John Finlay

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, I present on behalf of my colleague from Kent. This petition is signed by hundreds of the constituents of Kent who call upon the government support a domestic ethanol industry in light of the fact that a $170 million plant for Chatham is in jeopardy without federal involvement. Since legislative support of ethanol is Liberal policy, the petitioners want it to become government policy.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the duty to present two petitions today.

The first petition is from 534 constituents of the riding of Oxford. These petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the duty to present a petition signed by a number of constituents from the riding of Oxford.

The petitioners ask the government to uphold section 241 of the Criminal Code which disallows doctor assisted suicide.

The petitioners further ask the government to uphold the Supreme Court decision made last September 30 to disallow doctor assisted suicide.

[Victims' Rights, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a woman in the riding of Oxford recently collected over 500 names on a petition asking for changes to the Young Offenders Act. These petitioners are asking the government to create a law that will protect the victims rather than the offender.

The justice minister has done a great deal to advance the cause of victims' rights by proposing legislation which is now before the justice committee to ban the distribution of serial killer board games and trading cards. I believe the changes proposed to the Young Offenders Act will assure the Canadian people that youths must take responsibility for their actions.

I would like to thank these petitioners for informing me of their concerns and for taking it upon themselves to try to improve our justice system.

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I put a question regarding urea formaldehyde foam and I would like to put on record a little bit of the investigation that I have undertaken in this regard.

I am interested in this because a constituent has been having some trouble selling a home with urea formaldehyde foam in it.

I contacted Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and was assured that whether a house had UFFI foam, as it is known, in it or not made no difference to their loaning money or insuring such a mortgage. I was told that the banks take a similar view. However, apparently some real estate boards in their agreement to sell a home require that it be stated if the home has urea formaldehyde foam in it. This has caused my constituent and others some concern.

I might just review very quickly that this insulation was approved in Canada for use in exterior wood frame walls. It has a good "R" value and in fact under the Canadian Home Insulation Program in 1975 to 1978 the government paid $500 to home owners who would install this insulation.

Apparently during the curing process, some formaldehyde comes off the cure. Formaldehyde is colourless, with a strong odour and can generally be detected at parts above one part per million. Unfortunately, formaldehyde is found in dry cleaning chemicals, paper products, no iron fabrics, diapers, pillow cases, the glue in particle board and plywood, cosmetics, paints, cigarette smoke, exhaust from automobiles, gas appliances, fireplaces and wood stoves. It may well be that some of the crimes attributed to urea formaldehyde foam arise from other household products.

The irony of the situation is that the federal government banned this insulation in 1980 and then spent $272 million in the ensuing seven years to assist home owners in replacing urea formaldehyde foam at a cost of $8,500 per home.

A further irony is that the longest civil suit in Canadian history ended on December 13, 1991, when Mr. Justice Rene Hurtubise from the Quebec Superior Court handed down a decision saying that the owners of the homes who brought the case had failed to prove that UFFI had made them sick, offered no proof that UFFI should be removed and did not prove that leaving UFFI in place reduced the value of their homes. This finding has been echoed by pathologists and many others who have tested these homes.

I will conclude with the conclusion from a report by Carson Dunlap and Associates Limited, consulting engineers, that says: "We believe that those who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes should enjoy their houses and sleep well at night. It is the sincere hope of the authors that the marketplace will respond appropriately. The owners of properties with this type of insulation should not be penalized financially and no stigma should be attached to these homes. We would further urge real estate associations and boards across Canada to consider dropping the UFFI clause from purchase contracts. Similarly, we would ask mortgage lenders not to penalize those who have UFFI in their homes. UFFI is simply not the problem it was once feared to be".

I would hope that the minister would be able when the current appeal which I believe is in process happens that we could get this matter sent to rest.

[Urea Formaldehyde Foam, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

In the 1970s many homeowners insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam or UFFI. In the 1980s it was alleged that UFFI caused health problems. After a lengthy court battle no health problems were proven. Although CMHC and other lenders now make no distinction between homes with or without UFFI fear still lingers.

Would the minister consider a public information program to correct the misconception about UFFI?

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened all afternoon with great interest to my colleagues, the hon. members for Moncton, Terrebonne, Comox-Alberni, Davenport and Frontenac, York-Simcoe and Kootenay East.

I share the concern they have made known with regard to Bill C-24 and Canada's natural heritage. I hope I might add a little something in the way of information to the debate. I will be brief.

Wildlife has helped shape Canada's identity. Wildlife related activity as the last speaker has just pointed out is a cherished recreational activity for a large number of Canadians. For native Canadians, wildlife harvesting is a vital component of an age old but sustainable lifestyle. For Canada's economy, as we have heard, wildlife activities make a contribution measured in the billions of dollars.

All these are cogent reasons why we should protect Canada's wildlife. We shall be better able to do so with passage of the bill now before the House amending Canada's wildlife act. The amendments bring the act into line with our latest understanding of wildlife, with the latest international agreements, particularly the North American water fowl management plan, the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance and the

global convention on biological diversity and with the planned Canadian biodiversity strategy.

This modified act will recognize that an ecosystem approach is the best way of protecting wildlife. In other words, we can save wildlife by saving the habitat on which they depend. One of the key ways which our country is doing this is by establishing national wildlife areas or NWAs under the Canada Wildlife Act.

The purpose of these areas is to conserve essential habitat for migratory birds and other species, especially endangered wildlife. At present there are 45 national wildlife areas covering approximately 287,000 hectares of habitat. Another six sites have been designated to become NWAs.

National wildlife areas exist or are planned in all provinces and territories except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. These areas protect a wide variety of critical habitats.

In British Columbia the wetlands of the Alaksen NWA and the Fraser River estuary are an internationally significant stop-over point and wintering area for large numbers of migrating birds.

On the other side of the country Pointe de l'Est is one of the few remaining nesting sites in Quebec for the piping plover, a bird listed as endangered in Canada.

At the Suffield NWA in Alberta the short grass prairie and sand dunes are home to the burrowing owl and the ferruginous hawk, both threatened species. Part of the endangered Arctic population of bowhead whales frequents Isabella Bay in the Northwest Territories, the site of a proposed marine NWA. In this case the opportunity to extend the boundaries beyond the 12 nautical mile limit of this NWA depends directly on the passage of this bill now before the House.

For each of these areas the Canadian Wildlife Service conducts public consultations as an integral step to preparing a management plan. The plan specifies which activities are to be allowed under permit within the NWA, for example, perhaps oil drilling, livestock grazing, or haying. The management plan may also specify how to improve habitat in such ways as planting native plants to provide food and cover for wildlife or digging ponds to make the landscape more inviting to waterfowl.

Conservation is the main purpose of the national wildlife areas but it is not the only one. Under the Canada Wildlife Act public education and research, as the hon. member for Davenport pointed out, are also goals.

In most NWAs visitors are allowed to hike, canoe, take photos and watch birds. Traditional uses may be allowed to continue. Some management plans provide for trapping, hunting and fishing. All these activities are carefully regulated to prevent declines in wildlife population levels and deterioration of habitats.

In some NWAs research takes precedence. For example, at Scotch Bonnet Island NWA on Lake Ontario access is restricted because the island is used for long term studies of the effects that environmental contaminants in the food chain have on wild birds in the great lakes.

At Polar Bear Pass in the Northwest Territories as well as at other NWAs the focus is on archaeological and biological research.

Many of the sites protected as national wildlife areas have also been accorded international recognition. Cap Tormente in Quebec is one of several NWAs that are also wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention. The Shepody NWA in New Brunswick is a western hemisphere shorebird reserve.

This international recognition shows that the world community appreciates the value of our national wildlife areas. This House must do the same by passing the amendments now under consideration.

NWAs also involve key partners outside the federal government in the work to conserve our wildlife by conserving wildlife habitat. They are managed by the federal government in co-operation with provincial and territorial authorities as well as non-governmental organizations.

Some important areas have been protected thanks to donations and leases from the Nature Conservancy and other non-government partners through land transfers from other government agencies or with the help of funds from other habitat protection programs such as those of Wildlife Habitat Canada and the North American wildlife management plan. Recently the establishment of NWAs has been a part of land claim settlements reached with aboriginal groups.

All these groups have become involved because they know that while wildlife needs our protection, Canada equally needs our wildlife. This is a part of our heritage, a part of our present and it must be part of our future.

As we work to make the transition to sustainable development we know that we must safeguard the health of our environment as a way of ensuring our prosperity. Wildlife provides one of the best indicators of environmental health. The signs are that we must do still more on its behalf because such actions ultimately benefit us all.

That is why I strongly support the amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act. It will extend our ability to protect wildlife throughout Canada and in the oceans which wash our shores. This is in the interest of all Canadians. I urge hon. members to support this measure and give it swift passage.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Stu Shouldice, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate today a gentleman from the riding of Oxford for doing his part to protect mother earth.

Mr. Stu Shouldice from Woodstock was recently inducted into the Recycling Council of Ontario's Waste Reduction Hall of Fame. Mr. Shouldice and his family regularly recycle 95 per cent of their household waste.

Mr. Shouldice was reported to have said that increased recycling by all levels of government depends on the will of the people and how badly we want a pollution free world for our children.

I congratulate this gentleman on behalf of this House and on behalf of all those who can learn from the example he has set.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-23, an amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

I note that this act was written in 1917. I do not think millions of passenger pigeons were flying between the United States and Canada across Lake Ontario in 1917 but there had been millions of them before the turn of the century.

After 75 years it is high time that we revised this act and amended it where necessary. Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring alerted all of us to the dangers of pesticides and herbicides among bird populations. We have to keep that in mind. The situation has certainly not improved since that time and more needs to be done.

I know we are working hard on whistling swans. I would still like to see some bluebirds in the spring. There is even a dearth of warblers. Canada has a particular responsibility in this regard. Hundreds of species fly north to nest in our northern wilderness each year and fly south again in the fall to take colour and song to our southern neighbours so that we particularly must be cognizant of our role in maintaining biodiversity with respect to birds.

I would like to bring forward the results of an important survey made by the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1991. It surveyed 103,398 Canadians and it provides information on the socioeconomic benefits of biological resources in Canada. This was the third such survey since 1981 done by the Canadian Wildlife Service and some of the important findings are as follows.

In 1991, 18.9 million Canadians, 90.2 per cent of the population, took part in one or more wildlife related activities, devoting a total of 1.3 billion hours and $5.6 billion to these activities.

The majority of Canadians, 86.2 per cent, stated that it is important to maintain abundant wildlife and 83.3 per cent stated that it is important to protect endangered or declining wildlife populations.

On the economic side an estimated 1.8 million Americans visited Canada for fish and wildlife in 1991 and spent $842 million on these trips which provides us with a significant balance of payments in this area since that is five times the amount Canadians spend in the U.S. on such trips.

A second report is being prepared which will examine in more detail the impacts resulting from wildlife related activities on the Canadian economy in the form of income and jobs.

I quote from the Minister of the Environment: "The conclusions I draw from this survey are that Canadians remain strongly committed to the protection and conservation of abundant and diverse wildlife and that spending on wildlife related activities makes an important contribution to the Canadian economy. Those are among the reasons why the federal government is dedicated to working with the provinces, territories, environmental groups and the private sector on initiatives such as wetlands conservation and the protection of Canada's biological diversity".

Birds such as the golden plover and the Arctic tern travel thousands of kilometres twice each year from Canada's northern reaches to South America. Birds do not know anything about municipal, provincial or national boundaries. It therefore behooves us to do the best job we can in amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act to assure the world that biodiversity will continue and that our feathered friends will be here for many years to come.

[Social Security, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House of meetings I hosted with regard to the social security review.

Residents in my riding had three opportunities to make their views known on the changes they feel would help to modernize our social security network.

Today I was able to present a report on behalf of my constituents to the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister has assured all members that our constituents' opinions are important to this process, and I ask the hon. members opposite to stop characterizing such meetings as smoke screens to hide something which they suggest has already been decided. The people of Canada may conclude that the opposition is out to torpedo the work that is being done through these public consultations.

In closing, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development for speaking at my public meeting and for listening to the concerns of my constituents.