw resources to us and give up the means of their own development and the means for their own people to move out of poverty.
We have done something so obscene in this country that I really cannot believe it has actually been a policy that has come out of this government without ever being debated in Parliament. We have done something perverse in taking money away from those who are most in need in this world and transferring it to develop trade with the eastern bloc countries. What we have done is

May 13, 1993
ensure that the developing world will continue to grow poorer and poorer so that trade can grow richer and richer. Trade is a very important component of development, of alleviating the terrible disparity between those in this world who have and those who have not, which is the disparity between the ability to live and the certainty of dying.
Trade that is going to create a better world is not trade that exploits, that wants to sell to the poorest but not buy from them, or that wants to remove raw resources from the poorest parts of the world and sell manufactured goods back.
If trade is going to be part of equalizing the opportunities in this world, of a fair sharing of the resources of the world and through that protecting the resources of the world, it has to be two-way trade. It has to be trade which recognizes that the continuing impoverishment of most of the world is not going to lead to long-term prosperity for any of us.
We have the NAFTA now and it is going to be debated in the House very shortly. The principles of the NAFTA have never been debated in the House. Yet as I watched the hearings of the committee, the committee at the instruction of the government is so narrowly focused on small, technical considerations in the bill that we have not even had the opportunity to look at what its impact on sustainable development will be, or what its impact on the environment will be.
Frankly we have not had very optimistic signals from the government on this whole matter. We were told back when NAFTA was being negotiated that the federal government was trying to negotiate in environmental considerations. Yet now that we have a government in the United States that wants to do just that we have a Minister for International Trade who suddenly does not want that at all.
I want to quote from an interview with the Minister for International Trade a couple of weeks ago in which he was asked about the environment. His answers said very clearly that the government wants to be free to violate its own environmental regulations. It wants the sovereignty not to protect the environment and that is why it does not want these agreements. He said: "Well let's just take the environment. We have had rules that have been put in place by the Government of Canada on the Oldman River in Alberta where we did something else, i.e. we did
Supply
not obey those rules. We applied those rules in a way that we thought was appropriate. The courts turned around and said no. They thought it was inappropriate. The point I am making here is that you and I can have a very honest disagreement on something and if it is applied to international trade law it can lead to trade sanctions if you disagree with the way I have done something".
The minister was very clearly saying that the government does not want environmental considerations in a trade agreement because it does not want to have to abide by environmental legislation if it becomes inconvenient.
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask for your guidance here because the clock is not working and therefore I have no way of knowing-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: You have four minutes.


Marlene Catterall: I have four minutes left. It is obvious that four minutes is a short time to do justice to the issues involved with looking at the world in a whole new way and realizing that any economic prosperity we have depends on our natural resources, any social development we have depends on our natural resources and we are in a crisis.
As Mr. MacNeill said to the committee, we await disasters before we do anything about problems. He mentioned the ecologically based famines in Africa, the last oil spill off the Shetlands, water shortages and the collapse of the fisheries, about which we in Canada know well.
Surely we do not have to wait for an imminent disaster to act. Surely we want to work toward harmony between the environment and the economy so we can continue to live and prosper on this planet.
I want to briefly quote from a speech made a few months ago by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about governing in the 1990s. He said: "One principle of governing in the 1990s is understanding that social policy, economic policy and environmental policy are and must be linked. Without ensuring the long-term health of our environment we threaten the basis of our livelihood. Environmental protection must be a central preoccupation of all governments. A Liberal government will put in place a sustainable development policy to improve the quality of our environment. A major nation-

May 13, 1993
Supply
al industrial priority of the Liberal government will be to give Canadians the competitive edge by focusing on the promotion and development of new Canadian environmental technologies. These will form the basis of new industries and new jobs and will create a new market for Canadian goods and services".
It is time to realize that doing what is good for the environment is also doing what is good for our economy and for humanity. An industry that is more efficient, consumes less energy, dirties less water and inputs fewer chemicals is a more efficient and more competitive business, not a less efficient and less competitive business. If we do not recognize that we will find that our products will become both unaffordable and unacceptable in international markets.
If we do not recognize that with the largest coastline in the world we have an opportunity to develop water technology, clean-up technology and disaster prevention technology that we can market to the world, we are doing a disservice to the world and to our future.
Madam Speaker, I see you giving me the sign that my time is up. I have many colleagues who wish to embellish specific aspects of this issue. In closing I would like to say, again citing Mr. MacNeill, that our leaders at Rio left almost nothing unsaid and almost everything undone. We as the opposition party preparing to take power in this country after the next election want to reverse that. We want to focus on action. We want to truly make Canada a leader in sustainable development.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, in relation to the final concluding remarks of the member who just spoke, she raised during her speech the issue of Clayo-quot which is a very controversial issue in British Columbia.
As the member would know, on April 6 an open letter to Canadians was sent by a number of Canadians, including myself and the Conservative chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment, the hon. member for Rosedale, and the former Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Davenport, encouraging the Government of British Columbia to place the
issue of Clayoquot in core. It was signed by Pierre Berton, Farley Mowat and others.
Within a matter of a few hours the hon. member, along with the official spokesperson for the Liberal Party on the environment, the hon. member for LaSalle- Emard, put out a press release saying that all of Clayoquot should be added to Pacific Rim National Park.
Since that time neither she nor the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, have given any interviews or speeches in British Columbia on this proposal, nor have any of the more than a dozen Liberal members of the B.C. legislature raised such a proposal.
The member ended her remarks by saying that the Liberals are now preparing to become the government. What will the position of the Liberal Party be on the issue of Clayoquot should it be elected the government?
Is it the position that was enunciated in the press release, which has not been modified or retracted, that all of Clayoquot should become part of Pacific Rim National Park?


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, the member made a couple of comments and I would like to respond to them.
The member described the process around Clayoquot Sound quite accurately. As he will know, the opposition Liberal critic on the environment and myself were invited to sign the same letter. We concluded after discussions with the leader's office that a process response to the imminent recommencement of logging at Clayoquot Sound, to put it into another process, was not the answer. There needs to be a concrete resolution.
He is perfectly right that the B.C. members have given lots of interviews but I have not heard them raise the issue in this House while we have raised the issue directly with the minister and the premier of British Columbia. Our members in B.C. are free to raise it in the House if they wish. Our position is in writing to the Minister of the Environment and the premier of British Columbia.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Ottawa West for her commitment to the environment and all those very important questions. I am particularly impressed by the link she makes between the deteriorating
May 13, 1993

environment, the deteriorating quality of life and the increase in poverty.
Without trying to be unkind I am trying to summarize some of the points that have been made with regard to the government's position. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will not be offended.
There has been a lot of talk, discussion and rhetoric but little action. Certainly the substance is missing. It seems to me as well-and the member may have addressed this and I did not pick it up-there is uncertainty. As I recall $3 billion was set aside over five years, and that has been reduced. Now it is over. If I am correct then that creates significant uncertainty.
I wonder if my colleague could respond to that and to the fact it is back loaded. By that I mean a lot of that money was supposedly going to be spent during the last five or six years, depending upon the figure, but we have no assurance that is going to happen because we have no assurance the government will be in power.
It is a little bit like the budget. We are going to save this many billions of dollars but we are going to save it over six or seven years or whatever the figure. We do not know that to be true because we do not really believe this government is necessarily going to be there.
A final brief comment. Whether we talk about pollution in the air, soil or water, it seems to me there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of promises made but little action. I would just like to focus for a moment on water pollution.
I do not say it unkindly but as I understand it there has been very little work done by the Minister of the Environment with respect to the cleaning up of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. I wonder if my colleague knows anything about those particular issues. Perhaps she would like to clarify and help me understand.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague raising the issue of the green plan. There is one fundamental provision in the green plan, if it were implemented, that would move us much further along than we are right now. That is the commitment that any policy going to cabinet would be accompanied by an environmental assessment. We were told two years ago it was already being done and that when any policy was
Supply
tabled an environmental report based on that assessment would be tabled at the same time.
We have just had the budget, a major policy document of any government, with no environmental assessment. We have just had the legislation on preventing marine disasters tabled, with no environmental assessment and no information on its environmental impact.
On the question of money, it really is one of do you or do you not put your money where your mouth is, and the cuts have been dramatic. From an initial commitment in 1990 of $3 billion over five years that should have been $600 million a year, it has been reduced to the point that less than one-third of that was committed to year one and less than one-third was committed to year two. We are creeping up to a little over half that amount for year three. As was said, the government has never admitted it has backed off from that commitment whatsoever, but it just keeps putting it off to further and further into the future. Clearly the commitment is minimal if the resources and plans are not there to carry it out. It is all just words.
The Great Lakes is one of the greatest treasures of this world. It is 20 per cent of the entire fresh water supply. We have treated this area like an open sewer. As Mr. MacNeill said to the committee, we are great on rhetoric, on adopting principles and on setting process in place. That is exactly what we have done to the Great Lakes: regional action plans, areas of concern, meetings, conferences but there has been very little progress.
We have identified and now know we have to prevent damage and we cannot afford to keep cleaning it up. Even to clean up the damage we have done would be useless unless we stop what created it in the first place. Even with new legislation controlling effluents from pulp and paper mills, well over half the effluents are still allowed into the Great Lakes and other rivers and lakes across the country. We know the effluent in and of itself is entirely a toxic substance, but we still allow it to be pumped into our waterways legally. In the process we endanger not only a valuable Canadian resource but an invaluable global resource in the Great Lakes.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate today. Hopefully in doing so I can bring some concrete information to the House and to those who might be

May 13, 1993
Supply
watching which does establish there has been a great deal of federal action as a result of the green plan and more is under way.
The government released its report on the second year of the green plan a few short weeks ago on March 29. This report is part of our regular reporting process which helps Canadians to be effective partners in the green plan's implementation and evolution.
The second year report reviews progress on a number of long-term green plan goals and summarizes action taken to fulfil green plan commitments. It previews plans for year three. It also provides information on financial requirements by department and by program. As the year two report shows, real progress has been made on implementing sustainable development in Canada and various indicators show the green plan is making headway, despite what may have been heard. Some 80 federal initiatives and programs are under way. These touch aspects of life affecting virtually all Canadians from the air we breathe and the water we drink to the food we eat.
For example, the federal government has signed sustainable agricultural agreements with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. Other agreements are presently being negotiated.
Land has been set aside for a new national park on Baffin Island. An agreement was signed to establish Aulavik National Park on Banks Island in the Northwest Territories. Feasibility studies are under way for parks in Manitoba and northern Labrador.
The National Parks Act was amended on June 18 providing authority for the formal establishment of Gwaii Haanas National Park, a national marine park reserve in Queen Charlotte Islands providing for the co-operative agreement with the Haida nation. An agreement was reached with the president of the Council of the Haida Nation on the joint operation of the park.
The first ever joint meeting of Canada's parks, wildlife and environment ministers was held in Ottawa in November. At that meeting all participants signed a statement of commitment on protected spaces.
Seven cost shared agreements were concluded to stabilize, restore and interpret threatened historic resources of national significance. The agreements made for the operation of these national historic sites by partner agencies include the Walker Theatre in Winnipeg; the Old Stone Church in Beaverton, Ontario; Victoria Town Hall in Petrolia, Ontario; the CP Station in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Morrin College in Quebec City; the Church of Our Lady of Good Hope in Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories and the McLean Mill in Port Albemi, British Columbia.
On June 25 the location of 10 proposed forest sites to make up Canada's model forest network was announced. Each of these model forests will be managed and funded through a partnership agreement between Forestry Canada and the model forest partnership group.
Phase two of the St. Lawrence action plan to which my hon. friend was just referring has been recently announced. In phase one the plan achieved a 74 per cent reduction in discharges of liquid toxic effluents into the river by 50 of the most serious polluters. That is a very important accomplishment.
Other accomplishments are the conservation of 5,000 hectares of wildlife habitat along the St. Lawrence, the creation of a marine park in the Saguenay River and the implementation of recovery plans for six threatened species, including the beluga.
The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act was granted royal assent. In addition recovery plans were completed for seven endangered migratory bird species. These and other measures will help conserve wild species, especially endangered ones, thus carrying out the provisions of the global convention on biological diversity adopted at Rio.
The Energy Efficiency Act was passed, licensing was expanded of R-2000 energy efficient houses and 10 model homes are being constructed. These initiatives will foster the development and commercialization of new technologies for energy efficiency.
May 13, 1993

In February 1993 the environmental citizenship messages program was launched through Environment Canada's weather offices to inform Canadians about global warming and the actions they as individuals can take to help meet the challenge of global warming. This program is being expanded to include messages on water, waste, species, spaces and various regional issues.
The global warming science program is now determining the rate, extent of regional distribution and socioeconomic impacts of global warming in Canada.
Canada's ozone layer protection program is achieving results. As of June 1992, CFC consumption had decreased by 58 per cent since 1986.
In March 1992 Environment Canada's atmospheric environment service introduced Ozone Watch, a weekly bulletin of up-to-date information on the status of the ozone layer over Canada. In May of the same year Canada became the first country to introduce daily ultraviolet index bulletins, giving information on the maximum levels expected during the day. These are two important steps which help provide Canadians with accurate and timely environmental information.
Thirty-one doctoral fellowships have been awarded, and more awards will follow as part of the effort to expand and better equip the next generation of environmental scientists.
The number of full-time inspectors and investigators has been increased from 49 to 70, to facilitate enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act and to provide consistent and effective enforcement programs across the country.
In May 1992 a federal-provincial-municipal agreement for the Fraser River was signed and a Fraser River Basin Management Board was established to develop and provide direction for the program. This board is made up of members of all three levels of government, public interest groups and First Nations.
Inspections help prevent marine spills. The percentage of foreign vessels undergoing inspection on entry into Canadian waters has been increased from 8 per cent in 1980 to 16 per cent in 1991 and to 38 per cent in 1992. The internationally agreed minimum standard for inspection is 25 per cent which we are well above.
Supply
Spill response equipment is now carried on board all Coast Guard ice-breakers. Training courses in marine response have been updated. Multi-agency marine response exercises were carried out in co-operation with the U.S. coast guard and other stakeholders.
The foregoing are some of the federal initiatives. In addition, people across Canada have been working together to make the green plan a success. For example, in Atlantic Canada 13 communities are developing blueprints for managing their coastal resources. Each project is organized and run at the local level.
In Quebec the Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en toxicologie de l'Universite de Montreal et de l'Uni-versite du Quebec a Montreal is part of a national network examining the effects of toxic chemicals on living organisms.
In Ontario the automotive industry has established a comprehensive pollution prevention project aimed at achieving voluntary reductions in the use, generation and release of toxic substances.
On the prairies working models of sustainable forestry are being developed in each province involving partnerships between governments, industry, aboriginal groups, academia and others.
In British Columbia the Fraser River sustainable development plan has brought together a wide range of partners. The plan seeks to clean up contaminated sites, prevent further pollution, restore wildlife habitat and the salmon populations, and enhance water quality. It provides a starting point for the federal-provincial-municipal agreement on the Fraser River to which I have already referred.
In the north a team of students cleaned up a 50-year legacy of hazardous and unsightly waste on the shores and islands of Great Slave Lake in a project launched by the Metis nation of the Northwest Territories.
The government and people of Canada thus are acting to implement the green plan in our country. Canada has also made a fairly high constructive contribution to the earth summit in Rio last June.
The green plan provided a general framework for Canada's participation in the summit. It also gave guidance in dealing with specific issues such as climate change, fisheries and forestry. As we implement our

May 13, 1993
Supply
green plan, Canada is providing a model to other countries that are developing their own strategies and action plans for harmonizing environmental protection and economic growth. In fact that is why Dr. Mostafa Tolba, former executive director of UNEP, was so excited with the publication of the green plan. He realized it could serve as that model.
On December 4, 1992 Canada became the first industrial nation to ratify both the global conventions on climate change and biodiversity adopted at the earth summit. These landmark agreements call for action on two pressing world-wide environmental programs.
The framework convention on climate change commits developed nations to implementing policies and measures to mitigate climate change by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing greenhouse gas sinks. Canada has adopted a quick-start agenda for the climate change convention. Our first national report outlining the actions being taken in Canada to implement the convention, including an assessment of progress in reducing emissions, will be completed this summer.
The convention on biological diversity formally commits the world community to countering the threat posed to sustainable development by the loss of ecosystems, species diversity and genetic variability in species. The federal government is working with the provinces, First Nations, industry, environmental groups and others to develop a Canadian biodiversity strategy to be put in place by November 1994.
Canada is also furthering the cause of biodiversity in tropical countries which have the greatest wealth of animals and plants. We provided significant financial and organizational support to an international meeting on developing national biodiversity strategies which was held in Costa Rica last November.
Canada strongly supported the accelerated timetable for phasing out ozone depleting substances agreed to in November 1992 at the Copenhagen meeting of the parties of the Montreal protocol.
As we make the shift to sustainable development, the green plan recognizes we must do more than address specific environmental problems. In particular, we must
also change the decision-making process to take account of environmental factors from the outset.
For example, the Environmental Assessment Act has been granted royal assent. This legislation is a key element in the over-all strategy of ensuring that the government itself adheres to high environmental standards.
Another achievement is the code of environmental stewardship which was adopted in 1992 to be applied to all federal government operations. All federal departments, for example, are being required to comply with the code by preparing environmental action plans.
Canadian environmental groups took part in the consultations that accompanied negotiations on the North American free trade agreement and environmental issues were part of the negotiating process itself. The government conducted and released an environmental review of NAFTA, a first for an international trade agreement. In subsequent meetings of the three signatory nations we have agreed to establish a North American commission on the environment, a formal mechanism for trilateral environmental co-operation.
New pulp and paper regulations based on sound science have come into force. They require industry to introduce changes to pulp and paper processing which will prevent the formation of dioxins and furans and strictly control conventional pollutants in pulp mill effluents. The regulations mean that Canada has in place a national standard to ensure the protection of the environment and to ensure that Canadian industry continues to be internationally competitive.
A discussion paper on economic instruments was released as the first step in harnessing market forces for environmental protection.
In its first two years the green plan has achieved notable successes in cleaning up our environment. It is also making sustainable development a guiding principle linking economic development and environmental protection, both at home and abroad.
From Atlantic coastal communities to the Fraser River Valley and the shores of the Arctic, Canadians are working together to meet the green plan's goal of a cleaner, safer and healthier environment.
May 13, 1993

We can all take pride, and I believe we should, in our collective efforts and in our accomplishments. They show that Canadians are putting into practice the motto "Think globally, act locally".
The year 1992 will be remembered as the year of the earth summit, a key event in advancing the agenda of sustainable development. The summit and its decisions provided a wider context for the implementation of the green plan, one that did not exist in 1990 when the plan was launched.
The past two years have shown that the fundamentals of the green plan are as valid today as they were in 1990. However, it was conceived as a living plan, able to respond to changing circumstances and changing science. We need to ensure that the plan continues to respond to newly emerging needs and that we profit from the lessons learned.
Our first priority should be to make better use of the full range of tools available for protecting the environment. We are doing this by shifting the emphasis from the old react and cure approach to an approach of anticipating and preventing environmental problems before they occur. We can also do it by promoting voluntary action as the strategy of first resort, by harnessing market forces to influence the millions of collective and individual decisions, and by streamlining the activities of the different levels of government in Canada.
Our second priority should be to give more attention to the economic side of the sustainable development equation. The business community is a key partner and must be a key partner in the development of a new relationship between the environment and the economy in Canada. The green plan should support the emergence of an environmentally competitive private sector, one able to meet consumer demands in Canada and to gain fresh ground in international markets.
Our third priority should be to address more fully the global aspects of sustainable development. We must ensure that our international conventions work effectively. We can do this, for example, by ensuring that environmental considerations are reflected in international trading rules such as at the GATT and that is part of the present negotiations. We should also assist developing countries in their efforts to make the transition to sustainable development.
Supply
The government remains firmly committed to carrying out the green plan. However the federal government cannot solve all environmental problems alone. The continuing success of the green plan depends above all on co-operation and on partnership, because ultimately it is Canadians everywhere who will deliver on the green plan's potential.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the parliamentary secretary did not directly deal with important points raised by my colleague, the member for Ottawa West, in her opening speech. However I appreciate the fact the parliamentary secretary wanted to put on record his points and themes.
I would like to ask him, if everything is proceeding so well according to schedule as the parliamentary secretary seems to indicate, whether he could answer some questions.
For instance, why has Canada not ratified the Law of the Sea Convention? Why has Canada cut back aid to the poorest nations in Africa? Why do we still not have, as promised in the green plan for 1991, a water bill? Two years have gone by since the date promised in the green paper. Why is almost every recommendation by environmental impact assessment panels from the Oldman River dam in Alberta to the Pearson airport in Ontario ignored by this government? Why is ethyl bromide still permitted in Canada while it has been banned in the United States in order to protect people's health from sun rays? Why does Canada still not have a plan for the stabilization of carbon dioxide? Why are pesticides exempt from the GST?
I will conclude this short list of questions. Why are billions of dollars still allowed by the tax system of this government to subsidize the fossil fuel industry and none is made available for the development of alternative energy, industry and resources?
Would the member care to answer perhaps a couple of these questions in the time available to him?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend-I use that term deliberately-has indeed provided a number of questions that would probably fill up Question Period for a few days if he had the opportunity to ask them.

May 13, 1993
Supply
He has had responsibility in this area at the ministerial level. I know he has had his convictions and concern for the environment for many years. This is not something that has come to him recently. He is not a new-found convert to environmental concerns as sometimes one can accuse politicians of being.
Many of the issues he addresses are not new. They are indeed as long standing as I am sure he would be prepared to say if he were speaking openly. He understands fully that many of them require a considerable period of time to be implemented. He also knows full well that some of them require a great deal of scientific research before there is a widespread consensus on which chemicals, for example, are to be permitted into a country to be utilized and which are not. In many cases these are ongoing reviews.
He speaks, for example, of the exemption of GST for pesticides. He knows that one part of the tax policy of the government was to permit businesses to recover the costs incurred in the business operation. The Canadian farm community indeed does make use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals. The vast majority of Canadian farmers does this with those that have been legally accepted for use in Canada. Because that is part of a required business expense for farming they are either exempted or they are recoverable, whichever the case may be.
He talks in terms of whether the government has always accepted fully the review of environmental assessment panels. He knows it is the purpose of those panels to give advice to the relevant minister, whether it is the Minister of the Environment or some other minister. That is the way the EARP guidelines were struck. These guidelines were created by the administration of which he was a part. I think that is an acceptable philosophy because indeed it is the minister who must be accountable in the end.
I would note however that sometimes there are honest differences in opinion as to the appropriateness of an environmental assessment panel review. I think, for example, of Wood Buffalo National Park where the panel in question advised that all the bison there should be destroyed. That is not a view that was shared by a lot of different groups in Canada. They had very sincere objections to that. I just use that as one example of where there are continued varying opinions on the appropriateness of an assessment.
What is important about the environmental assessment process is that it provides an opportunity where it is implemented for evidence and for opinions to be collected from all sources and for the information to be laid on the table. The principle is that it is the relevant minister who makes the choice. That is part of the political accountability required under environmental assessments and it is one with which I am comfortable.
There will on occasion be differences between what has been recommended and what the minister has subsequently done. The minister will clearly be accountable for his or her decision in that instance. I do not have too much difficulty with that principle.
On the question of water the hon. member knows the federal water policy as enunciated by the government in the past remains in effect. I would share with the hon. member a desire that the legislation to which he refers be introduced as soon as possible. It is not something that falls under the jurisdictional area for which I have some responsibility, but I would hope his wishes in that respect are met as they are my own.
With respect to the question of aid to Africa, this is an area to which his colleague has already referred. It is an area about which I as an individual member of Parliament have had some meetings with officials of CIDA. The challenge facing such agencies is how best to distribute the resources that are theirs to distribute. As the hon. member knows and as most of us know, eastern Europe has been subjected to very destructive forces in recent times. What is happening therefore is simply that the need many of us are aware of in Africa exists elsewhere as well. There is a tremendous demand for the dollars that are available.
It is important the hon. member understands, and I believe he does. He would not want anyone to misunderstand that aid continues to go to the so-called poorest countries in Africa as in the past. The food programs continue to exist as they have in the past. The need for that is self-evident. I visited refugee camps in southern Sudan, northern Kenya and briefly in Somalia as we delivered food. The need is almost beyond the ability of Canadians to comprehend. I want to ensure the hon. member understands that food aid continues to be delivered as it was before.
May 13, 1993

The hon. member is referring to the additional need for bilateral development programs. He is correct. There is a need there and the challenge facing CIDA and other departments is how to balance that need with the needs that exist in many countries in eastern Europe and elsewhere.
I have a great deal of interest in Cambodia at the moment partly for selfish reasons because my daughter is one of the UN volunteers there who is trying to help conduct an election in a few days under great difficulty. People who have an interest in Cambodia say unequivocally that country deserves more aid and that other countries in Asia deserve more aid than we are able to provide.
Our challenge is one of trying to take relatively scarce dollars and distribute them in as equitable as possible a manner. However it would be a mistake for anyone to conclude there is no further aid going to the horn of Africa. Indeed the food aid is going as it was before. The need for more aid, I readily admit, is there. It is also there in Cambodia and in parts of eastern Europe.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate today and to start with the remarks of the member who just spoke.
We look at what is happening in the world and we come to scrutinize Canada's response since the green plan seems to be it at the moment. I reflect again on some remarks of Jim MacNeill that I raised in the House yesterday. It is a study that is under way for a book that a friend of Mr. MacNeill's is writing. The conclusion is that the 24 OECD countries are squandering $1 trillion or more a year on unnecessary subsidies within their own economies, particularly on things like fossil energy.
Many members of the House know, and probably not too many Canadians know, that the flow of resources from the developed world to the developing world has reversed in the last 24 months. As recently as 1991 there was a net flow into the developing countries or the poorest countries in the world of about $5 billion a year, particularly from northern countries. It was a north-south flow. That reversed and by the end of 1992 it was more than $5 billion the other way. We are the richest countries in the world and are extracting, at enormous human and ecological cost, capital from the poorest parts
Supply
of the world for what is already the wealthiest parts of the world.
A good friend of mine by the name of Walt Taylor who lives in Smithers has done an enormous amount of work with notable Canadian scholars and scholars from around the world in looking at how we can reverse all this and get to full employment, not just in Canada but world-wide.
It is interesting that we could provide from just the rate of subsidy squander of the OECD countries, health care, education and full employment across the planet. Yet there does not seem to be that kind of discussion going on in this post-Rio period.
Jim MacNeill did sum it up rather well when he said that the Rio rhetoric by leaders, including our own Prime Minister, covered everything but the national actions that have taken place since Rio last June have implemented almost nothing.
The debate today is a critical one because it is a question that Canadians and citizens of the world have to address. When does rhetoric become lies? I think that is something we need to reflect on.
I will spend a few moments on the green plan. The now leader of the Bloc Quebecois was formerly the Conservative Minister of the Environment. When he first talked about the green plan it was going to be $6 billion over five years. It became $5 billion over five years when the member for Berthier-Montcalm took the post and then it became $3 billion over five years.
When we looked at the research done by the parliamentary library and the Main Estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, we found it went from $3 billion over five years to that amount over six years in March 1991. The green plan was reprofiled in the February 1992 budget deferring $150 million from the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years to future years. In the mini budget of December 1992 it cut another $172 million from the green plan. During the first two years of the green plan 24 per cent less was spent than was originally promised. This year's spending is expected to be 36 per cent less.
The table in the document provided to members of the House shows that the green plan allocation for the combined fiscal years of 1991 to 1993 was cut by 18 per cent by the December 1992 mini budget. We go from $6

May 13, 1993
Supply
billion over five years to something less than $3 billion over more than she years. As we have learned only a tiny fraction of the money has actually been spent. I will come to that in a moment.
If we look at what the total budget of Environment Canada is for this year, it is a 1.5 per cent reduction from last year's estimates. The budget of the much heralded Parks Program was reduced. The Environmental Services Program was reduced.
The government continues to pat itself on the back, saying it is doing something about the 12 per cent resolution that was passed unanimously in the Elouse almost exactly a year ago now. I introduced it in the House and the it was reintroduced by the present Minister of Environment and jointly seconded by the member for LaSalle-Emard and myself. It said we would set aside 12 per cent of Canada by the year 2000. The federal government has not moved to set aside one jot, one tittle or one hectare outside the National Parks Program to achieve the 12 per cent.
I will quote from the research branch of the parliamentary library: "The green plan proposes the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000. Portions of all 39 of Canada's natural regions are to be included. To date 1.8 per cent of Canada's territory, 215,000 square kilometres, is in some way protected as a national park, national historic site or historic canals. The convention on biological diversity ratified by Prime Minister Mulroney on December 4, 1992 calls for the preservation of 12 per cent of each country's land as protected areas".
When we look at what is actually happening in terms of Canada's parks program we find the following. Plans are in progress for the development of a number of national parks. The planned expenditure for 1993-94 is $3.9 million for the whole of Canada. Aulavik is to receive $2.7 million and the Saguenay Marine Park, $924,000. This leaves only $362,400 for all the remaining projects in Canada.
Here is a government which goes to Rio: bluster, bluster, bluster, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. It comes back to Canada and says:"Yes, we are going to actively move on the 12 per cent. We are going to complete the
national parks system by the year 2000". It is telling us it is going to complete, with a budget expenditure of $362,000, all the national parks in Canada.
At some point rhetoric becomes lies. I think that is one of the tragedies of the Commons. One of the tragedies of the parliamentary institution in this country at this moment is that it has become poisonous, determined to send the right signals to voters, the right signals to the electorate, but never to make those hard decisions.
My friend from Davenport quite accurately pointed out that this government subsidizes the fossil fuel sector in this country at a rate of 100 to 1. In Hibernia and Lloydminster, for every $1 spent on energy conservation, energy efficiency, alternative energy sources in this country, $100 goes to the fossil fuel sector. It is already one of the most profitable industrial sectors on the face of the earth and the one most likely to bring the planet to its knees and to bring about the end of our own species, yet we continue to flagrantly fly in the face of the best scientific information available.
Let us take a look at some of the attempts by this government to move on sustainable development. I think, Madam Speaker, you would agree and any fair-minded Canadian would agree that not only has it been a fiscal failure but the will in cabinet has never been there to sustain it in terms of policy, financing or providing the personnel to do it. It was only a couple of months ago that the Minister of the Environment even got to chair the environment committee of cabinet. Until very recently it was chaired by another member of cabinet. The Minister of the Environment was not even able to make decisions in cabinet on major issues affecting the most important issue in the country.
Of the $3 billion that has been promised in terms of the green plan, as of this moment as we speak only $500 million has been spent to date. That was from $6 billion promised by the former Conservative minister who is now the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to $500 million, and that is after three years. The green plan on page 19 says and I quote: "As recommended in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the government now conducts environmental assessments of all proposed program and policy initiatives". That is a false statement and we know it.
May 13, 1993

What about the fixed link? Let us just spend a moment on that. The fixed link had a panel review and the generic concept was turned down. The panel unanimously said no. The Minister of Public Works gathered together friendly ice experts. I use the word experts advisedly since they never ever publish their results and never had their conclusions peer reviewed.
Now we have SCI, Strait Crossing Inc., the same group from Calgary that was involved in the Oldman River dam, with the same panel recommendations that have sat there for more than a year: 23 out of the 24. The number one recommendation was to tear down the Oldman River dam. It was so fiscally, economically and environmentally unsound that the panel recommended it should be torn down. The government said: "No, we will accept the other 23 recommendations and we will implement them". Neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Minister of Transport who were both responsible has ever implemented a single one of the mitigated recommendations. It is an insult to the intelligence of every Albertan and every Canadian no matter where they stand on the issue. It was a giant government fraud and Canadians are sickened by it.
On the fixed link, the Minister of Public Works plans to hand over $1.5 billion of our tax dollars on a bridge concept that has already been turned down by a public panel and public review.
There are entirely fraudulent hearings in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and a 400-page document that most groups cannot get. They still do not have it. There is a press conference going on downstairs as we speak. They are trying to get some kind of sensible response out of the Government of Canada about the fixed link.
What about Bill C-13? We had to rush it through committee, sit late nights and hear witnesses long into the night. The minister appeared and said we had to rush, rush. We had to get the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act through that we could replace the 1984 cabinet guidelines order to bring certainty to the businesses of Canada. There was $15 billion in projects just waiting for the certainty of the new act.
The minister still has not taken the law list or any of the other lists to cabinet. We know he is busy running for the leadership but a piece of legislation so absolutely
Supply
fundamental to Canada's environment and economy is just sitting gathering dust.
With regard to the law list statutes are being pulled out by the dozens as we speak because of special deals being cut with industry. Special deals are being cut to remove statute after statute after statute. Those are the statutes that would automatically trigger an environmental assessment and a panel review. This government in order to curry favour with all its industrial contributors for elections campaigns is out there gutting a critical piece of legislation.
What about Kemano in my province? It was exempted by cabinet order. There are Liberal members on a joint committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments and Regulations, who are sitting on it because they have discovered and agreed it is unconstitutional.
The minister who is running to be the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet colleagues unconstitutionally exempted Alcan. I wonder how large Alcan's contributions will be. I wonder how large SCI's contributions to the Conservatives will be over the next 35 years for the fixed link. At $42 million a year I would not be surprised if the words pay-off and kickback came pretty quickly to the minds of many Canadians about these kinds of projects.


An hon. member:: The past should be our guide.


James Ross Fulton: My friend from Vancouver Island reminds me historically how many times there have been these kinds of pay-offs in my own constituency. There have been many.
Let us take a look at more of the rhetoric for a moment. I want to give Canadians an opportunity to look at the rhetoric. The promises that have been made fiscally obviously were not made ingenuously. They were disingenuous. They were false and I suspect they were known to be false at the time they were made.
We find no other single fiscal category administered by the Conservative Government of Canada that has gone through such gigantic cuts since they were announced. None.
It can find $6 billion for helicopters that Canada does not need. We could remotor and re-equip our Labradors. We could remotor and re-equip our other aircraft in this country. That is what the American army did. It went to Boeing and it remotored. For $200 million we

May 13, 1993
Supply
could do the same thing in Canada but no, we need to have $6 billion worth of those helicopters.
Was there ever an environmental assessment done on that? No. Was there ever one done of the FTA? No. Was there ever a panel review done of NAFTA? No. They say we had a review. There is as much of an accurate review on the back of a box of Sugar Pops as there was of NAFTA.
The government likes to molly-coddle and twiddle and twaddle and force feed the Canadian public a whole lot of horse buns. The public is getting very sick of it. Canadians two to one now rate members of Parliament below convicted sex killers. It is because the benches of this place are loaded with people who not only go out and bluster with rhetoric; they lie to the public. They just lie to the public.
The government says it has a green plan and is going to clean up the Great Lakes. Our own Prime Minister signed an agreement for zero tolerance, for zero discharge into the Great Lakes with President Reagan in 1987 and then did nothing. The first major, measurable clean-up came as a result of Bob Rae's decision to move on the allowable levels of dioxins, furans and organo-chlorides going into Great Lakes water bodies.
Check with the IJC. The $25 million referred to in the green plan has done diddley squat in terms of a really serious clean-up on the Great Lakes. We have seen smoke and mirrors ad nauseam.
My friend from Davenport raised the issue of water export legislation. The Minister for International Trade and others are always rising from the bench and saying they have a policy that says no to major water exports from Canada.
The green plan in 1991 promised a safe water drinking act and a piece of legislation to ban major water exports from Canada. Was it rhetoric or was it a lie? I will let the Canadian public decide because neither has ever had first reading in this House. It is just smoke and mirrors.
Let us not forget what Simon Reisman and other negotiators had to say during the FTA. They said that water is what it is all about. I regret to say-


Mr. Mills:: That is it.


James Ross Fulton: I hear my friend from Broadview saying "that is it" and he is right. However I regret to say his own party during this Parliament voted on the floor of this House in favour of both the FTA, the member for Vancouver Quadra's fight of his life, and NAFTA.


Some hon. members:: Thirty-eight missing.


James Ross Fulton: The Liberals voted for them both.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That's not true.


James Ross Fulton: They do not even want to believe it themselves on the floor of the House. They should talk to their leader. I understand they were run in here to vote for the FTA and to vote for NAFTA to keep their corporate donations rolling in.
The Liberals brought this resolution to the floor today, but let us take a look at the simplistic press releases that continue to pour from their benches on highly complex issues. I must say I do not refer in this case to my friend from Davenport who has always been very thoughtful about his approach.
I raise one issue with the member for Ottawa West who blithely today, without even flinching, rose in this House and said it was the official policy of the Liberal Party of Canada if it was elected to add all of Clayoquot Sound to Pacific Rim National Park. She said it was the position of the member for LaSalle-Emard, herself, and the Liberal Party that if it became the government it would implement it.


M. Mills:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have always had an enormous amount of respect for the member for Skeena, but he referred to people lying and putting forth facts in an untruthful way on the floor of the House. He suggested with his rhetoric that we in the Liberal Party supported the free trade agreement and NAFTA. He knows that is categorically false. If he wants to call somebody a liar, and by his words he is implicating all members of the Liberal Party, I think in fairness he should substantiate that, and I know he cannot substantiate that because it is not a true statement.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member actually called anyone a liar. I would have certainly asked him to withdraw. There seems to be a dispute here as to facts and this is not really a point of order.

******I
May 13, 1993


James Ross Fulton: I agree with you, Madam Speaker. It is not a point of order. I would refer the member from Broadview to the record of the House on a motion put by my caucus in this House on the NAFTA. The Liberals voted for the NAFTA. Perhaps he was one of the 38 Liberals who were absent, but I would urge the member to check the record. The Liberals on the floor of this House during this Parliament voted in favour of the NAFTA. That was a recorded vote and they can blink but they cannot get away from the fact.
Let me deal a little bit more with where the Liberals are heading in terms of the approach they are taking on the environment. There is silence on the Great Whale. There is a Liberal government in Quebec but there is silence on the environmental assessment process in Quebec, on the rights of the aboriginal people in Quebec and in terms of the issue of methane in the atmosphere.
In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick there is silence on the fixed link and on the environmental assessment there. There is silence on the collapse of the Atlantic fishery in terms of the now known decisions made by Romeo LeBlanc and Pierre De Bane which led us to the debacle we now face.
As we go further west the noise of the crows becomes ever more cacophonous. There is always lots to say about Rafferty-Alameda and Oldman River dam and all the issues in British Columbia where there are no Liberals. They have simplistic solutions. However, the key spokesperson, the Liberal critic, does not go to British Columbia to speak about making Clayoquot part of the Pacific Rim park and does not make himself available to any of the radio shows, to any of the newspapers, or any of the television stations. At every meeting I go to, environmental groups are waving the piece of paper saying that here is the Liberal position, but the Liberals never make themselves available on that, on Kemano, on Oldman, on Rafferty-Alameda and on others.
I look forward to questions on these issues.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is important to bring to the attention of the member for Skeena that for the Liberals, who do not have the advantage of representation by active members on the west coast, it is not as easy as it is for him to be available to comment on Clayoquot Sound, Kemano or other issues that are very crucial to and representative of
Supply
British Columbia. I am sure that if we had active members on the west coast, as he is, the letters that have been written by our environment critic and co-critic to Premier Harcourt would have also been followed up by way of personal visits and interventions.
I would like to conclude by saying to the member for Skeena that after the next election we will have active representation on the west coast and will be able to follow up commitments we have made, sometimes from great distance, from the east, but with very clear determination and with very sound commitment.
I would urge the hon. member to tone down his criticism and take into account the geography of the country, the distances and the fact that members in our party who are elected in the east do not have the opportunity to make themselves available as frequently as he has.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's point, although I think most Canadians are aware that members of this place now have access to roughly one flight a week anywhere in Canada. I take pride in the fact that on issues affecting Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta, I go there. If I am going to take a position I go and talk to the groups that are involved. I take the same position there that I do here.
It is good that the Liberals brought this motion forward today. I listened to them slapping the government around, and it duly deserves it. However at the same time I get slapped around in my province by those who refuse to even take telephone interviews. I do not buy into the excuse that they cannot get out to B.C. in a whole month to have an interview after putting in a press release saying that on Clayoquot, one of the most controversial and complex ecological issues in the province, they have a solution, which is that they will just make it part of the national park. They never talked to Mac Bio, Interior or the MP for the area and never bothered to gather any data. They just threw out a press release, like a ticking time-bomb. To some British Columbians it sounds like a good idea, but that is not the answer. It is fatuous and fraudulent that a member of Parliament who holds himself up to be the critic of a party will not give interviews to The Sun, The Province, B.C. TV, or CBC. He will not give a speech in Vancouver or, for that matter, go to Vancouver Island and give one.

May 13, 1993
Supply
Let us talk about reality with regard to Newfoundland and the progress made on endangered spaces goals by 1992. There is a Liberal government there and this is not something cooked up by NDP research. This is the endangered spaces progress report by the World Wildlife Fund. Do we know how much Premier Wells has set aside? Not one hectare.
In British Columbia we will have set aside 12 per cent in less than four years. What about New Brunswick where every seat is held by a Liberal? Zero. It did not even find a piece of turf the size of a golf divot to set aside. The Liberals run around talking about saving the environment and doing this and that. I am proud of what Mike Harcourt has done. He is setting aside land every week. More land has been set aside in my friend's riding on Vancouver Island under an NDP government in B.C. than in all the Liberal provinces combined.
How can we explain that Liberal policies are the noisiest? In B.C. they have one seat occupied by the member who lives in Toronto, a former Prime Minister. In Alberta there are no seats but there is a lot of Liberal noise on environmental issues. In Saskatchewan there are no Liberal members but lots of noise. In Manitoba there is quite a bit of noise but it is toned down because there is a Liberal member there. In Ontario there is a lot of cacophony but when it comes to things like what steps are really being taken to clean up the Great Lakes, is any credit ever given to the NDP government of Ontario by Liberals? No, not a chance.
What about in Quebec? There are Liberal members of Parliament from Quebec, a Liberal government in Quebec, and an absolute abject refusal to look at the $50 billion in damns and flooding proposed in terms of James Bay. Nothing is ever raised on the floor of this House by Liberals about the rights of the James Bay Cree. What about Dr. Rod's work on methane release? The methane impact on the atmosphere from the Great Whale project could be greater than the carbon dioxide that would be released by producing the same amount of electricity by coal fire generation.
Why is Premier Bourassa not doing something about this? I continue to get nasty letters from Lise Bacon, Minister Paradis and others about my statement that
there is blood on the electricity from some of these projects, and there is. Only a fool would hide from the fact of what happened to the caribou on the Kannaaups-cow. Only a fool would not understand what happened in terms of the cultural genocide and the mercury poisoning of the Cree in Quebec.
I find one of the most abhorrent things about this place is that there is a lot of rhetoric and finger-pointing. I am doing it right now but I point the finger at myself as well. I do not mind taking on my own party on environmental issues in every part of this country. I take pride in doing that but I abhor those parties that go around saying they are doing something and we are not.
Let no Liberal ever rise in this place again until New Brunswick, Newfoundland and other places where there are Liberal governments take action on endangered spaces. Quebec has the lowest percentage of national parks in Canada with no serious ones planned on the drawing-board. This is a nation and some of the areas of Quebec are the most beautiful on the continent, including Great Whale. It should be a national park. As much power could be saved by rewiring and remotoring just the city of Montreal as would be created by the entire Great Whale project.
If Quebec Hydro wants to export clean power let it be power that is clean through the technologies we have. There are 300,000 unemployed in the city of Montreal. Tens of thousands of them could be put to work tomorrow with existing technologies as simple as a wire the thickness of my thumb. By simply rewiring some areas of Montreal with state of the art wiring, as much energy would be saved as would be created by the Great Whale project.
We are talking about global warming and problems of the ozone. The solutions are here but it takes some boldness. We have to take on the big corporations. We cannot wince and say: "Oh, they gave us $10,000 during the election". We have to take them on and fight hard. Sure we get nasty phone calls and letters and we have to face groups of people who are going to scream at us. I despair from time to time that the Liberals continue to go out and bluster and attack New Democrats and Tories when they do not have their own house anywhere near in
May 13, 1993

order. In fact they do nothing with such issues as endangered spaces. It is appalling.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Skeena had such a lengthy outburst and reply. It did not allow the member from Broadview to make an inquiry which would not have been of political mischief in nature. It would have brought to his attention some of the recent misdeeds on the part of the Ontario government in the field of the environment.
In doing so perhaps we would have repaid in kind, but we would not have added very much to the debate because there is a limit to how much can be achieved in this Chamber by pointing at various provincial governments and their shortcomings in any specific policy field. When we engage in that we can have a great time. We can certainly score a lot of political points, but I do not know whether we would advance the discussion and merits of the measure we are debating here today.
Let me remind our listeners that we are debating today a motion by the Official Opposition, and more precisely by the member for Ottawa West, that expresses:
That this House regrets that, despite many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and one-half years since the launching of the green plan, the government has failed to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal of public policy.
This is the motion for debate and we are by virtue of this motion addressing the federal jurisdiction.
Because the concept is very well expressed, this motion also brings out the fact that this government has a big problem. It has a problem optically as well as intellectually. It can be boiled down into very simple terms. It sees the deficit in isolation and has an economic policy that is one dimensional with this enormous concern with inflation and deficit. This causes enormous problems in other fields, particularly unemployment and economic growth. It also has this habit and fixation of seeing business as the only partner in society, as if labour does not exist. The public interest includes business and labour and all those Canadians who do not see themselves as business or labour. Only the government can put forward a policy in the interest of the whole population.
Supply
In this kind of optical handicap with the deficit in isolation and business as the only partner it also tends to see despite the declaration that the environment is in isolation of the economy. That is the root of the problems we are attempting to discuss today.
We then have to analyse the reasons for this inability to look at society as a whole, the total economy and the total environment, which is more than just hugging trees or protecting bears. The environment is really all about ensuring that the base of our economy is sound and healthy. It is the foundation on which economies are built.
If the government fails to see the foundation and only sees the economy in isolation, sooner or later it is going to be in trouble because it overlooks its resources such as water, the atmosphere, the fisheries and so on. Sooner or later it is going to pay an enormous price which is sometimes straddled and stretched over several generations.
This government is extremely vulnerable on the question of water policy. We had a brief exchange with the parliamentary secretary on that. In his fine intellectually honest way which I appreciate very much he recognized that a very important promise in the green paper contained on page 35 had not been attained. On page 35 we read:
In 1991 the federal government will introduce a drinking water
safety act.
On another page in the same plan a discussion paper for a Canada oceans act was also promised before the end of 1991. Neither of these two very important promises have been delivered.
Water is much more important than gold, jewels and diamonds. Water is really the essence of life. In Canada we are beginning to realize we have to pay attention to water. We need a policy that will protect the requirements of future generations of Canadians.
We need a policy that will protect Canada from the demands of other jurisdictions and will ensure that quality is maintained and possibly improved. As a result of poor waste management some of our ground waters and water resources have been and continue to be

May 13, 1993
Supply
damaged by people using the Great Lakes. The same can be said about the St. Lawrence River.
Water policy is a very important component of the green plan. It was recognized in it and we welcomed it at that time. The green plan can also be attacked for what it has not delivered, but it is a good beginning. However it is understandable that three years after its inception people would look at the commitments made in the plan and begin to question those items that are not being delivered. This is what we are doing today.
We are also taking it a step further. We are saying that this government conceptually is not capable of bringing together economics and environmental goals. It is therefore failing in its policy to put into effect the basic recognition made in the green plan and the objectives contained in it.
Let me speak briefly about global warming. In global warming or climate change which it is commonly called we finally decided three years ago that Canada should stabilize the emission of certain gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect.
In that commitment we said that by the year 2000 we would limit carbon dioxide to the same extent and at the same rate as that of 1990. That was three years ago, yet we do not have a plan for how this will be done. Will it be done by industry or by various levels of government?
In three years it is difficult to understand why such a plan cannot be delivered, particularly when we were shocked last month when President Clinton suddenly announced in Washington that the Americans would have a plan ready in five months. This was a contrast and came as a real shock to all who follow this issue with close interest.
The shortcomings in implementation of the broad principles and specific promises do not stop there. I mentioned earlier the promise in the green plan for a drinking water safety act and the promise to have a discussion paper on a Canada oceans act.
Those of us who come from Ontario notice that the Canada-Ontario agreement touching on water has not been renewed since 1991. We are becoming nervous about this fact because we know the Canada-Ontario
agreement has important impacts on and ramifications for water. We cannot understand why the federal government cannot find common ground with the province of Ontario to arrive at the renewal of that agreement.
If we look at forestry we find on one hand a good development, namely the notion of a model forestry approach. This augurs well for the future. At the same time we learned about the investment of $6 million of taxpayers' money on improving the image of Canadian forestry in Europe to convey to the Europeans that we do things properly in the forest. That is a matter that opens itself to enormous questions.
What is surprising and disturbing in this whole debate is that little attention has been given in recent times to a pattern of decisions by the government that has reversed virtually every recommendation made by environmental impact assessment panels.
As we know, we do establish panels when we have difficult and thorny environmental economic questions. We had that with the Rafferty-Alameda diversion proposal, the Oldman River dam, the Pearson runways, the Kemano dam project and the Prince Edward Island bridge link. We have done it with every thorny and difficult question. In every instance we have witnessed the government reversal of the recommendation made by the panel.
It is quite true, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, that a political decision has to be made. The political minister therefore is free in our system to put aside or reverse any recommendation by any panel. We do recognize that fact of life.
When it becomes a pattern and a consistent repetition of putting aside and reversing the recommendations by an environmental assessment panel, we begin to wonder whether the government is really serious when it says such great things in fora abroad or in Canada about the environment and sustainable development. In other words, the credibility of the government is seriously at stake.
Let me move beyond the environmental impact assessment because it is a bit of an unknown field and an evolving one. However it is a very important field, I must stress, and will be of increasing importance in the years
May 13, 1993

to come. It is just now beginning to appear on the Canadian political scene.
I will express another preoccupation and it is the following one. The government says in the green plan that it is really concerned with providing a framework of sustainable development for Canadians. In essence this means ensuring that we have environmentally sound economic growth. That is one way of putting it. Environmentally sound economic growth is in essence sustainable development. In other words, it will be sound in a manner that will ensure for the younger generation and their descendants the same access to opportunities and the quality of life we have enjoyed so far.
It is not closing options through misbehaviour and neglect but actually maintaining the options and possibly opening new options by treating our surrounding natural resources in a manner that will make them available in terms of our spiritual enjoyment, economic exploitation and the like to future generations of our species.
Canada has proclaimed its adherence and has embraced sustainable development since 1987 when the Brundtland report Our Common Future was made public. Since then it has failed to examine the way it spends money, sets up its taxation system, provides incentives and sets up programs under the auspices of the government and in the name of society at large. When we look at the yearly budgets since 1987 we find that year after year the Government of Canada spends billions and billions of dollars in providing subsidies, accelerated write-offs, incentives and programs which run counter to sustainable development.
Actually billions and billions of monetary resources that we have throughout the fiscal system are put behind unsustainable activities. These unsustainable activities ought to be instead the top priority of the Government of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind. In particular we find them more easily identifiable when we analyse the budget and the fiscal measures made available to the energy sector. As we all know it is the production of energy, transportation, trade and other human activities, but particularly the production of energy that causes pollution and endangers and accelerates the process of climate warming.
Supply
Therefore there is the necessity of looking at how we provide energy and energy incentives. In the fiscal picture for 1991 for which the latest figures are available we do find the value of tax deductions by the oil and gas industry amounted to $4.9 billion. This is a substantial sum. If one adds to that the amounts available to energy megaprojects that are currently calculated between $4 billion and $5 billion, one arrives at a sum in the area of $10 billion for just these two items.
Inevitably one has to ask whether the minister of energy realizes what the Minister of the Environment is saying. The government goes to the United Nations and to Rio for the Conference on the Environment and Development and puts on a very good performance abroad on Canada's commitment to sustainable development. Does it, however, realize that at home its own policies are counterproductive? They negate and run counter to the statements we make abroad.
What is happening is evidently either the lack of realizing there is an enormous gap which is becoming larger and larger, or perhaps intellectually there is the incapacity to understand what is going on, what is being done or what sustainable development means. There are times when I wonder whether this government understands what it is preaching because one cannot find evidence in its actions that would lead one to conclude it is operating and acting in support of its sustainable development policy.
If time would permit, I could show tax expenditures, tax deductions, tax subsidies and so on in the fields of mining, transport, agriculture and forestry. Unfortunately we have been hit by an unsustainable crisis in the field of fisheries. It is the first one and we hope it is also the last one and that they will not face other unsustainable examples of economic crises in future.
In Canada we talk about sustainable development in theory but we also see the consequences of unsustainable development in the fisheries. It is touching home and it is touching perhaps several thousand communities and hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on cod and the like.

May 13, 1993
Supply
For Heaven's sake, if anything, this resolution for debate today ought to raise the consciousness of politicians, and particularly the government of the day. We cannot go on preaching sustainable development and then acting through our policies, particularly our taxation policies, in the opposite manner. We are on a course which is going to create serious troubles for present and generations. I can see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling me. I thank you for your attention.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of the member for Davenport.
I was wondering if he could enlighten members of the House as to why he thinks the Liberal governments in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec are not designating lands pursuant to what was a unanimous undertaking of this House last June. There was subsequently a unanimous agreement among ministers of the environment from the two territories and all the provinces to move forward and set aside 12 per cent of Canada by the year 2000. Why have those three jurisdictions, and particularly Newfoundland and New Brunswick, not made designations?
Has the member had correspondence with those governments? Does he know why they do not seem to be proceeding on provincial parks, national parks or designated lands for the 12 per cent?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful to the member for Skeena for having raised this question in the House. I have not done so because the thought has not even crossed my mind.
I would be glad to use the very limited influence I have in the provincial capitals of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland to put this point forward, not only on his behalf but on behalf of all those who will benefit from this fine initiative. I know the member for Skeena has been extremely articulate, active and effective on the question of the 12 per cent.
I urge him to use non-political channels as well. Sometimes they can be more effective in the pursuit of this very desirable cause. He has my word that I will definitely prepare those three letters.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, considering the few minutes I have for comments and a question to the hon. member for Davenport, I will concentrate on the reforestation issue.
First of all, it is not my intent to rise in the House and roundly criticize the government for its failure to implement the green plan because it has managed to accomplish some parts of the plan, including the program for planting trees in our communities, a very popular one; its continued financial support for research institutions in Canada; and its latest initiative, the model forest which will undoubtedly have an impact on the environment in the years to come.
I must say I was very disappointed when the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget that the Conservative government, the Conservative Party-because it will have to justify its actions in the next election-will not renew forestry development agreements as they expire.
In my opinion and in the opinion of the Liberal Party, this should be a priority in this country. I think today it is very important to sustain the impetus created in 1982 when these agreements were introduced, with the result that a total of 1.5 billion seedlings have been planted in this country. I would like to add that during all those years when the forestry industry was cutting logs there was a reforestation shortfall of 13 per cent. In other words, forests were cut down but not adequately reforested. I would like to point out that this shortfall is increasing at a rate of 1 per cent annually.
I am back to my first point that cancelling forestry agreements will undermine sustainable development in this country. And what about the jobs lost in the process? In Northern Ontario, as in the rest of Canada, thousands of jobs are at stake. I believe that to secure the future of this industry and the permanent and seasonal jobs it provides we have a moral duty to continue to support the efforts of the provinces and the forestry industry in this respect.
Today, it seems the Conservative government is about to abandon the provincial resource ministries, the forestry industry and community groups which in recent years helped to formulate forest management policy in this country.
May 13, 1993

Supply
We cannot abandon the provincial governments and the forestry industry. How can the federal government justify the withdrawal of its financial support from implementation of these forestry policies?
Madam Speaker, you must have noticed, as I did, that Conservative members as well have put questions to their minister and their government reflecting their concern about the future of these forestry agreements. So why does the government keep hiding behind section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to justify these cutbacks? People should realize what exactly is going on here. Most of the forestry agreements will not be up for renewal until two years from now. So why does the federal government refuse to help the industry, since the chances are that this Tory government won't even exist after the next election? When we in the Liberal Party are back in power one of our priorities will be to protect Canada's forestry industry because 900,000 jobs Are at stake.
My question to the hon. member for Davenport concerns the importance of our forests and how, as a component of sustainable development, our forests will contribute to the well-being of Canadians.


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior for raising this very important point. I agree that renewing forestry development agreements is extremely important for workers in industries that depend on the forestry sector.
I would like to point out that even when the 1983-84 recession hit its lowest point the Liberal government at the time showed no hesitation in renewing forestry agreements. I fully support the hon. member's position, in other words, giving the industry assurances that the agreements will be renewed if we are elected in the next election.


An hon. member:: When we are elected!


Charles L. Caccia: When we are elected. I also agree we should support the present government's forest initiative. It is an excellent concept.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I too want to say a few words in connection with this opposition motion. As all opposition motions traditionally do, it condemns the government for the differences between what it says in connection with the green plan and what it has been doing since the green plan went into effect some two and a half years ago.
I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to speak in connection with this motion and the green plan because apart from the economy the environment is perhaps the number one priority of Canadians in my own constituency and right across this land.
I had the privilege of being in cabinet at the time the green plan was developed. I was certainly privy to many of the discussions and debates in connection to working out the concept of the green plan and putting it in place.
The green plan as you know, Madam Speaker, and as I hope Canadians are aware is a very major initiative. It is perhaps not unique but it is one of the very few initiatives of this sort that has been undertaken by any country anywhere in the world. People such as former Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway who headed the Brundtland commission have commented on the fact that Canada has taken a very major lead in the world in environmental matters. She did not say that just because we have been putting forth words. She said that because we have been putting deeds behind those words.
The aim of the green plan when it was put into effect was to make our country the world's most environmentally friendly nation by the year 2000. The program was to be phased over a period of years. It was to set goals, targets and schedules for policies and programs that deal with our land, water and air; our problems with waste and energy efficiency; our agriculture, forests, fisheries, parks and wildlife; the vast northern reaches of this country; environmental emergencies; local issues such as tree planting; waste reduction, global warming and the Great Lakes pollution.
The plan has a tremendous scope and was to take effect over a period of years but not just a finite and terminable period of years. It was not and is not intended to come to an end after five or six years. It has been

May 13, 1993
Supply
referred to as a rolling plan which continues to set further goals and time schedules and continues to put more and more resources behind achieving the goals of sustainable development.
The whole process and the problem we have with our environment did not just develop overnight. It did not happen as a result of one enormous act or one enormous impact from one source. It has come about as a result of a great many micro actions, not only on the part of government but on the part of all Canadians.
If we are going to finally get a handle on this and address it, the solution is not going to come by snapping our fingers. It is not going to come by making some pronouncement or by taking one individual action on the part of government. It is an effort that has to be made individually and in an enormous number of ways by government, business and each and every Canadian personally in their homes and in their own personal lives.
Today the Minister of the Environment, who I have an enormous amount of personal respect for, has asked me to deal with one aspect of the green plan and the actions we have put behind our words in the green plan. That aspect relates to energy and sustainable development with respect to energy.
As the members of this House and Canadians I trust are aware there is a fundamental conflict between the whole concept of dealing with sustainable development, dealing with the environment problems and the energy sector. Environmental concerns traditionally have not been the major focus of the energy sector.
When we start to focus on energy and sustainable development, it takes a considerable amount of readjustment and refocusing. However it is vitally important. I believe that everyone connected with the energy sector recognizes that fact now. It is vitally important, particularly in the area of global warming, what is happening to our country and to our earth in that regard.
The subject of energy and sustainable development is very complex. It involves social, economic, technological and environmental factors. In spite of the complexity of
the problem sustainable development, since the green plan has been put into effect, has become a fundamental part of Canada's energy policy.
The integration of environmental and economic goals of all Canadians is a major priority of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that is known to us in Ottawa as EMR. That has happened because of the green plan.
My own personal opinion is that without the green plan it is very unlikely that there would have been this change of focus and the integration of environmental and economic goals as a major priority of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. EMR was, as I am well aware having been in cabinet at that time, very much involved in the preparation of the green plan which is as indicated based on the principles of sustainable development.
As a result a number of specific initiatives relating to energy are outlined in the green plan. The details of these have been announced from time to time by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Most of these initiatives are designed to promote energy efficiency and conservation. The government believes that energy efficiency is the best way to begin to address many of the environmental problems associated with energy production, its use and particularly with global warming.
The green plan contains a commitment to help reduce barriers to alternative and renewable energy sources in Canada. These measures increase the options available to maximize efficiency and minimize the environmental impacts of energy production and use.
The green plan was introduced some two and a half years ago. By the first anniversary of the green plan a year and a half ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources introduced in this House as part of the energy efficiency and alternative energy program of the Government of Canada a new Energy Efficiency Act.
This act represents one step in the implementation of a broadly based program involving all types of fuels and energy using sectors of the Canadian economy. It uses targeted information programs, persuasion, regulation and research development.


May 13, 1993

More specifically that act provides for minimum energy efficiency standards to phase out inefficient energy using equipment and household appliances. It also has an Energuide labelling program to provide consumers with better information about energy use by major household appliances. Included as well is a national energy use data base on energy consumption and the use of alternative energy in our country.
You will recall that the Energy Efficiency Act was passed by both this House and by the Senate and received royal assent in June 1992. It came into force at the beginning of this year.
In addition to that act, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also announced before the first anniversary of the green plan a series of initiatives that were aimed at improving energy efficiency in buildings in Canada. That is something that is of great concern to me and was of great concern to me in my former role as the minister of housing.
These particular initiatives which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources introduced include a building energy code to develop national energy codes and specific minimum acceptable performance levels, a code which the government intends to promote and do its best to see incorporated into provincial and municipal building codes.
That is not always an easy matter. We, as the Government of Canada, have certain constitutional jurisdictional powers and we can develop a code of this sort, but it is not as easy as just snapping our fingers or passing a law or trying to impose these codes on other jurisdictions. The provinces have a separate jurisdiction under the Constitution and the municipalities are creatures of the provinces so they are governed by that provincial jurisdiction as well. While we can set these codes it is not as easy as it might seem to actually put them in place. We have to use efforts of persuasion and leadership to get other levels of government to implement these codes in order to make them work.
Therefore it is one thing for opposition members to condemn the government for not having these put in place yet but it is another thing from a practical sense to accomplish that goal.
Supply
In addition, in this area of energy efficiency in buildings, there is a building information transfer program to promote the adoption of energy efficiency building technologies by increasing public and industry awareness of various energy efficiency opportunities and available products.
As well there is the R-2000 program. This program is an effort to promote energy efficient houses in co-operation with provincial governments and with electrical utilities. Again that is something I am most familiar with because of my former role as minister of housing. It was my role as well to promote this concept of the R-2000 program in housing across the country. I have to say that although it has not been universally adopted or accepted great strides have been made in this area. They are strides that were made against the problem of the contradictory goals in housing.
Obviously we want to promote energy efficiency but at the same time there is a cost involved that has to be taken into account. It is an upfront cost. There are energy savings over the years, but people who are trying to build affordable housing for others often argue that those upfront costs are deterrents to people buying housing to start off their lives. Whereas if they were looking at the longer term and they had the wherewithal to do it, they could afford to buy it. There would be savings down the road but those savings are not up front. It is easier said than done, particularly when in a leadership role we are trying to convince the provinces and the private sector to introduce this kind of a program.
It has been a very effective program in many parts of Canada. There are spin-offs from it with other kinds of energy efficient housing. There is something called the smart house which you may or may not be familiar with, Madam Speaker, but that is another effort at producing energy efficiency in housing. More and more we are going to see this sort of thing in new housing, but again the whole issue of the initial affordability is one of the major deterrents that has to be dealt with in order to get this kind of program into effect.
In addition, by the first anniversary of the green plan the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had also introduced the buildings research and development and technology transfer program, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, CANMET. That was

May 13, 1993
Supply
put in place to develop and commercialise energy efficient and passive solar technologies in residential and commercial sectors.
Again there are problems of upfront costs with all of these things which means that they are not universally adopted or embraced by the private sector and by Canadians as a whole. CANMET itself has been a world leader in developing environmentally responsible approaches to producing and to using energy resources.
Then, as well, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced the federal buildings initiative. That is a program designed to help improve energy efficiency in all the federal department buildings and facilities. As we know the federal buildings initiative falls under the environmental stewardship program in which the federal government is trying to lead by example in demonstrating its firm commitment to the principle of sustainable development.
The greening of Parliament Hill program was announced just over a year ago. It is another part of this and it is aimed at introducing more energy efficient lighting on Parliament Hill. It is, as you and I, Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament and everyone who works on Parliament Hill know, a good example of the commitment of the government to putting its own house in order. Quite clearly, it is important for the government to show leadership. If it is going to be advocating sustainable development by all Canadians, the government itself is going to have to demonstrate that it is prepared to do it itself. The greening of the Hill program is one way in which the government is putting that forward.
Obviously the Speaker has had a major role in the whole program. I want to compliment you, Madam Speaker, for the role you have played in putting that into effect as well. That is a true leadership role.
Finally, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced a series of initiatives designed to improve the performance and expand the availability and use of alternative transportation fuels through technology, market development programs and research and development into such alternatives as natural gas, propane, alcohol fuels and electric powered vehicles.
All of those things are positive steps that were done by the first anniversary of the announcement of the green plan. Those positive things were done by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the minister and the government in conjunction with the green plan. Therefore when it is alleged that nothing has happened and that no steps have been taken, then quite clearly a considerable number of initiatives were undertaken and put forth by the first anniversary of this plan and more have been undertaken since the first anniversary of the green plan.
When the second anniversary of the green plan arrived, and that was last December as we will recall, many of the Energy, Mines and Resources programs referred to were well under way. There were several new ones that had been announced as well. The government, however, cannot act alone. It has to work with the provinces and the private sector if we are going to make some meaningful progress toward achieving both economic and environmental goals. Last September, Energy, Mines and Resources released a discussion paper on efficiency regulations and equipment labelling as the basis for public consultations throughout Canada. That was the first step in an open and constructive dialogue with the provinces and territorial governments.
I notice my time has expired. I have a lot more to say, as Your Honour can appreciate because there were a lot of other initiatives undertaken by Energy, Mines and Resources. They were veiy positive things that were very contrary to the allegations of the opposition. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to comment on some of those during comments and questions period.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short statement before I ask the hon. member for Don Valley East to respond.
I would like to refer to two particular budgets that this government has brought down. One was in 1989 when the government, without warning to the province, to the town of Summerside or to anyone, announced the closure of Canadian Forces Base Summerside. I know the member was a member of the cabinet at that time and I think he was one of the few members who did visit

May 13, 1993
Supply
the town to see what the impact of that particular budget measure was.
Four years later, in the May budget of this year, the government made an announcement which pretty well blind sided the province, the Government of P.E.I. and the forest industry of P.E.I. when it announced that it would no longer be funding ERDAs.
I would like to quote from a letter to the minister responsible for ACOA, the hon. member for St. John's West, from Ian Dennison who is the president of the Forest Industry Association of Prince Edward Island. Mr. Dennison said that one sentence from the federal budget has effectively devastated an entire industry in Prince Edward Island and it reads like this: "The government will not be reviewing the present federal-provincial agreement on economic and regional development in forestry and minerals, recognizing that these are essentially geared to areas of provincial jurisdiction and ones where provincial governments and private sector activities have matured to the point where more limited federal government involvement is warranted".
That was the line which pretty well destroyed 10 years of development in the forest industry in P.E.I. The 10 years of development and investment by the public sector and the private sector is just gone overnight. They have had 10 years of developing expertise, people have had training, they have gone to schools and universities to acquire expertise in the silviculture area and in reforestation. The whole effort is wasted.


An hon. member:: What a tragedy.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Why is just Prince Edward Island affected here? Prince Edward Island is affected because our federal-provincial agreements in forestry expired last March and the federal government knew our agreements had expired last March. Seven provinces have at least two years to go in their agreements. This will give them some cushion so they can soften the impact and make conditional plans. Quebec has had three years to plan for the changes proposed in the budget. I think New Brunswick has one year. Prince Edward Island had absolutely no time to adjust to the new conditions that today are a reality.
It did not hint to Prince Edward Island that these changes were coming. The federal government knew that our forestry agreement was going to expire. In
negotiations with the federal government, they were discussing another five-year plan. On March 1,1 believe ACOA then switched roles and said: "We would like to discuss a one-year extension. We would like to evaluate what has gone on in the past five years so we are going to propose a one-year extension". Then the budget came along and there was nothing.
Overtures have been made to both ministers responsible for ACOA and the forestry minister for an extension. We are requesting an extension so that the blow will be softened somewhat. To this point much like the CFB discussions at the time it was like hitting a dead wall.
In 1989 the community in P.E.I. rallied around to support the town and the people affected by the closure of the base. As stated in the recent edition of The Guardian, Alex Campbell, a contractor and owner of JAC Forestry Products in the Belfast area said: "It is easy for government to stop funding the forest because so few people can see the value. We do not make enough noise I guess. The general public should wake up and take notice. It would be the environment that takes this on the chin".
I would like the hon. member to comment on what sense it makes for government to do this, at this time and in this particular way.
The environment is uppermost in people's minds. The government is proposing the green plan. It attended the Rio conference. At the same time there seems to have been no planning, forethought or any concern for the people employed in the forestry industry on Prince Edward Island nor for any other province which in the future cannot afford to come into these programs on its own because it just does not have the resources to fix up 200 years of neglect in a 10-year period. All of sudden they are left on their own and unfunded. Basically the government is saying it is not really concerned: "You are on your own. We have made the decision. Goodbye forestry industry in Prince Edward Island".
I would like the member to respond to that and to bring these concerns to his caucus and government about the state of affairs in the forestry industry in Prince Edward Island.


Alan Redway: I understand fully the concerns put forward by the member from Prince Edward Island.

May 13, 1993
Supply
As he indicated, at the time of the base closure in Summerside I certainly did visit Prince Edward Island. I had visited P.E.I. before the base closure and I visited after.
I had numerous discussions with residents including the mayor of Summerside. The hon. member knows the mayor of Summerside very well. I had a number of discussions with him relating to the problem and the adjustment problem.
As the member is aware, a form of adjustment was put in place by the government with the location of the GST operation in Summerside. The government was certainly not insensitive to the problems encountered in Summer-side. Although it did not happen overnight an effort was made at providing an adjustment program and that was done.
With respect to the forestry situation, it could very well be there might be some further adjustment program. I suspect in the circumstances as the hon. member has indicated the government certainly would be prepared to listen.
In my view this is not a hard-hearted, hard-nosed, insensitive government. With respect to Summerside, it listened to the concerns and acted on them. It has done the same in other cases as well. I point out the case of municipal grants in lieu. There was a freeze announced on that and there had been adjustments made in that. This government does take into account particular adjustment problems and I am sure it will look at that very carefully.
The hon. member has to recognize two other things however and I know he does. I know he recognizes we have enormous deficit and debt problem. He and his party recognize that fact and want to address it. The difficulty is how to address it. How do we address it fairly and in the best way? Everybody has their own views on that. However, when it affects us or our constituents personally, obviously we are inclined to object strenuously and say that spending should be cut in some other area or on some other person, but it should not be done to us. That is natural and understandable, but unfortunately we seem to have come to the point where that is an impossibility. Everybody is going to have to be affected in some way by these things.
The other thing I would just remind the hon. member is something called the Charlottetown accord. Under the provisions of the Charlottetown accord which I believe the hon. member supported although I know his seat-mate had some reservations-


Dennis Joseph Mills: I did not support it.


Alan Redway: No, you are not the hon. member to whom I was referring. I was referring to the hon. member from Prince Edward Island. I believe he supported the Charlottetown accord. I know the premier of his province supported the Charlottetown accord.
Under that provision forestry was to become a provincial jurisdiction. The province of Prince Edward Island, the government of the province of Prince Edward Island and the present government of Prince Edward Island were supporters of the principle that forestry was to become a provincial jurisdiction.
In fact, although the people of Canada did not favour the entire accord and voted against it, at the same time that principle was certainly supported by all of the provincial governments. All of the provincial premiers agreed with the provision of the accord, that forestry would become a provincial matter.
I suggest to the hon. member that while there is certainly an adjustment problem here, it is a situation that was accepted and agreed to by the government of his own province and by the hon. member himself.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is unanimous consent to call it one o'clock and I could begin this afternoon.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


An hon. member:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As it is one o'clock p.m. I will now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
May 13, 1993

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Week in Canada. I wish to take this occasion to extend to police forces across our country the appreciation of this House and all Canadians for the service they provide to the public.
In addition to their regular duties, police forces throughout Canada undertake various charitable and community-related activities. One of these is the law enforcement torch run on behalf of the Special Olympics.
Sponsored by the Association of Chiefs of Police, the torch run is in its seventh year. The money collected from the run is donated to the Special Olympics for the benefit of the developmentally challenged. This year over 12,000 runners hope to raise $2 million for this worth-while cause.
The torch run for the Special Olympics is another example of how Canada's law enforcement officers go above and beyond the call of duty in the service and protection of our communities.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago the subcommittee on health issues submitted a report on foetal alcohol syndrome. The government has acted quickly on some of the recommendations but has not acted on others, particularly the request for the labelling of all alcoholic products sold in Canada.
This week the American Paediatric Society released a statement that women should completely abstain from the use of alcohol during pregnancy. This fact is coupled with the report from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention that the number of foetal alcohol syndrome babies has tripled since 1979, largely due to better recognition and reporting.
In light of this information, I would request that the government reconsider its position and proceed with the appropriate labelling of all alcohol-containing products
sold in Canada with a format similar to that used on tobacco products.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the government will have to take a position soon on the future of air transport in Canada.
If the government goes along with the agreement between PWA and American Airlines, not only PWAbut eventually Air Canada will be taken over by American companies. Such a resolution of the present crisis would lead in the short term to the disappearance of the Canadian air transport industry.
This would also lead to major job losses in Montreal, which is already hard hit by unemployment.
The only solution is for Air Canada and PWA to merge and for this government to abandon its absurd utopian policy of deregulation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a notice that was sent on May 8, 1993 by the Minister of National Revenue to all fishermen in the gulf region of Newfoundland and Labrador. It said that the excise tax rebate of four cents a litre, which has been in place for the last 20 to 25 years, has been withdrawn effective May 8.
This regulation is discriminatory because it would only apply to fishermen who live along the gulf coast of Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or New Brunswick. All fishermen in Atlantic Canada who live along the Atlantic coast will continue to receive this four cent a litre rebate from the Government of Canada.
The effect of this discriminatory and ill-conceived new policy will be to make fishermen in the gulf zone, and I know the Speaker as a former minister of fisheries will appreciate this, non-competitive with their counterparts elsewhere in the region. It is without rationale. It cannot be squared away on the basis of fairness.

May 13, 1993
I ask the government to come to its senses and please withdraw this discriminatory action by the Minister of National Revenue.


MONTMORENCY MANOR
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for the people of the Quebec City area.
This morning we learned that at dawn today, May 13, 1993, a priceless jewel of our heritage, Montmorency Manor, was ravaged by flames.
This manor contained major items from our history and was our pride. It was also a leading tourist attraction and for several months had been undergoing renovation to make it more welcoming and comfortable for visitors from all parts of the world.
Being born and raised in Cote-de-Beaupre, I feel particularly touched by this sad event. I hope it will be possible to recreate this symbol in the near future.


NEW LISKEARD AGRICULTURE COLLEGE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the terrible decision by Bob Rae's NDP government in Toronto to close the New Liskeard Agriculture College.
This college has trained thousands of young people for over 70 years to be good farmers, good scientists and technicians and good citizens. It has provided a centre for continuing education and extension work for rural communities throughout the north.
It is the centre for agriculture research in northern Ontario with important laboratories for animal health. It is the centre for equine research and development for eastern Canada. It is essential to the future development of agriculture in Ontario and to the economy of the tri-town area.
I am sure that every member of this House, including NDP MPs, join me in condemning this move by Bob Rae and his government and call upon him to reverse it and do it immediately.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, in May 1993, the Department of National Health and Welfare launched the third edition of the catalogue of audio-visuals on family violence. This detailed catalogue lists more than 850 films and videos produced in North America which deal with issues related to family violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual abuse of children, marital violence and mistreatment of the elderly.
The catalogue of audio-visuals on family violence fully reflects the cooperation between the National Film Board and the Department of National Health and Welfare which has been going on since 1978. More than 8.5 million people have seen a film on family violence since the first edition was published.
Professionals, front-line workers, researchers, educators and community groups use films and videos to raise public awareness, for professional training and for education. The Department of National Health and Welfare is proud to cooperate with the National Film Board and firmly believes that the catalogue will help communities and Canadians prevent violence.


HOUSING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the last Conservative budget shows that poor people and off-reserve natives cannot rely on this government to help break the poverty cycle.
Since 1991 this government has cut 61 per cent from the budgets of the Rural and Native Housing Program and the Urban Native Housing Program.
The budget for CMHC was frozen by the Conservatives and as a result funding for the Rural and Native Housing Program, the Urban Native Housing Program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program will not be renewed.
May 13, 1993

These programs helped to ensure that people with limited income could afford safe and adequate housing while allowing them to use their money to help stop the cycle of poverty.
In these days of high unemployment brought about by the failed economic policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, more people than ever need help finding adequate housing. If this government cared about Canadians it would not have cut back funding for these veiy necessary programs.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House more of the opinions expressed by residents of Edmonton- Strathcona in my recent survey of the riding.
I asked my constituents what they would do about the GST. If we were to believe the voices of the opposition and certain interest groups, Canadians are furious about the GST and want it abolished.
My constituents tell me otherwise. In fact, a strong majority of the survey respondents said that they would like to keep the GST as long as its revenues are dedicated to deficit reduction. Less than 20 per cent of the respondents want to see the GST abolished. GST revenues are going toward deficit reduction through the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account.
In my view, this survey result does not indicate that my constituents are happy about the GST but it clearly shows that they are aware of the debt crisis and the importance of the revenues collected by the GST. In other words, we may not like the taste of the medicine but we know enough to take it when we are sick.
Canadians know that tough measures are required to address our deficit situation and they support the bold steps taken by our government to get our fiscal house in order.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister traipses around the world at taxpayers' expense I can only hope that he has not lost
sight of the many important issues that are on the minds of Canadians today.
As the Prime Minister meets with world leaders he has given himself the ideal opportunity to advance Canada's interests on a wide variety of issues. Canadians are concerned that they have heard nothing from the Prime Minister regarding this government's commitment to resolve outstanding trade problems. The Prime Minister should be taking advantage of this international stage to lobby hard on behalf of our supply-managed farmers for a strengthened article XI at the GATT.
This farewell tour is costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. As the Prime Minister jet-sets back to Canada, Canadians can only hope that Canada is getting something out of all of this, something for our money. Canadians expect that while the Prime Minister is abroad he is working in the best interest of this country, not just in the best interest of the Prime Minister.


FISHERIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans took an important step toward reforming the licensing allocation and sanction systems of Canada's fisheries. Until now the minister had absolute discretion over licensing and allocation. The legislation tabled today in the House will create two independent fisheries boards for each of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These boards will license fishermen and allocate the annual harvest as well as applying sanctions for fisheries violations by commercial licence holders.
This legislation will allow those directly involved in the fishing industry a degree of input into the decision-making process that affects their lives.
It is for this reason that I commend the minister for taking the initiative to launch these reforms.
 * *


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, as many members of this House return to their ridings for the next week, thousands and thousands of Canadians will be arriving in Ottawa to reclaim our future and protest the failed Liberal and Conservative

May 13, 1993
policies over the last decade, policies which benefit corporations and the wealthy.
All across Canada buses, trains, planes and car pools are now being organized. Working people in every province and territory are getting together for this giant rally to say no to the free trade agreement, no to NAFTA, no to the GST, no to health care cuts, no to education cuts and no to public sector worker bashing.
Even the municipal council of Ottawa, not known for its left-leaning views, has declared Saturday, May 15 people's agenda day. Those who are fed up will show up and more than tulips will be showing on Parliament Hill.
So to my colleagues in this House, as you head for home, know that those at home are heading for Ottawa to tell you just what they think of your failed Liberal and Conservative policies. They will be here to reclaim their future.


CANADA COMPOSTING
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Paul Blanchard and Kevin Mathews of Canada Composting who have embarked on a $20 million pilot project to build and demonstrate a large-scale centralized waste conversion facility in Newmarket, Ontario.
With the support of Environment Canada through the D-Rect program, Demonstration of Resource and Energy Conservation Technology, and joint venture capital investments from the private sector this project is expected to be accepting customer waste next year. This plant will have the capacity to process 75,000 tonnes of waste annually, recycling 80 per cent of this for compost, for nurseries, landscapers and the general public for home garden use.
This brand new technology and new procedure has the potential of being very helpful in meeting Canada's green plan target of a 50 per cent reduction in the amount of waste going to landfills by the year 2000.
Congratulations to Canada Composting, the town of Newmarket and the federal Minister of the Environment.


LANGUAGE MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the majority in this country that there are still very deep needs in the minority groups. I want to remind the majority in this country that anybody living west of Ontario who speaks French does not have access to a post-secondary institution.
I want to remind the people of this country that every French-speaking minority living west of Ontario does not have control of its schools. I want to remind Ontario that there are negotiations.
Yesterday, the minister-and I see her in the House-reminded us, and I quote from page 19316 from Hansard:
My proposals are on the table, my budgets are ready, and it is now
up to the Ontario government to go ahead with the discussions.
I implore this government to get with it and ask Ontario to come to the table and settle that document concerning the future of this country and give our kids their education.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the first week of June is National Access Awareness Week. Teams of politicians, disabled individuals, labour leaders, people from the business community and from all walks of life have been busy throughout the year in efforts to eliminate barriers facing persons with disabilities.
Canada's Secretary of State and minister responsible for the status of disabled persons has taken our experiences on disability to the world stage. Together with international colleagues and leaders from the disability community, she has pioneered an initiative to improve the quality of life for the world's 500 million people who are disabled.
Mr. Speaker, we have appreciated your ongoing support of National Access Awareness Week and the concern you have for accessibility to all aspects of Parliament.
May 13, 1993

I want to urge all members of the House to support National Access Awareness Week in the communities throughout their ridings. We can build together on the minister's their your leadership and our record of achievement.


BILL C-129
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo -Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries released legislation today providing for a new regime in the fisheries, a new system of licensing, a new system of allocating the resource.
The one very good thing about the legislation is it provides lots of lead time. The minister said it would not come into effect, he expects, until January 1, 1995 and it is going to need that much time. It is a substantial change.
The minister has a better appreciation of the need to take time for things like this, having gone through the introduction of the aboriginal fish strategy on the west coast. Last year was a disaster. That is the only word I can use to describe it, although the minister would rather not use that word.
I am not sure this year is going to be that much better. We have had one indication already there could be problems when the Sto:lo decided to fish when they were not supposed to fish. The minister said that those who were fishing did not know they were transgressing, so nothing was done about it.
However, it is sending a signal that DFO is still not prepared to deal with people that break fishing regulations. If that is the way it is going to start, then we could be in trouble this fishing season in B.C.


CFB EDMONTON
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to convey to the House that CFB Edmonton has recently founded its 18 Wing.
The Wing is an organizational structure patterned after the Royal Air Force and used in Canada until unification of the Canadian forces in 1968. It replaces the concept of a base. The Wing emphasizes the operational character, rather than the support function of Canadian
Oral Questions
air bases. Air Command has now created an organization that is more consistent with air force aims, missions and tasks.
I was pleased to be at the ceremony in April to celebrate the formation. Congratulations Colonel Mike Wansink and CFB Edmonton men and women serving their country in 18 Wing.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to join with the leader of the Liberal Party in praising the minister of health for supporting the basic principles of medicare.
The Liberal Party condemns the two front runners in the Conservative leadership race for their attack on medicare. In the first place it was incredible that they said they were in favour of user fees. It was unbelievable that they repeated they were open to the concept of user fees for sick Canadians after the minister of health made his statement yesterday.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the government agrees with the position of the minister of health on this issue or does the government support the position of the two Tory leadership contenders?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the minister of health has not changed and I do not see a change in the near future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on television, the two Tory leadership contenders repeated that they were open to considering medicare user fees, even after the Minister of National Health and Welfare said: "not to follow that line, because it will destroy the health care system". Don't the two leadership contenders realize that in Canada health is a right, not a privilege? Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Tory leadership candidates want

May 13, 1993
Oral Questions
to consider user fees that would undermine the universality of our health care system?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my answer in French is the same as the answer I gave earlier in English. The position of the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare remains the same and is not expected to change in the near future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we know what the minister of health said and we support him.
The question we are asking the government is this. Why is it that the two chief candidates for the leadership of his party have ignored the advice of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? This is Canada, not the United States. We do not want to turn people away from the hospitals because they are poor.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister denounce his two cabinet colleagues, who are so desperate for right wing votes in the Tory party, they are prepared to sell out the sacred principles of universal medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the question and I do not think it has anything to do with the administration of government.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, since January 1989 Canada has lost 295,000 or 14 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.
Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us why his government is proud of this record?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very well aware of the major restructuring that has taken place in the manufacturing sector, not only here in Canada but in the United States and other industrialized countries as well. Canada has gone through that process.
In the course of it, our productivity has been enhanced dramatically, our competitiveness has been improved,
and we are now seeing the benefits of that in the exports that are growing day by day, week by week and month by month.
While there are fewer numbers of people working in the manufacturing sector, the output is increasing very dramatically. I think if he were to go back to the 1950s he would see that probably 30 per cent of the Canadian labour force was employed in the manufacturing sector. Today it is probably 15 per cent or 16 per cent, yet the output has tripled in that period of time. That is a pretty good record for Canada.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if the Tory policies have been working so well over these past four years, why has Canada lost manufacturing jobs at twice the U.S. rate?
Why have 15,400 Canadian steel workers lost their jobs and 16,000 Canadian auto workers lost their jobs? Why has unemployment in Montreal gone from 9.5 per cent to 13.7 per cent? Why has the number of people in Toronto without a job more than tripled, going from 69,000 to 208,000?
Why will this government not come clean and admit that its legacy to Canada is lost jobs and lost hope?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the reason why a deeper adjustment has had to take place in Canada as compared to the United States-and the hon. member knows this very well-is that the labour input costs were much higher in Canada than they were in the United States and our productivity slipped.
It is a combination of enhanced productivity, retooling and utilizing the latest equipment. That is precisely why we took action in the February budget to improve the competitiveness, improve the tax environment. That is why in December we took action in the small business sector to improve the tax environment, to improve the environment for business to do business.
I am pleased to note that manufacturing employment is up 28,000, up 4 per cent in the last six months or 70,000 jobs. Surveys indicate that the manufacturing output is going to be increased by 33 per cent of those who have been surveyed. Ontario in the past year has picked up 63 per cent of the new jobs created in the country, and most of those were in the manufacturing sector.
May 13, 1993


MEDICARE
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
There is probably no other program in Canada that Canadians are more proud of than our system of universal health care. Not only is it an important program for families, for people in every province and territory, but it is a fundamental part of our economic system.
In fact, the kind of system we have is a great asset to business because it is not a business expense. It is something we all share because we all believe that health care is very important and must be available to everyone.
People are getting a bit confused. We have, for example, the health minister warning yesterday that the introduction of user fees would "destroy the health care system" and would create "two health care systems, one for the privileged and another for the less fortunate".
Is it the policy of the Conservative Party and this Conservative government to end universality of health care and create a two-tiered system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the minister of health stated very clearly was that the five principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act, namely accessibility, universality, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration are all fundamental to the Canadian health care system.
The hon. member knows very well that all provinces and all governments are faced with increased health care costs. All governments have been trying to address the issue of cost containment.
She knows very well that the province of Saskatchewan has reduced funding for health care. As a matter of fact, I would suspect we may expect much the same kind of an approach in Ontario.
When we had an opportunity to meet with the federal and provincial health and finance ministers, we talked about these challenges in a very meaningful way. Clearly we cannot ignore the fact that we have to find ways and means to fund the health care system. But there is
Oral Questions
certainly no deviation from the five fundamental principles that are enshrined in the Canada Health Act.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I can suggest some ways the government can find the funds. Close some of the tax loopholes for the rich and the privileged and put the funds into health care.
The federal government has reduced its share of health funding from 43 per cent in 1984 to 33 per cent today. If this pattern continues, by the year 2010 the federal government will be putting no funds into health care. In order to maintain the principles of the Canada Health Act the federal government has to have a role in funding health care if we want a national system.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister this. Clearly the government, the Conservative Party is trying to have it both ways. We have seen that with the Liberals. Some support user fees and some do not support user fees.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his government, his party stands for universal health care. Will he commit today that the government will ensure there is a national health care system in this country that we can all be proud of without user fees?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's allegations are totally false and erroneous.
The fact of the matter is that while we have been containing government expenditures over all between the period of 1984-85 and 1992-93 to something less than 4 per cent, transfers to the provinces in the form of cash and tax transfer points have risen at 5.2 per cent annually, year after year and year, compounded.
Even in the budget that I just brought down, while the growth of federal program expenditures was contained at 1.7 per cent, the growth in transfer payments to the provinces is at something just under 4 per cent. Again, the provinces are given special status in acknowledgement and recognition of the transfers to the provinces for health, welfare and education. It amounts to an excess of $40 billion and it continues to grow, not shrink, like the hon. member suggests.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, statistics indicate that in the nine years of this government the share of funding by the federal government has gone from 43 per cent to 33 per cent. On top of that, the

May 13, 1993
Oral Questions
federal government brought in the drug patent legislation which increased the cost of prescription drugs, which will increase health costs.
The government on the one hand says it supports health care and on the other hand it is bringing in legislation which clearly undermines it.

It is a fact that the governments of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are playing with the idea of imposing user fees. Medicare is at risk, and this government is sending contradictory messages.
Will this government stop the confusion it has caused and announce, in no uncertain terms, that user fees are out of the question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, transfers to the provinces have grown from $25.6 billion in 1984-85 to $40.5 billion in 1993-94. That will grow to $41.7 billion in 1994-95, $46.7 billion in 1997-98 for an annual increase of 3.7 per cent.
What we are doing here is notwithstanding the fact that we are containing government expenditures at zero real growth, or roughly 1.5 per cent to 1.7 per cent. Federal transfers are growing at an annualized rate of just under 4 per cent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.
The high reputation of our Canadian Armed Forces is based in large part on its proud record of battle in the Second World War when it fought against those who bore the swastika flag and the acts of inhumanity and injustice associated with it.
Yesterday the minister was quoted as suggesting that a currently serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces who erected a swastika flag in a Canadian military barracks and then stood under it giving the Hitler salute and wearing a Nazi T-shirt was just engaging in a "boyish prank".
Why is the minister on behalf of the Conservative government allowing the reputation of our Canadian Armed Forces to be undermined by the way he and the Conservative government appear to be tolerating and making light of this kind of despicable conduct?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I did not say he was engaging; I said that I did not know what was happening.
The particular soldier in question said that it was just a stunt. He has also apparently said to his supervisors that he is no longer a member of the Heritage Front organization and no longer participates in that.
In any event the policies of the Canadian Armed Forces in respect of behaviour are quite clear. Any behaviour reflecting biases, prejudices, racism and so on that might be exhibited by any soldier is improper and grounds for dismissal from the Canadian Armed Forces. The whole question is being looked into.
All I suggested when I was being pressured during the scrum was that I have complete faith in the Canadian Armed Forces and the process in place. I do not believe that the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces is any more tolerant of the kind of behaviour the hon. member talked about than he is.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about what is tolerated by this Conservative government.
The minister may tiy to suggest that the conduct is not tolerated by the Conservative government. However, after the white supremacist neo-Nazi conduct of the individual in question became known, that individual was promoted and sent to serve in a non-white country.
I ask the minister why he and the Conservative government do not recognize that the way in which he and the government are talking about this situation is offensive to the vast majority of Canadians. For them, the conduct photographed in that Canadian military barracks is not only contrary to the proud reputation of our Canadian Armed Forces but totally inconsistent with and contraiy to our fundamental Canadian values.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, one of the values I am sure the hon. member shares

May 13, 1993

with everybody else in the House is our commitment to the charter of rights and all that implies in terms of freedoms. It also means that no matter how heinous or how offensive the activity, everyone is entitled to due process. Everyone is entitled to the opportunity to apologize and to cease certain activities.
I do not know whether that has happened in terms of Corporal McKay, nor does the hon. member or anybody else. The hon. member should share the confidence we have in the Canadian Armed Forces in respect of its administration.
I hope the hon. member is not suggesting we would get a situation where at the political level, the ministerial level, decisions would be made affecting individual soldiers. I hope he recognizes the wisdom of policies being put in place by the political masters as they are against this kind of behaviour. The policies should be implemented by the professionals in the Canadian military. I have every confidence they will do so and do so properly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Clearly, the minister has not understood the question being asked by the member for Windsor West. The member for Windsor West has pointed out to the minister that the Minister of National Defence has accepted the characterization of the activity in the Canadian forces barracks involving swastikas as youthful folly. However, the minister himself in the House yesterday and outside the House made reference to the activity being nothing more than a boyish prank.
The member for Windsor West has pointed out that this activity for reasons understood by all Canadians is extremely offensive to the many thousands who fought and served during the World War. Some made the ultimate sacrifice. It besmirches the reputation of a truly great and honourable organization, the Canadian Armed Forces.
What the member for Windsor West has asked for and what the minister is being asked to give is an apology to the people of Canada for making light of truly abhorrent behaviour.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member for Windsor West and now the hon. member from Newfoundland have misrepresented
Oral Questions
what I have said. I know we are not allowed to say they deliberately did it, but it is not helpful if they are concerned about the reputation and treat the issue seriously to make those allegations.
What I have suggested is that due process must be applied. If the hon. member thinks it is unreasonable to have due process, I remind him there is a charter of rights that requires it. Even if there were no charter of rights, common sense requires that due process be provided.
As I indicated, the soldier in question apparently has ceased to belong to that organization and has said so. In any event any of his activities which would bring criticism to the Canadian Armed Forces or make it incapable for him to carry out his responsibilities in the way we expect of our Canadian Armed Forces will be taken care of by his superiors.
Again, why does the hon. member not have the same confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces and the processes in place that I would think any reasonable person should have?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not understood that we are talking about the competence and the appropriateness of the actions of ministers, not the Canadian Armed Forces.
The minister of defence said three days ago that she had no qualms about the status of this individual as a peacekeeper in Somalia because "he had renounced his neo-Nazi views before becoming a soldier". We now know in fact that is incorrect. The individual in question hung a swastika in a Canadian forces barracks after he became a soldier.
Given that information I want to ask the minister: Why was this individual allowed to go to Somalia and to wear the uniform of Canada as a peacekeeper in a sensitive region? Why has that individual not been recalled just as the Canadian forces has often used existing policy to prevent Canadian women, Canadian Jews, Canadian Hindus from serving in so-called sensitive regions?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the member is making a number of assertions as fact that he cannot know to be fact. He cannot know that in fact the swastika was hanging up there. He cannot know that perhaps it was not a boyish prank. Apparently it was in a private room in the barracks. I just ask the hon.

May 13, 1993
Oral Questions
member to think for half a minute that there is the possibility it was a prank.
In any event it is certainly inappropriate for any member of the Canadian Armed Forces to belong to a politically active group of that sort. It is inappropriate behaviour to exhibit the kind of bigotry that reflects. The Canadian Armed Forces has the authority and the processes in place to deal with it.
I ask the hon. member to really think whether it is appropriate for him to be suggesting that the minister set aside and not acknowledge the responsibility of the Armed Forces, not accept the legitimacy of the processes and simply step in and demand that this soldier be withdrawn.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Nobody is saying that.


Harvie Andre: That is exactly what the hon. member said. I think he should reconsider that as he searches for partisan advantage from this sorry issue.


ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina - Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns Bill C-7, the status of the artist legislation.
This bill was passed and received Royal Assent in June of last year but has not yet been proclaimed. Concern has been expressed that the Department of Finance opposes part II of the bill, the part that sets up a new tribunal for the governance of labour relations in the cultural sectors.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if it is the intent of the government to proceed to proclaim all parts of Bill C-7 and if so, when?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think I signed the proclamation on Thesday.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the government House leader. He mentions that he thinks he signed the proclamation. I wish to congratulate the government if it
did. Can he give us the assurance that he proclaimed all parts of Bill C-7?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I said "think" only in terms of Thesday. I did sign the Royal proclamation for Bill C-7, the status of the artist bill. I believe it to be complete.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of defence, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Department of National Defence is going to have the maintenance work on its Challenger military and executive aircraft transferred to Hartford, Connecticut. This is at a time when a significant portion of the Canadian aerospace industry is out of work.
In view of the fact that the closing date for the maintenance contract has been moved ahead, can the minister tell us why the department is ignoring our own skilled Canadian workers and letting those jobs go to the United States?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we are not. It is just the opposite.
The present company, Canadair, which has had a facility in Canada for doing the maintenance on the Challengers, has announced that it is closing down its Canadian facility and would like to do the rest of the work in the United States. We have cancelled the rest of that contract.
We are presently going out, and I believe it is already out, looking for bids by Canadians to continue the maintenance in Canada. In the meantime, it will be done in the American facility until we have a new contract in place, which should be within a matter of weeks.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, there will be a Canadian defence department aircraft being serviced in Hartford in the next few weeks.
Why is this work being done in Hartford at a higher price than has been offered in Canada? Why is the government paying for jobs in the United States when
May 13, 1993

there are competent Canadian companies available to do this work?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, obviously the opposition member had written his supplementary before hearing the answer to the original question.
The fact is it is going to be done here in Canada. It is being done by Canadians. We re-tendered asking for Canadians to bid on it. I mentioned that the first time and it is still the fact.


NUNAVUT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Inuit of Nunavut ratified their land claim agreement in November 1992. We have been waiting since then for the government to officially sign this agreement so that the legislation to ratify this agreement and create the new territory of Nunavut can be introduced in this House.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the people of Nunavut when his government plans to sign this important land claim agreement so the people of Nunavut can get on with the business of Nunavut?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I can inform the hon. member that the government is doing its best to finalize everything as soon as possible. We will then make appropriate arrangements as requested by the hon. member.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
Will the minister assure the people of Nunavut that the bills he is talking about to ratify the land claim agreement and create the new territory of Nunavut will be introduced simultaneously, immediately following the signing ceremony for this agreement?
Oral Questions


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the government is trying to finalize these procedures as soon as possible. Considering the complex issues involved, the hon. member of the opposition will understand that these things take time. I am sure he will agree that so far there have been no delays.


CANADIAN AIRLINES
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The federal Competition Act states in its opening paragraph:
The purpose of this Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada in order to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy-and in order to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.
I would like to ask the minister this. In light of the Competition Tribunal's recent rejection of the Canadian Airlines' bid to be released from the Gemini reservation system, does he believe that the express purpose of the Competition Act is being upheld in this case?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is to be commended, as usual, for the relevance and excellence of his questions.
In this particular case the tribunal concluded with a majority of two to one that under the Competition Act, and more specifically the provisions dealing with variation of orders, the tribunal did not have the competence to allow Canadian to withdraw from the Gemini reservation system. However, the Director of Investigation and Research and Canadian have appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to hear the appeal as soon as possible, that is, on July 12, 1993.

May 13, 1993
Oral Questions
I think we can say that the Competition Act has been very effective and very worthwhile for Canada since it came into force in 1986.


LAND CLAIMS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1902 the first land claim in the Yukon was presented in Ottawa by Chief Boss. That was 91 years ago. It took another 70 years before negotiations began but they have now concluded in the Yukon.
There has been a series of ministers of this government who have contributed to facilitating these negotiations. After 20 years there is an agreement signed by the Council for Yukon Indians, the federal government and the Government of the Yukon. It has passed the legislature of the Yukon.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give assurances to this House that this very important legislation will be brought before this House in this session?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is anxious to ratify as soon as possible the final agreements on the Council of Yukon Indians land claims, the agreements on self-government and the related implementation agreements.
Once these agreements have been ratified, legislation dealing with the settlements will be tabled in Parliament. However, for the agreements to come into force two other acts must be proclaimed at the same time. I am referring to the self-government act and the surface rights act. I trust that when all is ready the opposition and the hon. member who just put her question will do everything in their power to expedite this legislation through Parliament.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, these days there are many Canadians who are feeling that it is more and more difficult to resolve problems.
We have an example of non-partisan co-operation on an issue, the Yukon land claims and self-government agreements. We have an example where First Nations people have worked with all political parties in order to formulate an agreement which is really about how we as Canadians and Yukoners live together. They have done so successfully.
I would like to ask the junior minister if he could assure us that there will be consultation with all parties in this House so that the legislation can be introduced as quickly as possible.
Will the junior minister agree to facilitate this process with all the parties?


An hon. member:: Junior minister. He is the senior minister.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: He is the senior minister. Oh, sorry.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Right now the draftsmen with the Department of Justice are working with the Council of Yukon Indians on draft legislation. I expect that will be completed and brought back to cabinet for ratification in view of any changes. Certainly it is my hope and expectation, and I have nothing to the contrary, that it will be ready in time to bring before the House before we adjourn for the summer.
As the hon. member knows, when we co-operate around here we are able to get things accomplished. I hope to be in a position to have discussions with opposition parties and other members of the House in this regard in the not too distant future.


LAVAL ARMOURY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the purchase of the armoury property in Laval, in the spring of 1992. According to an article that appeared in La Presse, someone from the Department of National Defence asked certain officials to reconsider some of the property involved.
May 13, 1993

Could the Acting Prime Minister give the House the assurance that all papers concerning this case will be made public and that the name of the person who made the request is published as well?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of this land everything was done in the normal fashion. There are other projects of this nature. The real property specialist conducted assessments based on strict criteria. They included an affordability of an appropriate size, geographic attributes, demographies and so on. The final site was selected based on those criteria.
I know there was a suggestion made that somehow this piece of land had been submitted, then put aside, then brought back into play. That is not true. It was in fact submitted. A thorough search of all available properties was looked at and in the end it turned out that this piece of land was the most appropriate and the best deal over all.
I will have to look into the question as to whether the information can be brought forward in the manner the hon. member dictated. Other than the confidentiality of any private commercial information, I see no reason why we cannot respond positively to his request.


Mark Joseph Assad: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the fact that these allegations keep coming up in the media in Montreal concerning this land transaction in Laval, I think that it would be important for this House if all the memos, appraisals and transactions were made public as soon as possible in order to put an end to the speculation that there has been some kind of interference from the office of the Minister of National Defence.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just to assure the hon. member, as he is well aware, we do have an Auditor General who goes over these things. If the process was not conducted properly according to policy and any of the allegations in this article turn out to be true, he can be sure the Auditor General will flag them.
As I said in response to his first question, I will look into what kinds of information can be made public. As
Oral Questions
far as we are concerned it was done in the usual manner. There is nothing untoward here. Except for commercial confidences, I see no reason why information cannot be supplied.


WESTRAY COAL MINE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, one year has passed since the tragic death of 23 miners at the Westray coal mine, but that was not the only tragedy. Three hundred miners were left without work and their unemployment insurance has now run out.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Will this government try to correct an already terrible wrong on its part, put the $85 million it originally invested in Westray to good use, and immediately put in place a special job creation project for Pictou County?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's sense of tragedy about what happened almost exactly one year ago today. It was a terrible tragedy for all the people involved and of course for their families.
Unfortunately the $85 million is not available. As she knows that was part of a loan guarantee. What might be available are some proceeds to the federal government at around $16 million. Ordinarily those funds go directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy. It is a worse tragedy that an answer like that would be given, that it would go to consolidated revenue.
Is there no will on the part of this government to do something and take the money out of consolidated revenue and make the kind of special job creation project we asked for? The people do not need excuses. They have suffered enough. This community in Pictou County desperately needs jobs.
Why is this government unwilling to assist a community that is devastated by chronic unemployment?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it very important that the hon. member understand that the reason the federal government gave the loan guarantee to Westray in the first place was to create economic

May 13, 1993

Oral Questions
development in Pictou County. Now she is criticizing us for having tried that. It had tragic results.
We are committed to trying to help Pictou County in every way we can. If she has specific ideas, I would like her to come forward with them. We have done a number of things through ACOA in Pictou County and we will be pursuing every possible avenue we can.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs.
Has the government a new housing policy for natives living on and off reserve, including the Inuit in the Northwest Territories? If so, will it go into effect before the House adjourns for the summer?
[Translation ]


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Perhaps I may congratulate the Standing Committee of the House on the excellent job it has done on the issue of aboriginal housing in Canada. The government is in the process of reviewing its policy, which will be announced as soon as it is finalized.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Conference Board has just reported that incomes in this country have dropped for the last three consecutive years. This is the largest drop or the worst drop since the Great Depression in the 1930s. The largest drop since the 1930s has just occurred. This is the Conservative legacy in this country.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister now: When is the government going to start doing something for people instead of to people? When is this government going to bring us a real jobs plan to put Canadians back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is why I have said in this House so many times and why we practise the fact that we should bring our deficit under control through spending cuts and expenditure reductions rather than through increased taxes. That is precisely what we did in the February budget and that is exactly what we did in the December statement and a number of those initiatives are starting to have effect.
For example, we talked about the improvement in the competitiveness and the productivity of the manufacturing sector as a result of a number of initiatives that we took. In the small business sector, there were a number of initiatives taken both in the February budget and in the December statement. There were a number of initiatives that were proposed with respect to infrastructure improvement, training, skills upgrading and initiatives with respect to the housing sector. All these things are now starting to take hold.
That is why we have had growth over the last three months, real GDP growth, of some 4 per cent. That was followed by a third quarter growth of 3.5 per cent. Jobs are being created. Business activity is starting to become more stimulated. Most important, what we are seeing is continued expansion in our exports, particularly exports to the United States, which has been a veiy positive indicator in our total economy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister has relied on growth in our economy by increased exports to the United States. Unfortunately the growth rate in the first quarter in the U.S. this year is down to 1.9 per cent compared to 4.8 per cent in the last quarter of 1992, so we may be in for some surprises very soon.
In light of that and in light of the fact that incomes have fallen in the last three years by about $1,200 a person or a drop of 5.5 per cent, I want to once again ask the minister: Why not declare a war on unemployment? Why not a jobs plan in this country where more money is put into creating long-term jobs in Canada? Why not do something like that and put people to work? That is the best way to bring down the deficit.
May 13, 1993


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. member. That is precisely why we have embarked upon a balanced approach to bringing the deficit under control. That too is part of the solution in providing long-term sustainable growth. That is absolutely necessary and the hon. member's colleagues in the provinces, whether it be British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Ontario, understand that very well. We cannot continue to pile up the deficits as has happened in the past without having a major impact upon the economy.
I realize and I recognize that the United States' last growth figures were not as encouraging as the fourth quarter, but I think that has been explained as a result of the very serious weather conditions they had. I would still point out to the hon. member that in his own province exports to the United States are up by 40 per cent since the free trade agreement came into place. In Manitoba they are up by 24 per cent; in Alberta, up by 48 per cent; in Ontario, up by 21 per cent; and in Quebec, 17 per cent.
Why does the hon. member continually want to knock a good thing?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I think he knows that I am going to ask it. I gave him a sort of oral notice and we have had correspondence on it. It involves another institution of the federal government called the RCMP and its recruitment policies.
We have had correspondence on this. There has been a change in recruitment policy affecting graduations that are occurring across the country. There are many candidates who were involved in the system before the April 1 change, some of whom have waited four and five years to get into a position where they might be chosen to go to Regina. Because of the change I am informed that in at least two situations as of yesterday, whether you were in the pipeline for four or five years or not, you are now in the same position as a graduate of grade 12 and therefore-
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The time has expired for Question Period.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the special House of Commons Committee on Electoral Reform in my capacity as chairman of that committee.
Today in the Toronto Star there is an article which says that the committee members have recommended to the House of Commons more than twice their ceiling last time in terms of election expenses. That follows an article on April 29 in The Ottawa Citizen by a different reporter which indicates that the Tory Party wants triple the limit for political parties.
Those articles create an impression that is entirely incorrect. The committee has recommended for those expenses which were capped in 1988 a 14 per cent increase. Uncapped expenses for the first time in Canadian history are capped. These articles leave the wrong impression. They bring this House into disrepute. None of the committee members were arguing for this kind of limit increase. It is total nonsense and should be brought to the attention of the House.


COMMENTS IN DEBATE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order arising out of this morning's debate. The member for Broadview-Greenwood challenged a statement that I made about two votes that had taken place in the House. I now refer him to Hansard page 14388 on a motion that this House reject any North American free trade agreement. The member for Broadview-Greenwood will find that he voted for the free trade agreement. Also on page 17887, March 31,1993-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at all sure that is a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me today with regard to the business question. I certainly

May 13, 1993
Supply
appreciate the courtesies you have extended to the Official Opposition today.


Mr. Speaker:: I do want to say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that I appreciate his courtesy as well.


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am not finished yet. Perhaps the government House leader could indicate to the House when the Minister of Finance who has produced probably one of the worst budgets we have ever seen in this House will be completing the two remaining days of debate on that subject matter. If the government House leader could indicate when that debate will be coming up I would appreciate it.
Also will he confirm that tomorrow will be a supply day and that when we return after the recess, on the first day we will be commencing with the debate of Bill C-115 which is the NAFTA legislation. Could he indicate to the House what he intends to proceed with thereafter on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader is right that tomorrow is a supply day.
When we come back on May 25 we will commence report stage of Bill C-115, the North American free trade agreement act. We will carry that debate on for a day and a half or until we run out of speakers or something, for a couple or three days. Then I will engage in the usual discussions on business for later on.
While I am on my feet I want to correct the record for the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle who asked me about the status of the artists. We proclaimed on Tuesday part I, not part II. I am not quite sure why. I will have to get back to him on the remainder. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this in good faith, seriously.
We have about six justice bills that are now at various stages, many of them in committee. We just got a new bill today on child pornography, I think a very important bill.
I want to find out from the minister what is the government's intention. This is a dying Parliament. I think we have a couple of weeks left. We are not sitting
next week. We have a week on NAFTA at least. I wonder if it is the government's intention to proceed with these bills or not because we are either going to get no law or we are going to get bad law. I think we should get good law but only with a couple of bills.
I wonder if the government would priorize these bills or indicate its intentions to the opposition in good faith because we will respond in good faith, which bills it really wants to proceed with, which ones it really wants to try to get through the House and how we can help in that way.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the member's suggestion is a good one and I do want to engage in discussions. I hope that the Minister of Justice will have an opportunity to discuss with the justice spokespersons on the other side where there is an agreement or certain confidence that the legislation can go forward expeditiously.
My desire is to get as much of the good stuff through as possible. He might suggest to his colleagues that if we shorten the debate on NAFTA we will have an opportunity to pass these important justice bills.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think we can guarantee that we will not shorten the debate on NAFTA. I suspect it will be the government that will use its own methods to shorten the debate on NAFTA.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Catterall (p. 19369).
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main body of my remarks, I would like to address the issue that was raised earlier by the New Democratic Party member for Skeena who talked about how the Liberal Party had endorsed the North American free trade agreement. On a point of order, I stood up and challenged him that that was not the case.
Subsequent to his intervention this morning, I want to refer to the specific motion that was put on the floor of the House that day. It was put forward by the hon.
May 13, 1993

member for Kamloops, the NDP government House leader. The motion was:
That this House rejects any North American free trade agreement.
We moved an amendment to that motion. The Liberal amendment was put forward by the member for Etobicoke North, seconded by the member for Ottawa South:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after
the word "reject" and substituting the following therefor:
- all North American free trade agreements that fail to promote
Canadian workers and jobs, and fail to safeguard the environment.
It was important that I deal with this issue before I get to my remarks because the New Democratic Party member for Skeena when he rose this morning to talk about the motion that was on the floor of the House, talked about people in this House misleading Canadians with their commitments to certain issues.
I believe this is another very specific example where the member for Skeena, by twisting words, tried to cast aspersions on exactly where the Liberal Party of Canada stood when it came to free trade. I believe that Canadians are much more sophisticated than the New Democratic member realizes and I think he will find that out in the next election.
In today's motion we talk about the fact that despite its many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and a half years since the launch of the green plan, the government has failed to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal of public policy.
My colleague, the member for Ottawa West, who has put forward this motion is very fair in the sense that she made mention of the many grand announcements of the government. I will give the government credit when it comes to the packaging job it has done on the environment. It has done an outstanding job.
Just about two months ago we all received these green kits "Understanding Our Environment". Of course it has a detailed analysis of what the plan is, what the conceptual design is, in terms of the policy of this government.
Supply
We are not debating the packaging and we are not debating the concept. There is not a government in this world that would not agree with the content of the green plan. What we are talking about is the fact that the government cannot move from the idea stage, from the conceptual stage to the implementation stage. That has been the problem of the government for the last three to four years.
Even in the area of the Small Businesses Loans Act, a good initiative on the part of the government, when it comes to making sure that particular bill, which all of us agreed to in this House, is implemented so that the small business community can get access to it and that the banks will get behind it, it is just not happening.
The thing that concerns me about this lack of action on the environment is that so many young people are missing a tremendous opportunity. I would venture to say that most leaders in industry today who are committed to an environmental ethic have been moved probably more than anything by their children. Children come home from school or college and talk about these issues with their mothers and fathers. We have some of the greatest educational programs in the world right now in our school system in terms of the environment.
In fact I noticed it in this book which is sort of a bible for business. The book is called Green is Gold written by Patrick Carson and Julia Moulden. About a year ago I remember reading in the introduction that one of the inspirations for this particular book came from Richard Currie who was the president of Loblaw Companies Ltd. He mentioned that not only were the environmental issues being reported more frequently in the media, they were popping up in conversations with his children. Of course we all know that the Loblaw companies really led the way in the business community when it came to putting forward their notion of green products and putting a green filter on all the Loblaw companies.
There has been a receptivity to leaders in industry to get involved with the environmental movement out there. I believe that the government has really not used all of its resources to pick up the unemployed youth that are out there.

May 13, 1993
Supply
.(1515)
Let me be very specific and use as an example the Department of Supply and Services, the government purchasing arm in this particular institution. Why would the government purchasing system not set out rules and regulations stating that it will not purchase products or services from Canadian corporations unless they have gone through some kind of an environmental audit to make sure that the company it is dealing with is meeting a certain test in terms of environmental criteria?
Can you imagine the number of jobs that would be taken up overnight, especially by younger people, if it was almost from a moral suasion point of view that young or small companies and businesses became sensitized to the environmental process that is essential if we are going to save this planet? There is a tremendous instrument.
The Department of Supply and Services has offices in every major city and there is absolutely no reason why it could not ask a company to submit its environmental standards, the various environmental activities that it is involved with.
We have about 1.3 billion small businesses in this country. If each and every one of those small businesses treated the environment the same way they treated the books and records of a company, there would not be a small business that would dare try to get through its planning and programming without an accountant. Can you imagine if every small business had an environmental auditor, an environmental consultant, an environmental advisor, somebody in the company that would go through and point out ways in which it could recycle and reuse all the various environmental processes?
This is an area where the government really missed the boat. It could have through a cabinet decision gone to the Department of Supply and Services and said, let us use our leverage to make sure that those who are doing business with us are sensitized to the environmental process to which we are committed.
The other thing I have noticed is there is a lot of young talent out there right now, young entrepreneurs who are putting together environmental resource manuals. I want to refer to one specifically. It is the best one I have seen. It is called The Canadian Environmental Careers Resource Manual. It is a book put together by Noel Desautels in the environmental careers organization.
I want to put on the record that this book is available. It gives advice on career options, career strategies, career counsellors for every sector of the environment, for example science and research, engineering, government service, activism, fine and performing arts, tourism and recreation. It teaches research tips and career planning.
These are the kinds of people that I believe, if we were to engage them in some kind of environmental youth force, a team of environmental rangers, would make sure all the opportunities, all the options related to the environment were put into the marketplace.
Even though we can put these options in opportunities and all of these concepts into the marketplace, ultimately they will only happen if the government uses its influence, its force to sensitize people to the fact that we as a nation are committed to a sustainable environmental program.
When I think back to the very rough period in the country of 1981-82 when we had very high inflation at around 10 per cent and 11 per cent, I remember at that time we were in government and we came out with a program called six and five. The six and five program was a campaign to sensitize people to wage and price restraint.
It was not a regulated program in the business community. However we as a government made sure before we had any kind of relationship with the private sector that it was honouring the basic principles of wage and price restraint, namely the six and five program.
With that program we were able to galvanize the will and the spirit of the nation. In veiy short order we were successful in the collective effort of bringing down inflation and sensitizing people to the fact that we had to constrain our wage demands and make sure that our prices on products and services were back in line.
This is where the government has failed. National standards have really never been part of this government's vision. This government has engaged in a series
May 13, 1993

of dismantling operations that have allowed the provincial governments more and more leverage and power.
All of a sudden we have a situation in which we have 10 different standards and 10 different power brokers all picking away at the national government. It is a very difficult thing to get a national movement going on the environment when the will of the national government has been so fractured.
This is an area of lost opportunity for this government vis-a-vis the environment. When it is all over 17 or 18 weeks from now members of the government will be in their period of reflection as to what things they did wrong. They are going to look back and say: We had a pretty good plan when it came to the green plan. We were on the right track, but what did we do wrong? Why did it fail? Why could we not get people to become a part of that process?
Where this government has failed is in this notion of creating a national movement in which each and every part of the country is part of the whole. Had it used the resources of the national government to say to all its suppliers and all its various relationships that it wants to put a green filter on everyone involved in doing business and interacting with this government then I believe that it probably could have put a million people to work.
This is the one area in our community, in our country or even in the world where we just cannot go wrong. No one is going to turn to a government and condemn it for trying to save the planet, for tiying to reverse the damage that has been going on.
Imagine if this government had 200,000 or 300,000 young people as part of a national environmental youth force. What member of Parliament could stand up and condemn that? Nobody could stand up and condemn that. Just think of the long-term effect that would have had on every part of society. Just think of the impact that would have had in terms of influencing small, mediumsized and large businesses in terms of shifting their habits and attitude.
That is how to create a new paradigm in business, a new type of discipline. We cannot just throw out an idea and wish it to happen. We have to use the resources and the leverage of this government to make sure that our objective is being implemented.
Supply
This government believes that just because it puts a bill through this House of Commons or because it does a press release people are automatically going to follow. There is absolutely no way that happens.
We need accountability. Every 30 or 60 days we have to go out and see how the project is moving along. The bottom line is that this government's conceptual idea in terms of the green plan was a good one. I think it is one of the envies of the world.
The sad story is that it did not move this green plan into the implementation stage.
Who are the losers? Not only is our environment suffering because it is not being attended to, but our economy is suffering and our youth are suffering because they have the talent and the education but they are sitting back and are not a part of the process.
Once again the government has failed to make the connection from a good idea to the implementation stage. Four or five months from now when it is in its period of reflection and meditation as to what went wrong, along with the GST which was a mistake and along with the fact it has not implemented the Small Businesses Loans Act and a lot of other dismantling procedures, it will discover that the area in which it had one of the best ideas but failed to implement it was the green plan.
The biggest disservice the government did was to the youth of Canada because when it comes to the environment our youth in Canada are probably the best qualified in the world. The problem right now is that many of them are sitting at home wondering what to do next and wondering when things are going to start moving again.
All I can say is I hope that within 18 weeks we are going to be able to create that hope once again for the youth of this country. The environmental agenda will be right at the top of our platform.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment and a question.
In the first part I agree with the hon. member and in the second part I disagree and want to put a question to him. The first part concerns his last couple of sentences in which he said that the young people of Canada are interested in the environment. That is very true.

May 13, 1993
Supply
My riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam, which is about 35 kilometres to the east of Vancouver, nestled up against the coastal mountains, is a very beautiful area. It has been the subject of much development, much housing and new people moving in. It is really the suburbs. It is one of the few areas in Canada that is really growing. In spite of this growth, literally right up the side of mountains houses are going up and forests are being cut, there is an effort in this area by the young people and some other older people who are helping them out to try to preserve some of what used to be there before, specifically the fish.
Coquitlam is an aboriginal word meaning salmon. We have salmon literally going right through some of the new housing developments in the riding. One can actually see salmon spawning in a creek called Noons Creek. Local people have opened up what people thought were closed off sewer outlets and various things and have actually found they can create salmon spawning beds. They can bring back the creeks and they can preserve much of what was a great environment there. It is really quite a noble cause and it is led by the young people.
In the high schools the young people are particularly interested in the environment issue because they recognize that if we do away with all our fish and our animals we will ultimately do away with all the people in the long run. They want to preserve things and at the same time they want to have a liveable community.
I am glad he mentioned that. I think the government could have done more with its green plan. I have tried to go to a number of meetings in my riding with environmental people to encourage them. At the end of this month we are having a conference for people from all over the province dealing with salmon enhancement. It is something very dear to me and a lot of people in British Columbia.
The question I want to put to him is a little nastier. I heard the interchange between him and the member for Skeena. The member for Skeena raised the point that the member for Broadview-Greenwood had voted against the NDP motion, which was against the North American free trade deal, so that the member then had voted in favour of NAFTA.
Perhaps the member could clarify for the House if that was true or not because it is there in the public record. Perhaps he could just briefly tell me if he is for or against NAFTA. Or, is he a traditional Liberal mugwump who wants to be on both sides of the issue at the same time?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to deal with the issue of the salmon.
The most polluted river in all of Canada, the Don River, is in my riding. It flows through the centre of the city and into Lake Ontario, which is our drinking water.
We have been working very hard, all levels of government, many people in the private sector, to reclaim the Don River. We hope one day to have salmon in the Don River. We did have the best salmon in Canada not too long ago. Now it is a rare day when people see a salmon and of course they could not eat it.
I hope one day our river can be the same as the rivers that the hon. member talks about in his riding. That is one of the priorities we are focusing on in our community. It is something we are not letting go. We certainly do not consider it a pie in the sky effort.
However I want to deal with NAFTA. I want to tell the hon. member exactly what my position is on NAFTA. It is not a mugwump position or whatever. I do not know what the expression is but the member knows I am a Liberal. I am a party person, but the beautiful thing about the Liberal Party is that it allows for a creative process.
The member for Etobicoke North, our leader on this issue, said that any North American free trade agreement that fails to promote Canadian workers and jobs and fails to safeguard the environment would be a free trade agreement we would not support. It is that simple. We have stated that repeatedly.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto mentioned the Don River. I think everyone would like to see the Don River cleaned up. Maybe he can help me because people have to understand the massive exercise this involves.
While the Don River may empty into lake Ontario at its mouth, studies show that if the government or people were to spend all sorts of money to clean up the industries at the mouth of the Don River it would have a minuscule effect on the pollution in the Don River because the pollution comes from the entire watershed of the Don River.
May 13, 1993

The member mentioned that it involves not just the federal government but the provincial government, and I imagine regional government and municipal townships. I was just wondering, because the member has often provided some intelligence to debates, if he could expand upon that and explain to me the scope of the governments that would have to be involved in the clean-up of just one river in Canada.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge. I consider that a lob ball and I will take it.
The hon. member is absolutely right. It sounds like he knows probably as much or more than I do about the Don River. It is the entire watershed. We are going to need and we are getting co-operation from all levels of government. We have managed in the last five years to have four factories that could not meet the new environmental standards move their buildings away from the Don River.
As a result people, the young and seniors, now walk along the Don River. They are cycling. They are planting trees. More and more people in the community are becoming sensitized to the fact that if we do work together we can reclaim the Don.
The member for Don Valley East has been a tremendous supporter of reclaiming the Don Valley, as have the member for Don Valley West and the member for Rosedale. We have decided we are all working together on this issue.
For me the bottom line is that it is a perfect example of the fact that when we put all of the forces in a common cause together miraculous things can happen.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the hon. member that I did not want to mislead him or the House. I used the word mugwump. It comes from Mark Twain. It describes someone who has his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other. A mugwump is someone who is sitting on the fence. I have tried to answer both sides of the same question.
I applaud what the member said about the Don River. Quiet flows the Don through his riding. I hope they will clean it up.
Supply
You said it used to have the best salmon in Canada. The Fraser River flows by my riding. Could you just say the second best salmon in Canada?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will concede the second best as long as he will concede that he understands exactly where I stand on NAFTA. If we do not get the environmental amendments, labour standards and all the things we have mentioned in this House, then he knows exactly where I stand on the issue.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this opposition motion. I must say I am somewhat surprised at the wording of the motion because I expected the opposition to condemn the government outright for its policy on sustainable development and the environment. However there is some indication at least in the wording that it only regrets. To quote the motion, despite many grand announcements, the government has taken some action. The government has failed to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development, all of which gives the impression that the opposition has raised an interesting point for discussion this afternoon but seems to admit, by its wording of the motion that, all things considered, the present government has not failed to meet its commitments.
Speaking as an average citizen who also happens to be the member for Richmond-Wolfe and vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, I would like to start by quoting from an article in the Calgary Herald, which I would like to read to you:

"The other political parties regularly enjoy dumping on the green plan but the policy in reality is that since its unveiling in December, 1990 it has become the centrepiece of the national environmental debate and the yardstick against which private activists and political critics must be measured".

That being said, I would like to say first of all that Canada's green plan, announced by the federal government on December 11, 1990, constitutes the government's strategy and national action plan on sustainable development. It was prepared after massive consulta-

May 13, 1993
Supply
tions with Canadians from all walks of life: governments, business, special interest groups and the general public.
The purpose of the green plan was to secure for current and future generations a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy. This perspective implies a fundamental change in the way the government looks at economic development and the environment. Both are inextricably linked and are essential to the health and well-being of all Canadians.
While providing a framework for action on a series of specific problems, from ozone depletion to protecting our national heritage, the green plan deals with the very basis for sustainable development: the need to make this a principal part of decision making at all levels of society.
The green plan also provides the basis for new, stronger partnerships for sustainable development. We all have a role to play in meeting environmental challenges. We must all work together if we want sustainable development to become a reality.
Canada's green plan represents the federal government's response to this challenge. It is based on the following elements: first, the concept of sustainable development which implies reconciling our economic needs with the ability of the environment to support present and future generations.
Second, it is an exhaustive plan, a consistent set of measures covering a broad range of environmental issues from global warming to wildlife and parks.
Third, it is a plan that commits all government departments. It acknowledges that environmental issues are not bound by the traditional barriers between departments and that a concerted effort by all departments is essential if we are to respond effectively to environmental challenges.
The green plan assumes that substantial new resources will be earmarked for the environment. At a time when spending on most other programs will diminish or be capped at current levels, funding for the green plan will continue to grow substantially from year to year. That is very important.
In the green plan's first year, for instance, we spent $210 million at the federal level. We spent $286 million the next year and $351 million has been budgeted for the year after. The trend is clear.
Because of the extent and urgency of the challenges involved, the green plan is one of the sectors where spending is accelerating. The plan contains a broad range of specific objectives and time frames setting out the government's accountability, and I will name a few.
First is a reduction of smog concentrations across Canada to bring them below levels at which they are harmful to the most vulnerable groups in our population. Second is a 50 per cent reduction by the year 2000 in the quantity of waste we produce. Third is forest management not only in terms of economic yield but in terms of sustainable development. Fourth, the plan aims at setting aside 12 per cent of our territory for nature reserves. Fifth, it aims at completing our network of national parks by the year 2000. Sixth, it provides for stabilizing greenhouse gases at their 1990 levels by the year 2000. And finally, its objective is the gradual elimination of CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons, and other substances that deplete the ozone layer.
All these objectives and time frames are extremely important for the implementation of the green plan. I think this reflects the government's determination to announce its objectives and to explain how it intends to meet those objectives.
Because of its perspective on sustainable development, Canada has been praised throughout the world for its green plan. It is also why the then director general of the United Nations Environment Program described the green plan as a model for the rest of the world.
As indicated in the report on the plan's second year published last March, real progress has been achieved despite the usual constraints, including financial jurisdiction and other problems.
Today Canada's green plan is entering its third year. Since it came into force, we have been improving the decision-making process which lies at the heart of sustainable development. For instance, the Environmental Assessment Act received royal assent last June. This is a key factor in the federal government's general strategy for putting its house in order. It isn't easy, when
May 13, 1993

we consider the many federal and provincial jurisdictions.
After committing itself to the process, the government produced an environmental assessment of the North American free trade agreement. This is the first time environmental considerations have been part of trade negotiations. I may add that in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement there was less emphasis on such measures. However in NAFTA the process is well under way. This is another example of our efforts, the increasing awareness of our trading partners and of course Canada's leadership in this respect. Furthermore, certain regulations applying to pulp and paper mills are now in effect. I know what I am talking about because I come from a riding where we have Kruger in Bromptonville and Domtar in Windsor which both have major pulp and paper plants. It took a number of years to develop and negotiate these regulations, which are based on sound scientific data.
A working paper on economic instruments was also produced. We are talking about a first step towards using market forces to guarantee environmental protection.
Finally, a second report on the state of the environment was published last year with accurate, useful and accessible information to help Canadians make enlightened decisions. I could also mention the code of environmental stewardship for federal government activities which was adopted recently.
Clearly the green plan has done a lot to clean up the environment and make sustainable development a guiding principle that reconciles economic development with environmental protection, both here and abroad.
From the Atlantic coast to the Fraser Valley and the Arctic shores, Canadians are working together to meet the objectives set by the green plan for a cleaner, safer and healthier environment. For instance, in the Atlantic provinces 13 communities are developing plans for management of their inshore resources. Each project is organized and directed at the local level, which is very important. We are getting down to the nitty-gritty.
Supply
In Quebec, the Centre interuniversitaire de recherche et toxicologie, run by the University of Montreal and the University of Quebec in Montreal, is affiliated with a national network that examines the effects of toxic chemical substances on living organisms. Are those half-measures? Is this an example of the government's failure to act on the environment? I think we agree these examples are proof of the opposite, but there is more.
In Ontario, the automobile industry has set up a complete pollution prevention program aimed at voluntary Canada-wide reduction of use, production and disposal of toxic substances.
In the Prairies, each province is creating living models of sustainable forest management, thanks to partnerships involving government, industry, aboriginal groups, universities and other parties. Each model forest is part of a national network that will establish a new relationship between forest management and the environment. Do you want more examples, Mr. Speaker?
In British Columbia a large number of partners are working together on a sustainable development plan for the Fraser River, in order to clean up contaminated sites, stop pollution, restore wildlife habitat and salmon populations, and improve water quality. This plan served as the starting point for the federal-provincial-municipal agreement signed in May 1992.
In the north, with its fragile ecosystem, a team of students has removed dangerous and unsightly waste accumulated during the past 50 years or more on the shores and islands of Great Slave Lake as part of a project set up by the Metis nation in the Northwest Territories.
As Canadians we should be proud of our efforts and applaud these achievements. These are some concrete examples of the slogan: think globally, act locally.
The earth summit was a major event for the cause of sustainable development in 1992. We did more than act locally. There was a meeting in Rio, with consultations and dialogue. In fact, thanks to its green plan, Canada came to the summit well prepared to contribute to global change. I would like to mention the magnificent performance by our Minister of the Environment who led the Canadian delegation and was also foremost among

May 13, 1993
Supply
the committed participants at this summit. Canada went to Rio eager to learn more, as did other countries.
The past two years have shown that the basic principles of the green plan are as valid today as they were in 1990. However, the plan was meant to evolve with the times because nothing is ever perfect.
We must therefore ensure that it will continue to meet the new needs which will arise and that it will enable us to benefit from the experience gained. Our greatest priority must be to make better use of the whole range of available means of environmental protection. First and foremost there is the promotion of voluntary measures. There is also the use of market forces to influence millions of collective and individual decisions. Finally there is rationalizing the activities of the different levels of government in Canada.
Our second priority concerns the economic dimension of sustainable development. The business community is a key partner in making new connections between the environment and the economy in Canada. We see that it is not easy to connect or join all these partners or participants in different communities and different activities. The green plan is meant to promote the emergence of an environmentally competitive private sector.
Our third priority is to broaden the scope of the green plan so we can handle the comprehensive aspects of sustainable development, for example by integrating environmental issues in multilateral trade negotiations and by helping developing countries make the transition to sustainable development. We have a responsibility in this regard. Things are going on not only in our country but abroad as well. We must share this expertise or even the environmental problems we had by passing on reports and findings and of course encouraging our partners in developing countries to join us. In this way the whole planet will be made aware and can find common solutions and be healthier for it.
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another initiative in Quebec which is considered an example in many fields and in which, as member for a riding in that province, I have a special interest like many other citizens. It concerns the St. Lawrence River, a major route in eastern Canada.
The federal government has undertaken to protect the river so that, like us and our grandparents, future generations can enjoy this major waterway. Five years ago in June 1988 the Prime Minister of Canada announced a $110 million investment to clean up the St. Lawrence River.
That was the beginning of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. At the time this plan was considered ambitious, even daring by some on account of its objectives, because it was claimed that the federal government had decided with the Government of Quebec to tackle the pollution caused by 50 businesses considered priorities. This plan was thought to be audacious. Today some say that it is not daring enough. We must be logical.
On April 2 the Minister of the Environment announced in Quebec City that the Government of Canada had decided to invest $100 million over the next five years in implementing phase II of the St. Lawrence plan. These funds will make it possible to continue the achievements of the first phase of the plan.
Let me remind the House of the objectives which have been realized under this St. Lawrence plan between 1988 and 1993. The conservation of 5,000 hectares of wildlife habitat along the river is now assured. The Saguenay Marine Park was created. Survival plans for six endangered species including beluga whales were implemented. The restoration of some federal properties along the St. Lawrence, in particular the Lachine Canal and the national ports, was begun. Are these not important activities, decisions and actions all along the St. Lawrence? I think that mentioning them shows the awareness and responsibility and that these action plans in the green plan will soon succeed.
Thanks to this St. Lawrence plan, new environmental technologies have been developed. Phase I of the action plan helped develop a leading edge industry in Quebec and Canada. According to a study by Cogesult, phase I helped create or maintain some 2,200 jobs a year between 1988 and 1993 and generated $1.4 billion in economic benefits. This is an outstanding performance and an outstanding result. By March 1993 liquid toxic waste dumped in the river by the 50 businesses considered priorities had been reduced 74 per cent. These results have had a significant environmental impact. The goal of 90 per cent will be reached in 1995.
May 13, 1993

Mr. Speaker, you see that this illustrates what this government did to implement a plan that was considered daring and helped achieve the results which I described earlier.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate the member for Richmond-Wolfe on this fine attempt to defend the policies advocated by his government in the past two or three years, especially those arising from the green plan.
Of course some good things have been done. I am thinking in particular of the Tree Plant Canada program, a minor one in itself, but one which the municipalities have adopted to beautify their communities, and that is good. There is also the model forest program which will certainly have some effect within three, five or ten years. We will see then what comes of it. He also spoke about this initiative to clean up the St. Lawrence which has had mixed results.
Personally, what concerns me much more is that in last week's budget, the Minister of Finance admitted outright that a federal government led by the Conservative Party would withdraw from forestry development agreements with all provinces. May I remind the member for Richmond-Wolfe that these forestry development agreements are excellent ways to achieve integrated management of our forests. By bringing the subject up in this way or rather, I should say, by omitting it in his budget last week the Minister of Finance has just pushed this great national priority to the background.
The first part of my question, for the member from Richmond-Wolfe, is this: how does he see silviculture, reforestation, construction of access roads and wildlife protection, in his riding and in the province of Quebec? The member also spoke of awareness and responsibility. The second part of my question is: who should have this awareness and this responsibility for forestry development in our area, to repeat his words?


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member first mentions funds and second, concertation. I understand his concerns.
Supply
As far as funds are concerned, we already know a lot about that because the provincial governments have had tremendous budget difficulties for a long time, which has led them very recently to face their responsibilities and make painful decisions based on a total budget that unfortunately calls for financial restraint. I could mention some provinces which have already made such decisions because they had to make them to act responsibly, revenue projections having failed to materialize.
All in all, some long-term decisions might change and some figures might change, but the important thing to remember is that this total budget vision includes major environmental priorities. That is what I tried to say just now when I mentioned that all in all over the past three years the budget allocation for the environment has increased. That shows this government's awareness, convictions and priorities.
As for silviculture and co-operation, another real problem is raised, but that is what the environmental challenge is about.
We live in a country with a multitude of governments of different jurisdictions at various levels. The provinces and the federal government come into conflict at times as do the provinces among themselves. Of course this makes such co-operation more difficult, if some want to hold on to or maintain their own jurisdiction. This calls for more discussion and my colleague is right to be concerned about it. I understand and share his concerns.
You will understand that the provinces have a very large responsibility for forests, especially since many of them claim, assert or demand increased, even exclusive responsibility which could obviously pose problems for the federal government.
Co-operation is very important and my colleague is right to raise this problem, which also concerns me, but we have to go on. Success will take time as I said in my speech, but let us hope that the discussions will continue.

May 13, 1993
Supply


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, there are many situations where the government's rhetoric does not seem to live up to reality.
I want to point out one particular section in the government's green plan. On page 34 it affirms or reaffirms the commitment to the federal water policy regarding inter-basin transfers of water. That is right in the green plan. Of course the federal water policy indicates a commitment to-and I have a copy of it here-take all possible measures within the limits of constitutional authority to prohibit the export of Canadian waters by inter-basin transfers.
I want to point out that not only does the federal water policy prohibit such inter-basin transfers but in the green plan document it also stipulates complete environmental reviews or assessments of any such major environmental projects.
The member knows very well that the federal government has given the green light to phase 2 of the Alcan-Kemano project where a major portion of the flow of the Nechako River in northern British Columbia is to be diverted and moved through the penstocks for Alcan Aluminum to provide more power-generating capacity. That is a major diversion of the flow of the Nechako River that will reduce the flow rates of the Nechako River to some 12 per cent of the original flow rates. Estimates have been that it could drop the level of the Fraser River by up to a metre. The biological impact upon the possible salmon runs could be very harmful indeed.
The policy itself stipulates this will not occur because it contravenes federal water policy and those kinds of projects will not be allowed to occur without a major environmental review. It seems that the government in that situation has ignored not just one of its policy directives but two; one in the federal water policy and one in the green plan itself.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be environment minister so that I could clarify in detail the problems raised by my colleague. On the subject of hydro-electricity, we must understand what I said before in answer to a colleague's previous question, namely that there are shared jurisdictions and that the solution would obviously be to share them in a broader vision.
I understand very well the effects the development on the Fraser River could have on marine life. I understand the effects of such developments. I live in a province where hydroelectric resources and their development are essential and of course this development can have unfortunate environmental consequences for future generations.
I share his concerns on that, but I am not familiar with the problem my colleague raised concerning the west, so I am not the one to apply the green plan to that aspect of the problem and to that region.
In concluding my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would tell you that I was preparing to touch on the objectives of protecting biodiversity in the St. Lawrence.
I know the St. Lawrence better than any other river in Canada. I hope you will pardon my limited knowledge, Mr. Speaker. We restored sites along the river to preserve aquatic and shore life. There is biodiversity in the St. Lawrence as well, which by the way is in complete accord with diversity, and it is very important to preserve it. So we have made efforts and the St. Lawrence plan deals with this issue very well.
I hope and trust that such measures will be applicable and extended to other areas and regions of Canada. That is about all I could tell you based on the knowledge I have of the St. Lawrence rather than the Fraser River.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is despite the many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and a half years since the launch of the green plan the government has failed to integrate environmentally sustainable development as a goal of public policy.
I want to go on record as agreeing with this opposition motion put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It is a very appropriate motion that deserves extensive debate in this House.
Some time ago the government did publish a very extensive document that has many positive aspects to it. In terms of the document itself I think it is a shining example of what could be done if in fact the political motivation was there to do it rather than just the political
May 13, 1993

rhetoric to put it on a piece of paper. I am afraid that is about the extent of this government's commitment.
While the green plan document is a very honourable proposal, my concern is that the government has not had the political will, political commitment, political foresight quite frankly, to follow up on and commit itself legislatively speaking to many of the positive recommendations that are in this document.
I refer to page 34 where it talks about the government's 1987 federal water policy and how that water policy sets out a national strategy for managing Canada's water resources. The green plan goes on to say that it will commit itself to environmental assessments to ensure that federal projects including those that affect water resources are subjected to environmental impact assessments.
It goes on even further and says: "Reaffirming the strategy and goals of the federal water policy the green plan sets out the government's contribution to further national co-operative efforts to protect and enhance Canada's water resources."
Those are laudable words but in fact the government has failed in that commitment. It has failed in the commitment, as I pointed out earlier in my discussions with the hon. member opposite, in its passage of the Alcan Kemano diversion project, phase two, which diverts a major flow of the Nechako River, reducing the flow rates to some 12 per cent of the original flow rates. It could have devastating impact on the salmon runs that go up the Nechako and into Chilko Lake.
This was passed with virtually no environmental review, no environmental assessment. It was passed I might add against the explicit recommendations of the government's own scientists in the area of water management. The decision to do this was a sham in light of the explicit and expressed commitment to environmental assessment in the green plan. It shows that the government's commitment is just not there when the crunch comes.
I want to talk more about water because the federal water policy in 1987 commits itself to taking all possible measures within the limits of its constitutional authority to prohibit the export of Canadian water by interbasin diversions.
Supply
I have no disagreement with that commitment. I think it is a laudable commitment, but I want to point to the federal water policy document written in 1987. Laudable goals as they are with a lot of good solid commitments, it is nothing but a philosophical document. It has no legislative clout and no legislative teeth backing it up. It remains a philosophical document without any legislative power.
The government in 1988 had the opportunity to put it into legislation and into law, and in fact that legislation was before this very House but died on the Order Paper, this philosophical commitment to ban large scale exports of Canadian water through inter-basin transfers and inter-basin diversions. It failed to do so. In failing to do so I submit that in light of the proposed North American free trade agreement which we are now also debating in these Chambers, the government has comprised its sovereignty in terms of this extremely valuable Canadian resource.
I want to say that water is Canada's birthright. When you look at it, it is a vital and critical lubricant for the creation of a strong and vibrant economy. Simply put, there is no substitute for water. In many parts of the North American continent, including my riding in the Okanagan-Shuswap which is part of the Okanagan valley and certainly throughout the prairies, water is in fact the limiting factor to both biological growth and economic and social growth. It is a very important factor.
I also want to point out that even though Canada supposedly has the lion's share of the world's supply of water, 25 per cent of the world's supply of fresh water, actually most of that fresh water is locked up in glaciers and ice sheets left over from the last ice age. When we look at it in reality, Canada only has about 9 per cent of the world's fresh water supply for 7 per cent of the world's land mass. We have about our fair share.
The problem is that two-thirds of that water runs north away from our major population centres and away from those areas where the water could be utilized to further both economic and biological growth. That is just a fact of nature.

May 13, 1993
Supply
There is a very disturbing trend that is developing. As I said before, I feel that the government through the North American free trade agreement has compromised our sovereignty and our control of Canada's water resources. The disturbing fact is that the Americans have long coveted our fresh water supplies believing that we are a nation awash in surplus water. There has been talk for decades now of the need to access this so-called surplus water and to rearrange Canada's plumbing system to serve continental interests.
The question has to be asked as to whether or not Canada in fact has surplus water. It is an important question. It is a question that begins to be answered in Canada's green plan but is not followed up in terms of any particular legislation. Ecologists for example argue that there is no such thing as surplus water, that all the water in an ecosystem plays a vital role and its removal can and will cause irreversible damage.
There have been discussions for example as to whether small scale water diversions or collecting water as it spills out into coastal estuaries will affect the environment. However, I think that argument is specious. It has been pointed out that any significant removal of water from an ecosystem will modify the nature of that ecosystem.
A good example is the removal of fresh water inflows from coastal estuaries, as I mentioned just a moment ago. Another good example is the tanker exports from Toba Inlet off the west coast of British Columbia. Those kinds of exports can have a dramatic impact on the marine populations for literally hundreds of kilometres seaward. We really do not have any knowledge of the kind of environmental impact that is invoked when we start removing water from an ecosystem. Alterations of fresh water flows from Hudson Bay, for example, a result of the James Bay project, have been shown to affect salinity and marine productivity as far away from James Bay as the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. That is a very dramatic impact. It manifests itself thousands of kilometres away from the source of the change.
In terms of this access to Canada's so-called surplus water, I want to read from the April 1993 edition of Equinox magazine. In this edition they talk about some of the proposals that are developing now and have developed over the past couple of decades in trying to get
access to Canada's water resources. Let me just read from a portion of the text here.
It says: "Liquid salvation lies just a few states north and across the border in the cool, crystal-clear waters of Canada. Water export proposals with continental ambitions, some new, some reborn after decades on the shelf, are now being promoted by powerful interests on both sides of the border. Some of the proposals would remake the geographic face of North America: dams to flood the Rocky Mountain trench, a canal to send water from Quebec to the American mid-west, a tunnel to divert a portion of the North Thompson River to California, tankers to transport glacial water fresh from the British Columbia coast."
It goes on: "Although Ottawa insists that large-scale exports to the United States or Mexico will not be negotiated, environmentalists, water experts and citizen groups believe bulk water sales and river diversions may be inevitable."
I wanted to read that to show that these are not some kooky ideas floating around out in the stratosphere somewhere. There is serious money and serious political clout backing some of these proposals. I am trying to say that the green plan has failed to put into legislative action those kinds of mechanisms that we need to protect Canada's water resources from those kinds of export proposals.
I want to say something more. As this government prepares to sign on to ratify the proposed North American free trade agreement, it endangers Canada's water resources even more so. I want to try to demonstrate how this trilateral agreement takes precedence over Canadian domestic legislation, whether it be a philosophical policy commitment through the green plan document, whether it be a philosophical policy statement in Canada's federal water policy of 1987 or whether in fact it is a commitment to ban large scale water exports written into the implementing legislation of NAFTA itself.
As was demonstrated the other day in the committee meetings on the implementing legislation for the trade agreement, the provisions of this trade agreement take precedence over any conflicting domestic policy vis-a-vis the green plan or the federal water policy. The trilateral trade agreement takes precedence over that conflicting policy or domestic legislation. That is why I am saying

that the control of Canadian water resources may very well be taken out of our hands whether we like it or not.
The government has boasted, and I have heard it time and time again, that Canada's federal water policy prohibits these large scale diversions of water. We have heard it said that the implementing legislation protects against the large scale diversions of water.
Dr. Frank Quinn, a senior policy adviser in the Federal Inland Waters Directorate, has admitted publicly that this government, despite the rhetoric that might be in the water policy or the green plan and despite the political rhetoric we have here committing itself to disallowing large scale water exports, is now reconsidering its position on water exports. At a policy conference last spring in Vancouver Dr. Quinn said: "There is every indication from comments made that this government is moving toward an export policy for water."
Only a month ago we found out that U.S. experts in California are very closely following the proposal for the diversion of a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River near Valemount, British Columbia, just north of my riding. They are following the developments of this water export proposal. They consider that the proposal by Multinational Water and Power is really a test case for the sale of Canadian waters under the free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement.
I want to point to both the free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement with respect to the whole question of water exports and how this overrides the provisions of our federal water policy and our green plan initiative.
As I mentioned before, many experts have said that these international agreements take precedence over domestic policy or legislation. Judge Maxwell Cohen, past chair of the International Joint Commission; Dr. Andrew Thompson, a Vancouver based law resource expert; Dr. Armand de Mestral, an international law expert at McGill University; and Don McRae, the dean of law at the University of Ottawa have all concluded independently that conflicting domestic policy or legisla-
Supply
tion does not alter commitments made in international agreements such as the FTA and NAFTA.
We heard evidence the other day in committee that natural water of all kinds, not including sea water is in fact included both in the FTA and NAFTA as a commodity of trade. That was verified by the assistant deputy attorney general who appeared as a witness before the committee. That individual also confirmed that not only is water identified as a commodity of trade in both these agreements but there is no exclusive provision in these agreements that would exempt large-scale water exports of Canadian water resources.
He confirmed also that these international agreements will take priority over our green plan document, over our federal domestic water polity and over the implementing legislation. In fact, because there is no specific exclusion for water exports written into these trade agreements and because other sectors of the agreement involve water as a commodity of trade, these international agreements open the spill-gates to the export of Canadian waters. It is in the agreements, under article 2201 of NAFTA and the FTA.
It does not compel us to export water but if such a contract were to take place all the provisions of the FTA or NAFTA would lock into place. That is problematic because there are certain sectors of both agreements which exclude the safeguard of the export of Canadian waters as agricultural commodities even in the event of environmental or domestic emergencies. In other words, once the taps are turned on, it is very difficult to turn them off.
I have a lot of information with regard to the specifics of the agreement itself. However, let me just say that legal opinion in the convention of international law supports the contention that both the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement as international agreements will take precedence over conflicting domestic policy legislation.
Under the provision for national treatment in these agreements, trade in goods as identified in the harmonized tariff schedule will accord to all parties equivalent access to the trade in those goods. That trade does include trade and export of water resources.

May 13, 1993
Supply
We have seen that water is included in these agreements under article 2201. What is more, as has been demonstrated in the various articles of the NAFTA agreement there are no specific exclusions for the bulk export of water, whether we are talking by tanker, by inter-basin transfer, by river diversion or by non-energy pipelines. That is a provision in NAFTA which really opens up another avenue to turn the taps on.
In the words of a senior Canadian trade official: "There is no restriction, volume, value, no restriction of any kind on the export of water from Canada, either in the North American free trade agreement or outside the NAFTA agreement for that matter." That is a quote from that individual who was involved in negotiating this section of NAFTA.
That is why for this reason and this reason alone, regardless of any of the other purported benefits of the FTA or NAFTA-and quite frankly I have not seen many when considering the job losses the FTA has caused for Canadians-these trade agreements should either be nullified or specific exclusions made to each of them in order to protect Canada's water resources from bulk export. Once we turn the taps on under the provisions of these agreements we are not going to be able to turn them off and the price for Canada is just too high.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Okanagan- Shuswap that I share his concern on this issue. In fact in my very first speech in the Flouse of Commons five years ago I talked about this issue. I have devoted an entire householder to it.
I remember after being elected for just a year I got a copy of Clayton Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis. He was the free trade negotiator under the Reagan government. It took the Library of Parliament about six months to get it from the University of Nebraska. In 1961 he did his Ph.D. thesis on North American water management. Clayton Yeutter's entire life has been North American water management.
I have always believed that we are vulnerable on the issue of water when it comes to the free trade agreement. In fact the very first time I spoke in this House of Commons I asked the Prime Minister if he would ask his friend, the president at that time, President Reagan, for a special letter. I asked for a one-page letter from the
President of the United States to the Prime Minister of Canada saying: "In order to put people's minds at rest in Canada we want to give you this protocol letter that will clarify with you that water is not a part of the free trade agreement."
I phoned Clayton Yeutter. I faxed Clayton Yeutter. I have sent him letters. I said: "Please, Mr. Yeutter, write to me and tell me that water is not part of the free trade agreement." The Prime Minister never responded. Clayton Yeutter never responded.
I want to be on record with the New Democratic Party member from Okanagan-Shuswap that this is something Canadians should be concerned about. If the members opposite-and I see the member for Cambridge for whom I have a lot of respect-really think that we and the lawyers and experts we are talking to are all wrong in the interpretation, then why do we not just get President Clinton to write a one-page letter? The Prime Minister talks about phoning him from time to time. Have him write a letter. It is not a big deal.
This is where I part with the NDP. I do not think we should abrogate the free trade agreement without any discussion. My point is that we agree that water is a part of the free trade agreement. We agree that the free trade agreement, the accord, supersedes whatever legislation goes on in this House or any other provincial legislature. We can have all kinds of provincial legislatures saying that water is not a part of it. It does not matter. The free trade agreement supersedes all of the laws in those houses.
I am just dealing with the principle of water. If we could sit down with U.S. President Clinton and VicePresident Gore, who is a pretty sensitive person when it comes to environmental issues, and they did give us that special protocol letter, would that not be satisfactory in that particular area?
I am not talking about matters relating to safeguards, the auto pact or anything else. I am talking about the process of how we reconcile the flaws that even many Conservative members are now admitting are in the deal. I think where we as a party differ is that his party would like to not even have the discussion, whereas we would like to sit down and give them a chance to fix it before we abrogate.
May 13, 1993


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
If it were a matter of having to open up the deal, quite frankly I do not think we would be able to open it up. It is just not going to happen. It is not in the cards. That is why we are suggesting that probably if we want to change the deal itself we are going to have to abrogate it and start over again.
Let us look at the specific provisions for water. The hon. member, many other experts in water management and legal affairs and I agree that water is part of this FTA. If we wanted to seek a specific exclusion to the large-scale export of Canadian waters without opening up the FTA, we could easily do it through the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the two countries, between Canada and the United States. That has been suggested many times. The government has simply refused to even acknowledge that possibility, but it could be done.
The opportunity we have here with respect to the proposed North American trade agreement, if in fact it is going to go through at all, is that we still have time to change aspects of that agreement.
It is interesting to note that annex 301.3 in the proposed North American agreement has some very specific exclusions written in. The government was not totally asleep when this was being done. It makes one wonder, but it was not totally asleep.
The government managed to figure out that it had better put in an exclusion for the export of raw logs to the United States. The government said there would be no export of raw logs. That is nixed. It managed to figure out that perhaps we should also ban the export of unprocessed fish from the maritimes and Quebec. Somehow it was forgotten that there is a west coast fisheries industry that is also having problems, but at least it got that one in.
We have specific provisions to exclude from trade the export of raw logs and the export of unprocessed fish. It was a perfect opportunity to also ban the large-scale export of water but the agreement is silent in this regard.
It could be changed, particularly when President Clinton has said there must be parallel agreements with regard to environmental measures that should be signed
Supply
by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in order to cover some of the problem areas that have not been covered by this agreement.
What a perfect opportunity for Canada to say that we want to tighten it up. If this government is really committed to disallowing large scale and inter-basin transfers of water, it would have the opportunity through the parallel agreements now being negotiated by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico but it is not doing it. I submit to my Liberal friend that the government, quite frankly, does not want to do it.
Our chief trade negotiator in the FTA, Simon Reis-man, was one of the authors of the Grand Canal scheme. That was a massive scheme to dam James Bay, turn it into a fresh water reservoir and pump the water south into the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
There is Clayton Yeutter down south who did his Ph.D. thesis on water exports and our Canadian negotiator who is an engineer with the vision of replumbing the North American continent. It is almost beyond consequence that these two individuals were the chief trade negotiators for Canada and the United States. Our own negotiator, Mr. Reisman said at the time the negotiations were starting he would use Canadian water as the carrot to entice the U.S. to the negotiating table. What else needs to be said?


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of my two colleagues concerning potential water exports or inter-basin diversions.

I would like to assure my colleagues that Canada's sovereignty to protect and manage its water resources remains unaffected by the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement.
Nothing in either the FTA or NAFTA commits Canada to export its water resources. The Canadian negotiators of the FTA and the NAFTA were bound by federal water policy which states: "The federal government will take all possible measures within the limits of its constitutional authority to prohibit the export of Canadian water by interbasin diversions".

May 13, 1993
Supply

We must realize that water may be exported, if we are talking about water packed as a beverage. That is normal practice. I may point out that there is a big difference between exporting a product in containers and diverting water to the United States. That is an entirely different proposition, and that is protected. This agreement on exports of sparkling water is 50 years old. Everything dealing with exports of beverages in containers is 50 years old. What is all the fuss about? We are just going on as before.
I think my colleagues should relax about this. Nowhere is there any infringement on Canada's authority, power or sovereignty. I just want to set their concerns to rest.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the government continues to hide behind this argument because it is absolutely specious. A bevy of international experts have concluded that our federal water policy means diddley-squat. It is nothing more than a philosophical document. It has no legislative teeth.
The government had an opportunity to introduce legislation banning the export of water in 1988 and it died on the Order Paper. There is no commitment to do that. Water is a good of trade under both the FTA and NAFTA. I want to assure the member, under article 201 of the NAFTA agreement the goods of a party are defined as products as these are understood in the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Turn to the general agreement on tariffs and trades to the harmonized commodity coding system and goods of a party. Under goods of a party is tariff item 22.01 which is listed as: "ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water". I rest my case.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to continue with those explanations. I repeat, trade in water packaged as a beverage or in tanks has and will continue to take place under the auspices of tariff schedule 22.01. You are right. But I still insist the water must be as a beverage or in tanks. That is veiy important.
The schedule has been in the general agreement on tariffs and trade for over 50 years as I told you before. It
has only applied to beverages. This provision has been incorporated into the FTA and the NAFTA. Water diversion has never been discussed in GATT, nor in the FTA or NAFTA negotiations therefore it is not included in those trade agreements. That is very important and it is a big difference so let us make it.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows unless there is a specific exclusion written into the agreement, who knows how it is going to be interpreted by the international panel. That is just the point we are making.
There is no specific exclusion written into either the FTA or the proposed North American trade agreement that limits water exports to be simply in bottles and tanks. How big a tank are we talking about? Could a tank be a tanker or a pipeline?
A point has to be reinforced that this government simply refuses to accept because it knows it has been caught with its pants down. It is that ordinary, natural water of all kinds not including sea water is defined as a commodity of trade. If it is defined as a commodity of trade without any explicit exclusions for how it is defined in terms of putting some parameters around that commodity, then we are have left ourselves wide open.
The international legal experts have said we are now vulnerable to international interpretation through the trilateral panel that would be set up under NAFTA. That interpretation will supersede or take primacy over any domestic policy or legislation including our domestic implementing legislation.
The point is the government has failed to put in a specific exclusion not to export bulk water through interbasin transfer or other methods. That specific exclusion is needed in there otherwise the interpretation can rule against it.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was present during the NAFTA hearings and he seems to be taking the words from the people from the negotiating office.
As he is well aware and as he was told at that meeting there is no mention of water in the GATT. There is no trade agreement anywhere that mentions water but he talks about large-scale diversions of water. He is leaving the House with the impression that the Americans can
May 13, 1993

say to the Canadian government: "We want water today". That is the impression he is trying to give.
Where does it say in the agreement that Canadians have to stand up and salute and start building trenches or canals to divert the water? He knows that is not in the agreement. Why does he continue to hang on to the little thread of an argument, this philosophical argument that has not existed in the GATT? Why does he continue?
Maybe he can point out in the agreement where it says that the Canadian government has to divert water and build large-scale canals to divert it to the United States.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well I made the public statement the other day in committee that there is nothing in the agreement that compels Canada to sell Canadian water. I made that public statement in front of committee. If he had his ears open he would have heard it.
There is nothing in there that compels us to sell water. The point of the matter is there is nothing in there that explicitly excludes the possibility of doing that. You know as well as I do that any government any day can change domestic policy. Domestic policy is nothing. It is easy to change policy. All you have to do is change governments or even change the decision of cabinet within government. Policy can change at whim.
Even though the policy right now says no to water diversions, this same government proceeded in complete violation of its own policy with the Nechako diversion project with no environmental review and against the wishes and scientific evidence of its own water experts. It went ahead and diverted the Nechako River, reducing its flow rates to 12 per cent of the original flow rates.
The hon. member is saying this government is committed to banning water diversions. If it is committed to banning water diversions the government would not have proceeded with the Nechako diversion project in the first place. So he is ignoring his own advice.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be short and I want to make a point to the member for Cambridge.
Supply
The chief free trade negotiator for the United States of America, Clayton Yeutter, did his Ph.D. thesis on North American water management. His entire life has been devoted to water. Our chief free trade negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman, director of the former Grand Canal Co.-we all know about the Grand Canal debate that many of us have had-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member is directing the question to the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I think the government can solve our concerns by simply having the Prime Minister get a one-page protocol letter from the President of the United States backing up all the words that are coming from this government on the floor of the House of Commons. For five years we have been asking for that and it has not delivered.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the Liberal side of the House and I are in full agreement. That is exactly the point. All we need with the FTA is a simple memorandum of understanding saying that large-scale water diversions and large-scale bulk transfers of water will not be part of the trade agreement.
In terms of the proposed North American agreement because it has not been signed yet and can still be changed, there is still opportunity. All we need to do is insert that as a clause in annex 301.3 of the NAFTA.
Those simple statements would suffice to resolve this problem about water exports.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House about Agriculture Canada's record on environmental sustainability. It is an enviable record. It goes a long way toward justifying President Clinton's statement after his meeting with the Prime Minister last February that "Canada has a strong record on the environment".
In fact in preparation for the last summit of the leaders of the G-7 industrialized countries NGOs prepared an environmental score card of all the countries involved and Canada came first in agriculture and second over all.

May 13, 1993
Supply
The motion of the hon. member refers to the passage of two and a half years since the launch of the green plan. The fact is that Agriculture Canada was involved in sustainable development long before it became fashionable. For example, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, better known as PFRA, which was established in 1935 is all about soil and water conservation.
It was established to deal with the effects of the droughts of the 1930s but it has adapted with the times and now includes large water resource development projects, irrigation demonstrations and shelter belts. Through the years the PFRA has given away nearly 550 million seedlings for shelter belts.
PFRA promoted farm management strategies developed by the forerunner to Agriculture Canada's research branch. Some of the branch's more recent successes include a sterile insect release program in British Columbia that eliminates costly spraying, and experiments in Alberta that are proving the benefits of reduced tillage especially in dry years when yields are increased as much as 30 per cent.
Environmental sustainability was one of the four pillars of the Agricultural Food Policy Review launched in 1989 by the then Minister of Agriculture. This led to the creation of a federal-provincial industry task force that produced recommendations to take our agri-food sector to the year 2000.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that this report was hailed by environmental groups and farm groups alike. Ducks Unlimited said it was the finest environmental action plan ever produced by government.
Over the years Agriculture Canada has responded to the need to protect our environment and promote sustainable development with a number of programs.
The National Soil Conservation Program that just ended in March was a 50:50 cost-shared federal-provincial program. The federal government contributed more than $75 million through this program to promote the best use of soil resources to sustain productivity.
The Land Management Assistance Program provided over $22 million of federal funds from 1991-92 to 1993-94 to the seven non-prairie provinces to facilitate
the adoption of effective lands resource management and environmentally sustainable farming practices.
The Permanent Cover Program provided over $70 million in direct cash payments to producers since 1988 to take marginal lands out of production. The conversion of these lands to permanent cover will result in soil conservation and wildlife habitat benefits to producers. It will also give producers an alternate source of income.
More than $12 million of federal spending went into the Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program in Ontario. This six-year program which has just ended was aimed at reducing phosphorus loading into the Lake Erie basin. An evaluation will be available later this summer.
That long list of projects forms a prelude to the green plan. The green plan is the flagship environmental program for the department. It carries the momentum of these projects forward to 1996-97. Through the green plan we are working with the provinces and industry to protect the natural resources that agriculture needs to remain viable.
One hundred and fifty-five million dollars will be spent on green plan activities aimed at soil conservation, water quality, managing farm waste and pollution, pesticides, integrating agriculture and wildlife, biodiversity and climate change.
The federal government has so far signed green plan agreements with six of the provinces and territories, or maybe that should be seven now. A signing was scheduled to take place in British Columbia at one p.m. our time and there will be another signing tomorrow in New Brunswick.
This is what Noel Brown, North American director for the United Nations Environment Program, had to say about the green plan. He said: "What impresses the world is that one country can formulate for itself a coherent vision of a sustainable future". He called Canada's green plan a model for other nations.
A few years ago the Prime Minister made a commitment that the federal government would conduct environmental assessments not only on all the projects but also of all policies and programs.
When the House passed the Farm Income Protection Act in 1991, the legislation that enabled us to create our farm safety nets GRIP and NISA, it included built-in provisions for ongoing environmental assessment. This
May 13, 1993

was a first for federal legislation. In addition to GRIP and NISA, an environmental assessment of the Western Grain Transportation Act has been completed.
I have spoken about the past and the present so I would like to conclude with a few words about the future.
It is common practice to conduct economic assessments of proposed government policies, but we have little experience in doing environmental assessments because we have lacked the tools. This is changing. Agriculture Canada is actively involved in developing environmental indicators that will help us to gauge progress in moving toward environmental sustainability in the sector.
The department is also preparing to meet the new legislative requirements of Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Finally, Speaker, Agriculture Canada is continuing its role in further developing its capacity to conduct environmental reviews of its policies.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend on his remarks. I would say that I agree with everything he said. I was actually present the evening that Noel Brown talked about the green plan and how it was a model for the world. But as I said in the House earlier today, there is a great gap between the drawing board and the actual implementation of the policy. I say with respect that the government has missed a tremendous opportunity in implementing this green plan. It has missed a tremendous opportunity with the youth of our country.
I do not suggest this is in the area of agriculture but as a government concerns our process for accessing the innovations, the ideas that are out there in the marketplace. It is a flawed process. I mentioned this a couple of nights ago.
This happened in a spontaneous way on the weekend. There was a company called Bioquest which represents the Oppenheimer formula. Dr. Karl Oppenheimer, formerly a professor of marine sciences and microbiology and a professor at the University of Texas has an expertise in oil ecology. He has worked on the use of micro-organisms for oil spill control since he was a
Supply
member of the President's Santa Barbara oil spill panel in 1969.
This now Canadian company has the Oppenheimer formula which is something we could be using in the Great Lakes, in all of our waterways and with our Coast Guard. Yet this particular company has been trying for the last two years to access this idea to parliamentarians and to the environmental agenda.
My question for my friend is this: does he not think that one of the real flaws in the process around here is the fact that we do not have a system where we can receive and promote the good ideas, the innovations, such as the Oppenheimer formula? I know there are hundreds of other new technologies that would help save this planet and help us bring that green plan to life. Does he not agree with me that this is one area where our process has been flawed?


Ken Monteith: I want to thank my colleague and my friend for his comments. I know he shares, as I do, many concerns about the environment. Perhaps he does not have the opportunity to share some of the agricultural concerns in the environment that some of us do because I do not believe there is very much of an agricultural component in his riding. But I do agree that he certainly is a great supporter of environmental concerns for Ontario and for Canada.
I am not sure that I totally agree with his assessment of whether or not we have a policy that does not do what he wants it to do. Perhaps it is like many other things. We work together to try to take the best of all those concerns and make sure the policy we have works the best for all of us, whether they are his concerns or my concerns.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I rise today to participate in this very important debate.

I am pleased to participe in this debate, especially to show the flaws in the last budget tabled by this government. I want to stress once again, for the benefit of all those Canadians who are listening, the vital contribution of the forest industry in Canada. Approximately 900,000 direct and indirect jobs depend on this industry, and some 350 communities across Canada depend directly on the forest industry for their livelihood. Moreover, in

May 13, 1993
Supply
1991 Canada exported some $22.5 billion in forest products; $1.6 billion were paid in taxes by the workers of that industry, while $13.1 billion were paid in salaries and benefits to those workers. I mention all these statistics to stress once again the vital importance of forestry agreements in the context of sustainable development.
With its last budget, the government simply said it would no longer subsidize provinces and industries regarding forestry development. One wonders about the harmful effects of this decision on the forest industry, and particularly on its workers. If the federal government does not want to get involved, the burden will fall on the provinces and the forest industry. Here are a few interesting figures: in 1991-92, the pulp and paper industry alone lost $4 billion; the lumber industry was very affected by the agreement on softwood lumber signed with the United States. This document was part of the free trade agreement.
I have two reasons for mentioning all those things and relating them to the environment. First, we must protect our physical environment, our forests, and therefore our jobs,particularly in silviculture, in reforestation, and in the protection of our wildlife habitat, our waters and the ecology in general.
Second, we must protect the environment of the family. In the last two or three years the forest industry has undergone such a major restructuring and so many jobs have been lost that the effects on the family have simply been disastrous. Enormous sacrifices were made by the people involved in this industry in order to survive.
I also want to point out other aspects. First, we must mention the major concessions which the workers in this industry have had to make to ensure the survival of their employers and to enable some to keep their jobs. Earlier I referred to the sacrifices which were made. A serious consequence was of course the fact that, to remain competitive at the local, national and international levels these companies had to lay off a large number of workers. This is why I make this connection between the environment and the family. The workers who were laid off literally found themselves without a job overnight. They are the ones we must be concerned about. It is
really about the family environment and the impact this has had on husbands, wives and children. Many of them were forced to relocate to get a job, which means they were uprooted from their communities. Many workers were overcome by stress and required treatment. During that time they did not have the opportunity to upgrade their skills or to acquire new skills to be able to support their families.
I ask the government a very serious question. In view of those sacrifices, how could this Tory government if it is re-elected, which is highly unlikely, fail the forest industry and its workers like that? Could it not, through its green plan or some other regional or economic development policy, support the relentless efforts of every group and every level of government involved so that this industry can survive in Canada? Why is it that with respect to the environment the federal government fails once more to support the foresters who are also racking their brains to find ways to solve the problem?
Take for instance clear-cutting, which is a major concern in Canada. Special efforts were made in recent years to improve Canada's image internationally. Some progress has been made. We have put out fires which were started in Europe, but we must keep at it if only to show other countries that we are taking care of our forest environment which would already be a major step. Indeed, there is no way that the people and the government of Canada would neglect their forest environment.
I would like to make an aside here which is extremely important. Fifteen years ago we did not talk about sustainable development much because we were under the impression at the time that our forest resources were inexhaustible.
Today, however, because of modem technology and the new equipment we have introduced in our forests, cutting is so much faster that we cannot reforest fast enough to cover the area we have cut. A most revealing statistic keeps popping up in my mind and that is the one about the woodland area that has been cut but not reforested enough. In 1989 it was 13 per cent and everything indicated that at the rate forests were being cut and reforested at the time we were losing 1 per cent
May 13, 1993

Supply
per year. It is unbelievable that the higher levels of governments, that is to say federal and provincial governments, are not more concerned about this problem because the next thing we know-and I do not want to be alarmist here, but that is what the figures say-within 30 or 40 years we will have run out of wood fibre in Canada. Whether it is in the pulp and paper industry or in the softwood lumber sector, there will be a shortage of fibre if we do not start today to properly manage our forests. The first thing to do is to plan ahead.
We should also talk about forest conservation. It is extremely important that some parcels of land, even if they are quite large, be put aside so that we can protect all the various species of trees and shrubs in our forests. It is extremely vital that the natural equilibrium be maintained. In fact that is the reason why national parks are becoming more important. We urgently need to become more knowledgeable in the management of our national parks so we can protect at least part of our heritage.
I could go on, but I want to give other members of my party the opportunity to take part in this debate. They may be able to present a different picture of the environment. The point I want to make is that our forestry agreements and the Canadian forest industries are the backbone of our economy. If we turn our back on them, as the Minister of Finance did in his budget statement last week, it would be awful if not immoral. The future of our country depends on this renewable raw material, which has until now allowed us to greatly prosper and put Canada on the map. I am sure that with a new government priorities will change and we will not let the provinces and our forest industries fend for themselves.
What upsets me the most is the argument based on section 92 of the 1867 Constitution Act, which stipulates that forests and natural resources come under provincial jurisdiction. I mentioned earlier the $1.6 billion the federal government collects in taxes and the $13 billion paid in salaries. So, if, in fact, the federal government cannot get involved, then it should return those taxes to the provinces.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague on his comments in the debate this afternoon.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he does not agree that this government has taken many important steps to improve the forest industry. I believe part of that may even be because of his participation on the forestry committee. I know he certainly makes his comments known there.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the goal for forests, as set out in the green plan is that we manage our forests so more trees are grown than are taken out.
In 1992 we implemented a forest accord which promises proper forest management, management by industry, governments, natives and other groups. We are setting up 10 model forests to display to all of the forest industry and all other interested parties state of the art forestry practices.
Also in 1992, about one year ago, Tree Plant Canada got its start. Six months later, five million trees had been planted in communities across Canada. I know that the hon. member will say they probably were not all planted in forests but perhaps it is an important step taken by this government to improve the forest industry.
I wonder if the hon. member might have some comment on that.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk paid attention to my remarks, he would know that I even praised the government's model forests program a little.

I also praised the government for Tree Plant Canada. I even praised the government for renewing agreements in 1987 which had expired and which had been initiated and implemented by the Liberal government in 1982.
Yes, some initiatives have been accomplished and they are very good ones. Having sat with my hon. colleague on the forestry committee, I know that he knows the

May 13, 1993
Supply
statistics which I gave a while ago perfectly well. He also knows that they cannot be set aside. Absolutely not. This is why I say that under no circumstances should the federal government set aside its responsibilities in terms of managing our forests in Canada.
I honestly do not care if it is in the Constitution. It is our moral obligation to supplement those forest resource agreements once they expire. When we form the next government those agreements will be a priority. They will be negotiated with all the provinces.
If one took a very good look at the budget, one would see that the Minister of Finance has merely given the next government the responsibility of renewing those agreements. He has said that if a Conservative government is elected they will not be renewed.
If they are not there then it will be left to us to reinstate those forest agreements. This we shall do.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to my good friend from Cochrane-Superior.
First of all, let me congratulate him on a job well done. We are proud to have him in our caucus as a spokesperson for the forest industry. Anybody who listened attentively to his speech in the past few minutes would see why our leader has assigned him to that particular role.
I want to congratulate him and I want to ask him a question if he does not mind. I thought he did a marvellous job of discussing the forestry agreements and the degree to which the government has really not kept faith with the forest industry or with the people out there. Maybe he ran out of time so I would like to give him the opportunity to tell us, maybe taking his own area for example, what the impact can be. Can he quantify it in some way? Can he tell us whether there are going to be job losses as a result of the government's failure to follow through on new forestry agreements, by the government's giving notice that this is now going by default back to the provinces? What will be the impact?
Can he put a human face on the issue he has talked about today? If he would take a minute, it would certainly help me in my understanding of the issue.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this issue raised by my colleague from Newfoundland.
In my riding of Cochrane-Superior there are four nurseries. When the Ontario and federal governments renewed a partial forestry agreement last year they downsized it from $15 million to $6 million and a large number of jobs were lost in the silviculture industry.
In saying silviculture I am just talking about the culture of seedlings. More than 100 seasonal jobs have been eliminated. The effect of that is that fewer trees have been planted. We are talking about thousands of seasonal jobs that have have disappeared and instead the people are on UI and social assistance.
What I am saying is that it is a compound problem. As soon as you neglect managing the forests the way they have been managed for the last 10 or 15 years then the consequences are disastrous for the environment as well as sustained yield for the future.
Thirty or forty years from now there will still be fibre available. But the numerous jobs it was creating and the human consequences of not having those jobs and not ensuring them for future generations is terrible. The people will still have a forest to look at and they will have some jobs to go to also.
I could talk about the impact on softwood lumber. Other speakers today have alluded to the consequences or the non-existence in the free trade agreement of environmental standards to protect the environment. What I can say in that sense is that softwood lumber is also an environment that should be protected. That has been included in the free trade agreement and will be renewed in NAFTA.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking on this subject today.
When I read the topic it seemed to me the idea was that there was a final solution to the problem of sustainable development, but I think with our continuing changing environment and with our continuing changing technology this is a problem we are going to have to deal with continually. The problems we are going to deal with are going to change as our world population increases. To suggest that a final solution can be reached is very
May 13, 1993

unwise and we would be unwise to approach it in that manner.
It reminds me of my good colleague and friend from Surrey-White Rock who mentioned that no matter how many problems we solve there are still more. He used the example of the 10 most wanted criminals in Canada. You never get that list down to nine, seven or six, it is always ten. You capture the first one and you still have ten left.
I think this is the type of thing that we are going to be dealing with in our whole environmental problem but I do believe that our government has done a great deal of very excellent work in the last two and a half years in developing a sustainable development program under the green plan.
I would like to talk particularly today about what we have done in the field of transport. Coming from the west coast we do a lot of travelling by air, sea and car, therefore it is something that appeals to me. Certainly transport has a big effect on the environment. I would like to remind everyone that last year at about this time we were privileged to bring to fruition a bill to update the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. What does this have to do with the environment? If we take the attitude of the opposition, not very much. It actually does have quite a bit to do with it if we consider that a country such as ours depends very much on the safe and efficient transportation of all manner of dangerous commodities. To be able to bring to Canadians millions of goods every year, some point in their manufacture requires the input of or use of some commodity which is considered dangerous.
For example, some of the products that go into making our wonderfully convenient wash and wear clothes are distinctly hazardous in the raw form. They do not just happen to arrive at a factory by accident. They have to be transported there. Part of the role of the government is to make sure, and under Bill C-45 it is, that this transportation of hazardous goods is carried out safely.
There is another mode of transportation that we would like to talk about and that is transportation by car. It is popular with all Canadians. I would just say to the member for Ottawa West who spoke yesterday on Bill C-121 that last week Royal Assent was given to Bill S-8, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which
Supply
also is strongly supportive of our environmental goals. We are proud of the fact that under this bill there will be real benefits for the environment through the establishment of an emission credit system that will make motor vehicle manufacturers better able to respond to new technologies on a faster basis.
The idea of the bill is that emission control equipment can be introduced any time during a model year and gain benefit from that and I think it is very timely.
It is also timely to talk about this government's initiatives on the marine side. It is timely because the House has just given second reading to Bill C-121, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act which is concerned in large measure with responding to oil spills in an intelligent and co-operative way, mitigating the potential harm to the environment in a very positive way.
Bill C-121 is about to be thoroughly examined by a legislative committee. I do not want to prejudge any of its deliberations but I think this is a very good bill. It is something that the members will want to bring back to the House very quickly.
The opposition of course will cry that it has taken too long for that bill to get here. I can assure the House that no stone was left unturned in getting the bill into Parliament and it did take a lot of time. We are talking about a major initiative that includes a unique partnership: the major maritime interests of this country, whether that is the oil producers, the cargo ships, the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. We are quite confident that the bill is going to be a good one for Canada and make us a leader for the world.
There are other maritime initiatives that we should talk about that respond to our concern for the environment. The green plan, for example, in marine environmental emergencies response strategy was implemented in response to environmental concerns and provides $100 million over six years to help prevent oil and chemical spills in Canadian waters, to improve preparedness in response to environmental emergencies and provide policies and legislation to improve marine safety.
In the area of prevention, there have been improvements to vessel traffic service systems. The purpose of these systems is to monitor the movement of ship traffic into and out of Canadian waters. On the west coast, for

May 13, 1993
Supply
example, vessel traffic systems are established on the approaches to the Juan de Fuca Straits and through the straits themselves between Washington state and Vancouver Island. Information management and traffic monitoring is shared internationally between the Canadian Coast Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard. A slow scan radar system which allows for the exchange of radar data between the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards was installed at Tofino, British Columbia to assist with this international co-operation.
The Canadian Coast Guard system also monitors the movement of ships into Georgia Strait, including the gulf islands and the entrance to Vancouver harbour. As a citizen of that part of British Columbia, I am delighted to see that because these are some of the most beautiful beaches, the must scenic islands in Canada.
I do not know if they have the same thing in Newfoundland but I would recommend that our Newfoundland friends come to visit the lower mainland and enjoy the fishing. If they have run out of cod back there, they can catch some salmon in B.C.
Continuing with other prevention initiatives, members may be interested to know that Canada is leading in the development of electronic charting which will enhance the quality of navigational information provided to the ship's navigation officers. Such electronic charts will provide information on navigational hazards tailored to the needs of the particular ship and cargo, as well as the navigational conditions of the particular day. We have seen examples of this at the Pat Bay Oceanographic Institute. For example, if the Exxon Valdez had had this equipment it would have prevented that accident from happening just by alerting the crew that they were in trouble.
Canada also participates at the international level in prevention initiatives. As an example, Canada is a co-operative member to the European memorandum on port state control and will shortly apply to become a full member. This program involves the inspection of foreign ships entering Canadian waters including all of the tankers.
The Coast Guard has increased inspections of all foreign ships visiting Canada to a new level of 38 per cent, well above the objective of 25 per cent, up from 16 per cent in 1991 and only 8 per cent in 1990, as a result of green plan funding and the reallocation of existing resources.
Canada is also participating in the establishment of an effective and harmonized system of port state control in the Asia Pacific basin. In fact the next preparatory meeting for this system will be held in Vancouver next month.
As well, to improve the training of ships' crews, the Coast Guard, in co-operation with industry, is integrating environmental emergency training in existing oil and chemical tanker safety courses. In parallel, the Coast Guard is working with the International Maritime Organization to obtain stronger provisions for personnel on tankers.
Another safety measure of interest is that off Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada and the U.S. have established the west coast tanker exclusion zone. This routing scheme is designed specifically to keep laden alaskan north slope supertankers far enough offshore so that should they experience difficulty, a tug can reach them before they are in danger of grounding. We have seen examples recently in Scotland of where an oil tanker ran aground close to populated areas and this is designed to prevent that type of accident from happening.
Elsewhere in Canada, vessel traffic sites at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and the Bay of Fundy are being re-equipped, and in Sarnia, Ontario an advanced vessel traffic service system is in the planning stages. A vessel traffic service needs study was also conducted for the Great Lakes to update the information of current traffic trends in this area.
Additional improvements to vessel traffic services will be incorporated in the VTS long-term capital investment plan. The Coast Guard will also increase inspection requirements for unmanned oil barges as part of a bulk oil barge standard currently under development.
Another interesting initiative is that the Coast Guard is currently conducting a detailed study of tug escorts. The study is addressing the need for tug escorts and is developing recommendations as to the necessary criteria
May 13, 1993

for determining high-risk areas. The study will also identify the necessary conditions and requirements for tug escorts.
Members will be interested to note that in the interim co-operation with industry, tug escorts for oil tankers have been increased. For example, an agreement was reached recently with companies chartering ships for export of crude oil from Vancouver and Halifax to use two pilots and tug escorts for all such vessels.
Another way that Canada is approaching prevention is to improve ship designs. Canada is responding to the potential threat to the marine environment presented by deep sea tankers that bring chemical and petroleum products to Canada or export them from Canadian ports. The government's objective is to implement measures that will result in an environmentally safer method of transporting petroleum products by sea.
Although no single design feature can completely eliminate accidental oil spills, the Coast Guard is concentrating on double hull designs that have the potential to prevent or significantly reduce outflows from low impact groundings or collisions.
The Coast Guard has also drafted standards for double hull construction of oil tankers to be incorporated under the Canada Shipping Act. These standards are based on recent amendments to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships and a timetable established by a Coast Guard-industry working group.
After July 1993 Canada will require new oil tankers covered by the convention to have a double hull or equivalent design when operating in Canadian waters. Existing single-hulled tankers must be retrofitted or phased out on a schedule consistent with international and U.S. requirements.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would recognize that the kinds of initiatives I have outlined in this short time available are very important ones for our environment, our country and the future protection and enhancement of them.
I am sorry that the opposition seems to feel it is more constructive to tear down than to build. I do not understand this attitude. I think we should be working together. I hope it will continue to work with the government in bringing about the passage of these other
Supply
bills we have talked about to enhance the protection of our marine industry and our coastal environments.
We will continue to build on our record of commitment to the environment. I would ask anybody to check the facts and then they will all understand that while we are the last to say we can sit back and relax now we at least have been taking some action while the opposition has been taking shots at us and making a lot of noise about what we have not been doing.
As I said when I started, we are never going to run out of these environmental problems, we are always going to have more to resolve. I look forward to working with all members of the House in cleaning up our environment and making a safer place for our future.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate and I want to thank and congratulate my friend from Ottawa West for the initiative she has taken in presenting this motion. It goes to the heart of a matter we ought to be talking about in this House and she gives us the opportunity to do so.
I also want to thank my friend from Delta from the great province of British Columbia for his intervention in the debate. I do not agree with everything he said. That will come as no surprise to him. I do want to thank him for his participation and respond to one or two of the points he made.
When he started off I had to have another look at the motion because I was afraid for the moment that he was either talking to the wrong motion or I had read the wrong motion. The motion presented by my friend and colleague from Ottawa West says in part:
That this House regrets that-the government has failed to
integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal of
public policy.
My friend from Delta talked, with some tongue in cheek and maybe a little bit of pleasant sarcasm, about the final solution and whether the opposition, and the member for Ottawa West, was somehow looking for the final solution. As he said, of course we are always going to have environmental problems with us. My friend from Ottawa West has not asked why the government has not solved all the environmental problems. That is not the point of the motion. We are asking why the government has not done what it said it was going to do, why it has

May 13, 1993
Supply
not put in place that policy it talked about as far back as 1987.
My friend from Delta, if he had the opportunity to get on his feet, might respond that it is easy for me as the member for Burin-St. George's in Newfoundland to say that, but is it true?
Let us look at a couple of documents I have here from members of the administration that he supports. Let us
see who is right on this issue.
We are asking that the House express its regret that the government has failed to integrate fully environmentally sustainable development as a goal of public policy. The charge is that the government has failed to do that.
We have not said the government did not have good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Lord knows this crowd has had lots of good intentions.
The Conservatives were going to take the deficit and bring it down to $3 billion. They missed a zero somewhere because it is at $30 billion. The Prime Minister, in his brave new world of 1984, was going to have the deficit down to $3 billion in no time at all. He has it down all right, down to $30 billion.
Make no mistake, this crowd is great at intentions. The Conservatives could write volumes. They could write their own encyclopaedia on intentions. Nobody says they never had the intention to do something about the environment.
Indeed, we can go back to 1987. These are not my words but those of one of the people who would replace the current Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment. I have the most delightful letter from him to one of his other colleagues in cabinet. Writing to one of his colleagues in cabinet, who I will mention in a moment, on February 17, 1993 he reminds the minister that: "You will recall that in July 1987"-almost six years ago-"cabinet approved an ocean strategy for Canada designed to secure maximum economic, scientific and sovereignty benefits for Canadians from the country's oceans territory. Cabinet dictated that this strategy was to be implemented through a new piece of legislation, a proposed Canada oceans act sponsored by your department and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Indeed, a draft memorandum to cabinet seeking authority to proceed with this new legislation was circulated in early February 1990 for interdepartmental review and received a favourable response".
I will skip a bit to get to the next point in the letter that I want to draw to the House's attention. I am again quoting from the letter: "The release of Canada's green plan in December 1990"-two and a half years ago-"further supported action on the above, calling for, among other actions, the release of a public discussion paper on a Canada oceans act by your department". The department concerned is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister concerned is my bosom pal, my friend and colleague from St. John's West.
The letter makes two important points about intentions. The government in July 1987 said it was going to have an oceans act. It circulated all kinds of memos. There was such a paper chase going on that everybody inside was just about blinded. Then lo and behold the government had to wrestle with the issue again because it found that two and a half years later, by December 1990, not much had happened. It made some more decisions.
What decisions? It made basically the same ones it had made two and a half years before which nothing had been done about. The decision in December 1990 was exactly the same decision as in July 1987: let us have an oceans act to protect the marine environment and do the things that are environmentally sound in Canada's oceans, in the east, the north and the west. Let us do it. Good decision. Great intention.
The motion does not say the government did not have good intentions. Those intentions were expressed in cabinet in July 1987 and again in December 1990. With all those intentions, certainly they must have done something. Tell us quick, what else is in the letter? I will. There is something else in this letter from the Minister of the Environment to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that explains what happened to all those good intentions over six years. The member for Delta says everything is hunky-doiy, those big bad people in the opposition over there are just getting all worked up again and spreading lies about us good people because we did not do things.
May 13, 1993

I would like to have his comments on what the Minister of the Environment has had to say about the issue. Let me read what he said in a letter dated February 17, 1993, after seven paragraphs of trying to explain to his colleague what the government is up to. He then gets around to saying in paragraph eight: By the way, I, the Minister of the Environment, would appreciate if you, the minister of fisheries, having been ordered to do so by cabinet in July 1987, and having been re-ordered to do it in December 1990-he says this on February 17, 1993. Now I am going to quote him directly because what I just said was a bit of a rough paraphrase, as I am known to do from time to time.
Here are the actual words from the pen of the Minister of the Environment: "I would appreciate learning of your intentions regarding the release of a public discussion paper on this important legislative initiative". He is saying: Tell us what you are going to do. What about your discussion paper? Ah, I forgot. What discussion paper?
I failed to mention that part of the cabinet order was that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have the discussion paper ready by the end of 1991. Fourteen months later, or six years after all those great intentions were expressed, one minister is writing to another fellow who sits all of 30 feet from him. He takes two pages to explain to him what it is all about. He says: In case you didn't know it, minister of fisheries, we have a green plan; in case you didn't know it, we would like to have an oceans act; in case you didn't know it, we made those decisions six years ago; in case you didn't know it, we made them all over again two and a half years ago; in case you didn't know it, we have been waiting for 14 months for your paper, in case you didn't know it, minister of fisheries.
Is it any wonder that my friend from Ottawa West put in her motion:
That this House regrets that, despite many grand announcements in international forums and despite the passage of two and a half years since the launch of the green plan, the government has failed -
I guess it has. The Minister of the Environment says it has. There is his letter. He cannot even get one of his own colleagues to tell him what he plans to do as a result of a government decision that was taken six years ago in another month or so, in July.
Supply
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. With the track record of this crowd the Conservatives will probably get the paving contract. They have to be the absolute experts at road paving when it comes to intentions. This is a matter that deserves a much better response from government than that.
What has been the real response of government? Six days ago, last Thursday, I was in the House of Commons committee on fisheries with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We had our usual little friendly chat, as we are known to do. He is a very personable fellow. I asked him during the committee proceedings about this letter. I asked him why his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, was ganging up on him. I asked him why after so many months, 14 of them had passed since the deadline for doing this discussion paper, he had not got around to doing it.
I just happen to have with me the transcript of what the minister and I had to say to each other that particular day. He said: "It is not a matter that I have been able to give a lot of attention to".
With regard to oceans dumping, the Oceans Act, the discussion paper, the letters I am getting from the Minister of the Environment on the issue about sound environmental policy, he said: "That is not a matter I have been able to give much attention to. I have not had time for it. I have more important things on my plate". I guess he has.
We have something called foreign overfishing. I suppose that is still on his plate unless it slipped onto the table and then onto the floor. I have not heard much from him about it lately. Maybe he has a big plate and cannot see it and cannot find it.
There are no shortage of grand announcements about that either but as I stand here and as you, Mr. Speaker, sit here the fact is that today at this point in time there are 99 by actual count foreign boats 200 miles east of St. John's on those two little projections of the continental shelf. Those two projections extend just beyond the 200-mile limit.
One is called the nose of the Grand Banks because it looks like a nose. I have not been there but they tell me it looks like a nose. I take their word for it. The other projection a little farther to the south is called the tail because I am told it resembles a tail of a fish. The nose and tail of the Grand Banks are two projections of the

May 13, 1993
Supply
continental shelf just beyond the 200-mile limit east of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Today at this hour in the evening 99 boats-on any day there are around 100 boats-from other countries are out there fishing. What are they fishing? Some of them are fishing the very species that our fishermen are not allowed to fish. Right now Canadian taxpayers are spending quite a large sum of money to compensate fishermen and plant workers on the northeast coast of Newfoundland because of a northern cod moratorium.
Let us understand what we are talking about. The fish they are getting paid not to catch are the same fish that those boats are out there catching. It is the same fish. What kind of a cock-eyed policy is that?
These people ought to be compensated if the government has stepped in and prevented them from going to work. Nobody has an argument with that practice. That is not the issue. Those plant workers and fishermen are prevented from going to work through no fault of their own but because of a government fiat, a government decision which said in effect tomorrow morning you cannot work for two years.
Once the government takes that kind of a decision on behalf of all the people of Canada then it has an obligation. It is fulfilling that obligation to compensate those people. That is not the issue. The issue is why in the name of everything that is sane, that is environmentally sound, this government is sitting idly by and allowing boats, some of them without even a quota to be out there today, to further pillage stock that is already under such serious threat that we in this country have had to declare a moratorium for two years. As the minister said the other day, two years is not going to be enough. If the boats continue out there no time will be enough.
If this government wants to beat its breast about its environmental policy and all the good things it has done in this particular area it ought first for the sake of people all over this world, eveiy maritime nation on earth, put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the pillaging of that great resource off Newfoundland.
If there was ever a clear case, if there was ever international unanimity on an issue, it is the issue that
we ought not to pillage our marine resources because they belong to all generations. This generation has an obligation to ensure that they are there for the next generation.
What better, more graphic, more immediate example of sustainable development would you want than one that in its practice can nurture the jobs of thousands and in its abuse can spell the end to a very precious marine resource and with it the end to a rural way of life which has sustained people in my province and in Atlantic Canada for 500 years?
I see by your signal that my time is up. I thank you for your patience.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the remarks of my colleague for Burin-St. George's. I also want to say that our colleague for Ottawa West organized a constructive debate today. It was not all critical. We naturally have a responsibility as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to point out some of the flaws in the system. The government cannot think that everything that it is doing is on the right track.
One of the really sad things that is happening in our country today is that the good ideas do not seem to have access to the process. Right now, this day, this minute as we speak, on the front lawn of Parliament Hill the Canadian Auto Workers have a display. It is a graveyard of the 300 to 400 companies that have been affected adversely by the free trade agreement.
I was talking to Ed Gould who works at one of the plants in St. Catharines about the environment. He told me that if in the plant where he works in St. Catharines there had just been a little more creativity put to use that plant could have been an environmental recycling plant. Instead of having the loss of all those jobs and people going on UI and on welfare, they could have brought in some recycling technology.
These craftspeople from this particular General Motors plant are familiar with the whole aspect of putting a car together and taking it apart. This could have been a tremendous world-class recycling plant to which old cars from all over North America could have been brought. That would have kept workers in that community, that plant, that labour force viable as taxpayers rather than being on unemployment insurance and welfare.
May 13, 1993

We kept hearing one common theme as we went through this debate, that there are a lot of good ideas and a lot of innovations which exist. Somehow our process of listening to or putting these ideas into the implementation phase is very weak.
I see the minister responsible for one of the most efficient departments of government, the Department of Supply and Services, in the House. It has always been a good, efficient department. In the few weeks left it might be interesting to review that department's capability. They tend to have a business flare in that department. Maybe that department could be the department for accessing innovation on new ideas which are linked to the environment.
I have the highest respect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
It being six o'clock p.m. is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36 the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which was passed by the House of Commons on June 25, 1986.
He said: I hope that during the course of the consideration of this motion there will be more attention paid by members of the government than appears to be visible at this juncture.
It would appear to me that this is the degree of attention the cabinet has given to proclamation for the past seven years, ever since this House of Commons
Private Members' Business
passed the Parliamentary Employees and Staff Relations Act in June 1986, just one month short of seven years ago.
Many times I have asked the government why it has taken seven years to proclaim a law it introduced to this House of Commons which was passed by all parties. The most controversial section of it, namely part I, was proclaimed almost seven years ago. Why has it not proceeded to proclaim the other operative sections, parts II and III? They simply would provide to the some 3,000 or 3,500 employees of the House of Commons, no matter what kind of work they do, the same very basic labour standards legislation and occupational health and safety legislation which all other employees in Canada under federal jurisdiction enjoy.
I would just like to pontificate for a moment on a couple of possible reasons. There may be some misunderstanding about what the bill does. Some members may think that parts II and III have something to do with the unionisation of the parliamentary staff in their own offices. That is not the case.
Part I, which was already proclaimed, dealt with union recognition and certification of unions on Parliament Hill but it specifically excluded those employees who worked directly under the supervision of senators and members of Parliament. Therefore that is not an issue.
Maybe some members are concerned that their own office staff who, some might argue, are akin to executive assistants of cabinet ministers and political appointees should not be covered by union recognition or certification. There may be that argument and it has some legitimacy.
Maybe they think the inclusion of their employees under parts II and III is somehow going to restrict their ability to run an efficient operation. These employees would not be excluded by parts II and III which cover basic labour standards and occupational health and safety.
If we allowed any other employer in the country to say that the most basic laws governing hours of work and payment of wages are going to create problems then we would have no labour standards and no health and safety legislation across this country at all.
I would suggest that it is absolutely ridiculous for anybody to argue, and I have not heard anybody here argue it, that those basic labour standards and basic

May 13, 1993
Private Members' Business
occupational health and safety protective measures should not be accorded to all Canadians.
Then perhaps tongue in cheek the answer is to be found in those long-time definitions of the terms progressive and conservative. Progressives have been defined in the past with some degree of legitimacy as people who believe that things ought to be done for the first time. Conservatives are those who believe that maybe they should be but not now. Perhaps that explains the seven-year gestation period when we have been waiting to see the birth of this legislation which the government introduced and we all passed.
There have been repeated questions, statements, petitions, letters and phone calls to all members of the House of Commons of all parties from people right across the country for the last seven years and still no movement.
In answer to repeated questions, both by mail and verbally in this House and in personal conversations we have yet to hear the government give one single substantive reason why it has not proceeded. The government House leader did answer a question of mine on March 23, which I regard as almost a mischievous answer. He said: "Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government we say that it is not really the government that is holding up this issue. This issue deals exclusively with the House of Commons, with employees of the House of Commons and with employees of individual members. There are certain aspects of the law which would impose on individual members some requirements that there has been some reluctance to take on. The proper forum to discuss this is the Board of Internal Economy. I will certainly relay the hon. member's concerns to the board".
He went on to answer in a supplementary by saying: "This is not a government question. It is a House of Commons question. There is a distinction. The Board of Internal Economy has the responsibility for this and the hon. member's party has a representative on the Board of Internal Economy. If there was such indignation in the NDP caucus all these years, why was it never raised by the hon. member's representative?"
The answer to that is that it was raised many times over the past several years by the member for Kamloops,
the House leader of the NDP. The answer has always been the same: "It is not our business. We do not proclaim legislation. The government has never asked us to study the matter", and so they say it is not their responsibility. It is not their concern. It has not been referred to them except by the NDP House leader, contrary to the assertions of the government House leader.
Just last night, to be sure once again, it was placed on the agenda of the Board of Internal Economy. It did not have time to deal with it last night. It did not seem to think it was urgent enough and other items took precedence. That is fine and maybe properly so, but after seven years surely somebody has to give some consideration to it.
I have written to the Speaker, I have written to the Prime Minister and I have written to the president of the Privy Council. I have asked questions of the government House leader. We have raised it on the Board of Internal Economy and we have yet to get one substantive reason why, after almost seven full years-just one month short-the government simply refuses to take any action which would lead to the proclamation of this basic health and safety legislation and basic labour standards legislation for those who work for us in this House of Commons.
We know them personally. Surely we all agree they are Canadians who are deserving of the same basic protection as other Canadians. Contrary to some public opinion, many of those employees engage in occupations which constitute some hazards to themselves, their fellow workers and the rest of us who work in and around this place.
Surely for our protection as well as their protection and the public's protection who visit us here, either on vacation or on business, they should have the same right to participate, for instance, in joint management, employee-employer health and safety committees as happens in every other operation across Canada under federal jurisdiction and in most provincial jurisdictions. Whether those operations are organized and unionized or whether they are non-unionized, all employees under the Canada Labour Code within federal jurisdiction have the right to participate in discussing matters relating to their own health and safety.
May 13, 1993

Whoever is answering for the government in this discussion I hope finally will give one substantive reason why after almost seven years this legislation, parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, has not been proclaimed.
In the last few weeks there have been innumerable letters to members of Parliament of all parties, phone calls, petitions presented in the House of Commons. Just last night I addressed a membership meeting of the Public Service Alliance of Canada employees on the Hill and I was assured by them that they have been in touch with many members of Parliament of all parties. They get a lot of sympathy and understanding but no one from any party, including the government party, can give them a reason why we have not proceeded. It boggles the mind and one wonders just where we can go from here.
The present Governor General of Canada was government House leader when this question came before a parliamentary committee back in 1986.1 want to read the remarks of His Excellency, then the government House leader, to that committee.
Mr. Chairman and members, in order to put the provisions of Bill C-45 -
That was the number of the bill at that time.
- in their appropriate context I would like to briefly review for the committee the events leading up to the tabling of this important legislation.
Collective bargaining for parliamentary employees has been the topic of discussion for many years. In 1967, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that the employees of Parliament be given bargaining rights similar to those being accorded to public servants under Bill C-170.
In 1982 the Privy Council Office commissioned a study of the matter by Mr. Robert Weir. His report was tabled in February 1983 and outlined a number of options.
With the assistance of the Privy Council Office the Management and Members Services Committee of the House of Commons prepared a draft act which was accepted unanimously by representatives of all three political parties.
In March 1984 the chairman of the Management and Members Services Committee of the House of Commons requested that the government of the day prepare legislation based on the draft act which envisioned limited collective bargaining rights for employees of the Senate, the House of Commons, and Library of Parliament. It was modelled on the Public Service Staff Relations Act but with no right to strike included in the legislation.
Private Members' Business
The former government did not introduce legislation as requested by the committee prior to the general election of 1984. However, in August 1984 my predecessor as President of the Privy Council, the Hon. Andre Ouellet, publicly announced his intention if the previous government had been re-elected to bring forward the bill which had received all-party support in March 1984.
Immediately upon my appointment as government House leader I turned my attention to this important issue. The tabling of Bill C-45 on April 30, 1985 represented the first positive action by any government to accord collective bargaining rights to employees of Parliament.
As hon. members of this committee are aware, the bill which I have sponsored goes beyond the model originally proposed by the Management and Members Services Committee in that it also incorporates, and this is in addition to the draft bill which has been the subject of all-party agreement, the protections of Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code dealing with labour standards and occupational safety and health respectively.
In addition political staffs of members of Parliament and senators as well as all employees on the Hill regardless of employment or whether or not they are in a union, all members will be entitled to the protection of Parts III and IV of the code.
This initiative to provide parliamentary employees with labour legislation tailored to the special circumstances of their employment has unfortunately been delayed by events which take place in another forum.
In late 1983 the unions which had been endeavouring to represent the employees of Parliament approached the Canada Labour Relations Board seeking certification. In April 1984 the board determined that it had jurisdiction. Hearings were held, appropriate bargaining units determined and a number of certification orders were issued.
What all that shows is there was all the consultation in the world. The now Governor General, the then government House leader, said very clearly that this matter had been discussed with all members, with the management service and with the members services committee for years. He went so far as to say then that it was a shame it had taken so long to get to that point.
Almost seven years later we are still waiting. Those two most basic provisions, those that should be the least controversial, those which simply accord basic health and safety rights and basic labour standard rights such as hours of work, payment of wages, et cetera, still have not been proclaimed.
The last correspondence I received was in answer to a question which the current President of the Privy Council took as notice when I asked him in this House about the matter on April 30. It is a very short response and most of it is simply a re-cataloguing of what the question

May 13, 1993
Private Members' Business
is. The President of the Privy Council states in his letter of May 12:
The question concerns the working conditions of employees of Members of Parliament as well as other employees of the House, the Senate and the Library of Parliament. Part II of the PESRA provides for such matters as maximum hours of work, minimum wages, holidays and leave entitlements under the Canada Labour Code. Part III provides that the Canada Labour Code provisions on health and safety standards apply to all Parliament Hill employees. These issues and their implications for all MPs are of direct concern to the Board of Internal Economy as the Government House Leader pointed out in his response to you during Question Period on March 23, 1993.
The Board of Internal Economy is an all-party forum for discussion and resolution of administration matters related to the House of Commons. The Government would want to consider the views of the Board before proceeding to implement the PESRA changes.
Yours sincerely,
It was signed by the President of the Privy Council.
If the government for the last seven years wanted to consider the views of the board before proceeding to proclaim these two vety simple parts that are common to employees across the country, why has it not asked? Why has it not at any point referred it to the Board of Internal Economy? Why have the only people who have raised it with the board, been told by the board that it is not their business, been representatives of the NDP and the NDP House leader?
Either the government did not know what it was doing seven years ago in 1986, after all of that discussion and all of that consideration, or it simply does not know what the heck it is doing now. People are frustrated. The people who work for us and all Canadians in this place are frustrated. We have had suicides recently, partly due we are told to stress on the job and other kinds of problems. We have had major problems over the last several years with asbestos in the House. The absence of any structured employee-employer health and safety committees to discuss that has led to all kinds of rumours, all kinds of problems that we maybe do not even have because we do not have a structured way of dealing with these problems.
My question to the government simply is: if it will not give consent to let this come to a vote now and vote again
on what we voted in favour of seven years ago, will it at least give a clear substantive answer to what is the problem? Why will it not proclaim parts II and III? If it wants to hear from the Board of Internal Economy, why has it not asked it what the problems are?
We really do not know where to go from here. I ask for unanimous consent to have this motion deemed as votable. If that is denied I hope that the least that we can afford for those who work for us and all Canadians in this House of Commons is to give a clear answer why, after seven years, the government has done nothing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent to have this a votable motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Consent denied. [Translation]


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on motion No. M-743 moved by my hon. colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The hon. member would have the government proclaim immediately parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. This act, commonly called Bill C-45, was tabled in this House on April 30, 1985. It was read the third time and passed on June 25, 1986 and part I was proclaimed on December 24, 1986.
This act deals with employment in the Senate, the House of Commons and the parliamentary library. It has three parts, the first of which has been in force for several years and sets the negotiating rights of employees of the House, the Senate and the Library with the exception of the immediate staff of members and senators. Part II deals with standard hours, minimum wages, leave and statutory holidays and covers all parliamentary employees. It does this through the Canada Labour Code provisions. Part III states that all parliamentary employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code provisions on occupational safety and health.

May 13, 1993

First, I would like to point out that many parliamentary employees presently enjoy working conditions that are identical to those prescribed in the Labour Code and even better in some cases. I am talking here about employees covered by collective agreements as well as employees that are non-unionized but whose working conditions are defined. In fact, those employees are already covered by part II of the Staff Relations Act.
For a specific group of parliamentary employees, that is those who work for MPs and senators, the motion brought forward today is very significant. It deals with some essential elements of the unique working relationship that exists between MPs and senators and their staff. As soon as parts II and III of the act are proclaimed, the provisions of the legislation concerning hours of work, annual leave, statutory holidays, sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave, child care leave, sexual harassment, health and safety and grievances procedure could be applied to MPs staff.
That does not mean that on Parliament Hill those matters are not already dealt with by other legal provisions. The question is whether or not the provisions of the Canada Labour Code are appropriate in all circumstances considering the unique workplace that Parliament Hill is.
I am not convinced that the impacts or the proclamation of parts II and III of the act were reviewed seriously enough. My suggestion is to take a few minutes to discuss certain changes that should be made to the rules governing members' employees if the last two parts of this bill are proclaimed.
To begin with, there is the issue of working hours and overtime. Presently there is no restriction on the number of hours of work in a week for members' employees. Part II of the act repeats the wording found in part III of the Canada Labour Code, which states that no employee can work more than 48 hours a week without the formal approvals of Labour Canada. Let's face it. When Parliament sits it is not necessarily from 9 to 5, far from it. When the House sits, members need support services that are provided by their employees.
Another example has to do with overtime. Presently, although members's employees do not get any overtime pay, members may grant compensatory leave either on a straight time or a time and a half basis for each hour
Private Members' Business
worked overtime at their discretion. The Canada Labour Code also governs overtime and requires compensation at least on a time and a half basis for each hour of work over eight hours a day or forty hours a week.
After a closer look, we find that these amendments could be impossible to implement and that some rules could not be applicable to members' staff. We would all agree, I think, that our workload is extremely variable, heavy when the House is sitting, lighter when it is not. Therefore the Labour Code uniform regulations might be impracticable.
I think other aspects have to be considered too. We need to ask where the funds to pay this overtime will come from. How will we cover these expenses that could surely be very heavy? Do hon. members have the necessary budgets? If not, how will we finance these additional expenses? I think it is fair to say that is very disturbing. Our parliamentary responsibilities are so fundamental that nothing should come in their way.
We must ask if the proclamation of parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act will not result in a lesser flexibility. I think we must remember that Parliament is not an ordinary employer. We may have to maintain part of the flexibility we now have. I think all members realize that there are times when every hour counts and, once the work is finished, the employee can be granted leave as compensation. Is this not a better and more flexible approach considering the nature of our work?
Let us look at what is implied in terms of annual leave in the new legislation. Again, it is an area where we enjoy some flexibility at the moment. Employees who work for MPs receive, in lieu of leave, a lump sum equivalent to 4 per cent of the previous year's pay for those who have less than six years of continuous employment, and to 6 per cent of the previous year's pay for those who have more than six years of continuous employment. Moreover, MPs may grant other paid leave at their discretion, which they do. In many cases, an employee gets three or four weeks of leave plus a lump sum.
Part II of the legislation would grant all employees working for MPs two weeks of annual leave, during which they will receive a salary equivalent to 4 per cent of that year's gross earnings, including overtime. After six years of employment, the rate would increase to 6 per cent.

Private Members' Business
As I said earlier, several employees already get the annual leave and the lump sum. What good would changing the leave plan do? Do the new clauses put these employees at a disadvantage? Should we limit the discretion allowed members of Parliament in this instance, since Parliament Hill represents a particular kind of working environment? I think we should discuss this in more detail.
Several other aspects in labour relations would change following the proclamation of parts II and III of the law, for example, sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave, leave for care of a child and occupational health and security, all matters which I cannot discuss in detail tonight.
I have spent a few minutes describing possible consequences of the proclamation of parts II and III of the Parliamentary employment and Staff Relations Act. I
think some explanations must still be given on the best way to reach the purpose of Bill C-45. I consider the purpose is to include our employees, while considering our particular work environment. For all of these reasons, I cannot approve of motion M-743, and I thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being seven o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 14,1993