1993-05-12

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic Dracula has stalked his latest victim. The so-called king of GST, Michael Wilson, has embraced the queen, Kim Campbell. Is this the kiss of death?
This architect of Conservative economic policies which have devastated this country is the person who has brought us the GST, which we know is the most inefficient and ineffective tax ever introduced by any government. He has thrown his support behind the defence minister. She welcomes his support and vows to continue the Conservative legacy. This legacy is bleeding Canadians dry.
He has said she is the candidate closest to his vision. What have the last nine years of Conservative vision brought us? A made-in-Canada recession, trade policies which destroy Canadian jobs, high unemployment, bankruptcies, high real interest rates, and a growing number of poor and homeless.
Canadians have had enough of Conservative hypocrisy. Liberals will form the next government and will bring back hope and opportunities for Canadians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I watched an American news broadcast with interest this morning as it outlined the U.S. proposal to station American soldiers at the border between Macedonia and
Serbia. Their purpose would be to monitor the UN sanctions.
This article caught my attention because I recently talked with a group of very capable soldiers stationed at that exact border crossing. Their mission was also to monitor UN sanctions.
However they were not Americans but were Canadians. They have been stationed at this very dangerous location for some time. Not only were they Canadians but some were from my own province of Nova Scotia.
From the news broadcast one would think that the U.S. was leading the way when in fact it is still talking while Canadians are acting.


NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, last year a tragic helicopter accident in Niagara Falls claimed four lives. In response to that, to the petitions and to the complaints of hundreds of people in the city, Niagara Falls now has the most regulated airspace in the country.
We now control the number of helicopters in the sky at any one time. The altitude of all flying aircraft is restricted. Communications procedures between helicopters are now mandatory. Helicopters must stay within the restricted airspace and cannot fly over any residential area in the city of Niagara Falls.
In the immediate future we will put all air traffic on radar 24 hours a day. We will know if anyone tries to go outside the flight path.
These measures will ensure that every visitor and resident of Niagara Falls is safe from overhead traffic. In addition, I want everyone in our city to be able to enjoy their residences in peace.
If these measures are not enough I will want more because the days of a free-for-all over the skies of Niagara Falls are over. The message is simple: Either play by the rules or do not play at all.

May 12, 1993


CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that global climate change threatens food supply, forests, the Arctic and coastal communities with rising sea levels.
Some countries have decided to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to meet this threat. Three years ago Canada promised only to freeze greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Three years have gone by and the government still lacks an action plan to achieve such a freeze.
This government's snail paced response to global climate change also puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage. The government should recognize that countries with strong economies, such as Germany and Japan, have the highest energy efficiency and the lowest per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
If the government were serious about responding to the threat of global warming, it would wake up and produce a sustainable long-term energy policy with meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.


CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, today is Canada Health Day. The theme this year is Caring about Health: Everyone's Responsibility.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is today building on that theme to launch Healthy Canada, a call to all Canadians to be more actively involved in their own health and in the health of their families and communities.
We know that health involves more than medical interventions and more than health care. Each of us has benefited from the care extended by another when we were ill. Such care or compassion can be instrumental in restoring health. Today is an appropriate time to remember that health is a shared responsibility and a shared benefit. Today is also a time to recognize and take pride in a health system that ranks among the finest in the world.
I would like to thank the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Public Health Association for sponsoring this day.


INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Nursing Week in Canada and today is International Nurses Day.
This day is being recognized by nurses in the Public Service of Canada who are profiling Jeanne Mance, Canada's first nurse, with the re-instalment of a plaque in her honour at the Jeanne Mance Building of Health and Welfare Canada.
As the nation pays verbal tribute to the dedication and professionalism of nurses, it should be remembered that this is one of those pink collar ghettos in which people of competence and professionalism are paid far less than their work is worth.
For instance, in the Public Service of Canada 1,500 nurses are owed over $37 million in back pay equity. The injustice goes on.
In the Department of National Defence the minister has failed to take any action on the clear discrimination of $15,000 a year against nurses, dietitians and therapists as compared to engineers, architects and chemists who are mostly male, surprisingly.
Therefore let International Nurses Day not be a day of nice words and no action but one that really recognizes the value of the work of nurses in the paycheque.


AIRSHOW CANADA
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Abbotsford, British Columbia, will again host Airshow Canada from August 4 to August 8. Airshow Canada is a biennial showcase for international aviation and aerospace held in conjunction with the internationally acclaimed Abbotsford International Airshow.
Airshow Canada '93 expects to draw 500 exhibitors from 20 countries and 15,000 visitors from 70 countries. Also occurring at the same time is the Subcontractors Exhibition, a meeting of prime aerospace contractors from the United States and subcontractors from Canada. This exhibition has been held in eastern Canada for the
May 12, 1993

previous five years and last year brought 200 prime contractors to Toronto.
The Canadian economy has the sixth largest aerospace sector in the world. Our expertise runs from designing and manufacturing airframes and engines to space and satellite communication equipment. Airshow Canada and the Subcontractors Exhibition are excellent examples of co-operation between government and private industry to promote Canadian businesses and products around the world.
I have been a long-time supporter of Abbotsford Airshow and Airshow Canada and consider the addition of the Subcontractors Exhibition to be a positive strategic move. A survey of Airshow Canada '91 exhibitors showed 74 per cent of them initiated business agreements-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the House aware of the totally unacceptable delays in unemployment insurance appeals at the umpire level.
Illustrating the gravity of the situation is the fact that 4,358 cases remain unheard at this level of appeal. There are simply too many cases for too few federal judges to address the backlog. Recent legislative changes in immigration and unemployment insurance will only make a bad situation much worse.
I cite one example to demonstrate the extreme delays suffered by workers who feel the system has treated them unfairly. Hundreds of workers still await a hearing date with the umpire as a result of a labour dispute at Algoma Steel in 1990. I am told the hearing could be held this fall, some three years later.
Surely any reasonable person would realize the system is failing. I ask the minister to take full responsibility and, more important, immediate action.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I met some Air Canada employees who live in my riding. Today as well, Air Canada representatives conveyed to me their concerns about their jobs, their future and the future of air transport. I have a lot of sympathy for them and I will do what I can to represent them well. However, the air transport industry is in difficulty not only in Montreal but throughout the world.
At the same time, on behalf of all consumers, I deplore the article published in La Presse today, which says that 62 per cent of Montrealers prefer Dorval Airport and in which some phony financial analysts paid by Air Canada have done surveys or what claim to be surveys supporting Dorval Airport to the detriment of Mirabel in my region.
I also want to denounce Air Canada for using last week's open house in one of their hangars in Dorval to have petitions opposing the merger between American Airlines and Canadian Airlines signed by people who came to see some planes and tour the facilities, but who know nothing at all about Canadian Airlines' agreement.
I deplore this questionable attack made in part by people Air Canada paid. The figures in La Presse are meaningless because the questions are rigged. I deplore what the Reaction group is doing in using these answers to support its claim that the general public favours Dorval over Mirabel.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, there's a new Spring Thrilla It's better than the one that they held in Manila It's Mulroney the Movie, starring Yeltsin and Major Featuring guns and boars and exotic flavour
Entitled "The Great White Hunter" or "Indecent Proposal" It's about a country Brian's put in the disposal While he wines and dines for a few video clips The rest of the nation eats burgers and chips

May 12, 1993
Oral Questions
While Brian has ignored those he considers pagans And has tried to shine like his old pal Ronald Reagan He points to the stars and says to the Big Dipper "I'll do this last junket for the 'ol Gipper"
Boris Yeltsin from his dacha did cry "Red Rover, Red Rover, I want Brian to come over"
One thing he missed in this ignorant bliss No one told our jobless the recession wasn't over
While Brian was scheming his final farewell In April this year 43,000 jobs fell in the well That's fifteen hundred jobs day after day While Brian was job hunting and frittering the economy away
Proclaiming honesty and integrity way back when "He was only joking", say the ladies and men For it was he who implored back in 1984 That there's no boar like an old boar.


NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that this week is National Nursing Week.
For more than 350 years expert and dedicated nurses, who constitute more than 50 per cent of all health care professionals, have been serving people in all parts of Canada.
Nurses provide care in homes, occupational settings, clinics, hospitals, schools and nursing homes. They serve all Canadians from the newborn to the elderly. For many years the contributions of nurses have been recognized internationally on May 12, Florence Nightingale's birthday.
On behalf of all Canadians I thank the members of the nursing profession for their continuing commitment to skilled and caring service to the people of Canada. I would like to suggest we join countries around the world in saluting and celebrating nurses and the high quality of their practice.


HONEY BEES
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to bring to the attention of the House an amendment to the health of animals regulations which is going to have a serious impact on Canadian bee keepers.
The border was closed to the importation of honey bees into Canada from the United States because of two pests infecting American bees. Now the ban is being lifted against the advice of Canadian bee keepers and provincial authorities. Even the Americans cannot understand why Canada would lift the ban.
The Department of Agriculture claims that imported bees can be virtually pest-free with the use of chemicals during shipment. The fact is that chemicals will render only 93 per cent protection and 93 per cent is not good enough. The department also claims that there is no chemical residue in the honey subsequently produced, but honey processors disagree.
On behalf of the Canadian bee industry I ask that this regulatory amendment be reversed and the importation ban be extended until such time as the bees can be guaranteed to be 100 per cent pest-free.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the horrific situation in Bosnia.
Today in London, England, the Prime Minister said that the Security Council of the United Nations should only authorize the use of force under certain conditions.
Does Canada plan to use our troops in an offensive operation in Bosnia? Will the government agree to consult the people of Canada through Parliament before committing our troops to a new role of that nature?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe what the Prime Minister was laying out was not a reason to go into military force but the steps that would have to be gone through internationally whether or not the next steps were military or non-military or indeed if there would be next steps.
He was saying that this would have to be done under the United Nations jurisdiction with resolutions, specific objectives and the criteria that the hon. member heard in the speech.
May 12, 1993

Oral Questions
Obviously there would be discussion among the Canadian people but the ultimate decision as the hon. member knows is the government's in terms of decisions of this nature.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter which might change the mandate of our troops over there. As you know, 2,300 Canadian soldiers are involved.
The minister has just told us that Canadians will be consulted. Why doesn't the government want a debate in the House of Commons on a situation that may become very dangerous for the 2,300 Canadians who are there? The House would like to discuss the problem, but the government won't tell us what its official position is.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of opportunities to discuss these issues, both in the House and elsewhere. For instance, this afternoon I will appear before the external affairs committee to discuss the situation in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia. There are other occasions, such as opposition days, when we can discuss these issues in the House, as we did just two or three weeks ago.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with the new developments in recent days I would like to know from the minister if the government is taking steps to ensure that our troops in Bosnia, if their role were to be changed suddenly, would have the proper equipment to face the new challenges which would be completely different.
We have heard from some military sources that our troops are not adequately provided with the proper equipment.
Is the government making plans in case there is a very quick shift in the situation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is important not to start some alarming discussion of what might or might not happen. The Prime Minister very carefully laid out conditions that would have to be in place before there was a change.
I went to Bosnia and to Croatia in order to discuss the situation and all of its aspects with the people there, Canadians and others who are on the ground. I am also going to committee this afternoon where I can give a more detailed answer to the kind of question the hon. member has presented.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
In the speech that was given by the Prime Minister this morning he said that the rejection of the Vance-Owen plan by the Bosnian Serbs had clearly put the ball back in our court. He listed a number of options that the international community must now consider: safe havens, sealing of the borders, ending of the arms embargo or air strikes.
What he did not say is which of these actions Canada prefers and whether we will participate in these actions. Given that these options have been discussed now for weeks in different areas of the international community, is it not about time the government was prepared to spell out clearly in this Parliament exactly what our position is to stop the suffering and horror in Bosnia?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and this government have been in the forefront of trying to stop the suffering in Bosnia from the beginning.
I am sure the hon. member will be at the committee this afternoon and I can go into some considerable detail on this very topic. I simply do not understand the line of questioning given that this is coming before the member's own committee this afternoon.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that this is the entire Parliament representing all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is not a committee and Canadians deserve to have some serious answers.
Last night Canadian troops came under serious fire in Srebrenica. Unfortunately one of our troops was hurt. The Bosnian ambassador has now called for the withdrawal of peacekeepers so that other action can be taken. The Prime Minister said this morning that humanitarian assistance and military enforcement were incompatible.
Was our Prime Minister this morning saying that the government is now considering withdrawing our troops from the exposed positions they now occupy in Srebrenica and in other areas, or is it considering changing the nature of the role of our troops so that they will

May 12, 1993
Oral Questions
undertake a different mandate to help bring the stoppage of the violence and horror that are taking place every single minute of every single day in Bosnia?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, obviously members of this House and certainly of this government are very sorry about the injury to the soldier yesterday. Of course he was not the first. We had a soldier injured in Croatia not very long ago as well. These are always incidents that the military try to avoid by minimizing the risk on the ground.
In terms of the incompatibility of enforcement and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, yes, these two objectives would be very difficult to put in place. Neither one was being advocated, by the way, and neither was the withdrawal of our troops.
What was being laid out were the options if the international community chose to go a certain way. The Prime Minister also pointed out that the choices our government as well as other governments face all have downsides.
At the moment the humanitarian deliveries are providing some value within this situation and lives have been saved. The question facing all of us is: If the objective changes then it will probably not be possible to do that any longer and would we make the situation better or worse?


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Hardly a day goes by now in Canada where we do not see another major lay-off and more Canadians out of work. It really has become a very serious crisis. Unemployment has not gone down; indeed it has gone up.
In a season when in fact we should see employment going up, just this past week we saw the Scarborough GM plant close with 3,000 workers out of work. Air Canada announced that 1,200 more jobs were cut. Yesterday workers at a 76-year old Jergens plant found
out that it was shutting down. To no one's surprise, Nationair declared bankruptcy today.
Given the seriousness of the situation, what is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to do to give some hope to these Canadians? Those with jobs are feeling very insecure and are wondering if they will be next. What kind of plan will he bring forward in the last remaining weeks of this government to make sure he can get Canadians back working? Then the countiy would really work.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost there is some good news on the economic front this morning.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know that is disappointing to my friends opposite, but today's Statistics Canada composite leading indicator rose by .6 per cent. That has been a very strong indicator since January. Indeed it has affected six of the ten components.
In the broader question, in December we took a number of steps to bolster economic growth and to create jobs. Some of those initiatives are starting to take hold. That is what we are seeing in the growth that was registered in the first three months of this year, over 4 per cent in GDP.


Mr. Peterson:: Unemployment has gone up to 11.4.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some of the items, reductions in personal income tax, the two-year special home buyers plan, a reduction in the manufacturing and processing tax rate, the increase in the capital cost allowance, streamlining research and development, no new taxes, no tax increases, a number of measures to strengthen the infrastructure, more measures for training and skills upgrading, are starting to take hold.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know one family in this country that is being fed on the composite leading indicator. One question Canadian families have is: Where are the jobs?
A particularly concerning statistic is that of youth unemployment which is officially 18 per cent and unofficially higher. The minister talks about seeing things improving but the unemployment rate has gone up. It has gone up higher for young people and for women.
May 12, 1993

Oral Questions
The government's own projections project no change in years to come. I therefore ask the minister: In response to the young people, many of whom are now finishing school, what plan does he have to give them hope that they will be able to use the skills they have developed? Where are the jobs for the young people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the composite leading indicator represents a broad spectrum of the Canadian economy. It is a broad measurement that indicates the economy is indeed expanding.
The hon. member talks about unemployment. Employment in the manufacturing sector is up by 28,000, up by 4 per cent or 70,000 new jobs in the last six months. She and everyone else in this House knows that the manufacturing sector has indeed had the greatest challenge in terms of restructuring and adjusting to the competitive realities of the international marketplace.
Housing starts are up as recently announced. Surveys indicate that manufacturing will increase by some 33 per cent. Exports are strong. Construction spending is up. Infrastructure projects are starting to come on stream. The energy sector has been revitalized, having increased its activity by 100 per cent over last year. Retail sales are up. Consumer confidence is up. Business confidence is up. These are the kinds of indicators reflected in the composite index.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister visit any unemployment office, any line-up for student employment, and he will see the real world out there. People are not finding jobs.
All the job losses I just mentioned were caused by free trade and deregulation. These policies were bad when they were adopted, they are bad policies today and they will still be bad tomorrow.
Instead of rushing into NAFTA and dragging its feet on the crisis in the air transportation industry, why doesn't the government do the opposite: accelerate the process for dealing with the crisis in the air transportation industry and slow down on NAFTA?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, exports to the United States are up in my home province of Alberta by something like 40 per cent. Exports in British Columbia are up by about 20 per cent. Exports in Saskatchewan are up by about 25 per cent. In Manitoba they are up by about 25 per cent. In Ontario they are up by close to 20 per cent.
When the hon. member criticizes the free trade agreement, she knows as well as anyone else in this House that the economy is working itself out of the recession as a result of the strong performance in exports, as a result of the strong performance in productivity, as a result of the restructuring and the adjustment that have taken place. That is a fact of life.
Some of her friends in the New Democratic Party are indeed finding that out. Ask Mr. Harcourt, ask Mr. Rae, ask Mr. Romanow. If the realities of the marketplace are not there then they have to be adjusted.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence told the House of Commons that the government would screen out white supremacists from Canada's armed forces in future. Indeed both Canadians and, more important, members of Canada's armed forces will welcome such new regulations because neither want white supremacists as part of our armed forces.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, what about neo-Nazis that are already in our forces? What about the up to 24 white supremacists that the Canadian Jewish Congress says have already found their way into our armed forces?
The Minister of National Defence has said that in future she will screen out white supremacists. Why has she not removed the white supremacists who are already in our armed forces?


Mr. McKnight:: Yes, Joe McCarthy, and how are you today?

May 12, 1993
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of National Defence said, what I said earlier and what she said previously is it is obviously totally unacceptable for anybody in the Canadian Armed Forces to be acting in any way that is racist or bigoted in their approaches. The military has means for dealing with such individuals.
I believe it was last week the new policy was announced vis-a-vis harassment which includes harassment based on racial differences and attitudes and so on. A three-pronged program to ensure we have zero incidences was put in place. That is in place.
If anybody in the armed forces is actively involved in outside organizations of the nature the hon. member talked about, that is contrary to regulations and they should be kicked out. We cannot, just on the basis of an accusation made by somebody else, go along and ask who are those 24 and drum them out. There are processes in place that have to be followed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.
A few days ago in Winnipeg the minister of defence dismissed a photograph of a Canadian forces corporal making a Fascist salute, wearing a Hitler T-shirt, standing below a swastika banner, and I quote here, "as mere youthful folly".
I want to say to the minister that photograph was taken in the corporal's barracks. I want the minister to be aware that the swastika was hanging on the property of the Canadian Armed Forces. That individual is currently serving as a peacekeeper in a black country.
I want to ask the minister if he regards that kind of incident, that kind of abuse of Canadian forces property, as mere youthful folly? Does he not agree that there is no role for white supremacists in Canada's peacekeeping ranks?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it should also be pointed out that there are black colleagues of that particular soldier in that particular regiment.
I might also point out that a couple of nights ago, I think it was, on television where, as the Canadians were
getting ready to leave Belet Huen, local Somali leaders were saying how grateful they were to the Canadians for the excellent job they did and how they improved the circumstances.
It is the actions of that particular soldier that are obviously pretty offensive to a lot of people, but the hon. member cannot say that this is proof positive this is a neo-Nazi and he is not performing his duty. If he is not performing his duty properly then his superiors should be drumming him out. It clearly would be offensive and cause consternation in the regiment to colleagues of that particular soldier who are black if that kind of behaviour was exhibited.
I wish the hon. member would allow due process and accept the statement by the Minister of National Defence to the House that in fact there is no tolerance for racist behaviour on the part of Canadian Armed Forces personnel.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week in this House the government House leader precluded screening procedures against racist attitudes from the Canadian forces because of the charter. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced just the opposite.
I believe these policies are far too important to play tweedledee and tweedledum politics with. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister what action he plans to address this blatant discrepancy in announced government policy.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no discrepancy. That is not an accurate statement of what I had said. I had simply made the obvious observation that it is in fact impossible to get within one's mind. It may very well be that everyone who was serving with the retired admiral when he was there was in fact racist, but he could not tell that unless they exhibited that behaviour in some overt fashion.
The Minister of National Defence said: "It is unacceptable to have people who are openly active in racist based organizations to serve". Within the context of the charter of rights, which applies to all Canadians, she has asked the department to see if in fact we cannot screen
May 12, 1993

them out in some manner which is consistent with the charter of rights.
I think the hon. member should be applauding the minister rather than looking for reasons to criticize.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, when I had those problems in the Canadian forces I had a full-time minister to discuss them with.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, in the last three months there have been very critical issues that have related to national defence. I do not have to relate them here. We have just had one of these questions. The only time they are debated in this House is when the questions are put by opposition members. What they all relate to are concerns about ministerial judgment and ministerial accountability.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister one more time, in view of the criticality of these issues to national defence, when will the Acting Prime Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, appoint a full-time Minister of National Defence who can address these issues on a regular basis and offer the proper political leadership to a department that is badly in need of it?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, the hon. member is certainly more terrified of this Minister of National Defence than he was of the previous minister.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Harvie Andre: That hon. member is fully aware from his experience that the kind of political leadership the department is getting from this minister and indeed from her predecessors has been proper and first rate. He knows that the views he just expressed would not be endorsed by any of his former colleagues.


BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Oral Questions
External Affairs who knows that in the wake of the rejection by the Bosnian Serb parliament of the Vance-Owen peace plan, the genocidal policies of the Bosnian Serbs are continuing. For example, in the city of Zepa which had a population of 6,000 people, only 50 people remain. The UN representatives described that city as a humanitarian catastrophe.
In light of this, and this is the place to ask this minister in this House, how many more women will be raped? How many more people will die? How many more villages must be ethnically cleansed before Canada finally says enough and joins in the call for a strong and effective military action under United Nations auspices?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the UN forces on the ground in Bosnia and in Croatia as well-this is not limited to the Bosnian Serbs because there are terrible situations as well in some of the Croat regions and indeed in some of the Muslim regions-the people on the ground, the humanitarian workers, the UNHCR, and the soldiers there are doing a heroic job in saving lives and in providing humanitarian needs of the people in those regions. This is not to say this is a perfect answer.
The question is if there is some other kind of answer such as military action, is it going to save more people or not? It is not a case of doing nothing or doing something. It is a case of doing something that is already proving itself useful and doing something else.
I do not think we should in any way suggest there are not lives being saved, which is what the hon. member implied.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
As the minister has pointed out there are in fact 300 courageous Canadian peacekeepers in the town of Srebrenica now. Their lives may very well be at risk. We know that Bosnian Serbs are three kilometres outside that town.
I ask specifically what assurances this minister can give to the families of those Canadian peacekeepers and to all Canadians that those troops will not in any way be at risk in the event of a change in the rules of engagement or in the event of a change in the mandate of the UN forces in Bosnia. What guarantee do we have that these

May 12, 1993
Oral Questions
people are not in fact being used as human trip-wires in a very dangerous situation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more confidence in the Canadian military command than that. We have leaders who are on the ground in Srebrenica. We have leaders who are on the ground in Visoko and Kiseljack.
I was there the day that the rotation began to move in the Van Doos and take out the members of the Royal Canadian Regiment from Srebrenica in their normal rotation. I want to point out to the hon. member that the Canadian soldiers who were going into Srebrenica were very much looking forward to this assignment. The morale was high. They knew they were on an important mission and their commander who was leading them, Lieutenant-Colonel Geburt who was going with them into Srebrenica, felt that the mission they had there was doable.
I had long discussions with General Gaudreau while I was there. Of course there are risks. There are also risks to our soldiers in Croatia who were being fired on three days before I was there in the western sector of Croatia.
We recognize there are dangers. We recognize there are risks. That is the nature of what is happening in Bosnia. What we have tried to do as a government and certainly what the Canadian military is trying to do is reduce those risks as far as possible given the nature of the assignment. I can assure our families of that.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister speaking on behalf of the Minister of National Defence made an incredible statement a few moments ago when he said that black Canadians serving in the military would find neo-Nazis offensive.
I would like to let him know that every Canadian in the military and elsewhere finds neo-Naziism offensive.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The last time the Conservative government bothered to call an election in Canada the unemployment rate in this country was at 7.7 per cent. Here we are four and a half
years later and the unemployment level has reached a disgraceful 11.6 per cent. Jergens is today's casualty. Mack Truck was last week's casualty.
Since the last election there are 500,000 more unemployed Canadians than there were before the last election. Is it any wonder that almost every single senior Conservative minister is not seeking re-election, given the devastating economic mess they are leaving this country in?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in view of the opening comment, the hon. deputy leader of the Liberal Party is totally wrong in her interpretation of my remarks.
She is misrepresenting what I said. Her colleague said that a neo-Nazi sent to Somalia would be offensive to the blacks there. I agree with that. I also said it would also be offensive to any blacks serving in the airborne regiment. That is the point I made.


Mr. Harvard:: What about whites?


Harvie Andre: Of course I also said in my comments that it is offensive to have that kind of behaviour on the part of anybody, but in particular the Canadian Armed Forces. The hon. member should stop misrepresenting what I said.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I guess Canadians have to ask themselves, if it is so offensive to the minister and his government, why did this particular soldier get a promotion?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: She should withdraw.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My second question is for the Minister of Finance.

There are more than 12,000 unemployed workers in Quebec City, 4,000 in Chicoutimi and 75,000 in Montreal. I want to ask the Minister of Finance why the government implements economic policies that are disastrous for Quebec and the rest of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the plain fact of the
May 12, 1993

matter is that when the hon. member's party was in office there were 11 million Canadians employed.
Today there are 12.3 million-plus Canadians employed. That is 1.33 million more than there were at that time. She will know that between 1984-85 and 1990-91 Canada had the best job creation rate in the G-7 countries.
She will also know that it is projected both by the IMF and the OECD that in 1993 and 1994 Canada will have the best job creation rate of all the G-7 countries. That is a pretty good record.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade said that Canada is rushing to implement the NAFTA legislation so that "Canadian companies can have confidence in what they are going to be dealing with".
The minister knows that any lack of confidence must arise from the uncertain future of the agreement itself in the United States. Only yesterday the majority house leader in the United States Congress warned that Congress ought to extend the time frame for NAFTA legislation.
Why is the government in Canada rushing ahead with NAFTA when key U.S. interests are moving in the opposite direction?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Wade):: Mr. Speaker, I have the speech here.
Mr. Gephardt said: "If the supplemental agreements are effective, I will work day and night to pass the agreement". He has indicated his support for the agreement, as has the President of the United States, the U.S. trade representative, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce. The U.S. administration plus a large body of the Congress are fully committed to the North American free trade agreement, provided we get the appropriate parallel agreements.
My hon. friend seems to imply time and again that we do not have any leverage in the negotiation of these agreements. We do. We are in the middle of those
Oral Questions
negotiations now, and if we are not happy with those negotiations we do not have to agree to the parallel agreements ourselves.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that when the majority leader in the House of Representatives speaks of effective side agreements, he is speaking about agreements with teeth. That position has already been rejected by the Canadian government. The minister has stated that Canada will not accept side agreements with real teeth in them.
What are we doing? We are passing legislation today in Canada without knowing what is in the side agreements. We do not know whether there will be two or three side agreements. We do not even know what will be in them.
Why is the government proceeding in this way? Or, is it saying in effect we shall accept whatever the United States finally agrees on?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend forgets the process of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement where on the very last night of the negotiations we indicated that we were prepared to walk away from the negotiations unless there were certain changes. Those changes were made and on that basis we agreed to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
My hon. friend also forgets that three countries have signed the North American free trade agreement. The legislation before the House is the implementing legislation for the agreement that three countries have signed, but it does not go into force unless the other two countries introduce their own legislation.


Mr. Wappel:: What is the hurry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend somewhere over there asks: "What is the hurry?" The hurry is to do exactly as I said yesterday, to provide members of the Canadian business community with confidence so they know what they are dealing with. In that way they can plan their business efforts in Mexico. Maybe my hon. friend forgets that our exports to Mexico were up 35 per cent last year. I know that is bad news for him but it is good news for a lot of Canadians.
Oral Questions FISHERIES

May 12, 1993


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo -Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, Ernie Crey, fisheries manager for the Sto:Lo group, said on B.C. television that the group made a unilateral decision to fish 48 hours rather than the 24 hours approved by DFO. He said further that DFO was told in advance and yet did nothing.
If it is that easy to flaunt the authority of the department, what pressure can the minister bring upon the Sto:Los to get them to sign into the Fraser River watershed agreement?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I think the day in question was May 5. It is normal practice for the aboriginal fishery to be open for a 24-hour period each week. They are harvesting the Chinook salmon for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
On May 6 the Lower Fraser Fishing Authority unilaterally announced that they would be open for a 48-hour period commencing on Friday, May 7, at 6 p.m. As soon as that was heard by the department a letter was sent to all chiefs advising them that the fishery would remain closed until Saturday and that they had no authority to open or close fisheries.
We sent our patrol officers out. We removed 30 or 40 nets from the river that evening. The fishermen involved did not know they were fishing improperly or that the band had been taking arbitrary authority so we have not laid any charges against them. Their nets were removed from the river and the department of fisheries is enforcing our rules and regulations in the proper and normal way.
Unfortunately there are certain people in the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition who want only to cause trouble, not to increase understanding of what is being done to resolve our problems in the fishery.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I think we would get along a lot better if the minister were prepared to be more open with the people in British Columbia.
They just do not know what is going on. They have been promised consultation. They have been promised
they would be kept informed. Yet they are finding out by watching television right now what happened last weekend in the fisheries in B.C. It is just not good enough.
When is the minister going to live up to his promise to co-operate with these people rather than criticizing them for what they are trying to do to save themselves?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not believe that flap doodle.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not have to give a reply if it is not wanted. I can assure the hon. member and the House that I have personally sent three letters to all British Columbia registered fishermen in the last several months or the regional director has.
We are spending a lot of money on public information and communications but there is a small group of people in the B.C. fishing industry and the survival coalition who want to make sensational charges and destroy our attempts to pass on to the people of British Columbia what is being done in the fishery.
It is reprehensible what they are doing but we are going all out to see that the facts go out to the public. I would thank my hon. friend if he would see that these facts get out as well.


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He is aware that last year the federal government assisted some 38,000 additional low income households and in all some 652,000 low income housing units were assisted by the federal government.
In the light of the budget freeze this year, will the minister advise the House how many, if any, additional housing assistance units will be provided for low income Canadians? Will he also confirm for the House that in spite of the budget freeze CMHC will have available some $41 million in new money to provide housing-
May 12, 1993


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put his question. The minister may want to respond.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has his figures right, as he usually does. I cannot tell him exactly how many new units we will be assisting with this year because the provinces have not yet supplied me with the data. As he knows, each year the provinces may decide to allocate their programs differently.
In 1994 governments will be invited to participate in new and imaginative ways to deliver social housing. I can assure him that when the data are available from the provinces I will immediately make sure that he gets them.


FISHERIES
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question today is an oyster question for the minister of fisheries.
The regulations read: "Every vessel used in a commercial fishery except the oyster fishery in Prince Edward Island must be registered annually". This regulation applies only to Prince Edward Island.
I wonder if the minister would move to apply that same regulation to the oyster fishery in Nova Scotia.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has an intimate and minute knowledge of the fishery which I must admit that I do not.
The facts are that everybody who harvests oysters- and the hon. gentlemen opposite better listen because some of them will be back to harvesting oysters by the end of the year-needs a licence no matter in what province they fish for oysters. A $20 vessel registration fee is required under the regulations.
We have made an exception in P.E.I. because we try to help the smaller fishermen. They have a unique fishery there. The fishermen harvest from several small coves. They often leave a small dory at each cove. Rather than charging them for every dory, we do not charge in P.E.I.
Oral Questions
in those circumstances to license each small dory, because of our respect for the smaller fishermen.


CANADIAN SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Science.
In the Prime Minister's eagerness to embrace everything American, the Conservative government committed the lion's share of our space budget to the U.S. space station. Now the U.S. is planning a much cheaper space station and may even cancel the project altogether.
Could the minister let Canadians know what contingency plans he has prepared in the event Canada is written out of the U.S. plans or in the event the space station never flies?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the lion's share of the Canadian space program is not in the space station. He also knows that the space station itself has been reconfigured.
Our contribution will be reconfigured too and there may even be compensation for us if our contribution is cut back materially. He knows all that.
He also knows that we are putting together a longterm space program which is going to involve every region of this country to help us to be a world leader in that field.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the government has already spent $740 million and plans to spend at least another $1.3 billion on a project that may never materialize. Could the minister give us the assurance that we will get our money's worth, whatever the Americans decide?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the Space Agency and our space station program will continue. The three methods now being considered by the Americans include the Spar Aerospace project, which means we will play a very important role.

May 12, 1993
Routine Proceedings


CIGARETTE PACKAGING
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
About five weeks ago I asked the minister to consider giving the packaging industry additional time to meet the new requirements of the cigarette packaging regulations in Canada. Since that time I am told meetings have been held between the packaging industry and the government.
Since 150 people in my riding have been laid off from their work and are standing around with no place to go while waiting for this announcement, will the minister give me an assurance that he will give this matter his immediate attention so that these people can get back to work and we can put some stability back into the packaging industry in my riding?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The officers of the department have had many meetings with the packaging industry.
We are looking at the possibilities to give to the industiy the capacity to face the problem with the tobacco companies in terms of the reduction they have made on packaging in light of the new regulations.
I believe that within the next two or three weeks the matter should be corrected.


When will the minister stop this endless foot-dragging and finally decide to meet the needs of the Franco-On-tarian community and approve funding for this network?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware, as are my cabinet colleagues, of the importance of supporting French language minorities and English language minorities in their desire to develop within their own school system. In this respect, since 1984 this government has been very positive in its support for these communities, and that includes appropriate funding.
As for the particular case mentioned by the hon. member, I personally met the Ontario minister, Mr. Cook, and made some very positive proposals for discussions on joint funding procedures for the network of community colleges. 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.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
While I am on my feet, may I designate tomorrow as an allotted day.


FRENCH-LANGUAGE COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Last year, the former Secretary of State promised to join the province of Ontario in creating a network of French language community colleges in Northern Ontario. Ontario is ready to go ahead, but the federal government is dragging its feet, and meanwhile, the Franco-Ontarian community is waiting.


CANADA-FRANCE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF OFFICIAL PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to

May 12, 1993

present, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, which took part in the mission in France, from March 27 to April 4, 1993.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Administration on Exclusions from the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-436, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


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


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill that would amend the Young Offenders Act.
The purpose of this particular bill is threefold. First, it would lower the age limits that define a young offender. A young offender would be defined as a young person between the ages of 10 and 15. As a result, 16 and 17 year olds would be responsible for their criminal acts and prosecuted in adult court. As well, the lower age limit of a young offender would be reduced from 12 to 10 years of age. Second, the bill would increase the maximum penalty for first or second degree murder to 10 years from the current 5-year maximum. Third, the bill would allow for the publication of the name of the young offender after the offender's second conviction for an indictable offence.
Routine Proceedings
I would ask hon. colleagues to help expedite this particular piece of legislation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Nunziata 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
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I move:
That three members of the Public Accounts Committee and one staff member be authorized to go to Toronto from July 4 to July 7, 1993, to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. parliamentary secretary to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but there is no consent. Are there any further motions?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I move:
That four members of the Subcommittee on Development and Human Rights of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade and one staff person be authorized to travel to Vienna, Austria, from June 14 to June 19, 1993 in order to take part in the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights.


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, the Official Opposition grants its consent.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I simply want to indicate that we have had serious discussions. We find this to be a most valuable conference on human rights and that representatives of Canada should attend. The New Democratic Party certainly supports it enthusiastically.

May 12, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has been denied.


PETITIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by constituents from all across Ontario and elsewhere, including the national capital region.
They are very concerned about the high illiteracy rate in Canada, which is at 38 per cent. They are calling on the House to urge the government to take all necessary action in order to promote and encourage the institution of a national education standard in consultation with provincial governments, educational professionals, industry and labour, parents, youth, voluntary organizations and individual Canadians.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by many people from my constituency.
They call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a second petition signed by quite a few people from western Canada.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to press the government to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to present four large petitions that have all been certified correct according to Standing Order 36.
These petitioners, many from my riding and others from as far away as Fort McMurray in the north and Lethbridge in the southern part of Alberta, all express concern and recognize that treaty rights entitle Indians to preserve their traditional way of life, including hunting, fishing and gathering.
They express concern that completely unregulated hunting interferes with good conservation and sound wildlife management practices. They call upon the government to conclude an agreement with Canada's treaty Indians regarding sound wildlife management that would restrict native rights to hunt, fish and gather for personal consumption needs and prohibit the sale for profit of wildlife meat or parts obtained by treaty rights.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with over 100 names on it from petitioners in Manitoulin Island calling on the government to maintain the manned weather station at the Gore Bay-Manitoulin airport.
They point out the importance in terms of jobs, as some five permanent jobs would be maintained. The airport staff not only provide a manned weather station but other essential services such as security, fuel supply, radio contact, scheduled air flights, air ambulance, search and rescue, runway and beacon lighting.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to maintain the manned weather station at the Gore Bay-Manitoulin airport.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition with hundreds of signatures from residents of my riding and the surrounding area who oppose the recent move by Canada Post to move the sorting of mail away from the northern area to the Ottawa centre.
This decision entails loss of services that are truly needed by residents of northern Ontario and northern Quebec and will lead to the loss of jobs in those areas. They ask that Canada Post consider rescinding its new policy.
May 12, 1993

Routine Proceedings


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility to table a petition signed by many citizens in the Ottawa area.
These petitioners are complaining that the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the staff of members and senators have no health and safety protection under the law. Furthermore they have no legislated role in setting a common agenda for joint staff-management occupational health and safety items. Imagine that, at the present time there are no legislated labour standards for these employees on the Hill.
These petitioners are calling on the House to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of over 50 constituents who are concerned about the handling of hazardous materials.
As an example these petitioners cite the handling of propane and liquefied petroleum as a serious threat to the environment and the safety of people.
My constituents are also concerned about a decision taken by the National Transportation Agency which extends the permitted handling period of hazardous goods from 48 hours to five days. This petition points out that two liquefied petroleum gas cars were involved in a mishap, one of them overturned, which endangered people on property near the Clifton Community Club in my riding.
My constituents call upon Parliament to adopt measures which would reduce the allowed time for railway companies to handle at railway yards liquefied petroleum, propane and other hazardous goods from five days to 24 hours. This would include loaded or unvented tank cars.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, you probably remember Bill C-93.

Petitioners have seen what the senators now see. There will be no real money saved in the amalgamation of those various bills and no increased efficiency, particularly with respect to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council merger with the Canada Council.
The petitioners want the merger delayed and I personally hope the senators will do what the petitioners have requested.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, in the second instance these petitioners have a recommendation to government to help artists, writers, publishers and students create jobs and to increase productivity and competitiveness.
They ask that the government eliminate the goods and services tax on books and reading materials, and I concur with them.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I have here a petition signed by many residents of Ontario and Quebec, and I quote: "Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to put pressure on the government to ratify parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act". This petition is very important, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, I too have a petition that has been certified correct as to form and content pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition is signed by a number of individuals from various points in Ontario and Quebec. It is in respect to the lack of health and safety protection for employees of the House of Commons.
The petitioners indicate that whereas parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act have remained unproclaimed since 1986; whereas the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the staff of members and senators have no health and safety protection under the law; whereas employees have no legislated role in a common agenda for joint staff management, occupational health and safely items; and whereas employees have no legislated labour standards, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to press the

May 12, 1993
Routine Proceedings
government to finally reclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition with signatures from across the province of Ontario dealing with the North American free trade agreement.
These petitioners are very concerned about the intention of the majority in this House of Commons to move ahead with NAFTA. They feel this agreement will cause Canadians to lose more good jobs. They feel that if implemented the trade agreement will lead to further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments.
They therefore call upon the House to reject this proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement as well.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition under the provisions of Standing Order 36 signed by a number of Canadians from the Ottawa-Hull area.
These petitioners are absolutely disgusted that it has been seven years since the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was passed by all parties in this House of Commons in June 1986. No action has yet been taken by the government to proclaim the operative sections of that act, parts II and III, which would simply guarantee to all employees of the House of Commons, including our own employees, the basic health, safety and labour standards protection afforded to every other working Canadian.
The petitioners particularly ask all members of Parliament to urge the government again to immediately proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. It has the opportunity to do that tomorrow afternoon under Motion 743.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition signed by a significant number of my constituents regarding the closure of Weston Postal Station A.
The petitioners point out that the closure will create a big inconvenience to a large number of residents, especially the elderly of which there are a very large number in the Weston area.
The post office was actually closed in October of last year and the petitioners had requested that the post office stay open. I am pleased to present this petition today.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
The first is a continuation of many names from my riding who note that the proposal of the Minister of Agriculture to remove barley from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board is another step toward dismantling the board.
They humbly call upon Parliament to keep barley under the responsibility of the Wheat Board and to actively support the marketing of other crops by the Canadian Wheat Board.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the second petition is from those in several points in my riding who call upon Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the third petition is from petitioners in the Ottawa-Hull area who call upon Parliament to press the government to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act that governs employees of the House of Commons, Senate, Library of
May 12, 1993

Parliament and the staff of members and senators who currently have no health and safety protection under the law.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have a large petition that was given to me by Mr. and Mrs. Cadman in Surrey, B.C., last weekend. I am splitting it with the hon. member for Kamloops who is presenting some of it.
This is a family whose young son, Jessie Cadman, 16, was brutally murdered six months ago in a random slaying as he was coming back to the family home in the suburb of Surrey, British Columbia.
The petitioners say that the Young Offenders Act of Canada is inadequate for the needs of a modern society and that the Young Offenders Act be reviewed and necessary changes be made to improve the act.
I believe our hearts go out to the Cadman family and to its friends. It has taken the step of getting a great many names on the petition for a group called CRY to try to make changes to the law of Canada. I am proud to present this petition in Parliament today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege and an honour to join with my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam in presenting a petition that simply indicates that the Young Offenders Act is clearly an act that is inadequate for the needs of our modern society.
It points out that young offenders appear to enjoy an extraordinary status under this act which may not achieve the appropriate balance between the rights of young offenders and those of society as a whole.
Therefore the petitioners resolve that the Young Offenders Act be reviewed and necessary changes be made to improve the act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from the residents of Celista, Anglemont and Magna Bay, British Columbia, who point out their concerns with the North American free trade agreement and the fact that it will make it easier for Americans and Mexicans to access our Canadian lakes and rivers.
They oppose that and ask Parliament to take the appropriate action.
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another matter the petitioners point out that parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act have remained unproclaimed since 1986.
They feel that in order to provide the right health and safety protection for people working within the parliamentary precincts the government should finally proclaim parts II and II.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is the last matter, Madam Speaker. Residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, point out that the federal Ministry of National Health and Welfare continues to support, along with all provincial governments, the fluoridation of municipal water supplies.
They point out that fluoride is the only chemical knowingly introduced to the water supply as a form of mass medication and yet it has never been subjected to proper scientific scrutiny to prove it is safe for the complete range of diets, lifestyles and environmental stresses to which many Canadians are subjected.
They point out that there are many studies showing the adverse health effects caused by the ingestion of fluoride into drinking water and foodstuffs. Since other countries have outlawed the addition of fluoride to municipal water supplies, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to investigate all reports dealing with fluoride and its effects on human health.
If there is any possibility that Canadians will suffer from the addition of fluoride to the public water supply then Parliament should pass legislation that would ban the addition of fluoride to food and water.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present on behalf of 5,000 Albertans a petition in memory of all children who have suffered at the hands of others.
The petitioners request that we re-establish capital punishment for child murderers and stiffer penalties for child molesters. They say that if we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these crimes then who will?

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender.
He *	*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 479 and 515.


Ms. Mitchell: Which training programs offered by the Department of Employment and Immigration have (a) a literacy component (b) an English/French language training component?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr, Speaker, training programs offered by Employment and Immigration Canada that have:
a)	A Literacy Component:
Purchase of Training
Project-Based Training
Youth Initiatives (Literacy Corps)
These components are under the Employability Improvement Program.
b)	An English/French Language Training Component:
Purchase of Training *
Project-Based Training *
Labour Market Language Training (LINC)
* These components are under the Employability Improvement Program of the employment program.


Mr. Laporte: With respect to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) (a) how much is spent nationally and in Saskatchewan on administration and (b) what is the total amount of money paid through the plan to farmers nationally and in Saskatchewan?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP), the total estimated administration costs for the year 1992-93 are:
a) Nationally $40 million Saskatchewan $17 million
The total estimated pay-out to fanners for 1992-93 with respect to the GRIP is:
b) Nationally $1.5 billion Saskatchewan $450 million


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
He *	*


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-89, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, as I was saying yesterday before we concluded, I realize that the government will use its majority to put through these amendments to the Investment Canada Act. The operative agency is Investment Canada. Nevertheless I felt it was important we were on record flagging our concerns about the way the government has altered the approach to foreign investment from that of the previous government.
The example I used yesterday was the example of Mercedes-Benz and Freightliner. Here was an example
May 12, 1993

where Mercedes-Benz wanted to have more retail outlets for its cars in Canada. I remember in 1981-82 we said to Mercedes-Benz: "There is no way you are going to sell more of your product in Canada unless you give us a firm commitment that you are going to maintain the manufacturing of the Freightliner trucks in British Columbia".
As I stated yesterday Mercedes-Benz really did not want that imposition by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA. The company fought it and we maintained our ground as a government. Ultimately the company honoured the commitment to Freightliner.
Today Freightliner, which operates out of St. Thomas, Ontario, has about 600 manufacturing jobs. I guess it was last year that the former president of Mercedes-Benz told me when I ran into him at a luncheon in Toronto: "I was certainly mad at the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1981-82, but I can report to you today that Freightliner is now one of the most profitable divisions in Canada under the Daimler-Benz or Mercedes-Benz umbrella".
That is for me the way the Investment Canada operation should function. It should be functioning in that way. When people want to come to Canada to do business it should be challenging them to set up manufacturing concerns. In fact in my view it should be giving them firm advice that this is the way we expect them to do business in Canada. We do not just want them to come here, set up a warehouse, hire an ad agency, market their product and have a few sales people. We want them to come here and do some research and development and some manufacturing.
What has happened in the country in the last few years is that we have just seen a retreat from research and development and a retreat from manufacturing. I believe that this all goes back to chapter 14 of the free trade agreement.
Essentially I am a free trader. I am not against Canada trading around the world. I have always had a pretty progressive attitude toward trade. We have to have an understanding and a regulation by sector and there has to be some sense of fair play in this.
The Prime Minister even said this before he was elected in 1983 in my riding when he was campaigning to
Government Orders
be the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He made the statement that unfettered, unlimited free trade with the Americans would be no different than a mouse sleeping next to an elephant. Somehow he forgot that commitment he made in 1983 and here we have chapter 14 of the free trade agreement.
I want to be on the record. This is not the first time for me. When I was campaigning in the last election I flagged this chapter as the one area of the free trade agreement that was ultimately going to lead to a Government of Canada calling in on the abrogation clause.
I really wish Canadians could go to their libraries or call their local MPs and ask them for a copy of chapter 14 of the free trade agreement, which is the chapter that really deals with the sovereignty of this country. It is the chapter that is directly related to this bill, Bill C-89, with the amendments to the Investment Canada Act. It has to do with the whole approach in terms of when people come to this country and the terms and conditions under which they do business.
I want to quote directly from article 1402 of this free trade agreement that says basically: "Subject to paragraph 3 each party shall accord to persons of the other party treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstance to its persons with respect to the measures covered by this chapter".
Point two says: "The treatment accorded by a party under paragraph 1 shall mean with respect to a province or a state treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by such province or state in like circumstances to persons of the party of which it forms a part".
My concern is that there have been too many instances where we have not been given equal treatment under this section of the free trade agreement.
Of course the government agency or body that has been responsible for making sure that that type of treatment is being maintained is the Investment Canada section of the Government of Canada. When I hear of instances like the General Motors van plant in Scarborough shutting down and moving to Flint and about organizations that are shutting down and retreating to the United States, then I get very concerned that chapter 14 of the free trade agreement is not working the way it was intended to work.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
I am concerned about the government agency Investment Canada.
I have always been a supporter of the notion that we need foreign investment in this country. We need an exchange of technology. We need manufacturing. We want companies to come here and set up their manufacturing concerns. I really think our negotiating skills in making sure part of the package is that they manufacture here have wilted away. We do not seem to have the same political will today to meet that objective as we did a few years ago.
Today we debate amendments to Bill C-89 and the government will put this bill through with its majority. I want to go on record as saying that I have concerns about the direction Investment Canada has been taking in the last few years. I especially have concerns about the fact that chapter fourteen of the free trade agreement has really not met the stated objective of the government's campaign in 1988.
The minister of trade and the Minister of Finance will stand and give all kinds of examples where certain sectors of the economy have surges in exports. I happen to think the main reasons those exports are up has to do with not only our levels of productivity but also our rate of exchange in terms of dollars. I still believe if we had mandated companies to keep their manufacturing businesses in Canada they still could have maintained their profitability. We still could have maintained those jobs and the economy would have been much healthier than what we are dealing with today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the excellent debate, but I think you will find there has been discussion among all parties in the House of Commons.
The House has agreed that debate on Bill C-106 at second reading stage is completed. A vote has been called for and will be deferred until May 25, 1993 at 6 p.m., at which time the vote will be taken.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House agree to support this proposal.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that the debate has been concluded and therefore this party will not agree to that proposal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The irony is that we are doing this because of a request by the Liberal Party. I find this a bit confusing. We have had a lot of discussion, debate and organization because of a request by the House leader of the Official Opposition. Now it seems after all this discussion the Official Opposition wants to have a vote today, which we are quite prepared to do, but we are trying to accommodate its plan.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. The debate on Bill C-106 is not concluded at this time, but at its conclusion we agree that if a vote is called it will be deferred to May 25 at three o'clock in the afternoon.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that there is unanimous consent. We are talking about Bill C-106 which will be following Bill C-89 that is in front of us at this time. Is that agreed?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but because of the confusion could you explain what we have agreed to do?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that once we have finished with Bill C-89 the House wants to proceed to Bill C-106. Then at the conclusion of debate on second reading of Bill C-106 we will take for granted that the question has been put and that a recorded vote has been asked for. That vote will be held on May 25. This is what I understood.


An hon. member:: Begin it again.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: At the end of debate on Bill C-106 we will take for granted that the question has been put and that the vote has been asked for, which vote will be taken at six o'clock on May 25.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Just to further complicate things I think it really should be at five o'clock based on the Orders of the Day for Tuesday. The vote would be at five o'clock rather than six o'clock. Perhaps the Table can assist us in confirming that.
May 12, 1993


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, we agree to have the vote at 5 p.m. on May 25, instead of at 6 p.m.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to make sure, we are not taking it for granted that there will be an automatic vote. It will have to be forced and at five o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for my legalese in English. Maybe I should have gone into French. I think everyone understood what I meant to say. There seems to be agreement now. No?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not suppose it matters, but I thought we had agreed that the vote would have been deemed to have been put. I think that was the original understanding.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry. Those are exactly the words which I should have used. Something got mixed up in the translation. The question will have been deemed to have been put and a recorded vote asked for, which vote will be taken at five o'clock on May 25. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my hon. friend's comments on the concerns he has expressed about the Scarborough van plant. I think we are both in agreement that it is unfortunate when we see an employer of this magnitude shutting down and moving the jobs to another country.
I want to ask him to reflect on the fact that in the last two or three years we have seen a $1 billion investment in Oakville by Ford, $1 billion investment by Ford in Windsor and a substantial shift in the productive capacity of Chrysler to Canada, whereby in two or three years we will have about 40 per cent of the Chrysler U.S.-Canada vehicle production, partly because of the success of the van that Chrysler offers.
In addition, we have seen some changes in GM's operations in Oshawa as well as in Sainte-Therese that
Government Orders
have given a good deal more confidence in the longevity of those jobs in that market.
I want to ask him to reflect on that in view of the comment he made that one of the reasons why this has happened is the drop in the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is higher than it was in the period 1984-86 and I think into 1987. Yes, it is lower than the peak it reached in the 1989-90 period, but when it is taken in the longer perspective this is not a bad performance.
We also look at the fact that we have about 16.8 or 16.9 per cent of the U.S.-Canada vehicle production in Canada compared to our sales of something around 9 per cent. I think it indicates that in this particular industry we are doing pretty dam well. That is based on the productive capacity of those plants, the quality of the work force in those plants and the fact that government policies are in place that encourage these activities.
Rather than trying to get into a divisive debate with him, I want to ask this question. Rather than put the negative on the Scarborough van plant-which I think we can agree is a negative-but against the preponderance of the substantial amount of success in the industry, would he not agree that as an investment performance what we have seen in the automotive sector in Canada has been very good and certainly world class?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I appreciate sincerely the question and the point the minister is making. I have had a little bit of experience in the automotive field and I agree with him. We do have world class production and quality. We are making better product at better prices.
Traditionally this sector of the economy has always brought tremendous benefits directly and indirectly for the community and the country as a whole. I applaud the successes of Ford and the successes of Chrysler and the successes of the auto parts manufacturers, and I think of Magna for one, that are doing tremendous export work.
The minister gave examples of the Sainte-Therese plant and the plants in Oshawa, but the plant in Scarborough was a cash cow for General Motors in Canada. These are not my words; these are the words of the executive of General Motors. Perhaps we could find taxpayers' money to support the Chryslers and the Fords. We certainly did find money to support the Sainte-

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
Therese plant. I think it was about $600 million for General Motors.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: $110 million.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Okay, fair enough, $110 million. I guess that is where I have been coming from on the issue of the Scarborough van plant, seeing as it has been for the last 10 to 15 years such a cash cow for General Motors. That particular line of van has only two years of life left in it anyway, even when it moves to Flint because then it is going to go into the world van, or whatever it is called.
At this time when the confidence and the mood in our community is so fragile-and I am as sensitive to deficit and debt as the minister is-there could have been some way, using all of those qualities of auto parts manufacturing that we have in this country, to get General Motors to keep that plant open in Scarborough.
The minister knows, because he has been in opposition himself, we are not here just to stand and talk about all the great things Ford, Chrysler and GM are doing. It is our responsibility to press the minister to see if there is not some way by maybe spending $100 million or $200 million of taxpayers' money to keep that plant open and keep people paying taxes. Would that not be a much better route to go than possibly having these people on welfare or UI? That would cost the taxpayer just as much money and that is where I come from.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have a newspaper article in my hand from the October 26 edition of The Nikkei Weekly which I think is of profound importance. It concerns Bill C-89 which we are discussing today.
If I may, I would like to quote from part of it. It is not very long. The heading of the article is "NAFTA impacting investment strategy". Now that is of course in Japan. The subheading is that "62 per cent of subsidiaries in U.S. are attracted to Mexico, survey shows". The article goes on, datelined New York: "More than 60 per cent of Japanese companies operating in the U.S. believe that the North American free trade agreement increases Mexico's appeal as an investment site, according to a recent survey by Nihon Keizai Shinbun".
"Most respondents, presidents and vice-presidents of 269 U.S. subsidiaries of Japanese firms listed on the
Tokyo-Osaka Stock Exchanges, expect NAFTA to have a major impact on their North American business strategies".
More than half the respondents, 52.4 per cent, answered yes to the question: "Do you think NAFTA promotes regionalism or protectionism?" That is 52 per cent; only 14 per cent said no.
I might interject that about a week and a half ago a former deputy minister of NUT, which is the minister for international trade in Tokyo, was in this building. He indicated to members present that the business community in Japan has profound concerns about NAFTA. Those concerns are completely consistent with the survey I just mentioned where more than half of the executives interviewed in this particular poll thought that NAFTA promoted regionalism or protectionism.
If I may, I am going to read from the article:
NAFTA will directly influence Japanese companies by demanding that goods qualifying for tariff-free trade have a higher local content ratio. In the case of automobiles for example, the local content ratio would rise to 62.5 per cent.
I wish I had heard my friend or the minister opposite speak on that issue. Perhaps they will speak to it in Question Period.
At present under the U.S.-Canada free trade pact, the ratio is 50 per cent. In the poll, 54.3 per cent of respondents said that higher local content requirements would have a major impact on their future management while 41.3 per cent said they would have little or no effect. That split in opinion may stem from the fact that local content ratios directly affect manufacturers but leave service industries virtually untouched.
Asked if the agreement would necessitate changes in the investment strategies in the three countries, 23.8 per cent said
"yes"-
These are Japanese business executives.
38.7 per cent said "no" and 35.7 per cent were not sure. Of those in agreement, 84.4 per cent said that they would consider Mexico as an investment site compared with 32.8 per cent for the U.S. and 15.6 per cent for this country of Canada.
Most respondents said that they will maintain the status quo in their Canadian investments, since Canada and the U.S. have already implemented a free trade agreement.
NAFTA will make Mexico a more attractive place to invest according to 62.1 per cent of respondents largely because Mexico will have to relax its numerous restrictions on foreign investment.
May 12, 1993

Many electrical goods manufacturers have already relocated their U.S. production bases to Mexico to take advantage of the less expensive labour. Mexico now appears likely to become the strongest candidate of the three for Japanese manufacturers setting up in North America.
Maybe I should repeat that so I can stress it for the minister.
Mexico now appears likely to become the strongest candidate of the three for Japanese manufacturers setting up in North America.
Currently most Japanese companies' Mexican plants are concentrated in the Maquiladora district near the U.S. border.
That is fairly clear.
Regarding business opportunities, 44.6 per cent said that they expect greater opportunities for Japanese companies in Mexico. However, 29.7 per cent agreed that while opportunities would grow, U.S. companies would monopolize them.
Finally if I may read a related article underneath the one I just quoted from headed "Bank of Tokyo bullish on Mexico":
Mexico will grow in importance as a hub for Japanese manufacturing in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement, according to Kaoru Hayama, Bank of Tokyo's senior managing director in charge of overseas operations.
"Manufacturers that export to the U.S. market would obviously benefit by locating in Mexico where their products crossing the border north would not be subject to tariffs", he said in a recent interview. "Of course, the number of new factories built in Mexico by Japanese companies will grow".
Hayama said that companies that already have operations in Mexico will find it easier to open sales routes throughout North America.
"Moreover, as Central and South American countries move toward freer trade, some are expected to join NAFTA, making it possible to cultivate their markets as well" Hayama said. "This is the reason the automobile industry and others are moving towards expanding their production bases in Mexico".
With NAFTA in place, Hayama said: "The first thing that comes to mind is companies with factories in the U.S. and Canada closing them down and relocating to Mexico".
He acknowledged that this would stir negative reactions in the U.S. and Canada. Hayama added: 'Another option would be to move factories in Southeast Asian countries to Mexico. This trend can already be seen in the textile industry".
Hayama said that companies with factories scattered throughout Latin America are likely to concentrate production in Mexico".
I wish every member of the House could read this article. I am afraid it is an article published in Japan that most of us will not see. I would be interested to see if the
Government Orders
Minister for International Trade has any comment on it. It seems to me, and I think Japanese business leaders have confirmed this to many audiences, that the Mexican manufacturing economy will benefit enormously from NAFTA and Bill C-89.
What about the 27 million people who the minister of trade and I are supposed to represent in this country? What about the minister's constituents? I gather he is not running again. What about the constituents of all of us here who depend on us to protect the Canadian national interest? Do we have so little regard for our duties to our constituents that we are prepared to put through any bill?
I have no doubt the vast source of manufacturing investment-I mention the car industry but there are many others-in Japan and the South Pacific is going to see NAFTA and Bill C-89 as simply ways of making Mexico the place to get 75-cent an hour labour to compete with $12 or $15 an hour labour in Canada. One cannot live in Calgary or Edmonton on a wage of 75 cents an hour. The minister may think people can and he may have studied economics-in fact, one of his professors told me he studied under him a long time ago like I did-but the trouble is that wages tend to equalize and our wages are going to equalize down.
I am hoping I have provoked-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As a lawyer I think you should declare yourself before you make an outrageous statement like that one.


David Kilgour: Does he think Mr. Honda will set up his next plant in southwestern Ontario or in Mexico? I do not think there is any doubt in what I have just read. I do not think the minister was following what I was saying. If one of the pages will come and take him over the article he can look at it. I have no doubt that Honda, Toyota, Hyundai or any other manufacturing plant in Asia-Pacific is going to be as inclined to put up a plant in Canada as a result of NAFTA as it would without NAFTA being in place.
The great argument made by the minister and many others is that if we have CUSTA in place, Asia-Pacific, America, Europe and everybody will invest in manufacturing plants in Canada because then they can export freely to the United States. I think the article I have just quoted from and many other examples, including the van plant in Scarborough, indicate to all of us who are

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
prepared to see, hear and reason that Canada is not going to benefit from NAFTA in its present form.
That is why my party is committed to renegotiating it and trying to make sure the Canadian interest is protected in a future negotiated NAFTA. In Question Period when we hear about the parallel agreements, our friends opposite say they will go with anything. They will take NAFTA in the present form, in the form the Clinton administration negotiates or the form Congress negotiates. They will take whatever is going by.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When did we say that?


David Kilgour: That seems to be what I hear the minister saying time after time after time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is precisely what I did not say during Question Period today if you listened.


David Kilgour: Maybe I was not listening carefully enough. In any event I would be grateful to hear if the minister has any comments on the remarks just made.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I heard the previous Liberal member of the House of Commons speak about free trade and NAFTA and why he now opposes it. One of the reasons he opposes it is because of the low wages in Mexico.
I remember a few years ago when he was on the opposite side of the House and voted for the free trade agreement. At the time he was supporting the Conservative government on free trade we warned there were a number of right to work states in the United States. We warned there were a number of counties in the United States which were doing all sorts of things to induce Canadian factories to come to those states.
We have seen examples time after time. They offer very low taxes and advertise that they are states with no minimum wage requirements. There is high productivity but almost no protection for the workers and there is subsidized or free land.
The member is now saying he is against the North American free trade agreement. Why did he vote for a free trade agreement which puts Canadian communities and Canadian jobs in jeopardy?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I did vote for the free trade agreement. I wrote about it in a book. I have written many articles about it and given many speeches.
I thought it would be good for Canada as a whole. I particularly thought it would be good for western Canada. It has been good for some industries in western Canada. There is no doubt about that. The cattle industry is very pleased with it. The petrochemical and oil and gas industries are very pleased with it, but I am a Canadian and I see that thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. Plants closed in Scarborough last week, including Mack Truck. We are a family. We have to be concerned about how all Canadians are doing.
I have been persuaded this government did not have the whit, intelligence or backbone to negotiate an agreement that would work in the interests of both Canada and the United States. That is why I am extremely pleased my party leader has said he would renegotiate both the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. I guess that is the short answer.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about what I have just heard the hon. member say. He talked about things that are happening in the automotive industry. He talked about Mack Truck and other issues.
It would be useful for him to reread the free trade agreement with the United States which still adheres to the auto pact. We are so far above the auto pact limits in terms of any changes that would be required I honestly do not know why the hon. member keeps bringing it up. The FTA maintains it. If he looks at some of the other industries he is talking about, they are not remotely concerned with the free trade agreement. Some of them are even excluded from the free trade agreement.
I think at least we should be able to stick to the facts in this argument. Why would the hon. member insist on equating automotive issues with the free trade agreement when he knows that is not conceivably possible?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have read each of the articles of the free trade agreement from stem to stem. I would be surprised, knowing the hon. member, if he has read it. Perhaps when he gets up next time he will tell the House if he has read it all.
May 12, 1993


William C. Winegard: Yes, I have.


David Kilgour: He does not seem to be displaying very much knowledge about the auto pact part of the free trade agreement.


William C. Winegard: The hon. member was not on the committee. I was.


David Kilgour: The NAFTA, as the member will know, increases local production to 62.5 per cent of local content.


William C. Winegard: Good thing.


David Kilgour: I do not think the member from Guelph was here when I quoted some figures before so I will quote a couple of them again to him. This is an article from The Nikkei Weekly of Japan dated October 26, 1992:
NAFTA will make Mexico a more attractive place to invest, according to 62 per cent of the respondents-
These are business executives in Japan:
-	largely because Mexico will have to relax its numerous restrictions on foreign investment.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are over your head.


David Kilgour: Michael, if I am over my head, you sank a long time ago.
Mr. Hayama, the managing director of the Bank of Tokyo, is quoted in the article:
Mexico will grow in importance as a hub for Japanese manufacturing in the wake of the North American free trade agreement.
"With NAFTA in place" Flayama said, "the first thing that comes to mind is companies with factories in the U.S. and Canada closing them down and -
-to the member from Guelph-
-	relocating to Mexico". He acknowledged that this would stir negative reactions in the U.S. and Canada.
Well it will stir negative reactions on this side of the House including our friends from the New Democratic Party and among members' constituents.
However those hon. members just do not get it. Where are these pages who are with us today going to work when this government is finished its work? Are these brilliant minds going to work in Mexico? The Minister for International Trade and the member from Guelph just do not get it.
Government Orders


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, we get it. It is interesting that the hon. member does not really reply to my question about the free trade agreement and the auto pact.
It is clear the hon. member does not understand the auto pact. Apparently he has never understood it. If he looked at the auto pact rules, he would find that again we are so far above auto pact limits that we would have to close down General Motors and probably Chrysler as well to come down to the auto pact limits.
Why does the hon. member object to the 62.5 per cent? Why does he not want more North American content than the 50 per cent? I do not think he even understands what the issue is with respect to the old content rule. It is simple.
Surely we are better off with a 62.5 per cent content rule than with a 50 per cent content rule because more work will be done in North America. Maybe he wants it done in Japan, I do not know.


David Kilgour: I will give the member a little history lesson.
When the auto pact was first passed, Mr. Diefenbaker was the leader of the hon. member's party. Neither the hon. member nor I was here; it was a long time ago. Mr. Diefenbaker was trying to decide whether his party would oppose the auto pact including its production guarantees for Canada, a fairly important factor at the time and now.
A friend of mine was in Windsor at the time. Mr. Diefenbaker and he were talking on the phone and he said: "You know, Mr. Diefenbaker, the train keeps taking loads of new Canadian cars over to the United States". I guess he and a lot of others persuaded Mr. Diefenbaker that maybe he should not oppose the auto pact.
The auto pact was brought in by this group here a bit before the member's time. There were production guarantees in the auto pact. How does the member explain the fact that last week we had how many thousands of people lose their jobs in Scarborough at the profitable van plant there?
Does the member not understand that the eight million of us who live in western Canada would like to attract investment from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and many other countries that this Euro-centric bunch over here does not even know about?

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
I am sorry, the Minister for International Trade took a trip to Asia. Anyway, if the member did not grasp what I was saying before when quoting the official from the Bank of Tokyo, I will give it to him one more time: "Companies with factories in the U.S. and Canada are closing them down and relocating to Mexico". They are very smart business people in Japan. I do not think the member from Guelph gets it, nor would he if I talked for an hour.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I found the last debate somewhat interesting.
I heard a Liberal Party member who when he was a member of the Conservative Party, of course, supported this legislation. Now that he is a Liberal, he has learned that he is against the legislation. Then again, to be Liberal is to be very flexible about your principles and your ideas.
However this is a very serious issue. We can take a look around the world at the present time to realize we are not talking about whether Canada is a more competitive country than the United States or Mexico, or whether Canadians have better skills than workers in those countries. We are talking about who really makes the decisions about where our economic growth will or will not occur.
It does not really matter to most of the corporations whether they produce goods in Canada, the United States or Mexico, or whether they provide services from any of those nations. We can have the most skilled, the best educated and the most productive workers, but if for some reason there is a corporate decision to build a large plant in Mexico, that is what will be done. Evidence was presented in debate earlier today that the Scarborough plant was profitable. It was a cash cow for General Motors, but that did not prevent it from closing down that operation.
We know, as was just quoted, that a lot of Japanese investors are looking at the North American free trade agreement and saying: "Hey, we should set up plants in Mexico". Why? Because they would have access to the United States and Canadian markets and would not have to pay our wages. They would not have to be worried about our environmental standards. They would not have to be worried about our workers' compensation.
They would not have to be worried about occupational health and safety legislation. Even if there was legislation in any of those areas we know that it would not likely be enforced.
I was part of a parliamentary delegation that went to Mexico a few years ago prior to the free trade deal being negotiated. I was amazed by the power of the party in power to change absolutely everything around to suit its agenda. We were down there to discuss issues of bilateral importance and interest, but members of that party made it sound like it was a great negotiating meeting. They actually kept the meeting going until eleven o'clock at night and had the state-controlled media claim this great victory for the Mexican party in government. All that really meant was that we agreed that we discussed certain issues, but they had that control.
One of the interesting things is that as part of that control not only did they control the media but they insisted that the state governor not have his banquet until about eleven o'clock or twelve o'clock at night. This was in order to make sure they got the maximum spin out of this meeting which really was not very important.
Just look at the events over the last few days in Thailand where over 200 workers, mostly women, in a toy factory lost their lives. They lost their lives because the owners and operators of that plant decided they wanted more productivity from those workers. They wanted to reduce theft from that shop so they locked up the fire escapes. In other words, they basically locked those workers into a death-trap. We know there are laws in Thailand saying that should not happen, but it is also obvious that those laws were not being enforced.
When we talk about the free trade agreement and when we talk about the North American free trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico, we are not saying that Canadians are afraid to compete. We know we can compete, but we can only compete if the laws are fair and if the rules are the same in all nations.
We know that one of the great assets of the European Common Market is the fact that it does have a social contract. Its members have an understanding of how they will bring about standards among the poorer nations of the European Common Market in order that there is fair competition among those countries and a fair chance for employment by the workers in all of those countries.
May 12, 1993

There is a fair chance they will keep their factories open in all the communities of the Common Market.
When we look at the free trade agreement and the examples I gave earlier when I was questioning the Liberal member as to his fuzzy position on this issue, we know right now that American states and counties are very actively trying to take factories out of this country. We know that is happening as do those who watched an American television show yesterday afternoon. That political creature, Perot, was introduced where he brought out an ad showing how the Mexicans were even going to undercut the salaries paid in the southern states.


An hon. member:: It would take some doing.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It would take some doing, as my colleague from Edmonton said.
Here we are with this government's concept of how we create development admitting that we are going into a very uneven playing field. We are going into a situation knowing there is almost no enforcement of the laws that do exist. Even those laws that do exist do not protect the Mexican workers, their families or the environment.
How can we say we are giving our young Canadians a chance for the future when we know that the jobs presently being done in this country will be done in other countries in the future? How can we say that we are improving the Canadian competitive position when we know that anytime we are more competitive some company for other reasons may decide to take the operations outside of Canada?
How do we know we are going to be able to predict labour standards, occupational health and safety standards, environmental standards when every time an employer can say: "If you do not do what we want, we are going to Mexico. If you do not do what we want, we are going to the southern states. If you do not do what we want, we are closing up the factory. We are closing up your town and taking away your livelihood". That is what is happening. It is happening right now in community after community right across this nation.
It is interesting that representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association want the free trade deal. They want the agreement with NAFTA. They say that it
Government Orders
will never hurt our social programs or our standard of living, that it will improve all of those things.
I remember just after the free trade agreement was signed in the late fall or early winter of 1988 a Canadian head of Ford Canada said: "Well, we may not want to operate in Ontario in the future because your workmen's compensation laws are too firm. They are too strenuous and that does not happen elsewhere".
What does that say? It says that our governments-this was not the employees, this was not negotiations-this was government legislation in the province of Ontario, long before Bob Rae was there. There was legislation that said there were certain things that should be done for workers if they were injured on the job. After the free trade agreement came in the head of Ford Canada said: "Those things are too firm. We cannot have that, otherwise we are going to take our business and do it elsewhere".
We need to have control of our own future. We will trade. We will always trade. We traded before the free trade agreement. We trade in countries now where we do not have a free trade agreement.
Let us not give up control of our own future. Let us not give up control of what we do for our young people. Let us not give up control of our resources. That is what we are doing. It does not matter how many speeches government members make, the reality is that we are giving up control of our future. We are giving up that control to foreign dominated corporations which have no sense of loyalty to this nation. They have no sense of loyalty to the communities in which they exist. They have no sense of loyalty to the workers or their families. It is going to happen time after time that Canadians will lose their jobs, lose their livelihood, and all we can say is that we told you so.
The previous speaker from the Liberal Party who was a Tory a few years ago and voted for the free trade agreement then said their party position was that they would renegotiate these agreements. You cannot renegotiate when the foundations are that rotten. You can negotiate trade agreements with other nations but to renegotiate the present free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement is to negotiate on the basis of quicksand.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
The fundamental principles that are in both of those agreements are completely unacceptable. It is not this clause that is wrong, or that clause that is wrong. It is not this particular clause on water that is the most dangerous. It is the whole concept, not of free trade, but that all decisions will be made by transnational or multinational corporations.
That is the basic concept of this agreement. It takes away the role of the provinces. It takes away the role of the country to determine what it wants in terms of standards. It takes away the right of Canadians to determine their own future. It has taken away our social programs. It is taking away the future for our young people. It is taking away the jobs from our communities. That will continue to happen as long as we set up a situation where corporations can move, operate, produce wherever they want and there is not a damn thing Canadians can do about it.
That is what is happening. Plant after plant that closes in this country and consolidates in the United States or in the future moves to Mexico will be able to do so because we have given up our right to say: "Hold on, if you do that you lose access to the Canadian market. If you take your company, your production and move south, whether to the United States or whether it is to the southern states or whether it is to Mexico then you have lost your right to the Canadian market".
It is not right. We are not giving that right up to the United States. We are not giving that right to the Mexican government. We are giving up that right as Canadians. We are giving up that right to make those decisions that best affect our future.
We should not do that. That is why we have to oppose the NAFTA legislation. That is why we have to convince the Liberal Party that it is no to this agreement. It is no to the free trade agreement. Do not monkey around. Do not play with the crossing of fs and the dotting of is. Say no to bad legislation that is fundamentally flawed. Give Canadians the right to determine their own future.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend overlooks certain realities. One of the realities is that the world economy is changing and competitiveness is the basis upon which industries will survive or fail. That is going to happen. That reality is
taking place throughout the world whether you have an FTA, whether you have a NAFTA or anything else. That is a reality. Look at the logic of my hon. friend's argument. Say that we are not going to bind ourselves by entering into trade agreements that give us opportunities. Those opportunities are real as reflected in the increased exports that have come under the FTA and in the increased interest that Canadian companies are having in exporting to Mexico because of the NAFTA. The logic of my friend's argument is, however, that if we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty to the nth degree then we should get out of the GATT and not sign any international covenants whether they are on human rights or anything else because they are an infringement of our sovereignty. This is the logic of my friend's argument.
Look at the legislation that is before the House today. I do not know if my friend recalls that but I think his remarks are really built on this concept of the change in the oil and gas sector that was announced initially a year ago. I wonder if my hon. friend is aware of this. Can he explain to me why, since the Minister of Energy almost a year ago announced this change, the percentage of the oil and gas sector in Canada that is owned by Canadians has increased by 4 per cent since these changes were brought in?
The logic of what he is saying, of course, is that we would be swamped and the large companies would take over the Canadian energy sector. In fact, what has happened is that the small Canadian oil and gas companies have grown and the percentage of our oil and gas industry owned by Canadians has increased by 4 per cent. Can my hon. friend explain to me why that has happened?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my friend from Edmonton East says that the figures the member is now quoting do not exist and that we do not have figures for the years he is talking about. I do not know how he can claim any increased Canadian ownership in the oil and gas field.
One of the things that concerns us is that the federal government is now talking about moving to reduce the controls that we have on foreign ownership in the oil and gas area.
May 12, 1993

Here is my concern with the remarks of the Conservative member. I never said that we were against trade. I never said that we were against the GAIT because we are not. What we are saying is that the type of trade agreement that this government has negotiated under the so-called Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade agreement is not just the free trade of goods. If it were just that and if the Prime Minister was honest when he was having that debate in 1988 during the leadership debates then we would have a different situation.
The reality is that we have given up our right to make our own decisions in the future. Right now if we know that companies are leaving this country to go elsewhere in the world then we have some right to protect ourselves. We lose that right under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We lose that right under the North American free trade agreement. We have basically said that the only people who have powers to make decisions in the future are the multinational corporations. We do not want the provinces to make decisions according to the government's own free trade agreement. We do not want the federal government to say that we want to have any control over drug manufacturing in the future. We leave that to the corporations. We do not want to have control over our own future.
If it wants to negotiate trade agreements then it should negotiate fair trade agreements. However, do not put in so much heavy political ideology that it prevents Canadians, either at the provincial level or the federal level and not just this generation but future generations, from making the decisions that affect our future. If it wants to have negotiations on goods then it should put together an agreement that has negotiations on goods. However, make sure that as part of that process Canadian jobs are protected and that we do not have the situation that we have at the present time where corporation after corporation after corporation is making the decision to close down Canadian operations and move those goods, plants and jobs to the United States.
Madam Speaker, the member wants to get up and debate. There was time for debate.
Mind you, that will not happen when we get to the free trade bills the week we return. We know already that this
Government Orders
government on report stage and third reading of the North American free trade agreement is only going to allow two or maybe two and a half days debate for both those stages. It is just like on second reading when it only allowed a couple of days debate on an issue that is so important to the future of this country.


An hon. member:: Why did your people not actually participate in the committee if it was so important?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the member asks why our members did not participate. It was because we had the same situation in committee as we had in the House on second reading and we are going to have the same situation at report stage and we are going to have the same situation at third reading. As soon as that committee met and before it had heard any witnesses whatsoever, the government used its majority to say: "We will hear witnesses for thus number of days and we will finish study by Thursday".
Some study. Some public input. Some chance to have any reasonable study of legislation. All this government has done is to have closure at second reading, closure at committee, closure at report stage and closure at third reading. There was no debate. There was no public input. There was no reasoned study.
This might as well be the Russian parliament because the rights of the minority here are not protected by this majority. The rights of the public are not protected by this majority. The rights to reasoned debate are not protected by this majority in this House.
It steamrolls important legislation through the House with one objective only and that is to prevent the issue from becoming a public issue. The government prevents the public that will be concerned when it finds out about the various clauses in the North American free trade agreement to be fully informed. I must say that the government has been successful. The government has been successful not only because of its majority in this House but because the media has not been a very good public watchdog on this issue.
We hear from time to time the media saying that it is important for the public to have the right to know. During the times that I attended that committee I found one reporter and sometimes no reporters. Thke a look in this House right now. I recognize that the debate is being televised but the odds of a debate in the House of

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
Commons being covered on a substantive matter is fairly limited.
We know who owns the media in this country and we know that most of the media supports the North American free trade agreement and that the media is an ally of this government. It is helping to prevent a public debate. That is a pity because I, unlike some other people in this House, do not spend much time harassing the media. I do not think it is beneficial. However I do think the media people are falling down on the job of telling people what is happening in the House of Commons and what is happening with a particularly important piece of legislation.
We are in a situation where it is up to us, when we have opportunities like today on a related matter, to try to talk about what is happening with the North American free trade agreement. It is fundamentally important for the Liberals to show up and vote as they did not do on second reading when 39 of their some 80 members refused to show up and vote on second reading of the NAFTA.
Madam Speaker, I realize that you would be aware that at that particular stage that measure only passed by 19 votes. With 39 Liberals away the measure passes by 19 votes. That situation was unfortunate.
However, it is not only important that the Liberals finally show up to vote against this, but it is important that when we go into the election this year that all Canadians realize that this is the main issue. Yet, there is only one party in this House of Commons that is saying no to NAFTA and no to the free trade agreement. Let us save the future of Canada.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McKnight that Bill C-106, an act to amend certain petroleum related acts in respect of Canadian ownership requirements and to confirm the validity of a certain regulation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: According to an order made earlier today, the question is now deemed to have been put. The vote is deemed to have been called and the vote is now postponed until Tbesday, May 25, at five o'clock.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-121, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be present in this House today for second reading of the government's latest initiative under the green plan, Bill C-121, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof.
This legislation forms a part of the marine environmental emergencies response strategy announced in June 1991 and will accomplish a number of tasks. For instance, the bill will oblige the private sector to fund further improvements to marine spills response capability, increase the maximum fine for polluters to $1 million from $250,000, and authorize the adoption by Canada of the international convention on oil pollution prepared-
May 12, 1993

ness, response and co-operation and the international convention on salvage.
As members of this House know, the public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability in its November 1990 final report made 107 recommendations, some with far-reaching policy implications, concerning Canada's ability to prevent and respond to marine spills.
Not all of the panel's recommendations have required new legislation, and the government has taken action to address the majority of the panel's concerns. For example, after July of this year Canada will require that new tankers operating in Canadian waters have a double hull or equivalent design feature, and that existing tankers be either retrofitted or phased-out on an established schedule.
Among other things, the government has also increased the level of foreign vessel inspections, expanded aerial pollution surveillance of the east and west coast and improved training programs. Despite this progress, some tasks cannot be accomplished without new legislation.
For example, the panel pointed out that the greatest risk of oil pollution damage to our waters comes not from Canadian ships but from vessels of other nations. That is the reason it has stressed the need for greater international co-operation and a more effective international regime for prevention of and response to marine spills.
This legislation will permit Canada's accession to the international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation, also known as the OPRC convention. This convention which Canada helped develop and is committed to implementing will help ensure greater international co-operation for response to major marine spills.
This legislation also addresses the need for international rules on salvage which better reflect the need for protection of the marine environment. Both international and Canadian marine law concerning vessel salvage have traditionally been based on the principle of "no cure, no pay". Under this principle, salvors are only entitled to a reward if their efforts to salvage a vessel are successful. Unsuccessful efforts, no matter how skilled
Government Orders
or diligent, receive no compensation whatsoever, and no consideration is given to the protection of the environment.
This legislation will implement as Canadian law the provisions of the international convention on salvage, and will effectively change the centuries-old principle of "no cure, no pain" by providing for special compensation for salvors whose efforts succeed in preventing or minimizing pollution damage.
The salvage convention will greatly enhance marine environmental protection. I am proud to ask this House to bring into force a mechanism which will, in the words of the public review panel on tanker safety:
Encourage salvors to prevent, minimize or clean up pollution.
Neither the OPRC nor the salvage convention has yet entered into force internationally. Canada therefore has an opportunity, by being among the very first countries to ratify these conventions, to lead by example, hastening the day when they become part of international marine law.
While this legislation will indeed strengthen the international regime it is concerned primarily with the protection of the marine environment through improved domestic spills response capability.
This legislation will introduce a new regime for responding to oil and petroleum spills that places the responsibility for clean-ups where it belongs, with the polluter. Ships and designated oil handling facilities will be required to pre-plan for spill response and enter into arrangements with private sector funded response organizations to respond to any spills that occur. Plans will have to meet standards set by the government, which will closely monitor private sector response to spills.
It should be said that these new improvements are being made in a spirit of partnership with the private sector and as a result of two years of extensive consultation with the industries affected.
This partnership approach to improving spill response will result in a regional capability for response to spills of up to 10,000 tonnes, and a national capability for response to spills of up to 25,000 tonnes. Those are the very figures recommended by the public panel review.
These are not hypothetical improvements. This legislation clearly sets out government and industry's respon-

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
sibilities and provides for severe penalties for those potential polluters who do not pay and do not comply.
In addition to putting the responsibility for spill preparedness on potential polluters, this bill strengthens the government's ability to ensure swift and effective response to oil spills. If a ship, oil handling facility or response organization proves incapable of mounting a response the minister, through the coast guard, can and will assume control of the response and take any action necessary to prevent, repair, remedy or minimize oil pollution damage. We will also expand the powers of our pollution prevention officers, who form Canada's front line defence against marine pollution.
In the future, the minister's costs for directed cleanups may be recovered from the ship-source oil pollution fund, which will in turn recover costs from the polluter. This new system will ensure that the cost of clean-up does not impede the immediate and effective response.
We will also quadruple the maximum fine for pollutant discharge offences to $1 million and provide for the jailing of marine polluters. Those who would, for profit, endanger the marine environment will learn that this government means business.
We will also provide for greater flexibility in sentencing polluters, as recommended by the public panel review. This legislation introduces a set of guidelines which may be used in imposing a sentence.
The public review panel also suggested a variety of sentencing options beyond imprisonment or fines, such as requiring polluters to publish information relating to the conviction or contributing to research. This legislation will empower the courts to direct convicted polluters to take any action that the court considers likely to prevent the offender from committing the offence again.
I should add that the penalties I mentioned previously are in addition to a shipowner's civil liability under the Canada Shipping Act for costs and damages arising from a ship-source oil spill.
In closing, allow me to reiterate that Bill C-121 is an important element of the government's response to the
public review panel's report, and clearly demonstrates both the government and the private sector's commitment to a cleaner, safer marine environment as well as a sound and prosperous economy.
We must put these measures in place and continue the work described by the public review panel in the title of its final report, that is the work of Protecting Our Waters. Therefore I would call upon my hon. friends opposite to join in a constructive debate and deal as quickly as possible with this very important legislation.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will agree that we always try to engage in constructive debate, particularly on matters of transport and especially where issues such as public safety or the environment are concerned. We try to make useful contributions both in terms of process and substance. I am sure that in the case of Bill C-121 her experience will be the same as we attempt to deal with this in an expeditious manner.
Just after New Year's Day this year the world was horrified by the destruction of a ship, The Braer, off the coast of the Shetland Islands, as once again a huge quantity of oil was spilled on an ecologically sensitive region of the world. We observed on television the scenes of devastation to the environment and the wildlife. We saw the birds and the fish that were entrapped in the oil slick that followed the destruction of that ship.
It was very sobering for all of us to realize that at the same time the sister ship of the The Braer was in Canadian waters and did experience mechanical difficulties and, second, that the The Braer itself was destined for Canadian waters on that voyage. The destruction occurred as a result of mechanical failure on the ship followed by it being tossed against the rocks by high seas. It was an experience that could easily have happened a short few hours or days later off the coast of Canada. This is exactly the kind of disaster that led to the public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability that was referred to a moment ago by the minister. It reflects the very serious concerns that were felt in Canada and elsewhere as a result of the Exxon Valdez disaster which produced a similar result off the coast of Alaska.
May 12, 1993

The Brander-Smith review panel produced a very lengthy report with many recommendations. I think it is fair to say that only a few of these recommendations are being acted upon in this legislation. That is not necessarily meant to be a criticism of the legislation, it is to say there is a great deal more to be done.
The legislation essentially focuses on the very worthy matter of what do we do in the event of a spill? What is the response? How do we build a response capability? How do we pay for it?
The bill contains provision for the creation of response capability in Canadian waters funded by private commitments, by those who transport goods in our waters, especially oil. The result should be the creation of a genuine response capability in Canadian waters. So far so good.
The issue that is not dealt with directly in this legislation and which is raised to such a great extent in the Brander-Smith report is the more important, in many ways, objective of prevention of accidents occurring in the first place.
The comments of the review panel with respect to inspections of tankers and other vessels in Canadian waters I think are very instructive. I will take a moment to refer to the Brander-Smith report beginning at page 22 where the panel writes:
Given the inherent risks of transporting oil and chemicals in Canadian waters, it is imperative that all tankers, both Canadian and foreign, be seaworthy at all times. With cost-cutting in the shipping industry, planned preventive maintenance and inspections risk becoming less of a priority to tanker owners. Tinkers with aging and deteriorating structures and equipment are an unwelcome invitation to disaster. This can only be averted by aggressive vessel inspections and prompt detention of tankers in port for repairs when they do not meet Canadian or international standards for seaworthiness and pollution prevention.
In 1988, the Coast Guard inspected only 8 per cent of the foreign vessels entering Canadian ports. According to the Coast Guard, most of its inspection resources (up to 90 per cent in some regions) are presently committed to conducting compulsory inspections. Under the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, to which Canada is a co-operating party, Canada is now committed to inspecting 25 per cent of all foreign tankers visiting Canadian ports. (The results of these inspections will be stored in an international data base and shared with European nations, who will also inspect 25 per cent of foreign tankers visiting their ports.
Government Orders
The report goes on to recommend:
3.3 That the Canadian Coast Guard inspect every foreign tanker on its first visit to a Canadian port and immediately increase inspection levels to 25 per cent of foreign tankers in accordance with the port-state agreement, significantly increase tank barge inspection levels and apply the strictest interpretation to all regulations related to vessel condition and seaworthiness and detain substandard vessels as a deterrent.
The report in perhaps its key recommendations creates a proposed system of economic incentives for the improvement of the vessels travelling in Canadian waters.
What Brander-Smith recommended in essence was a $2 per tonne charge on single hulled vessels which were sailing in Canadian waters to be reduced on vessels that were single hulled but double bottomed to 50 per cent of that charge and of course eliminated on double hulled vessels. We do not see the use of this kind of financial incentive in the legislation although it is clear that the objective of moving toward double hulling is part of what is sought to be achieved.
The question of course is timing and whether the financial incentives to double hull provided in the Brander-Smith report, recommendation 3-2, are essential to creating the environment which we are seeking.
I would also like to point out that we are dealing with a piece of legislation very late in the parliamentary cycle, as we are all aware. Indeed the minister's closing comments reflected that. We have been asked to deal with this legislation in a very expeditious way. I suppose in the interests of seeing that something gets done rather than nothing it is not an unreasonable request. I would like to point out to the House that the response to the Brander-Smith report was so slow in coming that it even provoked commentary in the 1992 report of the Auditor General of Canada. He said, and I am quoting from page 582 of that report: "Cabinet directed that a detailed response to the panel's recommendations be prepared by the end of 1991. As of mid-August 1992 the response had not yet been sent to cabinet".
The lack of a substantive response was still the case this January when we were watching those scenes of devastation from the Shetland Islands.
Admittedly what we have in this legislation is an attempt to balance a variety of interests. Any time you try to bring conflicting interests together in order to

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
arrive at a consensus takes time. I suggest that the House and the people of Canada would have been better served if we could have had this legislation at an earlier point in the parliamentary calendar so that there would have been sufficient time for the legislative committee to study thoroughly the submissions that I expect will be made both by the industry that is affected, by environmental groups and by other Canadians who have viewpoints to express on this important issue.
We are really left with a Hobson's choice. If we insist that full hearings be held, we risk this bill not being passed through the House of Commons and the Senate in time for it to become law before the election. We all know that it could result in a year's delay by the time the whole thing can be reintroduced and put before a new Parliament.
Our choice is this. Do we insist on hearings, or do we expedite the bill, as the minister has suggested we should, in order that it be passed into law before the election?
I suggest this is an unsatisfactory situation we find ourselves in with such important legislation. It is an indication that perhaps this bill sat too far down the government's agenda for too long, provoking negative and what must be very embarrassing commentary by the Auditor General, finally culminating in this bill which can be fairly described as something of a half measure.
That being the case, I think it is important to indicate that we are anxious to see it go to committee and study be commenced as rapidly as possible. We will not try to delay it for any reason other than to make the few comments I have made. I know my colleague from the New Democratic Party will have some comments and my colleague, the member for Davenport will be saying some things. We do want to get this into committee so we can have it studied. Perhaps it is meritorious that it be passed as expeditiously as requested. We will see when we hear what the witnesses have to say.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-121 dealing with the very broad question of ship pollution.
As I was listening to the comments of both the Minister of State for Transport and my counterpart in
the Liberal Party, the images of tanker collisions, of boats being swamped, of oil, bunker crude spilling over the oceans, the seas and lakes came to mind. I think all of us have watched with horror the devastation, whether it is the Shetland Islands, in Alaska with the Exxon Valdez or even in small amounts on our own shorelines.
The difficulty any government will have is arriving at a solution that works. Too often those of us who are at home watching on TV will say the ships should have double hulls or they should not let crude oil be moved by tankers.
If we were to say that in Canada, if we were to decide as a nation that we did not want any oil moving into or out of Canada by ship that would not stop it because we are surrounded by international waters. Whether it is the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Great Lakes, while we can decide that certain things will occur within our jurisdiction, like air pollution, water pollution knows no boundaries.
We have to recognize that we cannot ban it. The best we can do is control it. I agree with my colleague who says that the ideal is to work to find a way to prevent the spills from happening in the first place.
In part the government's actions are doing that when it comes to decisions related to the type of equipment that the crude is carried in, whether they be double hulled, double bottomed, or compartmentalized. The government has put in process an international agreement which provides that any new vessels being purchased to serve in Canadian waters will have to be double hulled. A process has been put in place that parallels roughly what the United States, our neighbour to the south and a country that shares much of our international waters, has done as well as other governments, to provide for a phase-out of the equipment that is in place or a retrofitting to ensure that the risks encountered are much less.
Ultimately it comes down to decisions made by the owners of the oil companies or the shipping companies in terms of the kind of weather they travel in, the kind of condition their vessels are in. What we have in this legislation is a way to ensure that those who are creating the threat will bear the financial responsibility not just after the fact but all the time the threat is there.

May 12, 1993
I believe by putting the onus on the private sector, the carriers of the crude, to pay to have in place the facilities to clean up a spill is a good step in the right direction.
That is what this legislation does. It requires all of those that have the potential of polluting our waters, and it is not just those ships that carry large quantities of crude oil or fuel, transporting it from A to B to be used by somebody else, but also includes those ships whose own fuel, its own motor power, is a fuel that can spill and does spill. The government has worked to achieve a level of fairness, and I give it credit for that, to ensure that the bulk of the cost will be borne by those who provide the greatest risk in terms of large quantities while at the same time ensuring that those other carriers which I am told actually contribute more in terms of the number of spills have their fair share accorded to them as well.
My colleague from the Liberal Party rightly commented on the length of time it has taken to get to this point. I guess one of the frustrations that all of us as politicians have, not just those in government, but those of us in the opposition, is the length of time it does take. It is a trade-off between accepting a report as in the Brander-Smith report and automatically implementing it. I guess the other extreme is not doing anything at all.
In the middle is that balance in terms of taking a document where hard working, knowledgeable people have come up with a solution, a direction, a blueprint, but like the blueprints we have to then turn to the engineer who can translate them into something that works. The frustrating part is the length of time that that does take.
I guess the real test of the consultation that the Coast Guard and the government have gone through with the industry, with the marine community, with the oil and gas community and dare I say it, the environmental community, is the kind of response we get when we get into committee. Will we have the cruise line operators coming before us and saying: "I'm sorry it is not fair for us to have to pay a subscription fee". Although that amount has not been established it has been suggested that it will be in the magnitude of $300 to $600 or $700 a year as their cost to participate in this program. Will they come forward and say that is too much? They certainly will not come forward and say that it is not enough
Government Orders
because every group these days wants to keep its costs as low as possible.
On the other hand we are told that the shipping industry itself, the tankers, have bought into the concept. In fact they have argued: "Let us do it. Let us have some control over it". Will they come in and say the price is still too steep?
Will the environmentalists come in and say: "Its not good enough. It doesn't provide the protection we want on double hulls or the other elements. It doesn't provide the kind of response we feel is appropriate in the event of a major spill". That will be the test of the consultation that the Coast Guard and the government have gone through.
Again, that is the balancing act. Take the time before legislation to get it right and then when we get to committee, get to the House we find that it is acceptable to the vast majority and all we really do is fine tune. Certainly in this bill nobody disagrees with the principle, the principle being to keep our waters cleaner and to provide a mechanism to clean them up in the event of a spill.
One of the key elements in the bill is similar to legislation that this House passed dealing with the transportation of hazardous goods. That is broad ownership in the plans to deal with a spill. It is not just company x which says to the Coast Guard: "Here's how we are going to clean up this mess if we happen to have a leak". They have to develop a plan. They need to have someone who is prepared to implement that plan. They need to have insurance to cover themselves. They also have to get people to sign off on that plan. They have to get the municipality or municipalities whose shoreline is involved in that area to agree to the plan in the event of a spill as well as the First Nations who are also in the area, the Harbour Commission, the Port Authority, perhaps the railways, perhaps the owners of land; a broad base of ownership of the action plan. That is a very strong element in this legislation.
The bill does a number of other things that I think makes much sense. It provides flexibility and it eliminates some of the unwieldiness of the existing legislation that prevents an individual like myself whose beach front property has been contaminated by ship source oil pollution. Currently I cannot go for any direct help. Under this legislation I can go to the fund and I can be

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
reimbursed as long as it is veiy evident that the pollution comes from a ship. There is some good flexibility in the legislation.
It gives a broader scope for remedial action. The minister talked about the flexibility in sentencing. We have seen incidents provincially in Ontario where instead of just a fine being levied on a pulp and paper company, the court ordered it to provide a scholarship in environmental studies at a local university. There are innovative long term ways of dealing with the problem while at the same time punishing the person who polluted but benefiting society in the long term by channelling that money into education.
There are a number of things such as that in the bill. I do not want to take that much time. We look forward to having it in committee. I think there is some fine tuning we can do.
For example, we need to make sure that when a company advises the minister through the Coast Guard of who the insurance agent is or who is insuring the cargo, there also has to be some mechanism for that insurer to advise the Government of Canada in the event of non-payment of that insurance.
We have seen situations very recently where Transport Canada through the National Transportation Agency was notified by an insurer that an air carrier no longer had coverage. The NTA then pulled the ticket. We need to have that kind of mechanism in place.
The other area I think we need to improve on is the follow up to the bill. We know it is going to take a couple of years for this bill really to be up and running in terms of the applications on the ground, developing the plans, putting in place the responses.
Let us have a mechanism that says in a couple of years from now that a report be prepared, not a very elaborate one, I do not want to have bureaucrats spending six months of their life just trying to prepare for a three-page report, but some kind of progress indication to the House of Commons through the minister, perhaps formally passed on to the transport committee to then evaluate the progress to date.
Then there could be some kind of regular reporting with perhaps a formal five year review, not going off to a commission. I do not want to spend more taxpayers'
dollars, but maybe there could be a formal requirement that the Minister of Transport report to Parliament on the impact of the legislation with perhaps recommendations for changes and that the matter be referred automatically to the appropriate standing committee of this House.
At that time, quite frankly, we could decide whether it would be the Standing Committee on the Environment or the Standing Committee on Transport or any other standing committee that made sense. Let us put in place a mechanism that allows that to occur so that we do not just have Question Period to use to try and push the government of the day, we have another mechanism that will assist parliamentarians in representing the people who elect us.
I look forward to having this bill in committee. My caucus, my party do support it. We support the principle of this bill at second reading. We want to see this bill completed in time to receive royal assent before we not only disappear for the summer but perhaps a lot of people disappear forever from the the political scene as we go into a general election.
From our side we will have one more speaker just so the House knows in terms of the timing for other bills today. I thank you for your attention.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for my colleague who does an excellent job in the portfolio of transport. The first question flows from his last remarks.
I agree with the member very strongly that it is important for the minister to understand that this kind of legislation very much needs at least a five-year reporting clause that is statutory. I think the public understands that this can in fact be done without requiring a gigantic bureaucracy. Basically one must focus the minds of the Coast Guard and those people in Transport Canada to get the necessary information into an understandable form so it can go into an annual reporting form.
I was pleased to hear my colleague talk about that. I would like to hear from him whether or not he thinks the government side is likely to move on that. They have shown some interest in doing that. We have that kind of statutory reporting requirement in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and others.

May 12, 1993
The second question is in relation to fines. There is one thing that troubles me very much with the many jurisdictions and many fingers that we presently have in the pie. There is the Canada Ports Act and all kinds of jurisdictions. It troubles me that the courts have not taken spills very seriously in the last decade. Between 1979 and 1988 the average fine under the Canada Shipping Act was $4,700. Sometimes the damage done to the environment has been in terms of millions of dollars. Sometimes there was irreparable damage to birds, fish, wildlife and the near-shore environment.
I would like to hear from my colleague on an amendment that I think would be useful and that has now been accepted in principle in terms of other legislation before this House in the recent past. It is to have basic floor fines so that the courts understand how seriously legislators take these kinds of incidents because it is in fact the small spills and the avoidable spills that are doing the greatest amount of damage both in our salt water and fresh water environments. Many judges are unaware of how severe and how widespread the damage can be from a spill in a system like the St. Lawrence where it can float for days. It cleans out birds and surface-feeding fish and kills all kinds of near-shore biota and even deep water organisms.
I would like to hear from my colleague on these two points. First, there is the importance, to this place and to the Canadian public, of having an accurate, regularized reporting process. Second, there should be some floors put in on these fines so that judges start handing out fines that are comparable to the impact of the offences.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the review we have had a number of experiences. The member makes reference to one. Concerning other transport bills, we just amended one and passed it through this House and it received royal assent last week. We did in fact take the government's intention of a minister reporting to Parliament and including a reference back directly to the transport committee for them to be seized with the issue.
The government and transport quite frankly is willing to do those kinds of things. One of the things we have learned is that we have to be careful of the timing of those. One review is happening on the Transportation Safety Board right now. It is a million dollar commission and we have to accept responsibility because we are part
Government Orders
of the decision making on that to say that it would have to happen after three years.
They are barely up and running so we had to recognize, in terms of Bill C-121, that it will literally take a couple of years to have anything accomplished because it will take that long to put everything into place. We need to be careful that we do not put a requirement on the department that it cannot reach. That is why I suggested initially that at the end of the first two years the department gives us even a very simple list: "There are seven plans in place. Here is where they are. We have another five that we are negotiating and another ten that we have not even started on". There should be just something like that so there is a report card that we can use to push the government.
With regard to the floor fine, I agree with you in principle. In terms of oil spills my caution would be that one might have to have it tied into the volume and the number of days that that volume is out there. This is because if we impose, let us say, a $100,000 minimum fine on one of the operators of a bush camp up in my colleague's riding that might spill 200 gallons as opposed to an Exxon Valdez, then I do not think it is fair. We need some flexibility in that as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no further questions or comment. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate? I thought the hon. member was waiting for Bill C-72 which is coming up next. I did not realize that the hon. member wanted to speak on this.
The hon. member for Davenport has the floor on debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: May I remind the Speaker that a member cannot get up to speak on a bill which has not yet been called. Obviously if I was getting up from my seat it was to debate the bill that is before us at the present time. I find this observation pretty disturbing, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know why the hon. member finds it disturbing. I see the hon. member for Skeena and I see the hon. member for

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
Davenport here in the House and I figured that after Bill C-121 we were going on to Bill C-72. I just got into the chair. That is all that I presumed.
The hon. member for Davenport has the floor on debate.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, it is good to put on record the letter that the panellists of this public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability wrote when they produced this report in September 1990.
We are debating today for second reading a bill which is called an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof. It is a very important bill. It is a clean-up type of bill which attempts to remedy after the fact. In that letter the three panellists-and I am just quoting two sentences-wrote: "As we travelled throughout Canada we were shocked by the extent to which our coastal and inland waters are polluted. It is one thing to read about isolated problems in the comfort of home, but quite something else to witness first hand how seriously many areas are polluted. Pollution from oil and chemical tankers and barges to date has represented a relatively small part of industrial pollution, but in many environmentally sensitive areas even a little could be disastrous. In these areas a major oil spill would be one of the greatest environmental catastrophes this country has ever seen".
Further down, in the forward, the panellists wrote: "It is deeply disturbing to see our waters being polluted by tanker operations especially since much of the pollution is preventable". Please make a note of this observation that much of this pollution is preventable. "At the same time it is extremely difficult to recover oil or chemicals once they have been spilled into the water. Accordingly, we are emphasizing prevention".
It is inevitable that in light of this letter by the panellists that in addressing a bill which is a clean-up bill one would also ask where the prevention policy is. At the same time one would also ask why it has taken two and three-quarter years almost since the production of this final report in September 1990 to have this bill in the House and just for second reading.
It is disturbing, therefore, to note that the speed with which the government proceeds on matters related to
the environment is comparable to that of a snail. It is inexcusable that two and three-quarter years have gone by since this report was produced and that it is not accompanied by a policy measure that is strong on the preventive side as recommended by the panellists.
We are proceeding now at last with a clean-up type of legislation but we are still in a vacuum as far as strong preventive policies are concerned.
There are some measures in this bill that we find very good. I will refer to two of them in particular that flow from recommendation 5-3 of the panel report entitled Protecting our Waters. This is a very fine work that was produced by very dedicated Canadians in consultation with people in various communities and walks of life. The clause being proposed in this bill says:
that Canada should ratify the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, in order to encourage salvors to prevent, minimize or clean up pollution.
This convention is now four years old and it is high time that we do subscribe to it in order to protect waters that come under our jurisdiction. That clause in the bill which comes very early in the text is most desirable.
the Canada Shipping Act be amended to make ship owners responsible for any reasonable measures taken by any person to prevent, minimize or clean up the damage, and "Good Samaritans" be protected from suit in the event their well-intentioned actions cause further damage.
This is also a good feature in this bill. There are, however, a number of proposals contained in the report Protecting our Waters that have not been implemented. Some of them could be implemented by being dealt with within the scope of the regulations. Therefore we do not know which they would be. I hope that the minister, if she has not done so already, will clarify that point for us.
Some will not be put into effect. There was a measure which we on this side of the House thought was and is extremely important. It is one that would permit an individual citizen to take action in the courts against the polluter.
It is one of the recommendations contained in Protecting our Waters that would have gone a long way in strengthening the preventive measures. It is regrettable that that measure did not find its way into legislation.
Second, recommendation 5-15 says:

May 12, 1993

In reading the legislation very quickly I came also to the enforcement part of it because it is important that we do have legislation that is not only in the books but is also enforced. It would not be desirable because of cuts and the reduction in government spending to have beautiful legislation which is not enforced because of a lack of personnel.
In section 11 reference is made to disobeying a pollution prevention officer and the consequences that one would incur by doing so. The reference to a pollution prevention officer prompts me to ask the government how many pollution prevention officers will be appointed in order to implement this legislation?
In light of the reduction of departmental operations and budgets, how well will this piece of legislation be implemented? Obviously there is a need to mean what we say to put into effect not only the spirit but also the letter of the legislation. Giving powers to pollution prevention officers is a good step. We welcome that.
It would be distressing and very disappointing if the budget of the Department of Transport did not make sufficient provision for an adequate number of pollution prevention officers. We will follow the estimates of that department very closely to find out how strong that particular arm of the department is in implementing this bill once it is proclaimed.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South said, we have a difficult decision to make because we see the merits of the legislation in part, but we also see its shortcomings. We are faced also with a very short legislative timetable. As he quite rightly put it, having a Hobson's choice before us, we have to come to the conclusion that it is better to proceed with what is being proposed right now. If we do not proceed we will be left with nothing in hand and the cause of better measures for the clean-up of polluted waters will suffer as a consequence.
The major point one has to add to this discussion is the recommendation made by the panellists that a levy of $2 a tonne be introduced on all oil and oil products transported in Canadian waters and that this levy be used to pay the ship source oil pollution fund, SSOPF. This proposal would have gone a long way in providing a fund for that purpose. I quote from the text of the government response away back who remembers when: "The
Government Orders
economic impact of introducing the levy at the rate of $2 a tonne as recommended by the public review panel will be studied". Evidently it was studied so intensely that it was dropped in the end.
It is a bit unnerving that emphasis is placed on such a narrow interpretation of the word "economic" because one could argue and successfully I submit that in the long term, but even in the short term, the economic impact of such a levy would actually be advantageous because of its preventive effect. The government of the day would send out the signal that by collecting this levy it was serious not only about the clean-up but also about ensuring that those in the industry took sufficient precautionary measures to ensure that the consequences of mishandling and mismanagement would not multiply causing subsequent and further major economic costs.
Therefore it is this narrow approach as to what will be the cost of the levy to a particular commodity and not the approach to the totality of the environment that causes enormous distress. It would have been much better to accept the recommendation of the panellists and introduce this levy which would have meant a very small increase at the retail level. Considering today's price of gasoline and other fossil fuel commodities, it would have made a minimal difference. Canada enjoys unusually low costs for fossil fuel products, particularly petroleum, so the imposition of a $2 a tonne levy is of minimal impact.
It is time for the government to begin the adoption of economic instruments for the purpose of protecting the environment and preventing spills, particularly because this very same government does not believe in the regulatory process. This recommendation of the panellists falls squarely and well within the four comers of the Conservative Party philosophy, namely less regulation but more economic instruments and measures that are either encouraging or discouraging.
I am sure everyone is familiar with the fact that the adoption of economic instruments for encouraging proper behaviour in societal activities is gaining momentum and importance outside Canada. We are still at the stage of examining the instruments that may be available. Despite the paper or catalogue published a year ago by Environment Canada, we have not yet reached the phase of adopting economic instruments for the purpose of protecting the environment. The panellists came forward

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
in September 1990 with a good recommendation and it is most regrettable it has not been adopted.
As my colleague from Ottawa South has said, we look forward to reinforcing this bill in committee, possibly introducing amendments, particularly one that would implement the recommendation made by the panellists on the action that individual citizens can take in the hope that it will not be ruled out of order. It will certainly not add a cost to the legislation. We hope it will be possible to at least advance it and to secure support from government members. Then perhaps the bill will come back enriched by a number of amendments flowing from the Protecting Our Waters report, which has not yet seen its way into the legislation but could still be brought in to reinforce the quality in the public interest and the environment at large.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, members in this House will recall it was at the beginning of this Parliament that a panel was ultimately struck to look into the matter of oil and chemical spills in Canadian waters. It followed hard on the heels of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound just to the north of my constituency and also the Nestucca spill which took place in southern British Columbia. It also caused considerable ecological damage, although nowhere near the havoc of the Exxon Valdez or the more recent Shetlands disaster which has had impacts far inshore as a result of the oil moving in the wind stream onshore.
The last time we saw a major move in terms of a compensation fund and legislation to deal with it was following the Arrow disaster in 1970. Canada adopted a maritime pollution compensation fund which was originally gathering funds at a rate of 15 cents per tonne on oil moved to Canada or moved in Canadian waters. A considerable amount of money accrued into that fund.
I regret today to report to the House that the money from that fund has been robbed and has been spent by the Crown. There should be in excess of $200 million in that fund. Instead, as we find in the briefing materials prepared by the Coast Guard and others, the concern the administrator now has is that any expenditure made in a legislative response to that fund will increase
Canada's deficit. It was hardly the constitutional grounds upon which the original compensation fund was set up.
I am also saddened to report to the House that on looking at the more than 20-year history of that fund, almost no funds have been made available to compensate for damage done to fishermen's nets, to beaches, to the ecology, to the bird populations, to fish, to whatever. The funds simply have not been made available.
One of the improvements in Bill C-121, as I have learned from the Coast Guard, is that the administrator will now be able to accept direct representations from the public who arrive and advise the administrator that either oil or chemicals have arrived on their beaches or in their water systems and damage has occurred and certain costs have been incurred to clean that up. The administrator will then pay. I take the Coast Guard at its word that in fact that is what will happen. They do not need to go to court. They do not need to find a court of comparable or necessary jurisdiction to go through the long tangled web of legislation presently available for redress of these kinds of issues by Canadians.
There is a good move inside, but a very sad anecdote to the history of the compensation fund that was set up. Because there are still outstanding issues, some which predate the 1970s legislation, the problem with the Irving Whale. There are other problems endemic within the Canadian jurisdiction of spills, small and large, that have taken place that also have not been addressed.
The majority of our problems of oil and chemical spills are not the gigantic, headline grabbing, get it on the news every hour kind of spills. They are the preventable, smaller scale spills that take place during the day-to-day loading and off-loading operations of tankers large and small and also of the myriad of activities that Canadians and Canadian industry are involved in near our salt and fresh water systems.
The test to put this kind of legislation to is the viability of the response. How good is the government's response to the public review that was appointed by Canada's Prime Minister on June 9, 1989, a wise move by Canada's Prime Minister? The report came back October 24, 1990. Chaired by David Brander-Smith with the able assistance of Denise Therrien and Stan Tobin it produced the report Protecting Our Waters and had 107 principal recommendations. Let me deal for a moment with the
May 12, 1993

major findings and my analysis of how the government has responded.
It is quite clear that cabinet and the Minister of Transport decided not to go with the kind of model the panel had analysed as being the best way to go. That was to put a $2 per tonne levy on oil moving in Canadian waters. That would have provided a very substantive core fund for dealing with the various changes the panel discovered were necessary and are still necessary today to protect the Canadian environment from the transit of oil.
Instead of doing that, instead of taking a direct levy which would come to the Government of Canada and provide for all of the issues related to double hulling, research and development, enforcement, training, guidance systems and so on, cabinet decided to go with the private sector approach. The principal transit corporations of oil would gather the funds through their own form of billing for service. There was the assumption, particularly in relation to oil spill clean-up response equipment and materials that over a very short period of time they would gather together the necessary kinds of response equipment for large and small spills in the Canadian environment.
That is a great deal of trust to place in organizations that have demonstrated, as we learned with the Exxon Valdez, the most recent Shetland disaster, the Kurdistan, the Arrow and the Nestucca, a near-total inability to understand the sensitivity of the ecology or the public rage when spills that could be contained are not and spills that could be cleaned up are not.
Photos are imprinted on all our minds of birds trying to swim to shore covered with oil, whales covered with slicks, fish dying and so on. They are terrifying images for Canadians young or old.
Let us look at the major findings of the panel. First, the capability to respond effectively to a spill of any significant magnitude does not presently exist anywhere in Canada. That was reported in October, 1990 and that statement is still true today.
Government Orders
I spoke to the Coast Guard today and in the whole of Canada at the moment the Coast Guard has only $60 million worth of clean-up equipment. It is spread all the way from the Atlantic, across the Arctic and out to the Pacific coast. We could not deal with a significant spill.
This kind of legislative approach regrettably does not provide for a front-end cash loading from the private sector that benefits enormously by not having the $2 per tonne levy. Let us not forget a $2 per tonne levy works out to only one-tenth of 1 cent per pound, less than 1 cent per gallon tail-end to the user. That is not very much for someone to pay at the pump to know that state of the art response mechanisms capacity and enforcement have been put in place.
It is a decision of less than 1 cent a gallon and that is why I call Bill C-121 the negligent one-cent approach because we have been negligent in terms of the 1 cent. We have opted for it, Parliament has had this put before us and it is better than nothing. It has a skeleton there but we have to put great trust in those oil companies and those delivery companies to live up to their end of the bargain.
I warned them here today that as parties in this House pass on this trust to them, well placed or not, they are receiving it. Should there be a spill large or small anywhere in Canada, if they do not respond and properly contain it and clean it up the media will come back and look at today's debate.
It will reflect on the fact that this Parliament made a judgment. Environmentalists and non-environmentalists in this House decided that at least this was a step forward. We do it with trepidation but we trust that the private sector companies will adequately build themselves in this case.
If the old regime was still in place they would pay at least 35 cents a tonne and more than $2 a tonne under the panel recommendations. It will not be a wait and see. They will not spend the money necessary at their own corporate peril.
The people will not stand by. This time they will cut up their cards from Exxon or whoever ends up being responsible by not having put state of the art technology in place.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
Hulls, onloading and offloading equipment and state of the art guidance systems will be the responsibility of the government. State of the art response and clean-up will be led, administered and researched by the Coast Guard but funded and managed on a day-to-day basis by the private sector.
The second major finding is that each year based on current levels of tanker traffic Canada can expect over 100 small oil spills, about ten moderate spills and at least one major spill. A catastrophic spill of over 10,000 tonnes for which we are wholly unprepared can be expected once every 15 years.
The hour glass is running. It has been four years now since the panel but there has not been one jot, one tittle, one major move ahead by the Government of Canada. Here in the last breathing moments of this Parliament, Bill C-121 is brought screeching red hot from the press to the floor of the House.
I would not be so crass as to suggest that it was solely for electoral purposes knowing that at least in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Yukon this is one of the hottest environmental issues going. The government knew it was about to fly into a major maelstrom for having delayed, dithered, dickered, dawdled and dwiddled for so long. Mr. Speaker knows what dwiddled is.
The third major finding is that the risk of spills is highest in eastern Canada, particularly Newfoundland. Placentia Bay is considered by many to be the most likely place in Canada for a major spill with gigantic numbers of transits going back and forth. It is regrettable that I could not find out from the Coast Guard today what the date of retirement is going to be for our tanker fleet which is entirely single-hulled. We know that we can go double-hulled. The majority of our tankers are in the freshwater systems. We know we could at least doublebottom. Certainly we are tied into the Marpole findings and the Marpole regulations. This legislation is so important and has had so many years to be developed, where are the standards and regulations?
This governing party has a terrible habit of bringing legislation to the floor of the House with no standards or regulations even when it is already drafted. This, more
than most pieces of legislation, is standards and regula-tions-driven. The teeth of the bill are in the regulations.
I know ministers who are present recognize that it is a regrettable habit that ministers and departments get into too often by saying: "Keep the regulations back. They may be controversial. Let us just get through with the core skeleton. Let us get through second reading, get it into committee and then maybe we will be safe for an end run around Parliament from there".
It is only because of the importance of getting some legislative initiative going that I am brought to endorse this rather barren and potentially dangerous approach to protecting our environment.
The fourth finding is that a much greater volume of oil enters the marine environment as a result of routine tanker operations such as loading and offloading, tank washings and waste water discharges than of accidents. Almost all of these operational spills can be avoided. This is why I am calling on the Minister of Transport. I do not think members of the House need to fight, scrape and grovel to get an amendment to this legislation for floor fines, not ceiling fines. Let the judges and the courts decide on that.
The overwhelming majority, almost 80 to 90 per cent of the spills degrading and denigrating our environment are from preventable human error or conscious human decisions. It is quicker and easier to just dump it in Lake Superior, dump it in the Vancouver harbour or dump it in the Bow River. Yes, Mr. Speaker, dump it in the Bow River. That is happening.
I think we should make the courts abundantly aware that legislators are very tired. I am sure someone will ask me a question, Mr. Speaker, so I can continue speaking, you know that.
We have discovered floor fines in the area of wildlife and endangered species. Judges and lawyers who might have no idea of the importance placed in the dangers and harm to the environment suddenly wake up when they see there is a $20,000, or $50,000 or $100,000 floor fine for spills of certain thresholds. I agree with my colleague, our transport critic, that we have to have thresholds tied to floor fines.
The average age of our tankers in Canadian waters right now is 17 years and only 8 per cent of the oil tankers operating world-wide have double hulls or bottoms, despite the overwhelming evidence that this type of
May 12, 1993

construction offers a substantially higher margin of operational safety.
We should have learned a lesson on this continent following the Exxon Valdez disaster. There is a tanker operating now off the Queen Charlotte Islands where my home is within sight of Haida Gwaii. It is the Philadelphia and on two occasions it has burst its rivets, started to break up and dumped Alaskan crude into the Pacific waters right off my constituency.
Was it taken out of service? No. Was it ever double bottomed? No. Why not double hulled? As the panel found for a tenth of a cent a pound, for less than a cent a gallon, we could have gone the whole ball of wax and had our environment secured.
One thing I am pleased to see is that our seriously under- resourced Canadian Coast Guard has been able to get on board more vessels with inspection and surveillance. They have managed to get aboard 38 per cent. Regrettably what we are finding is that gigantic numbers of vessels coming into Canada and transiting Canadian waters are in serious need of repair. They are terribly defective. We are finding that the companies are not fixing them.
There is not an adequate level of punitive pressure to make the large oil companies and the transit companies realize they are in violation of Canadian law and that maybe they should change the hull design. Maybe there should not be sleeping or impaired people running the vessels. Maybe they should take a whole new look at what is happening to the earth's environment. If one talks to people like Jacques Cousteau you do not have to listen too long to realize that the major oceans of this world are becoming gigantic septic tanks because of the dumping of fossil materials into the oceans. They wash their tanks on the way back from deliveries. They dump that scrub oil into the water. I think this legislation could have and should have gone much further.
I am sure one of my colleagues in the House will want to ask me a question about that so I am glad to resume my seat.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for
Government Orders
Skeena. I share many of his views in terms of his approach to this proposed legislation.
I want to relate to him an incident that happened to me just last weekend in my constituency office. A group came in to visit me from an organization called Bioquest.
I do not know if you have heard of Bioquest. They are remedial specialists and they have a formula called the Oppenheimer formula. This is a formula that was developed by Dr. Oppenheimer from Houston, Texas, who was the great-grandson of Dr. Oppenheimer who invented the bomb.
This formula has been approved in the United States of America. In fact just recently a bill was passed in the state of Texas called the spills bill whereby any tankers or any kind of traffic in and out of the ports related to Texas have to carry on board the Oppenheimer formula. When the Oppenheimer formula is mixed with a spill it creates a fish food. It is basically a remedial measure for disasters such as the type the member cited.
My question is whether he has heard of the Oppenheimer formula from Bioquest and does he think this is the kind of organization that should come to committee. Some of the ideas that our American friends to the south have are good ideas. If it has worked well for them and has been approved maybe it is something we should look at and introduce into our regulations.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that important information he brings to the floor of the House. It is precisely those kinds of responses that should be evaluated by the Coast Guard in relation to this legislation to make sure that as they are evaluating what the private sector is doing with the funds they are generating from those that are transiting oil, very often in dangerous waters and through dangerous environments. If this is demonstrated itself to be useful under a variety of common environmental conditions that we would find here where if there were a small or moderate spill, even perhaps a large one, the Oppenheimer formula might well be introduced at a time when the oil is still reasonably well contained.
We know that the use of a lot of the soap-based and detergent-based tests that have been done, including those done in Prince William Sound, had a more negative impact particularly as they got to the beach than did steam, scrubbing or anything else.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
It is astonishing how terrible the condition of the beaches still is where the oil from the Exxon Valdez came ashore in Prince William Sound. Something that causes a more rapid biodegradation of these fossil compounds near the surface of the water breaking them down into components that could be activated by the phytoplankton and on by the zooplankton and on into the food chain as fish food would be a far preferable impact than going ahead and scrubbing the hell out of the environment, which is what often happens with detergents and the more common approaches taken by the major oil companies so far.
Tied in to my friend's question, members would be interested to know that foreign tankers pose a far greater threat to our shores than do domestic tankers. Almost one-quarter of the foreign tankers inspected by the Canadian Coast Guard in the Atlantic region over just an 18-month period ending in December 1989 were found to be defective. That is an incredible statistic. That is during this Parliament. One-quarter of the tankers were tested. It was during that period. Only one-quarter of the tankers were even boarded and one-quarter of those were defective.
Can you imagine if we checked the entire fleet what the statistic would rise to. Even though we are getting on board more I do not think yet we are getting to the bottom of all of the statistics.
There are two things that are absolutely mandatory. First, under this legislation, and I would hope that the minister brings this before the House as an amendment, once the bill is statutory, particularly as the regulations and standards are added on, that there be a mandatory five-year or less reporting period to Parliament to make sure that the department considers this.
The second is in terms of floor fines. I know my friend has another question to put but I would think that hon. members would be interested in one other point that the panel report found.
Some 62 recommendations designed to minimize the risk of ship-source marine spills are put forward. They deal with environmentally safer vessels, enhanced navigational support, increased inspection, surveillance and enforcement and more competent crews. The Minister of Transport recognizes that improvements in these
areas could reduce marine ship-source pollution by approximately 80 per cent.
Here is where it fell apart and this is what the House has to consider. The Canadian Coast Guard believes that the level of compensation available on the ship-source oil pollution fund is not adequate. That is now. We are being asked to buy into a piece of legislation which would take several years to get up and running. We have only $60 million worth of response equipment in the whole of Canada. We are being asked to let the private sector put all of these materials together and get out there and respond to spills, large or small, between now and the time they are fully up and running.
We have been left with a four year hold by this government with no move and now we are being left with another one. That is an incredible statement about this government particularly after it pilfered and pirated the $200 million to the last penny. The Minister of Finance has drained every last penny out of the oil spill response fund for this country while he has been in office. That is a shameful state of affairs.


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


Dennis Joseph Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I was not sure whether I understood that there was support from the New Democratic Party for inviting these people to committee to listen to their brief. If it works in Texas maybe it will work in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member
for Skeena said yes.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, this party likes to co-operate with the government when it is doing something reasonable and positive from my perspective and that of others who have spoken this afternoon, particularly when it is actually doing something concrete to move protection of our environment and, more important, to move forward the whole concept of sustainable development.
It is a little difficult to do that today with any enthusiasm. As the debate started in the House the briefing on the legislation was still half an hour away from being completed. I admire the cleverness of the hon. member for Ottawa South, our critic on transport, on the background he has been able to gather to comment with some coherence and conciseness on the bill.
May 12, 1993

The report on the Exxon Valdez spill and the implications of that spill for the safety of Canadian waters and the safety of Canadian shipping was presented in October 1990. The report was done with great thoroughness but very quickly because the authors of the report recognized the urgency of the situation. Interestingly enough, they did not entitle their report "What to do about oil spills". They entitled their report "Protecting Our Waters". That is an issue for Canada as for perhaps no other country in the world. We have the largest coastline in the world. We have the largest concentration in the Great Lakes of fresh water in the world. We have an obligation not only domestically, not only continentally, but to the world to protect that water.
I will quote a former Minister of the Environment in Quebec speaking to a group of members of Parliament yesterday afternoon saying that:"As oil, diamonds, minerals were the precious resources of this century and the last century, the precious resource of the next century will be water".
I will quote from a presentation by Mr. Jim MacNeill before the environment committee yesterday, talking about water but talking about more generally how we respond to threats to our environment. I will quote from . the record of that meeting. He said:"We see that the scale of ecological disasters has continued to rise in the last few years. The famine in Africa ecologically based is greater than any previous famines. The last oil spill off the Shetlands was bigger than the Exxon Valdez. Water shortages are growing. The fisheries collapse. We have experienced a collapse on the eastern coast of Canada and elsewhere and these are without precedent. These things are growing and hope in this scenario lies in the prospect that these ecological disasters will be of sufficient scale to command attention, build awareness, build a demand for action, force action before the disasters become irreversible".
As I say, this report was tabled in October of 1990. We are debating this bill which is at least in part a response to this report and only a partial response to this report in a vacuum because the government's response to the Brander-Smith report, the government's total overview of how it proposes to respond to the type of tragedy that
Government Orders
the Exxon Valdez spill was, has not yet been tabled in this Parliament, over two and a half years after the report was done.
We are told that there are things out of this report that are not in this bill to date because they are being done by regulation or by policy or because they are being done in some other way. We cannot be expected to judge the adequacy of this bill against what needs to be done to prevent another Exxon Valdez spill, to ensure that we can respond to spills and clean up the damage after the fact if and when they happen. We cannot possibly judge the adequacy of this bill except in the context of other measures that the government claims to have taken.
One assessment I can go back to is that of the Auditor General last year in commenting on the Brander-Smith report of 1990-and this was in 1992-how inadequate the government's response had been to that time. He said:"For instance the Coast Guard is seriously under resourced and cannot provide the level of monitoring, inspection and surveillance required to adequately protect our waters. Despite the fact that it commits most of its inspection resources to compulsory inspection and that Canada is a signatory to an international agreement requiring the inspection of 25 per cent of all foreign tankers entering its ports, only 8 per cent of foreign tankers are inspected". This is from the Auditor General's report of 1992, not that long ago.
The Auditor General went on to comment on the many ways in which the government had not met the recommendations of the Brander-Smith report. Of Canada's 31 tankers only one is double hulled and ice reinforced. There is nothing in this bill that states that in a certain period of time that problem will be gone and we will have the protection of fully double-hulled and ice-reinforced vessels.
We will be going into specific recommendations and a discussion of where this legislation falls short in committee. The point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult for us at second reading even to debate the principle of this bill because we do not have the basic information on how adequately this bill, in the context of all other actions that can and should be taken, helps us prevent another Exxon Valdez spill.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
I hope and trust the government is not going to be rigid about dealing only with the technicalities of this bill, that if it is inadequate there will be a great openness on behalf of the government to complete the bill, to do those things which would give Canadians reasonable assurances that everything is being done to protect their waterways, their wildlife, their wildlife habitat, and all those things that are damaged when a terrible disaster occurs. Just as important is whether this bill is adequate to prevent what happens day to day when bits of chemicals and oils leak or are deliberately flushed into our waterways. I do not think so, but it would be nice to be standing here debating it having had the opportunity to find out before the debate began.
The government said in a briefing this afternoon that there are regulations which are now under review, that there are regulations which have been put in place. We know that the primary tendency of this government has been to get rid of regulations. We know that a major review is now going on in all departments to eliminate regulations. We know that review is based on dollar factors and not based on protection of the environment. Environmental regulations in the Department of the Environment are under review to see how many can be got rid of.
To ask Parliament and Canadians to depend on regulation by this government to protect our waters is asking for a leap of faith that I think most of us are not prepared to take.
The government, and particularly the Minister of the Environment, has said a great deal about the impact Rio has had on our development of policy on the treatment of the environment. He has talked a great deal about the importance of the Rio way. He has said that it must be open and must be inclusive.
The government spokespersons were not able to provide any reassurances in the briefing this afternoon that there has been consultation with those environmental organizations and I am not even sure what kind of consultations have taken place with the industry. It certainly has not been the open, inclusive process-my goodness, isn't that a word we are hearing a lot these days-that the Minister of the Environment has said will be the government's way.
As far as I can tell from papers provided by government spokespersons this afternoon the only thing that has been done is to keep people informed. That is not what the Minister of the Environment is talking about when he talks about the Rio way, but maybe it is all talk.
I wanted to talk about another commitment of our famous green plan made over two and a half years ago, a commitment that every policy that went before cabinet would be accompanied by an environmental assessment and that when the policy was tabled, and I presume a piece of legislation is policy, an environmental report concerning the implications of that policy would be tabled at the same time.
I have not seen that and I would really like to see it. I would ask the government if it would please table that. Or has it abandoned the policy of the green plan?
The other thing we will want to look at very carefully in committee is how much in terms of resources will be provided to implement this legislation. We all know that Mexico has some of the best environmental legislation in the world. We also know that Mexico has some of the worst environmental problems in the world. Legislation is just a piece of paper unless the human and financial resources are there to ensure that the legislation is effective.
The Auditor General and the Brander-Smith report made it clear that Canada lacked both the technological resources and the human resources to protect its waterways and clean up damage when it happens. To date we have no assurance that has been corrected. Two days after the Brander-Smith report, after the Exxon Valdez spill, the Auditor General reported a great inadequacy of resources.
There is a great deal to discuss in committee on this legislation. I hope we will have the whole context and the freedom to do that. I cannot help being somewhat cynical and suspicious about whether there is really an intention to get a good piece of legislation through this House before the election.
Perhaps I could close with the words of the minister of fisheries in June 1991. My goodness, it was nearly two years before we had this legislation. He said:
May 12, 1993

For millions of Canadians, our oceans, rivers and lakes are a way of
life. They have supported our communities, commerce and culture.
When they are threatened we are threatened.
I do not think we have a piece of legislation that adequately deals with that threat. We are in the difficult dilemma of deciding whether to support some improvements knowing that they are inadequate or hold the feet of this government to the fire and say: Do what needs to be done. That is what Canadians demand. That is what we think this Parliament should produce.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Thble on the Environment and the Economy, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Government Orders


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak very briefly on this particular bill. It is a great pleasure for me to recommend third and final reading of Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
As the hon. member for Macleod stated, all members of the committee he chaired to review this legislation enthusiastically and unequivocally endorsed passage of the bill. This approval is subject to some minor amendments which have the effect of strengthening or clarifying some sections.
Permit me to say at the outset that the government wishes to thank the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, both members of the opposition, who were most co-operative, supportive and helpful in the deliberations of the legislative committee.
I would also like to formally acknowledge the compelling testimony before the committee of Mr. Ron Doering, the executive director of the round table.
The challenges facing the round table are formidable. Nothing short of moving toward new ways of thinking about the relationships between the environment and the economy is required. This will by definition entail fundamental and profound changes in decision making in all sectors and levels of society from government, business and labour to the household.
Round tables have been Canada's principal institutional responses to the challenge of sustainable development. These innovative multi-stakeholder organizations have taken root in all provinces and territories as well as at the national and municipal levels.
Although progress can seem slow, especially when fundamental change is at stake, Canadians can be proud of this proliferation of sustainable development round tables since their institution was recommended in 1987. That recommendation was made by a multi-stakeholder task force set up by the former Canadian Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers to follow through on the landmark report produced by the Brund-tland commission.

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
As we find in Bill C-72, the mandate of the national round table is to:
Play Ihe role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada principles and practices of sustainable development.
It does this by conducting research and analysis, advising governments and other sectors on sustainable development issues and promoting greater public awareness of the economic, social, cultural and policy changes required to move toward sustainable development.
Its membership is diverse, with representation from business, labour, academia, aboriginal peoples and environmental groups, and federal and provincial ministers regularly participating in their plenary or board meetings. Many of these groups are typically in conflict with each other but the round table is an indispensable device in attempting to bridge the gaps that exist between them.
Progress toward sustainability requires new kinds of lateral and integrative thinking that embodies cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional, and cross-temporal perspectives.
As the Brundtland commission forcefully argued:
Those responsible for managing natural resources and protecting the environment are institutionally separated from those responsible for managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change; the policies and institutions concerned must.
The national round table is one more important response to this challenge, and the federal government is firmly committed to the enterprise. Bill C-72 eliminates the ad hoc, temporary nature of the round table's existence which will enable it to more effectively play its catalytic role in stimulating the new kinds of thinking I have described.
Also very important is the fact that legislated status will permit the round table to organize itself administratively and to conduct its operations in a more efficient manner.
These very brief remarks are concluded when I ask all members to endorse this legislation, as amended. We wish the round table every success as it pursues important activities such as examining the linkages between trade, the environment and sustainability, post-Rio follow-up, reporting on progress toward sustainability
and acting as a catalyst in defining sustainable development strategies for sectors such as pulp and paper.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see this bill go forward, considering the fact that it has been languishing on the Order Paper for some time. But we have to recognize, despite the very eloquent intervention by my colleague from Regina-Was-cana, that it is going forward in a policy vacuum. One has to conclude, and regretfully so, that the government knows how to spell sustainability but it certainly does not know how to implement sustainability.
I will in the time available bring forward a number of examples to prove this. First of all, there is no domestic energy policy in this country. Members will appreciate that the national round table has been given the assignment to integrate the economy and the environment. In order to be effective it would need an indication from the government which way it intends to go on this extremely important policy sector, namely energy. It has been proven over and over again that energy is an important component of any policy that declares itself to be sustainable in relation to climate change, climate warming and the impact of energy production on the environment in general.
We see this absence not only in the field of energy. There is no domestic policy on transport. We know that good, efficient ground transportation in urban centres as well as inter-city ground transportation makes an enormous difference in improving the quality of the environment, and therefore in enhancing increasing sustainability.
We have no water legislation yet in the House, although it has been promised since 1987. Therefore we have to conclude that the government has no long-term views on what should be the water policy for Canada. We do not yet have water quality legislation in the House.
We do not have and we miss veiy badly the fact that we do not have any urban transportation whereby Ottawa would provide general long-term guidelines and goals for the well-being of Canadians living in cities.
Another area where we do not have an international policy is that related to development aid. We did have one and I thought it was a relatively good one, but recent cuts and recent statements made by respected ministers have demonstrated that CIDA's policy is no longer one of development aid but one of commercialization, one of turning that agency into a self-serving commercial insti-
May 12, 1993

tution which will in large part exploit developing countries for Canada's commercial interests.
That is why this bill, while desirable, goes forward in a policy vacuum. That is an observation which must be made at this point. I am sure that the member for Skeena will have some interesting remarks to make on this aspect as well.
What we witness when it comes to any discussion or assignment of the kind given to the national round table through this bill, namely of bringing together the economy and the environment, is a growing gap. There is a gap between declarations, between statements, between declarations of intent, if you like beautiful speeches at the United Nations or at Rio on the occasion of the UN environment conference, but when it comes to the application and implementation of policies at home that would integrate, that would mesh, that would bring together the economy and the environment for the long-term interest of our natural resources and our human health and well-being in general, then we will see a lack of action, we see a growing gap. Studies, reports, round tables if you like and declarations do not see their translation into action as one would expect.
I will give you an example. The Prime Minister went to the Hague to attend the summit on the protection of the global atmosphere. This was March 11, 1989.1 will quote a few paragraphs from his statements at that time on behalf of the Canadian people. "Our presence today in the Hague is an expression of a common aim. The earth's atmosphere is deteriorating. To counter the threats posed we are here to demonstrate a common strength of purpose and to seek solutions". A good statement.
"The heads of state in government present here are demonstrating their courage by moving to a new stage in the fight against atmospheric pollution". A good statement.
"The leaders present here are putting their names and reputations behind an act of determination, determination to make our fight against the deterioration of the earth's atmosphere more effective". Fine.
Government Orders
"Now is the time to call for an accelerated evolution of the international institutions dedicated to control atmospheric pollution".
Now we look at what the Government of Canada is doing or has done since that time in reducing greenhouse gas pollution, the emission of carbon dioxide in particular. We see that four years later the Government of Canada has no plan in place to prevent global climate change. It has no plan.
It is no wonder the public has become disenchanted and cynical with politicians because statements are not supported by subsequent actions. This is one example.
The Government of Canada did announce one year after the Prime Minister's statement in the Hague that it intends to stabilize-it is not a great decision but nevertheless it is a first step, better than nothing if you like-carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. It did so in 1990. Yet today three years later we do not have that plan.
How can one explain, how can one justify this inaction? South of the border President Clinton announced in April of this year, just four weeks ago, the intention of the United States to stabilize the emissions of carbon dioxide gases by the year 2000 and to produce a plan five months later, by the month of August of this year.
One wonders why should Canada be so hesitant, so inconclusive. It is four years after the Prime Minister's statement in the Hague, three years after the commitment that was made in Canada to stabilize emissions and we do not have a plan. So much for sustainability as far as the energy field is concerned. We can find other disturbing elements that must be put on record in this debate because we hope that by doing so the National Round Table will at least receive signals from parliamentarians who in the end are expressing here the views of Canadians at large and perhaps be able to put together a policy paper for the consideration of the government.
Also I do not think that should be the sequence in the process. The government should actually indicate to the Round Table what it intends to do in order to ensure long term sustainability of the economy and the environment. Having done so, it would ask the National Round Table

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
then to act on that broad and general but nevertheless important policy framework and proceed with that.
We read instead little items like this in the press the other day: "The federal government and Canada's forest ministers will spend $6 million during the next three years helping the forest industry polish its tarnished image overseas". What is going on here? If it has a tarnished image then go to the root of the problem to find out why it has a tarnished image. Probably it has to do with the devastating clear-cut operations on the west coast. Improve the image by way of improving the operation of that industry rather than spending $6 million on public relations.
Coming to federal-provincial relations, we learned that the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes, which is an extremely important water body on which some 8 million Canadians and Americans-at least in Lake Ontario-depend on, has not been renewed since March 1991. What is this government doing? This kind of agreement is intended to improve the quality of water for the long term and therefore enhance the sustainability of people who depend on that particular and very precious body of water.
We also have to bring into this debate the fact that in February of this year the government proceeded with the abolition of a number of very important councils which had a bearing on the production of policies on sustainability. These were: the Science Council of Canada; the Economic Council of Canada; the ocean institute and a few others. They have been actually abolished as part of the deficit cutting operation.
Only a few weeks ago the Minister of Finance, coming to transportation, announced cuts to VIA Rail. Evidently this government is moving theoretically and by way of this particular bill, which gives legal status to the National Round Thble on the Environment and the Economy, on a certain track to demonstrate that it has an intention. However, having done so, its actions actually undermine and erode the whole purpose and the whole spirit of the policy thrust, if ever there was one, of integrating the economy with the environment.
Let me bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, another example which I find almost infuriating. Since March
1992 pesticides have been exempted from the GST by virtue of a decree by the Minister of Finance. When it comes to books, no, that cannot be done, but when it comes to pesticides this government finds it politically excusable to proceed in exempting pesticides from the GST. One wonders what kind of thinking motivates and permeates this government when it wants, at least in speeches and through the means of this particular bill, to enhance the necessity and the notion that we should integrate the environment and the economy, and then all of a sudden removes a tax from pesticides. The two do not come together. They do not make sense.
Let us move to another area where there is a policy gap. I mentioned it briefly earlier, namely the one relating to development aid. In the paper entitled Sharing Our Future some three or four years ago, we had a good document published by the then minister in charge of CIDA, in which a commitment was made "to help the poorest countries and people of the world".
At the earth summit last year in Rio when the United Nations held the conference on the environment and the economy, Canada pledged itself with other countries to increase development aid to the nations in need by some 7 per cent of our gross national product which is an increase of almost 30 per cent.
Instead the government moved back at home and decided to cut aid. It cut aid by 10 per cent for a total of $642 million by the year 1994-95. Who is hurt in this process? One will appreciate that when we talk about sustainable development, which is, as I said, the integration of the environment with the economy, we also talk about the poorest countries of the world that are struggling with desertification, with deforestation, with the lack of water and natural resources, with poor health conditions, you name it.
Who gets hurt as a result of these cuts, these withdrawals? Countries such as Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Uganda are the countries at the bottom of the barrel according to the statistics produced by the United Nations Development Program. These are the most needy nations and Canada has now decided to phase out and stop certain projects that were aimed at improving the provision of water or the milling of grain or stopping desertification or improving agricultural
May 12, 1993

practices, basically all efforts aimed at improving food security if you like and improving health conditions.
Another policy which I mentioned earlier that also must be raised in this debate is the fact that with the present estimates this government has a policy with respect to energy which runs counter to sustainable development. If one looks at the estimates of the department of energy and if one looks at our taxation system, we come across some phenomenal-for lack of a better word-tax provisions which favour the use and the production of fossil fuels.
Drawing from the last taxation year of 1991, for instance, just the value of tax deductions by the oil and gas industry amounted to some $4.9 billion which was then translated in a loss of revenue of at least $500 million. The tax deduction advantages given to the mining industry are also a substantial figure, which I do not have on hand right now, but they are worthy of at least mentioning.
Direct tax expenditures by the federal government to the energy sector by way of budgetary decisions amount to about $700 million. Of these, only 5 per cent go to research and development of alternative sources of energy, the ones we want to develop in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and therefore reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Federal assistance to the energy sector amounts to roughly $1.9 billion which goes mostly to energy projects. The commitments to energy megaprojects at the present time is roughly $4 billion.
In other words, we have the conventional, old-fashioned type of policy making, taxation provisions, budgetary provisions, subsidy provisions, tax accelerated write-offs, you name it, that are unsustainable if you really, by contrast, want to ensure the implementation of policies that one would expect this national round table to implement or to propose to the government.
The round table has existed already for some time. I cannot see how it can function effectively unless the basic and fundamental attitude of the government changes to provide the attitude that is needed at the political level for the national round table to function effectively.
Government Orders
I have concentrated for a moment on energy policy because it is easier to find the subsidies and the tax incentives that are made available under present policies. I can assure the House that if one were to find the time, one could find also unsustainable tax advantages and subsidies in the fields of transportation, agriculture, forestry and maybe still in the field of fisheries.
This brings to mind the social and economic drama on the east coast where really for the first time Canada faces a very serious problem of unsustainable fisheries for which the warning had been given in early 1990 by Dr. Harris when he indicated in a report that the cod fishery was in severe danger.
We cannot say when we speak about sustainability and sustainable development that we lack practical examples. On the contrary, we have one right at home in the fisheries. If we do not watch it, we will have examples we can draw on in forestry, particularly in the cutting of the old stands on the west coast. We have to understand that it is not very responsible or very politically wise, if we are here to promote the interests of the public, to give lip service to sustainable development, the integration of the economy and the environment and create the impression that we have the instruments to do that while in reality we do not.
By way of a last example, let me bring forward one that was even the subject of a vote in this House on March 9 when a vote took place on Canada ratifying the Law of the Sea. That vote was in the negative because the government decided that it should not support a motion that we put forward which would have given a parliamentary green light to the executive, namely cabinet, to finally ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that Canada was one of the first nations to sign it in the early eighties, but an international convention first requires signature and then ratification.
While Canada was one of the first nations to sign the Law of the Sea Convention in the eighties, Parliament is now against passing a motion in favour of ratifying it.
The Law of the Sea Convention requires 60 nations to ratify it. As we speak today, some 55 or 56 nations have ratified it already, so four more are needed to make it

May 12, 1993
Government Orders
operative. It would be a great pity if it becomes operative without Canada being part of it.
Why am I using this example? Because the Law of the Sea has many concepts in it for sustainable fisheries. Articles 63 and 65,1 believe, are extremely important for the sustainable management of fisheries in international waters. We want that. It is in the interest of our own population.
There seems to be some international interest related to the mining of the seabed and we seem to be influenced by other nations to hold back and not ratify this extremely important convention. It is waiting to be implemented in the interests of increasing and enhancing the potential for sustainable management of fisheries in international waters.
Mr. Speaker, I hope with this analysis I have given you a picture that there is some deception going on here which has to be raised.
In committee within the scope of the bill, we managed to pass a couple of amendments which will probably strengthen the mandate of the institute. We certainly did our best to give it every possible means to operate better and more effectively. For instance, we modified its mandate so it would be able to advise the government on ways of integrating environmental and economic concepts and policies. That is just one way of saying sustainable development.
We made a provision that would give a mandate to the institute to engage not only in public information but also in the promotion of sustainable development among Canadians. This is a very important role for the round table to perform.
We should not have any illusions that by passing this bill the Government of Canada has embraced the policy of sustainable development and the recommendations that came out in 1987 by the Royal Commission on Environment and Development headed by Madam Brundtland. Canada has been very good at making statements abroad. We performed quite well in Rio in a number of initiatives which are desirable and highly welcome at international levels. But-and this BUT is in capital letters-when it comes to domestic policies and the implementation of what we embrace abroad, we notice a lack of courage, political reality and political will in this government.
It has the capacity to promote and embrace concepts which are popular at the time, but when it comes to the test of moving from theory to practice, from declaration to action, we see a very sad and growing gap.
I regret to have to make these statements at this stage. I would have preferred to be much more positive on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-72, but this thought had to be expressed and put on the record. I am sure the member for Skeena in his articulate way can do much better than I did.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks of the member who just spoke covered a lot of the waterfront of the problems that the National Round Table has faced and continues to face. I know time is short, so I will try to compress my remarks to ensure this legislative mandate that has been long sought by those associated with the National Round lable gets underway.
It is sad that considering the time it has taken for it to get here the government side could not find a minister of the Crown to give it the kind of government will this legislation should receive on third reading, so all those who volunteer their time to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy would know that all parties stand four square behind the concept of the institution.
Until we go a lot further than the rhetoric associated with sustainable development, we will continue to go the wrong way on the face of this planet. It is now five years since I took a tour with members and had hearings right across the country. Canadians made it very clear they wanted at least 1 per cent of the Gross National Product of this country set aside in sustainable development centres where they could go to get the information and tools at the grass roots democratic level that are necessary to implement sustainable development.
It is the actions of individuals on a day-to-day basis that can and will have the largest impact. Ultimately the only way to have a successful impact in terms of sustainable development is to equip individual Canadians and individual residents of this globe with the information and tools necessary to get us from here to there.
May 12, 1993

One of the problems this bill will continue to have after it becomes law is that members are chosen by government and Governor in Council and they are there at the pleasure of the Governor in Council. I think anyone who has participated in it, been present at its meetings or spoken to members who have participated know it is over-weighted on the side of industry.
The Governor in Council should solicit the views of members of the environment committee, members of this House or members of certain academic or other institutions in this country to find people who are at the top of the learning curve on environmental issues. It should place them in there, perhaps even for shorter periods of time, to ensure that the institution operates a critical mass. It should do assessments of full cost accounting of government, energy policy, hydro-electric policy, cumulative impacts, global warming and what we are doing to the ozone.
It has to go into these big fields to make this a relevant national institution and make its membership relevant. Regrettably it is marginalizing itself as an institution, even though it will now have a legislative mandate. It is not going to the heart and pith of the issue of how to integrate environment and the economy and have the real sustainable development that is its mandate. If it continues to take its instructions from the corporate boardrooms and from singular political perspectives, it will continue to fail the people of Canada.
I offer this as unsolicited advice to the present and future membership of the National Round Table. It has my support. It has the support of many Canadians. It now has a legislative mandate. Let us hope it now picks the more difficult issues and gets the Canadian media on side to talk about full cost accounting.
One last point that was raised just yesterday by Jim MacNeill, one of the most notable and wisest environmentalists on the face of the earth is that the 24 OECD countries now squander more than $1 trillion a year on unnecessary subsidies in their economies. It is high time we had that kind of ecological level playing field, full cost accounting and real integration of these issues because without it the four horsemen will ride and will ride soon to all our doom.
Private Members' Business


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East) moved: that Bill C-294, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy here of volume VI of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985. It is the last published consolidation of the laws of Canada of which I am aware and contains all the laws ever passed by the Canadian Parliament that were still in effect at the time of its revision.
Chapter M-9, in this sixth volume of the Revised Statues of Canada, 1985, is the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. Nestled snugly in the sixth volume of the revised statues, means it is the law, right? Well, no. It is true the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act was passed by Parliament in 1982. As passed, it grants the federal cabinet the authority to set fuel efficiency standards for any class of motor vehicle it chooses. The standards themselves are to be set by regulation.
Unfortunately, although the bill was duly passed by this House more than a decade ago, it has never come into force. It has never become the law. That bill, as

May 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
passed by the 32nd Parliament, contained an often used parliamentary device, a provision to the effect that it would not come into force and would not become the law until it was proclaimed by the Queen's representative. For whatever reason, it has never been proclaimed. Each successive government has kept it up on the far reaches of the statutory shelf out of commission and gathering dust.
This brings me to Bill C-294, the bill before the House this evening. The bill I am sponsoring, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, is very simple. If passed, it would result in what is called the coming into force of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. That is it. No more, no less.
If Bill C-294 passes, then the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act at long last becomes the law. Until the 1982 act becomes the law, the government still will not have the authority to set mandatory Canadian fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. Instead we will continue to rely, as we have been relying, on voluntary compliance with suggested standards and self-monitoring by the automotive industry.
It is not that the setting of fuel efficiency standards is itself radical or unprecedented, in fact this bill would give effect to the same principle-this time concerning motor vehicles-that the current Parliament approved and implemented last year when it adopted Bill C-41, the Energy Efficiency Act.
Bill C-41 authorized the establishment of energy efficiency standards for household appliances and other energy-using devices. Bill C-294 would complement Bill C-41 by allowing similar standards to be set for vehicles having internal combustion engines.
There is of course a legitimate question which all members of the House might ask themselves at this point. Is this bill needed? Clearly, successive Canadian governments over the past decade have thought not. Were they right? If they were, are they still right?
The answer is no. For a number of environmentally crucial reasons, the answer is that Bill C-294 and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to which it would give effect are very much needed right now. Why? In a nutshell, Canada must quickly cap and
then begin to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide.
Bill C-294 is a crucial first step in this process. There is no shortage of evidence that emissions capping and reduction are necessary. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment is celebrated in part for the fine study it conducted on the issue of global warming. The committee's report issued in March 1991 called for a 20 per cent reduction in the 1988 levels of carbon dioxide emissions produced by humans and human activities by the year 2005.
As well, the committee suggested the government adopt this goal as "its minimum interim objective in reducing Canadian carbon dioxide emissions". Unfortunately the Conservative government obviously has not thus far adopted this objective. Instead the government has indicated that it plans merely to cap Canadian C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
There seem to be efforts afoot to back away even from this modest goal. For example, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources issued a report in January of this year that waffles prodigiously saying that such a goal "may or may not be attained". We are talking about the capping goal here. It is suggesting that any financial assistance Canada provides to reduce emissions in other countries should be allowed to substitute for concerted domestic action.
More important, the government has repeatedly taken action which makes it more difficult to meet even the modest goals it has set for itself. For example, the Conservatives keep paring back funding for their much touted green plan. It has reduced funding for environmentally responsible energy efficiency and alternatives programs by nearly 90 per cent from the more than $410 million spent for these purposes when they first formed the government in 1984-85.
In spite of all the government's hedging, stalling and even back-tracking, in spite of this apparent lack of utterly warranted concern, there is just no question that action must and can be taken to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
The transportation sector is key. It is an obvious place to start and one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Taking action in this area need not cost a
May 12, 1993

lot of money. I am certain the government would be pleased to learn that.
As an August 1989 report by the federal, provincial and territorial energy ministers put it: "There are substantial opportunities in Canada to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide at the point of energy use, and they are cost-effective for society, leading to significant dollar savings from energy conservation and improved energy efficiency. No additional economic value needs to be placed on the reductions of carbon dioxide emissions to make them cost effective".
Again these are the federal, provincial and territorial energy ministers speaking. This same energy ministers' report also states that "emphasis should be placed on means to reduce emissions in the transportation sector". They conclude that "Transportation energy use offers the greatest potential for emissions reductions at point of use". Reducing these emissions is precisely what Bill C-294 and the original act to which it would give effect are all about.
According to the comprehensive Environment Canada report entitled Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimates for 1990, ably compiled by A.R Jaques and released in December 1992, transportation accounted for 32 per cent of Canada's total of 461 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by source in 1990. Automobiles and gasoline-powered light trucks alone accounted for over 72 million tonnes, more than 15 per cent of Canada's total 1990 C02 emissions.
One of the best ways to decrease greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas producing fuel needed to run our vehicle fleets. Tighter motor vehicle fuel consumption standards lead directly to reduced fuel consumption and thus reduced greenhouse and other gas emissions. It all starts with making Canada's cars and light trucks more fuel efficient. [DOT]
In their recent book Healing the Planet noted environmentalists Anne and Paul Ehrlich emphasized and I quote: "The efficiency of automobiles themselves can be greatly increased. There is enormous potential for further savings, perhaps moving to 60 and 70 miles per U.S. gallon, levels already achieved by European experimental cars such as the Volkswagen Eco-Polo and Volvo's LCP 2000".
Private Members' Business
Canada's Friends of the Earth in 1990 called on the government to set standards that would compel auto manufacturers to improve fuel economy for cars to five litres per 100 kilometres by the year 2000. That is about 56 miles per gallon for us old folks. They estimated this move alone could save 60 million barrels of oil per year by the year 2005 and could by itself reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 5 per cent of current levels.
Many helpful fuel economy technologies and design improvements already exist. Some of these are described in the recent report by the office of technology assessment of the U.S. Congress, a report entitled Improving Automobile Fuel Economy: New Standards, New Approaches.
These existing measures include weight reduction, aerodynamic drag reduction, front wheel drive, overhead cam engines, four valves per cylinder engines, intake valve control, four and five speed automatic transmissions, continuously variable transmissions, electronic transmission control and the list goes on and on.
It should also be noted and as this report adds later that: "Significant improvement in fuel economy should be possible over the longer term, by 2001, for example, without compromising safety. Over this time period there are opportunities to improve fuel economy without downsizing as well as opportunities to redesign smaller cars to avoid some safety problems particular to them".
Why not simply get on with the job of increasing fuel efficiency? One of the main problems is that the federal government seems to have been content to rely on voluntary fuel efficiency standards. Unfortunately voluntary standards just are not working.
The over-all fuel efficiency of Canada's new motor vehicle fleet increased rapidly during the 1970s, a period you will recall of rigorous regulatory inducement to improvement in Canada and in the United States. It then slowed in the early 1980s and has not improved significantly since then. As a result Canada's fleet of new vehicles are no more fuel efficient over all than they were 10 years ago.
It gets worse. In a November 5, 1990 news release the Friends of the Earth pointed out: "Seven of the 20 largest auto companies in Canada did not meet the company average fuel consumption, the CAFC guideline, in 1989, five years after the guideline took effect. In

May 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
the U.S. these companies would automatically be forced to pay fines and be vulnerable to legal action. In Canada they are violating the target, polluting seriously and have no legal or financial incentive to improve".
Transport Canada officials report that about half the fuel efficiency ratings for new cars, pickup trucks and vans are never audited. Many companies do not even submit the relevant fuel efficiency data to the department.
The U.S. office of technology points out several ways in which in the words of its report Improving Automobile Fuel Economy, "the market is not supporting reduced gasoline use". These are U.S. problem areas. It is safe to assume that trends identified hold broadly true for Canada as well. These include the following:
"Consumers have been turning in growing numbers to less efficient light trucks for passenger vehicles. Between 1970 and 1985 light truck miles tripled while auto miles grew by only 38 per cent.
Auto makers are building and consumers are buying increasingly powerful cars. Average zero to 60 miles per hour acceleration times of the U.S. auto fleet have decreased in every year since 1982 at a cost of more than two miles per gallon in average fuel economy.
Consumers increasingly order options that reduce fuel efficiency such as air conditioning, power accessories and four wheel drive.
New emission and safety standards are likely to have adverse effect on fuel economy.
The growing numbers of autos creates traffic congestion that lowers on road efficiency of the fleet".
Even the Americans have recognized the predictable and prosaic truth. The market alone does not work to increase fuel efficiency.
They are not alone. In the significant March 1989 report entitled "Energy Demand in Canada, 1973-1987" Ottawa's Marbek Resource Consultants emphasized just this point. In the words of that report: "To achieve the major economic and environmental benefits that energy efficiency still has to offer, government policies and programs for the future will need to emphasize a
strategic combination of energy efficiency standards, improved information programs, financial incentives and R & D assistance. To rely solely on energy prices and existing market mechanisms is a formula for failure. Active and constructive intervention in the marketplace is absolutely essential".
Unfortunately the current government seems to be going in the opposite direction. For example, it is cutting information programs. Transport Canada cancelled the 1993 edition of its popular fuel consumption guide which every year, until this year, had provided consumers with fuel consumption figures for every make and model of car, van and light truck sold in Canada. That guide is now gone.
I am the first to admit that relying solely on mandatory fuel efficiency standards is not prudent. They do after all have their limitations. For example, manufacturers do indeed require lead time to improve the efficiency of their vehicles. If not carefully designed, such standards can place unequal burdens on different manufacturers. Mandatory standards alone do not provide for incentives for continuous improvements beyond the legal requirements.
Finally as vehicles become more fuel efficient people tend to drive them more often and farther thereby reducing the improvement's benefits in reducing overall carbon dioxide emissions.
In spite of these limitations however, there can be no doubt that increasingly stringent mandatory standards could have significant salutary effects, but it should not stop there. As Ehrlich and Ehrlich point out, our vision of increased energy efficiency must begin to include a host of additional considerations. These should include things like filling buses and trains instead of commuting with one-person cars.
Even more important is redesigning cities and suburbs to make them pedestrian and bicycle friendly. We should be redesigning cities so that homes for people of varied income and employment levels are near offices, shops, schools and workplaces. All these advances are necessary and will prove tremendously helpful. However, prudence dictates that we must also institute, indeed we should begin with, mandatory fuel efficiency standards.

May 12, 1993

Private Members' Business
Let me conclude by quoting at length from a letter that the president of the Canadian Automobile Association sent to energy minister, Bill McKnight, on April 13 of this year, copies of which were subsequently sent as well to all members.
The association has worked long and hard to improve energy efficiency standards and these are among the observations they made to the minister in that letter:
CAA shares with you and the federal government a concern for the environment, the green plan objectives and your government's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We are asking you to proclaim the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act as one important means of achieving those goals. There are many good reasons for taking this action:
This is what Canadians want the government to do. A survey of CAA members asked what steps should be taken to reduce automobile-related pollution, and 83 per cent said they favoured tighter and enforceable fuel economy standards-Better fuel economy is easy to achieve -Canada has international commitments. Not only has Canada committed itself to carbon dioxide reduction targets, but we have played a leadership role among nations-There is a demonstrated need. Without the force of law, the government cannot force automakers to meet current 'targets', let alone tighten those targets-This is just one step that must be taken. Other steps include fuel economy standards for light duty trucks and vans and for heavy duty vehicles, as CAA has already proposed-The green plan's credibility is at stake. With public support and no economic cost or increase in the deficit, this is an easy step the government can take to reduce the risk of global warming and improve the environment.
These are good and wise words that are easily heeded. All that is required to enable the government to act is that the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act come into force. The passage of Bill C-294 would achieve that.
However, we all know that that is not going to happen. This item is not votable. It will die at the conclusion of today's debate unless something else happens. This is why I hope at the conclusion of this hour's debate to rise on a point of order to place before this House an alternative suggestion.
For the time being just let me note that helping effect the coming into force of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act would be a fine, helpful, forward-looking and, I suspect, substantially non-controversial note on which this 34th Parliament might bow out.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River):: As the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I am very pleased to speak tonight and I would like to wish my hon. colleague from Champlain the very best as the new parliamentary secretary. My colleague from Edmonton East and I have worked together for the last four years. I know that he will not enjoy most of my speech tonight but I certainly have enjoyed working with him.
I would like to point out the factors which they argue for not supporting Bill C-294.
As we know, the automobile industry is important to our economy not only in terms of direct jobs in assembly but also in parts manufacturing, vehicle sales and other associated industries. In addition, Canada has enjoyed many benefits under the Auto Pact with the United States. The actions which affect the operation of this industry must be considered with great care in order to not damage its viability. This is particularly important at this time as the industry-not just the North American industry but the world-wide industry-has been hit hard by the recent recession. We have seen massive restructuring of this sector as a result of this and a leaner, more competitive industry is emerging.
In the matter of setting new standards for the automobile industry, timing is of paramount importance. Over the period 1994-96 the automobile industry has signed on to meet a further round of emission standards that are the most stringent in the world. These are the same standards that are required in the United States under the amendments to the Clean Air Act. This is a challenging task to meet standards that require 98 per cent control of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions and over 80 per cent control of nitrogen oxides. Beyond this, the industry is developing technology to meet even more stringent requirements for California, including the so-called "ultra-low" or "zero" emission vehicles. There is no lack of technological challenges for this industry.
Technology for better emission control has focused on better fuel combustion by using ever more sophisticated computer control and steady improvements to the catalysts which clean up vehicle exhaust emissions. These are areas of technology in which the North American industry is a leader. However, these technologies are relatively minor in their impact on engineering and

May 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
manufacturing decisions as they affect relatively few components which do not result in changes to the vehicle as a whole.
Fuel consumption technology affects almost every component of new vehicles as well as the over-all design. I need hardly point out the significant improvements in aerodynamic shape of vehicles over the last few years and the change from rear-wheel to front-wheel drive. More difficult to see are the reductions in weight of the hundreds of individual components that make up modern automobiles. These reductions have been achieved by clever design and the substitution of lighter materials such as high strength steels, aluminum and plastics. These changes are not ones that can be made bit by bit to new vehicles on a year-by-year basis. The majority of such changes must be designed into new vehicles from the start, and therefore attention must be given to adequate lead times and the timing of introductions of new vehicle models.
This subject is complex and one in which there are a variety of diverse views respecting the impact of changes in technology on vehicle cost. There have been several recent studies on this subject culminating in the report by an expert committee of the U.S. National Research Council in 1992. This study is titled Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? It points to a range of potential improvements in fuel consumption of new vehicles, but highlights out the uncertainties in cost estimates for new technology. Cost is a critical factor as consumers will not be willing to pay for technology that does not yield adequate returns in fuel cost savings.
The availability of fuel efficient technologies in the Canadian market will depend in large part on decisions domestic manufacturers make about technology they will incorporate in their North American production. This technology menu will be influenced by consumer demand but would be more strongly influenced by any fuel consumption program eventually adopted in the United States.
It is important, therefore, that Canadian fuel consumption requirements do not try to force domestic manufacturers to use technology they would not consider producing for the North American market as a whole. This does not mean that the average fuel consumption of
Canadian vehicles would be identical to that in the U.S. For instance Canadian fuel prices may continue to be higher than the U.S. price. This has a small effect by influencing Canadian consumers to buy a mix of new vehicles that are slightly more fuel efficient than those purchased by consumers in the United States. These differences manifest themselves in more purchases of manual transmissions and smaller optional engines, for example. What is important here is that consumers have a choice of technology options available to them. Restriction of choice leads to less interest in the market and hence declining sales.
This brings me to another important point. Canada cannot easily act alone in the area of automotive standards. Any program requiring significant engineering and design changes must be founded on a common approach to standards setting with the United States. It is not feasible for a country with a relatively small automotive market to act without regard to other markets, especially when free trade is becoming a reality with those markets. The technology contained in individual models for vehicles will be the same. The expense and risk of producing a vehicle with technology different from other markets is too high to be acceptable to manufacturers and more importantly to consumers. Any differences in the markets will be based on consumer preference among vehicle types, and these differences will be reflected in the sales mix of vehicles in the U.S. and Canada.
A further point concerns the design of a fuel consumption program and the necessity of harmonizing program design. Most discussion of new fuel consumption standards has focused on the level of improvement. Just as much attention needs to be given to the form of a new program and the impacts different forms would have on vehicle manufacturers.
Complaints regarding the unfairness of current Company Average Fuel Consumption CADC standards in the U.S. have led to suggestions to change the method of gauging compliance. The current CADC program fixes a single absolute standard that all manufacturers must meet. This type of standard favours manufacturers of small cars while penalizing manufacturers whose product
May 12, 1993

Private Members' Business
lines are restricted to large, luxury or performance car markets.
While these are arguments which favoured this design of program in 1975, the market today is very different and it would be advisable to examine the other program options.
Other types of standard programs have been suggested, including those in which different standards are set for different size or weight classes of vehicles, and those which provide for a uniform per cent improvement over a base year.
The debate on alternative forms of standard programs must account for the fact that there are three classes of stakeholders affected by standards, each with a different point of view. They are: the nation as a whole, with social interest in fuel efficiency and environmental protection, the car buyers, and the auto manufacturers. The social interest would be to assure that any form of standard has the following attributes: it is conceptually simple for the public to understand; it can be administered easily and inexpensively; it provides incentives for all manufacturers to offer fuel efficient products; it guarantees fuel consumption improvements in the future.
Consumers have a different perspective as individuals and primarily would like to see the market offer a wide range of attributes desired with no restrictions.
Typically these attributes include interior room, acceleration performance, good ride, safety, efficiency, economy, reliability, durability and luxury features. Standards that would require a degradation of desired consumer attributes or seriously restrict choice are likely to be unpalatable to consumers and this would be reflected in declining sales.
Finally, the auto manufacturers who must comply with standards are concerned primarily with their ability to meet such a standard and whether or not the standards program affects their competitive position. Depending on the level at which standards are set, manufacturers may be unable to comply if the standards are technologically infusible and the type of standard makes no difference if this is the case.
However, if the levels are set at a point where technology feasibility is not a major issues then the type of standard can raise issues.
I know, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I would like to table the balance of my speech. I know that many Canadians will be very interested in it.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government is going to allow this matter to go to committee and that the member who moved it, our colleague from Edmonton, is going to move an amendment that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the energy committee.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I think that is an excellent proposal and I will be happy to second his motion when he gets up in a few moments to move that the subject matter of the bill go to the committee.
Very briefly, the Canadian Automobile Association, which has 3.5 million members-Mr. Speaker, you are probably a member, I am and I am sure the member for Edmonton East is-a not for profit association, has strongly invited I believe members of all parties in this House to support the member's initiative.
I will give a few quotes from the letter, just enough to make the point. This is from Michael McNeil, the president of the Canadian Automobile Association, dated April 13:
We are asking you to proclaim the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act as one important means of achieving those goals.
He is referring to the reducing of carbon dioxide emissions. Mr. McNeil goes on:
A survey of CAA members asked what steps should be taken to reduce automobile-related pollution, and 83 per cent said they favoured tighter and enforceable fuel economy standards. This compares to 63 per cent favouring more transit spending, just 18 per cent favouring special gas taxes, 54 per cent wanting emission testing programs, 50 per cent asking for car pool lanes and a mere 28 per cent favouring higher parking rates.
He basically goes on to make the following point:
Better fuel economy is easy to achieve. Auto makers oppose this move, as they oppose most attempts at regulation, by saying it cannot be done. However, studies have shown that it can be done without downsizing or compromising safety. Corporate Average Fuel Consumption standards allow the manufacturers to improve fuel economy on various models in the vehicle mix, giving them flexibility on how they achieve the goal.
Mr. McNeil reminds us of Canada's international commitments and points out that failing to act on this issue which has massive domestic support and is technologically feasible will not add a penny to the deficit and the debt that is drowning our children, our grandchildren and ourselves.

May 12, 1993
Private Members' Business I quote from another document:
Automobile efficiency can also be effectively promoted through point of sale price incentives designed to stimulate consumer demand for cleaner and more efficient vehicles. The gas-guzzler tax is an established mechanism that has been constructive in raising the fuel economy of low-mpg cars, particularly since 1983.
I might point out that in Japan I understand that if one buys what is called a gas guzzler one pays the equivalent of about $600 Canadian per year to have an operator or owner's permit. If one buys a vehicle that is fuel efficient, which is of course what the member is trying to get at in this bill, one pays I am told about $100 or $125.
In that way the Japanese are fighting air pollution. It is the same kind of initiative I suggest that we are dealing with here today. A lot of points have been made, with which I agree, by the member for Edmonton East. I think enough has been said. If I stop talking, Mr. Speaker, then we can all go home, so I will stop talking.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words to what was said by the hon. member for Timiskaming- French River. I must say that during the past few years he has done an excellent job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, for which I think congratulations are in order, and furthermore, he is now providing invaluable assistance on several bills.
I also would like to say that the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River gave a very clear summary of the government's position on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton East.
If I may be a little more specific, the measures proposed by the hon. member in his bill are already covered by the industry. Since 1985-86, the standard has
been 8.6 litres per 100 kilometres, instead of 13.1 litres, the latter being the standard in 1978. There has been a vast improvement in the way we monitor efficient energy use in this country.
I also would like to remind the hon. member that this bill, which has not been proclaimed-has not come into force-also allows for the deterrent effect on companies that might want to violate the bill as tabled and adopted in the early eighties.
I know the hon. member for Edmonton East would like to present a motion, and I will give him a chance to do so. I believe there will be unanimous consent.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a spurious point of order. I think you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That the order for second reading of Bill C-294, an act to amend
the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, be discharged,
the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing
Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly the order is discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eight o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.36 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 13, 1993