1989-06-05

Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to two very important events. Today is the first day of Canada's National Environment Week, and June 5 is also World Environment Day.
As a result of its constant urge to create and its desire for economic prosperity, the human race has set off a process that, if allowed to continue in its present form, may well endanger our survival. Everywhere we see signs that our environment is deteriorating: degradation of the ozone layer, global warming, deforestation, declining fish stocks and the desertification of arable land. There are the toxic substances in our lakes and rivers, and air pollution has become so intense in some North American cities that joggers are being advised to train inside during the summer.

The cold facts of science insist we do not have the luxury of another decade of study, delay and inaction. Together with the international community and with the utmost urgency, we must come to terms with the causes of our deteriorating atmosphere which certainly constitutes the most serious pollution threat in the history of the human race.
We must find the means to continue our growth, and the growth of developing nations but we must, at the same time, change the way we grow.
Let me remind all Hon. Members, who, I know, share my concern about global warming, that half of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activity has been added just in the last 30 years. Our generation has accelerated the decline of the environment that sustains us. Now we must work to reverse that decline. We must act individually, nationally and globally to set the world on a development pathway that is indeed sustainable.
While the situation is urgent, there is also cause for hope. As a nation and as citizens of this planet, we are capable of change. We can apply the same knowledge and creativity that have so raised our material standards of living, and so harmed our environment, to finding the means to sustain our economies in a manner harmonious with our environment.

Today we should remember the concept of sustainable development as described in the report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, and the need to translate that concept into decisions and concrete action.

I also want to pledge again this Government's commitment to developing the means through which economic development is-by law and regulation as well as by individual morality-harmonized with our environment.
We will continue to address these issues at home and at every international forum in which we participate.

Mr. Speaker, we shall also continue to play a leading role as we did when the Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer was adopted and in several other international conventions and agreements in which Canada participates.
At the international level, we occupy a privileged position. We can show the industrialized world and developing countries that a balanced environment is not synonymous with economic stagnation. We can prove that in the long term, there will be more jobs and better prospects for economic growth in a clean environment then a polluted one. We can show how the various

June 5, 1989
Statements by Ministers
groups in a society as complex as ours can, with a little good will, work together to achieve sustainable development.

Through such new bodies as the Cabinet Committee on the Environment and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, we can make significant progress in the 12 months leading up to next year's important sustainable development conferences in Quebec City and Bergen, Norway. We can accelerate the pace in the three years between now and the 1992 United Nations World Conference on Sustainable Development.
All Elon. Members are partners in this national undertaking. Let us all, working within our Parties, our committees, our provinces and our communities, share in the individual and collective efforts that will bring about real environmental change.
Let us, as legislators, be able to look back one day and say we contributed substantially to setting the world on a new path.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I invite all Canadians to show their determination by their actions.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe these comments on Environment Week are an excellent opportunity for us to examine the new Environment Minister's record so far. This is the Minister who took up his duties five months ago, when he said he was going to do some shaking and moving and thoroughly change the Government's approach to certain projects, from megaprojects like Phase 2 of James Bay on down.
Mr. Speaker, looking back five months later, we have had a lot of talk and rhetoric, but one wonders about the actual power the Minister has. Either he is impotent- If we look at all the projects being developed at the federal level, after the Minister's revolutionary or so-called revolutionary statement, we have to say the Government is either hypocritical or impotent.
I would like to look at a number of issues, for instance-
The environment-the Minister says "very positive". I could stand and give all the beautiful words in the world as the Minister has done for the last five months. Instead, I would like to examine his record in the Rafferty-Alameda case. He had an opportunity to revoke the decision of his predecessor to proceed with Rafferty-Alameda. He should have carried out a full federal environmental assessment. Instead, he forced the Canadian Wildlife Federation to take him to court. Is it not time in this country for the Government of Canada and not the courts to exercise the rights of individual Canadians to have a full national environmental assessment? In the Rafferty-Alameda case the Minister showed quite clearly that he was prepared to ignore the fundamental precepts of his own law. He is doing the same thing in the Hydro Quebec-James Bay project.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we heard the Cree explain that almost 25 per cent of the fish now in the waters adjacent to the James Bay Project are no longer fit for human consumption because they contain from two to three, four, five and even six times the amount of mercury they contained at the beginning of Phase 1.
And this is what they asked the Minister, and I think that is perfectly normal: They asked for a federal investigation of the environmental impact of Phase 1 of the James Bay Project.
Last week, the Minister refused to give us. Opposition Members, the assurance in committee that he would order a federal analysis. We know what he said: "Hydro-Quebec takes care of that". However, asking Hydro-Quebec to analyse the environmental impact of Phase 1 of the James Bay Project is completely ridiculous.
I would like to talk about the rain forest. We all know that in the Amazon, there is a serious problem with the disappearance of the-

I was shocked to discover that in British Columbia the rain forest is as old or older than the Amazon rain forest. It is about to disappear because the Government of Canada, together with the Government of British Co-
June 5, 1989

lumbia, has proceeded over overlogging and overcutting. That has created a situation where we do not have time. Within the next 12 years that precious resource which pre-dates civilization, or so-called civilization in our country, which pre-dates the arrival of Christopher Columbus, and which pre-dates even the arrival of Christ is about to disappear in our own country. It is fine to lecture about the Brazilian rain forests, but we have a job to do in our own country that is not being done.
We have heard a lot about water policy. Yet to date we have no firm water policy coming from the Government. I appreciate the Minister's concern about implementing the Montreal Protocol. It is unfortunate that after he announced in February that he was going to be working immediately on regulations for the Montreal Protocol that he has not done so. We are now in a situation where the Montreal Protocol implementation is at risk because of the negligence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) in so far as the regulations are concerned.
This week alone the Minister of Energy, who is sitting two or three seats away from the Minister of the Environment, made a statement in support of megaproject subsidies. Time and again we have heard the Government state that it cannot afford to pay senior citizens' pensions. It cannot afford to pay family allowances, and it brought forward a taxation policy which discriminates against families. Yet the Government has no problem in coming up with $5 billion to subsidize megaprojects which are putting the air we breathe and our atmosphere at risk. The Minister continues to defend this stand, along with his partner in crime, the Minister of Energy, at the same time as they are closing down the only offices in the Ministry of Energy that are looking toward the development of alternative energy resources.
I could go on, but I have very little time. It is about time that the Minister of the Environment was called upon to put his money where his mouth is. Next week some national organizations will be coming to Ottawa. They have heard the rhetoric and they have been impressed with the vast promises and the anticipation of the Minister of the Environment, but he has not delivered the goods on every single major issue, including the importation of legal and illegal waste into the country.
Statements by Ministers
On Thursday, the very day that I was questioning the Minister in the House, his own officials and his own Government were trying to put the boots to a Washington initiative to put limitations on the exportation of hazardous waste into Canada.
Therefore, let us not only talk about the environment and not only celebrate Environment Week, but also make sure that government policy reflects the type of sustainable development commitment that was originally enshrined in the Brundtland report, and which the Minister is talking about on an ongoing basis.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on June 5, the World Environment Day and also the first day of Canada's National Environment Week.
Many Members of the House wanted Our Common Future to be played on every broadcasting system in the country on Saturday. Many Canadians could have benefited from an opportunity to view Our Common Future. I would hope if another opportunity does arise that the Ministers of the Crown will ensure that such broadcasting is made widely available from East to West and North to South.
The Minister touched on a couple of matters. I would like to touch on some specifics. There is a great deal that the Minister and the Government can and must do. I issue two challenges today on the first day of Canada's Environment Week, one to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and to Canada, and one to you, Mr. Speaker, that I will come to in a moment.
In terms of legislation there are a number of things that the Minister of the Environment must do. One is an environmental Bill of Rights. There must be amendments to Canada's Constitution on aboriginal rights to recognize the First Nations as founding nations of Canada. The Access to Information Act must be changed. There is no other field in greater need of access to information under federal law than in the environment. I would hope that the Minister of the Environment will see that the more than 100 unanimously recommended amendments that were made in the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General two years ago are brought before the House this month.

June 5, 1989
Statements by Ministers
There must be a full environmental assessment and review. We know that the Environmental Assessment Review Process legislation is complete. It is sitting over at the federal environmental assessment review office and I would hope that the Minister will make it publicly available for assessment and review before bringing it before the House.
On crimes against the environment, Canada's Criminal Code must be amended to take into account the web of offences such as we have learned recently in terms of the addition of things like PCBs into fuel. There were nine million litres blended with gas in the U.S. and Canada and sold to unsuspecting consumers and buyers over the last year and a half.
There must be an environmental auditor. I would hope the Minister would ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) openly supports that very soon. There should be a toxic substances inventory. There are now a 100,000 chemicals moving around in our enviornment. The 44 members on the toxic substances list are not enough. There must be a national inventory.
There must also be a national resources inventory of everything from forests and plants to mammals and fish. That is absolutely fundamental. A store cannot be run without knowing what the inventory is. A country must have a national inventory.
There must be fine-splitting in all forms of federal legislation. It is in the Fisheries Act and it should be introduced into CEPA and into all other federal regulations and law in order that the public knows there is a benefit, whether they are a worker in a facility or someone living in a community, to making sure that the environment is kept clean. That could be accomplished through fine splitting, making sure that those who participate in prosecutions receive half the benefit of the fine brought forward by the court.
There must be whistle-blowers' legislation, something that Parliament has talked about for a long time but must soon do. We have to have a super fund, the same as the United States, to clean up the past errors. Soon enough we will have to make moves on the international scene in terms of an international super fund to start cleaning up areas of the developing world that have been used as toxic and hazardous waste dumps and some other things during this particularly unethical period of human history-
There must be legislative, professional and ethical guidelines, something I will talk about later today. There must be a safe drinking water act. I understand the Minister plans to bring that forward this year. Canadians all look forward to it with bated breath. There also must be a clean air act. I would hope the Minister would move on that. There must be a national Act to protect endangered species.
The Minister knows, despite what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had to say, that this year there will be $15.8 million less available for Environment Canada than there was in 1984. We are not going forward in terms of the level of funds that are required. We require at least 1 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product directed specifically to the environment. I hope the Minister picks that up later today as his target and that of his Department.
Twelve per cent of Canada's land and marine areas must be set aside for conservation. Perhaps our generation and in fact this Parliament, may be the last to have the opportunity to do so.
It will be a pleasure later today to hear President Kaunda speak. There are many African nations such as Tanzania that have set aside 17 per cent of their land base. Our whole national parks system consists of only 1.3 per cent of Canada lands. Many developing countries have done far better than us.
Let me spend a moment on you, Mr. Speaker, because I issued this as a double-barrelled blow today: One, to the Minister and the Government for things they can do, and second, to the Hill. The very first place that the principles of the Brundtland report must be applied and implemented is right here on Parliament Hill.
The buildings and the grounds are known from coast to coast as a symbol of Canada's parliamentary democracy and should be formally designated an environmentally friendly zone. Every aspect of our operation should conform to the principles of sustainable development. This would entail the purchase of only recycled or environmentally healthy products, the use of unbleached paper products, the banning of plastic cutlery and styrofoam cups from all restaurants and cafeterias, the use of non-toxic cleaning products and the grounds of Parliament Hill should be maintained using environmentally sound pest management techniques. More trees should be planted, buildings and facilities should be examined and altered where necessary to provide everything from the removal of dangerous building materials to secure parking facilities for bicycles. Parliament Hill should
June 5, 1989

become a model of the sustainable community and an example for the rest of Canada and the world, of how Canada's elected representatives can put their own house in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


BILL C-ll PRESENTATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report, in both official languages, of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of the Port of Churchill. They are signed by people from Winnipeg, Ochre River, Makanac, Ontario, Dauphin, Thompson, Russell, Binfcarth, Burchill, Saskatchewan, Penticton, B.C., Beausejour, Pine Falls, Pinawa, Garson, Dencross, Tyndall, Selkirk, Lac du Bonnet, Flin Flon, and The Pas.
In their petition, the people humbly call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board ensures that at least 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the Port of Churchill and the Government aggressively pursue additional ways to utilize this important seaport to ship exports other than grain.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to table a petition that has been certified correct according to Standing Order 36. The petition which is signed by a number of residents in the Windsor area raises their concern about the
future of rail passenger services in this country. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation. I wish, Mr. Speaker, the Government would finally listen.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified and signed by residents of Canada in the Windsor area expressing their concerns about VIA Rail and its future. In fact they call for an effective, efficient and economic VIA Rail, a triple-E VIA Rail and I hope the Government will listen to their message.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that there are applications for an emergency debate from the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kil-gour) received in that order. I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised you by letter that today I would rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing concern.

June 5, 1989
This past weekend the world has learned of events in China which call for a re-evaluation of our relationship with that government, the future of Chinese citizens currently living in Canada on student and other visas and the need for a quick international response. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure a full and public debate on the options available to Canada and Canadians in response to the widespread violations of human rights by the Chinese Government toward the people of Beijing. For that reason I respectfully request an adjournment of this House for an emergency debate on this important issue.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the turmoil in China and the danger it poses to Canadians in China and the consequences for Canada's relationship with that country.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 and to a letter you have received earlier, I would move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley North (Ms. Greene), that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the unprecedented crisis and violence in the People's Republic of China.
One of the criteria. Sir, that you must use in deciding whether to allow such a debate is that the matter falls within the ability of Canada to do something about it. Our Government can do a number of things to indicate the outrage of Canadians generally at the senseless bloodbath in the streets of Beijing and horrors which appear to continue as we speak here.
First, there is the safety of all Canadians now present in the People's Republic. I understand that is an estimated 101 diplomats and dependents, 600 to 700 Canadian citizens and the indicated bedlam at the Beijing Airport.
Second, there is our ambassador and other officials at our embassy. Some or all of these could be called back to
Canada, at least until the killing stops, in order to show that Canadians are outraged at the treatment of nonviolent unarmed protesters.
There is our official assistance, which according to the Canadian International Development Agency as of this morning, last year amounted to $32.5 million in technical assistance and training.
Third, there is the concern of the estimated 360,000 Canadians of origin in China, many of whom I believe reside in your constituency, with both family in Beijing and elsewhere in China where violence is still occurring against dissenting civilians. Canadians of every origin must be fully in support of their fellow citizens of origin in China. There were demonstrations, yesterday, including in Vancouver where approximately 100,000 Canadians of origin in China live. There were demonstrations in Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and more than 15,000 people in Toronto alone. There are also many hundreds of students of origin in China studying in this country.
You are required, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether the situation constitutes a genuine emergency. No one in any country with a free media can have the slightest doubt as to the severity of the crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he has gone perhaps further than he needs in the application. I do not need to hear anything further.
First, I want to thank the three Hon. Members who have risen on this matter. All the applications are on the same issue. They meet the conditions of the Standing Order and, therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 52(9) this matter will be considered later this day at eight o'clock p.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]
I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement. Government Orders will be extended 18 minutes past one o'clock today.
June 5, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to place before the House today for second reading a Bill to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the decision announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his recent Budget to terminate CEDIP incentives on April 27, 1989, except for certain activities under way or required to be undertaken pursuant to written agreements as of that date.
It is important that we all understand the context in which the decision was taken to terminate CEDIP. Canada has a serious deficit problem. The national debt is growing more rapidly than our national income. Despite some tough measures by the Government over its last term in office, that debt is continuing to grow.
As Members of the House will know, as of April 1, 1989, at the beginning of this fiscal year, the debt stood at $320 billion. The Government has recognized the threat posed by the growing burden of public debt, and the 1989 Budget announced reductions in government spending affecting a wide range of programs including CEDIP.
These budget measures reflect the seriousness of the deficit problem. Tough action was called for in curtailing program expenditures, and difficult decisions had to be made. CEDIP was created in March, 1987 in response to the devastating impact uncertain world oil prices were having on the oil and gas industry in general and the economy of western Canada in particular.
We had announced as a Government the Western Energy Accord early in 1985, and it set in motion a process of deregulating the oil and gas industry within a
Exploration and Development
market oriented policy framework. This was welcomed not only by the oil and gas industry but by those producing areas of the country that knew we had to move toward a market oriented approach.
We also knew the devastation the National Energy Program had on exploration, on incentives, on initiatives, and on investment. We also knew the unfairness of it, particularly in the producing areas of our country.
Step after purposeful step was taken to dismantle the National Energy Program and to lift the weight of government intervention which had stifled entrepreneurial drive. The response from the oil and gas industry was immediate. They were true to their word. In 1985 records were set for industry investment and drilling activity. However, the collapse of world oil prices in 1986 from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel cut short the renewal which had been taking place.
The Government of Canada was sensitive to the disruption caused by the precipitous fall in oil prices, and industry needed a bridge to get it across the short-term difficulties it was facing. CEDIP was that bridge. A number of Members on both sides of the House were active in developing the terms for that bridge.
It was introduced as a temporary safety net, a safety net designed to assist the petroleum industries and to maintain upstream employment and investment.
CEDIP provided cash when it was desperately needed to stabilize exploration and development activity. The program also provided time for industry to adjust its investment plans to meet market conditions. The program was especially designed to help that part of the sector facing the most difficulty, the smaller and medium sized companies, many of which are Canadian owned. It was for this reason that entitlement under the program was capped at $10 million in expenses per company per year.
I should also say that there has been criticism that this money has gone primarily to the large companies. I can show Members later that that criticism, at least in some measure, is not valid.
Let me describe how events unfolded since the program was announced. Clearly, CEDIP has been successful in its objectives. Current projections are that the

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
program will have provided more than $1.2 billion to industry over its life of little more than a year and a half.
It should also be noted that the Government and those who designed the program were estimating annualized costs of approximately $345 million or approximately $690 million to $700 million over the 24-month period. That cost is now projected to be $1,245 billion over the period of this program, that is, with the passage of this Bill.
The program will have supported over $3.7 billion in exploration and development activity, the bulk of that activity being in western Canada. For 1987 and 1988, the first year of CEDIP and the only one for which the deadline on applications has lapsed, industry will have been provided with $500 million in incentives, $150 million more than anticipated. It is also noteworthy that most of this increase was directed to those applicants spending less than the $10 million annual limit. It bears out that the program has benefited smaller firms more than the larger firms. In fact, roughly 59 per cent of the incentives for 1987 and 1988 will go to below limit applicants, even though such firms accounted for only 25 per cent of total exploration and development spending.
The Government believes that it is a good record, a record of accomplishments for the petroleum sector to which the petroleum sector responded after it had made very strong representations to the Government that it had to move toward a market oriented approach to the oil and gas industry. It has demonstrated the benefits of a less intrusive, more market oriented approach designed toward success.
The National Energy Program has been dismantled, as has the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The market oriented approach is also reflected in the initiative to deregulate gas markets, early removal of the PGRT, and efforts to open markets for oil and gas production.
We intend to stay the course in advancing the agenda begun last term, confident that a market oriented approach will best position industry to meet the challenges that come from the market-place.
What of the health of the oil and gas industry itself? Clearly all is not completely rosy out there in the oil patch. The first quarter of this year was one of the
poorest quarters of drilling activity in recent years;that at a time when CEDIP was available. A number of market conditions contribute to this situation, including transportation bottlenecks, low gas prices, and some uncertainty over how well and how long the current world oil price of roughly $20 a barrel will hold.
As well, we have witnessed a major restructuring in the industry through acquisitions and mergers which, in the short term at least, has reduced activity levels and led to a further rationalization of investment decisions.
Nonetheless, over the last few years industry has strengthened its over-all financial position. It has developed a cautious approach in taking on major investments. Many companies have reduced their debt load and have increased the efficiency of their operations through cost reduction and other means. They are better poised today than two years ago to deal with market conditions and to take advantage of opportunities as and when they present themselves.
The Government's policy of non-intervention does not mean the absence of responsibility or a role for government. Indeed, we will continue to work closely with industry in addressing its concerns with the market oriented framework.
However, faced with competing priorities, this Government must also choose courses of action which respond to the national interest. That was the case with the decision to terminate CEDIP.
The termination of CEDIP will save the Government a projected $80 million. We have instituted grandfathering provisions with a view to honouring activities under way or committed to underwritten agreements. This grandfathering regime will cushion the impact of program termination. Incentives will be provided on grandfathered activities through December 31, 1989 when the program will be completely terminated.
The grandfathering regime will help many companies. Yet, we fully realize that by asking the oil patch to contribute $80 million toward the deficit, some companies will have more difficulty than others in adjusting their investment plans accordingly.
What I want to emphasize is that it is money that the companies did not have, money the companies did not have to spend. It was an expenditure of the Government of Canada. I believe when I look at the incentives or the
June 5, 1989

projections as against the total amount invested by the Government of Canada that we have been fair.
We have made the decision to terminate CEDIP. I have said to the oil industry-and I have met with the industry and others in the mineral field-that it was not an easy decision to take but I believe it was the correct one. I have also been pleased with the response of the industry. The industry has been saying that while it would like to see in present circumstances possibly other decisions, it understands the over-all need by the Government of Canada to tackle both the deficit and the debt.
We know that the oil and gas industry would like to have had more notice provided on this decision. We also have to recognize that in a demand driven program, as this one was, decisions have to be made and they require a terminal date. It was for that reason that notice was not given. I think the House understands that as well.
I would thank the House for the time to explain CEDIP and Bill C-19. I would ask the House to demonstrate its commitment to deficit reduction by passing the Bill at second reading.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, because what the Government is proposing is one of the greatest injustices perpetuated on the oil and gas sector in many, many years. I say that knowing of the National Energy Program and that the Liberal Government suffered as a result of it. However, if they listen they will find out exactly what their Government is doing to the energy sector in western Canada.
The conventional oil and gas industry is now going through one of the most difficult times in its history. For the small companies, for the drillers, for the service industry, it is the most difficult time in its history. In the second quarter of 1989 the drilling industry was predicting that 171 wells would be drilled.This was its projection in March-171 wells.
Within one month, the industry reduced that projection by almost 50 per cent, to 89 wells drilled in the second quarter of 1989, which is only 17 per cent of the wells available for drilling in western Canada. That is almost half the number of wells drilled in 1988, which in itself was not a good year. That means that this year over last year, which was not a good year, there will be as
Exploration and Development
many as 6,000 fewer people working in the energy sector in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
In light of that, why was the Canadian Energy Production Incentive Program cancelled? Why was CEDIP cancelled? The Minister stated: "Well, it was not an easy decision but it was a correct one." It was obviously a sudden one for the Minister because he was in Calgary on April 5 of this year and said that this program would continue until the end of the year. Some 22 days later, on April 27, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget said that CEDIP was to be cancelled at that very time. It was obviously a very sudden decision that was imposed on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp).
I do not believe that the Minister of Energy would mislead people in western Canada. I think the Government is cutting the legs out from underneath the Minister of Energy and the whole oil and gas industry. We are seeing here an attempt to try to fix in the minds of people in western Canada that everything is going well in the oil and gas sector in western Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Government states that it is to save $80 million by cancelling the CEDIP on April 27. The drilling sector states that in order for the Government to save $80 million there is to be a reduction in spending of $450 million. They say that $450 million has to be spent for the energy sector to be able to claim $80 million under the CEDIP. One heck of a lot of activity in the western sedimentary basin is going to be cancelled at a time when it looks like there is to be 6,000 people out of work in the oil and gas sector. These reductions are to be in the sectors that can least afford to suffer these kinds of reductions in employment.
The Government is going to state: "Well, we spent $1.2 billion in a little over a year and a half. Aren't we great?" The Minister states that he was to tell us that it was not the major companies that received this funding,we never did receive that information. The Government spent $1.2 billion, over 85 per cent of which went to the large companies.
In fact, 90 per cent of the companies that applied for funding under the CEDIP received less than 15 per cent of the financing. It is absolutely incredible that the smaller companies, which in the Minister's own words

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
were targeted for the benefits of this program, would receive less than 15 per cent of the actual benefits of the program.
If the Government reduced the ceiling of the program from $10 million that would be available for a company to $1 million instead of cancelling it, it could still satisfy 90 per cent of the claims and save 65 per cent of the funding. Yet the Government will not do that at a time when activity in the western sedimentary basin in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the conventional oil sector is at the lowest it has ever been, with projections getting worse each passing day.
The Minister said that he has figures which indicate that the smaller companies received much of the benefits. I am asking the Minister to make those figures public. We certainly cannot get them through the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources because the Government, the Chairman, or somebody refuses to allow the committee to meet.
There have been two meetings of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources thus far. The first was an organizational meeting. The second was also an organizational meeting which was held because the Chairman forgot to submit the seven names and alternates. Thus we had to have a second meeting to reappoint him as Chairman. That has been the sole activity of the standing committee. What a full calendar this committee has had. What a veritable brain thrust of activities is being contributed by the Government into the very important issue of energy, mines and resources. Of course the Government does not want the people of Canada to know the precarious state of the oil and gas industry at this particular time.
The Minister has said that we do not need CEDIP any more, that prices have gone up. The Minister and the Government know very well that the small companies are having a tremendously difficult time in obtaining funding and that they are still suffering from the time when they borrowed large amounts of money in the early 1980s when the banks were left with some bad accounts. These small companies are having a difficult time raising money. That is why CEDIP was so important.
It was important even though the Government reduced the amount from 33 and one-third per cent last
October and stated that it would reduce it again on the first of July to 16 and two-thirds per cent and then cancel it at the end of the year. At least it was something that the small companies could use for a projection. However, to cancel it at the date of the Budget left the small companies without an opportunity to take advantage of the phasing out period.
The Minister and the Government did this when they knew they were obligated under the regulations in the Act to give a six-month notification period of the cancellation of the Act. Yet the Government still cancelled the provisions of this Act at the date of the Budget without any warning whatsoever.
We do not have CEDIP any more. One could say that in its largess the Government has showered the oil and gas industry with opportunity to get out of this most difficult time in which it finds itself. One could say that it has done an awful lot. One could say that there is the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program. One may say that this is marvellous because the companies have the right to make application under CEDIP. However, CEDIP was set up for the mining industry. At the urging of some of the back-benchers from western Canada the Government included the oil and gas industry at the last moment.
However, it created a catch-22 situation for the oil and gas sector. The Government put in place an exploration definition clause which is retroactive. Now a company can drill for oil and gas and actually receive funding under the CEDIP. Later the Government can designate the result as not a bona fide well for exploration and ask the company to pay the funds back with interest.
How many companies will ask for a rebate under the program only to have to pay it back later on with interest? If that is help then it is akin to the sort of help one gives by throwing an anvil to a drowning man.
Let us consider other matters. Perhaps there is something that the Government has done to help the oil and gas industry and in particular small companies. There is in the Budget what is called the large corporations tax. It is a good idea to tax large corporations and make sure that there is something coming in from some of these companies that like to put money where Governments cannot get at it. I think that is good. However, once again in its ignorance of the oil and gas industry the Govern-
June 5, 1989

ment has failed to see the damage that it has done to small companies.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Andre) is in the House. He is from Calgary. He does not even know the damage that this measure is doing. If he does not know, what chance does the poor Minister of Finance have in terms of knowing anything about damage to the country and Canadians?
The fact is that if the Minister of Finance knew anything about damage to the country and to Canadians, we would not be in the mess we are in right now with this absolutely Draconian Budget that is devastating the small business sector and low and middle income Canadians.
The Minister of Finance in his wisdom has said that the junior resource companies, as he calls them, are not liable for this tax because it does not affect companies with less than $10 million in corporate capitalization. He says that in complete ignorance of the oil and gas industry. Any company in the oil and gas industry with less than approximately $25 million in capital would consider itself as an emerging player. I do not think it would be enough cash flow to sustain a company.
Independent and small oil and gas companies are small businesses with a capital risk exposure that would be considered insane by a small machine shop, for instance, in southern Ontario. There is no comparison to be made between small oil and gas companies and small manufacturing companies. Yet the Minister of Finance has refused to acknowledge that, or he has not taken the time to find out the differences. The Minister of Finance was the energy critic for his Party between 1980 and 1984. Yet he shows an abysmal ignorance of the oil and gas sector.
The capital base of a small resource producer is entirely different from that of a manufacturing company. The problem is that we now have this taxing of small oil and gas companies when they are not making any money. They are not working because they cannot borrow money. The Government has cut the knees out from under them with the cancellation of the CEDIP and other retrogressive tax measures. They cannot explore or do anything. Yet they are still paying this tax because they are companies with capitalization of over $10 million. What this amounts to is a tax on the assets of the company. It is not a tax on revenue as was the PORT,
Exploration and Development
which was hated in the oil and gas sector. This is a tax on the very assets of a company.
I wish to quote from a letter dated May 9 written by the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. Regarding the large corporation tax it is stated: "It is really a tax on assets, productive or not, and is more oppressive than the hated tax on revenue, the PGRT, under the National Energy Program". So this is the opinion of the energy sector, of the small companies that the CEDIP program was supposed to help, saying that the Government's policies to the oil and gas sector in western Canada are worse than the PGRT was under the National Energy Program. I can imagine that there is not one company in western Canada which believed it would say that about something this Government was going to do relating to oil and gas, this Government that takes such pride in developing the western accord and the American oriented system.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) says the Government cannot continue to give funding under the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, under CEDIP, because it has developed an American economy in the oil and gas sector. This is the same market economy that will be financing Oslo, the same market economy that will be financing the Husky upgrader. This is the same economy that presumably will be funding the Hibernia project. This is the American economy of this Government.
When it comes to the majors and multinationals, it is not a market economy. When it comes to jobs in the western sedimentary basin, to the small producers, to the drillers, to the service industries, suddenly it is a market economy in the oil and gas sector. This is absolutely incredible. It is a sham being perpetuated on the small companies, the service industries and drilling companies in western Canada.
What is going to happen with this assets tax which is supposed to be something that the Government feels is not going to hurt western Canada? The small companies that are not generating capital and having to pay a tax on their assets will have to sell their reserves to pay the tax. There we have the master plan of this Government: Get rid of the little companies, the small little companies that are a nuisance that are actually doing one-third of all the drilling in western Canada in the conventional sector. Get rid of them. Have them sell their reserves to the larger companies. The Government will only deal

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
with the big players, the big guys, the ones that count with the Government. Then it will be as the Government's philosophy would have us believe that only the large companies can make it. The small companies cannot make it. The reason they cannot make it is because they are being sabotaged by their own federal Government.
We have seen what the large companies have done. We have seen this only too well. If the small companies are going to be forced to sell their reserves to the major companies, then, of course, there will be failures of the smaller companies and their reserves in the hands of the larger companies. This has been going on since this Government took office.
The Government is saying that the market system that works for the big companies is great and that it will generate more activity. The smaller companies are not drilling because they cannot raise the money. The banks will not give them the funding and the Government is taking away what incentive programs they had.
The question is, why are the large companies not drilling? Why is drilling down? These large companies that are declaring hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year, why are they not drilling? The Minister stated that prices are supposedly up. So, why are they not drilling? Because they are not exploring for product. They are buying product through mergers. That way they can sit in their offices with their feet on the desk, lay off their geologists and seismic people, reduce their staff, save money and buy product. They just shuffle paper. This saves a lot of trouble. They don't have to get their feet dirty and muddy by going out into the oil patch to explore. They can just sit in their offices and buy and merge.
This is like a big monopoly game for these big boys. They just sit away while people in the service industries and drilling companies lose their jobs or go somewhere else. They can leave western Canada and perhaps go North to the pulp and paper industry. The prices charged by the drilling companies and service industries go down because so many of them have to compete for a smaller
chunk of the business. The actual standard of living for the people working in the oil patch, which was improving, has declined. They have to wreck their trucks on poorly prepared roads. They buy their own clothes. They do not sleep in mobile units now. Some of them sleep in their pick-up trucks.
This is what this Government is doing. It is fine for the big companies and the executives, but what they are doing to the workers in the oil and gas sector, Mr. Speaker, is a travesty.
Let me just give some figures of the mergers that took place. We have had six major mergers. There is the three-company merger of Sceptre, Oakwood and SO-QUIP which drilled 81 wells in 1987 and 116 in 1988. That group that was up 30 per cent in their drilling. That is one of the two increases. The other one was Husky and Canterra which drilled, in 1987, 154 wells and 185 in 1988. That is not to say what the situation is going to be in the first quarter. In week eight of this year as opposed to week eight of last year, the drilling in 1988 was 10 wells. This year with Husky and Canterra it is one well.
The merger of Amoco and Dome is an indication of what will happen. In 1987, those two companies drilled a total of 315 wells. In 1988, they drilled 256 wells; a decline of 23 per cent in drilling. In 1987, Esso, Sulpetro and Ocelot drilled 743 wells. After the merger in 1988, they drilled 407. That is a decline of 83 per cent. In 1987, Poco and Bonanza drilled 203 wells. Last year, it was 56 wells. That is a decrease of 262 per cent. In 1987, Westcoast and Canadian Roxy drilled 56 wells and last year, 45. That is a decline of 24 per cent.
Regardless of what the companies say when they merge-and they all say that this puts them in a better position to use the lands and to do more drilling-that the tendency is away from further drilling because they have used their resources to buy product. They are not drilling for product.
What about another tax, the Canadian goods and services tax? That is going to be very interesting because this tax is not going to apply for Canadian oil and gas that is exported, but it will apply for Canadian oil and gas that is consumed in Canada. This is something that is going to
June 5, 1989

be very interesting to the consumers of Canada when it finally hits home.
I hate to think that the Government would know so little about such an important resource sector of this country. The Government refuses to realize that by promoting the tendency away from drilling and exploration that it is going to eventually kill the conventional oil and gas sector in Canada, because as the activity is reduced, more and more people are going to leave the oil patch and go into the new pulp and paper activity that is being created in northern Alberta. They are going to go to the labour-short manufacturing industries in southern Ontario. They are going to get tired of sleeping in their pick-up trucks.
The small companies that cannot raise money are gradually going to go under. They are going to have to sell their reserves to pay this asset tax that the Government has imposed. That is not progress, Mr. Speaker. The catchword phrase that the Conservatives used between 1980 and 1984 was that the Government was picking winners and losers, when referring to the former Liberal Government. That is exactly what the Tory Government is doing right now. It is putting big bucks in megaprojects, and I am not opposed to that. If the Government wants to finance megaprojects that is its choice, but it should not be done at the expense of sabotaging the conventional oil and gas sector. The present Government criticized the former Liberal Government for diverting activity away from the conventional oil and gas sector, from the western sedimentary basin, and this is exactly what the Government is doing now, and to an extent and at a rate that was unprecedented during the National Energy Program.
The activity in the western sedimentary basin was never as low or as bad during the National Energy Program as it is today. It is still getting worse. How long can the oil and gas sector even keep a fraction of its employment if all the major companies are going to buy the reserves instead of exploring for reserves.
I cannot accept the absolute decimation of the oil and gas sector in western Canada. It is completely without any feeling on the part of the Government. Then I say to myself that feeling about people and about the regions of the country is not something the Government is very
Exploration and Development
strong on. I know first-hand what the Government has done to Atlantic Canada.
I can only hope that the Government changes its ways, that it puts back the CEDIP program with a ceiling of $1 million, services 90 per cent of the applications, in particular those from small companies, that it gets some activity going in the western sedimentary basin, stops stifling this activity and stops promoting higher levels of unemployment in the oil and gas sector. The only hope that we can possibly generate is that Members of the Government are going to change their minds because what they are doing now is counter-productive to the process and counter-productive to a healthy oil and gas sector in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to advise the Hon. Member for Edmonton East that we are on Standing Order 74. The first three speakers will have 40 minutes with no questions or comments, then after that we go into an eight-hour debate with 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East has 40 minutes.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am still learning some of the intricacies of this institution and I appreciate your advice.
I am pleased today to rise in the debate on Bill C-19 which, in the view of some, would prematurely conclude the life of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act. At the outset, I am delighted that the Minister responsible appears to intend to stay in the House for the entire debate. That is commendable, and I congratulate him for doing so. I would note with some astonishment that the only Members of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources present for the debate are the Opposition Members.


Mr. McDermid:: Order!


Ross Harvey: That is an observation on who is present, not on who is absent. I thank the Hon. Member. I find that absolutely astonishing. However, perhaps that is in keeping with the record of the committee to date.
CEDIP was first introduced effective April 1, 1987 to help the oil and gas industry overcome the decline in oil and gas prices and the impact of that decline on employment and investment, particularly in western Canada.

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
The second half of the 1980s have not been kind to Alberta in particular, and the western sedimentary basin generally. Living in Edmonton, I have seen the effects of the precipitous decline in oil prices at the time when Canada under Conservative Governments, federally and provincially, chose to go to a deregulated market. I have seen neighbourhoods devastated by unemployment. I have seen my own friends forced to abandon homes and move elsewhere. I have seen small businesses go bankrupt because communities they served no longer had the money to buy in those small businesses. I have seen what amounts to a devastation of entire communities in Edmonton, devastation which I am certain was reproduced throughout the Province of Alberta.
I have certainly seen an operating deficit in the provincial Government of Alberta, something which would have been inconceivable in the early part of the 1980s. I have seen the operating deficit in the Province of Alberta accumulate to somewhere between $6 billion to $7 billion in the fiscal year concluded March 31, of this year. We are looking forward to a provincial budget in Alberta on Thursday. Goodness knows what type of deficit we will find then, all because of the collapse in prices and hence the collapse of royalty and taxation revenues from the oil and gas sector.
There is no question that CEDIP was introduced to address the carnage in the oil patch and in the gas exploration industry occasioned by the collapse in prices. That is why all three political parties supported the Bill when it was introduced, and co-operated fully in ensuring its quick passage on June 10, 1987. The Opposition did chide the Government for taking so long to introduce it, given the devastation in the oil patch at that time, and pointed out that the Bill was in conflict with the Government's market-place ideology. I am certain that is a point that will be emphasized from time to time today.
As reported at page 6971 of Hansard. June 10, 1987, our then energy critic, the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) stated:
I should like to say that I am cautiously optimistic that the Bill will work. It favours smaller companies. It focuses on grants rather than on tax incentives, allowing some of the smaller companies which do not pay taxes to benefit. It acknowledges the plight of small oil companies as a national issue. It is a national problem about which we all must talk.
It is still short-term. The long-term solution is to diversify the western economy-no mean feat but something which must be done-away from total dependence upon oil, but oil being a major part of it.
At the introduction of the Bill in 1987 it did enjoy the support of all Members in the Commons, and rightly so. It was a response, in part at least, to the devastation that gripped Alberta and the western sedimentary basin in general.
The point I wish to make today is that that devastation has not subsided. If anything, it has deepened. We all know that the price of oil in the last little while has gone up. The West Texas intermediate price has continually hovered around $20 a barrel. We also know that that has not translated into increased exploration and drilling activity in the western sedimentary basin. We may speculate as to why that is the case. The chief speculation seems to be that no one believes that price is going to stay there. Everyone believes that drilling undertaken now simply would not be economically sustainable.
I am in no position to quarrel with that estimation by the patch. I assume it to be correct. I assume that on the basis of straight forward market economics there is no good argument for extensive drilling and exploration at this time. It is the same situation as in 1986 to which CEDIP was the response in 1987.
Rig utilization was at a decade low in 1986 immediately before CEDIP was introduced. Only 35 per cent of the available rigs were drilling. In 1987 rig utilization was 37 per cent rising to 41 per cent in 1988. There is no question that CEDIP, and also some of the provincial programs did have a positive effect in the patch. For that the Government is to be commended. I congratulate the Government on that.
Spring is traditionally a time of low utilization. This spring has been much worse than expected. The president of the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, Mr. Brian Krausert-by the way, hereafter in my remarks I will use the abbreviation of that organization, CAODC-recently stated the following. This is from the Edmonton Journal of May 26, 1989:
We have just come through the worst period in our recorded history.
The spring has been truly ugly.
June 5, 1989

At the end of May only 84 rigs were drilling in western Canada, a 60 per cent drop from the same period last year, a plunge the CAODC estimates has cost 17,000 direct and indirect jobs in the oil patch. Do not forget that this comes on top of 25 to 40,000 jobs lost as a result of the carnage of 1986.
The projections for the summer of 1989 were grim even before CEDIP was ended. CAODC forecast that only 40 per cent of rigs in western Canada would be drilling in the first quarter of 1989, only 29 per cent, about 153 rigs, in the second quarter, 28 per cent in the third and 48 per cent in the fourth. That was before the Budget and before CEDIP was prematurely ended. After the announcement that CEDIP was to be ended ahead of time, Don Herring, the managing director of CAODC said that even these low estimates would have to be revised. The Calgary Sun of May 12 states:
Now we will have to revise that figure downward.
Many companies are on the brink of bankruptcy and many oil and gas producers are holding back until June's OPEC meeting on quotas and prices hoping against hope that some firm commitment by the world's oil producers will be made to raise and hold up the price of oil, and hence of gas, at a level which will result in economic drilling activity in the western sedimentary basin. I must say that hope seems not to be shared by the forecasters in the majors and is perhaps a hope, we pray not, but perhaps a hope doomed to be dashed as a consequence of the results of that OPEC meeting.
The early cancellation of CEDIP simply means less activity and fewer jobs. There can be no question of that. The early cancellation of CEDIP represents the withdrawal of a planned $80 million investment in the western sedimentary basin. CAODC estimates that the maximum impact of this could be a decline in activity of a further 50 rigs representing a loss in employment of up to 1,500 people on the rig floor and up to 3,700 jobs at the lease.
I was interested earlier this morning to hear the remarks of the Minister when he said-I believe I have got this quote correct-"I have been pleased with the response of the industry". Now perhaps the Minister was speaking of a certain sector of the industry but that part of the industry with which I have been in contact has conveyed to me a response which I had assumed would not please the Minister, unless the Minister is enamoured of truly negative responses. For example, the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada wrote to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to express their concerns about the Budget and the early elimina-
Exploration and Development
tion of CEDIP. In their letter of May 9, Corey Heeren-sperger, the chairman of the SEPAC stated that:
The abrupt termination of the CEDIP program by the Government, which will be borne solely by the independent Canadian junior oil company, and the introduction of new taxes on the industry have eliminated at least $250 million in planned capital investment in the conventional oil and gas industry. It puts in jeopardy thousands of jobs in small exploration and producing companies as well as the service sector that conduct about one-third of the activity in the western Canadian sedimentary basin. It is unfair-
The thing we must bear in mind is that the cancellation of the CEDIP program now, the lack of any replacement for it either at the federal or provincial level, and continuing hard, low prices for oil can only result in the dismantling of the exploration and development industry in the western sedimentary basin.
That is not going to greatly hurt the oil majors that are continuing to reap substantial profits out of Canadian energy. There can be no doubt, when the price collapse hit in 1986, they simply transferred their profit-taking from their upstream operations, their oil patch operations, to their downstream operations, their refining and sales operations. The oil majors in consequence have not suffered greatly in the face of this devastating collapse of Canadian prices. There is no reason to believe they will suffer now. They have been able to maintain the very high pump price for gasoline in Canada that is the source now of their profits.
That cannot be said of the small independent Canadian companies that constitute the bulk of the companies engaged in exploration and development in the western sedimentary basin. They are going to be hit harder still in the face of the cancellation of CEDIP. They are going to go out of business. Thousands of jobs will be lost. Expertise will be lost. Capital equipment will be lost. These things will not be easily replaced. If I can issue one warning to Canada in this debate today, it is this. Beware of allowing the skill and capital that exists in the oil exploration and development industry in western Canada now to be eroded or lost because it will be needed again. There will be a time when again it becomes economic to explore and indeed becomes necessary for Canada's energy security to explore, and thus rebuild the

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
industry at that time from the paucious level to which it will have been forced.
It will be an extremely difficult and expensive proposition. We can avoid that in the future by maintaining what we have of the industry now. But in the absence of effective price supports, the only way we will be able to maintain that industry is through some kind of public support.
Whether or not a government is ideologically opposed to such support, to such intervention, is utterly beside the point. The question before us is the maintenance of an effective Canadian energy industry. That is the only question before us and the cancellation of CEDIP does nothing to maintain such an industry. In fact it actively harms that industry.
It is not just a question of the impact on the industry. It is not just a question of how oil patch workers and small independent Canadian companies feel about that elimination. They are indeed distressed by the elimination of CEDIP but I think they are also perhaps even more annoyed by the way the Government went about the elimination.
I would once again note the program was originally announced with much hoopla by the then Minister of Energy, Mr. Masse, in Edmonton on March 25, 1987. He announced that the program would start on April 1 of that year at a rate of 33-1/3 per cent. On October 1,
1988,	the rate would drop to 16-2/3 per cent and the program would eventually terminate on December 31,
1989.
Then came the run-up to the federal election. The Conservatives made announcements relating to Hibernia, Lloydminster, OSLO and the Vancouver Island pipeline. Small producers and Alberta MPs, we presume, joined together at that time to pressure the Government to modify the program which was about to decline in value to give conventional producers in the western sedimentary basin a wee bit of the sugar that was being sprinkled liberally over the other projects. By gosh, that announcement was eventually made. It was made by the Minister, who on September 30, 1988 announced that the program would be phased down less rapidly than originally announced. On October 1, 1988, the rate dropped to 25 per cent rather than 16-2/3 per cent and the drop from 25 per cent to 16-2/3 per cent would be
delayed until July 1, 1989 and that as planned, the program would continue until December 31, 1989. This announcement made it possible for the Minister to claim:
This-(delayed phase-down) will inject a further $80 million into the oil and gas industry.
This revision will lead to an estimated 300 additional wells and will maintain 1,600 "oil patch jobs''.
However, this extra $80 million announced in September before the election was taken away entirely when the Budget was announced last month, after the election. What was given one day was taken away the next, the principal intervening factor apparently being a successful election campaign.
This blatant manipulation was not well received in the oil patch. As was noted in a letter from Corey Heeren-sperger, Chairman of SEPAC, to the Minister of Finance on May 9, 1989:
Based on the Government's November election platform, we were shocked by the manner in which CEDIP was handled. Although the Minister of Energy told the industry in Calgary on April 5, 1989, that CEDIP would end (on December 31, 1989) as planned, this budget terminated the program three weeks later in spite of a negotiated clause in the CEDIP Act that was to provide six months notice of such a change. This action is hardly the encouragement needed to create more investment in western Canada. It is unfair-
I feel somewhat compelled to offer a small warning to my friends on the government benches. Manipulating programs, fudging rules, and not telling the whole truth is an approach to politics that the people of Canada will not tolerate for long. It is a very serious matter when the Government of Canada tries again and again to fool the people who elected it. As has been correctly observed, one can fool some of the people some of the time but keep it up and try to fool all the people and one will find oneself in trouble.
The cancellation of CEDIP will unquestionably hurt Alberta particularly and the western sedimentary basin in general. Even allowing the contention that "the deficit made me do it", the Government may have forgotten other alternatives that should have been entertained. If the Government really felt that cuts had to be made, even after announcing the extra $80 million just before the election, the alternative approach of restricting the cap on the program, which is to say the maximum amount of funds any one company could receive rather
June 5, 1989

than the proportion of expenses that could have been claimed back, deserved serious attention.
I do not know whether or not it was accorded serious attention.Perhaps someone sitting opposite could tell us that, but I would be most interested to learn the reason that proposal was rejected if indeed it was considered. It would have allowed the benefit of the program still to obtain where it was most needed, among the small producers and explorers, while cutting back on the over-all expense of the program if that was the principal concern.
I note that in the national context again we see that the energy market as such is not serving the needs of the Canadian energy industry. It is not serving the needs of the workers employed in that industry. It is not serving the long-term needs of the consumers who buy the products created by that industry.
The market is serving to destroy the exploration and development industry in western Canada. It is serving to eradicate the Canadian section of the industry. It is serving to foster non-productive mergers which in fact are further restricting exploration and development. It is serving to maintain artificially high pump prices in the face of low upstream prices so that the profits of the majors may be maintained at comfortable levels.
The market is not serving the Canadian people. The market is a hindrance. It is a positive problem for the Canadian people. It is only when we understand that we must regulate the energy market for the sake of the people who work in it, for the sake of the people who buy the product, for the sake of the long-term energy security of this country, that we will finally reach a point where we will not have to debate such matters as an incentive program here in the House of Commons and where they will not have to undergo such continuous debates in the Alberta legislature.
What I am saying, as I have been saying long before I was elected to this Chamber, is that we must have a regulated floor price for Canadian energy in Canada. That is the only long-term equitable solution to the problem of price fluctuations that will again and again, if left unchecked, devastate the industry and cause the massive waste of capital.
I realize that it is most unlikely that the Government will agree with me today, however forcefully it might find
Exploration and Development
I have made my remarks, but I would hope by continuing to make the argument in this Chamber I will, over time, contribute to a glimmer of recognition emerging on the benches opposite that perhaps there is reason behind this argument. Perhaps it is in the nature of the Canadian Confederation and its peculiar economic imperatives to require a regulated energy market. Perhaps the free market mythologies that so exorcize our good friends to the south are not directly applicable here in what has been called the northern empire.
This is a debate that will be carried on for some time yet. Perhaps I can just conclude my remarks by noting that this premature cancellation of CEDIP caught the industry unaware. It is a disservice to the industry, will accomplish nothing of positive value, and will actively harm Alberta and the western sedimentary basin. Therefore I would urge all Members to vote against it at this second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Now that we have concluded the first three speakers, we will now enter eight hours of debate with 20-minute speeches and 10-minute periods for questions and comments.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-19, an Act to terminate the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act. That program was put into place by the Conservative Government in 1987 to help small and medium sized firms in the oil and gas industry. The major objective was to encourage exploration and development of new reserves at a time of low world oil prices during a very difficult time for the industry.
I want to quote from Hansard on June 10, 1987, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that time spoke to the Bill. He said:
It will address the devastation experienced by the oil and natural gas producing provinces because of the drastic drop in world oil prices.
It did, by and large. Perhaps the Government is saying that now that prices are up-approximately $20 a barrel-


An Hon. Member:: They are.


Diane Marleau: But these prices certainly were not driven upward so much by market factors as by incidents such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
The industry has no confidence. No one in the industry believes the current price of $20 a barrel will be maintained. Therefore, there is no incentive for investment in the industry.
CEDIP is being cancelled at a time when capital expenditures in the oil and gas industry are at a very low peak. The Government is saying that it is going to be saving $80 million. What are the long-term implications of this saving when we consider that the spending of $80 million in this case would generate $450 million in expenditures in the gas and oil field? That means jobs, and jobs mean tax dollars.
When we look at the effect of these investments and the spin-offs, don't we perhaps think that the $80 million is not being saved at all? Actually, if we had invested the $80 million, we would be returning to the Government by way of tax dollars as much as the original investment.
It is not only that. Let us consider the impact on unemployment that will happen out West. Unemployment will rise. It will be a far bigger cost to this Government, although at this time the Government is saying it is pulling out of unemployment insurance. However, the cost in terms of Government assistance is devastating to any region. When one comes from a region such as northern Ontario, such as I do, one knows what happens when there is massive unemployment. We all know the cost, not just in terms of dollars but in terms of social costs. I would not wish that on any other area of the country.
It appears as if this Government is a Government of big business only. Let us note that all the promises and all grants in the megaprojects are intact. This is good, however, those grants benefit the large multinational corporations. What about the backbone of Canadian business, which is the small businessman? What about that small businessman? Do we have to sacrifice him at all costs? When we have a large corporation, especially in the gas and oil field, it can afford to move their operations to other countries where the business is more profitable. It can afford to wait.
What about the people? How do you explain that to the people of the western provinces? How do we say to them "you belong to this country also" when they are
being ripped off and when the jobs are going? It is a very difficult time. I do not understand why this Government is cancelling CEDIP. It could change it so that it would cost it a lot less and benefit as many people, especially the small independent businessman and the small business person out there. Not only is the Government going to cancel this program, but it is also bringing in the tax on large corporations. In the gas and oil industry, $10 million is not a lot of assets. That is a small corporation in that respect.
These small companies will not be compensated for the huge amounts of up-front capital investment that they are obligated to make to go into the business in the first place. As a result, many of them will go bankrupt. Many of them will just choose not to go into business at all. Therefore, it would all fall back on the large multinational gas and oil corporations.
I am wondering why-and I realize that it has nothing to do with the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) but that it has everything to do with this Government-the Energy, Mines and Resources Committee has had nothing but two organizational meetings. Is it because this Government feels that it is not interested in hearing what the people of Canada have to say about energy, mines and resources? It is appalling. As a new memberl cannot understand it. Other standing committees have met many times. Most of these standing committees have at least dealt with their Estimates.
There has been absolutely nothing, and no formal meeting is scheduled before September. Over and above that, there are no members on this committee from the government side who have been on that committee in the past.
Is it a signal by this Government that it wishes this committee to be ineffective? It is certainly being ineffective the way it stands now. I would certainly request that it perhaps gives some incentive to the chairman, who is a member of its side of the House, to call a formal meeting as quickly as possible. If the chairman is not capable or is not here to call a meeting, then it should ask its vice-chairman to call a meeting as quickly as possible.
It is extremely important that we not neglect-


An Hon. Member:: You want to ask the Minister to stay out of this.
June 5, 1989


Diane Marleau: I did not ask for the Minister to stay out of this particular committee. I asked for the Government to instruct its committee, its chairman.
At any rate, it is extremely important that the committee meet as soon as possible. Considering that the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee belong to that side of the House, I think it might be in order.
I would certainly like to see CEDIP reintroduced, at least with a lower ceiling of $1 million per company. This would satisfy 90 per cent of the applicants and save the Government 85 per cent of the cost of the program. Perhaps the deficit could be helped in that way and still help the people in the constituencies out West. Believe me, when it comes time for another election, they will remember and they might be grateful if they could perhaps be given a bit of a boost, especially the ordinary, every day small producer.
Let us not heighten regional disparity. That is what this Bill does. I believe that the Government knows this. Perhaps that is why, on April 5 or April 6 when there was a speech by the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp), he stated that the Government would not terminate this agreement before December 1989 and that it would honour its commitment.
Not only did the Government not honour its commitment, but in effect it cut off the program as of April 27, despite a negotiated clause in the agreement that said that it would give them some six months' notice before terminating this agreement. It seems very strange to meto negotiate a clause of some kind that states "we are going to give you six months, fellows, to let you know well in advance" and all of a sudden, bingo, it is gone. It is not fair and it is not right, especially when the need is there, and the need is definitely there.
The Government is encouraging the megaprojects. I do not have anything against that. What I am against is the fact that we are forgetting the average Canadian. I would encourage this Government to change its way of thinking.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member if she has taken the time to look into her particular constituency of Sudbury, as I have in mine, just to see the industries that support the oil patch, how many of them are small and medium sized businesses,
Exploration and Development
and the importance of the economic spin-off from energy.
In the riding of Brampton, for example, there are 52 companies. Most of them are small and medium sized companies which supply the oil patch with everything from furniture to valves, to widgets, and so on .It is a fascinating study.
I heard the Hon. Member talking about the megaprojects and how they affect the big guys, how they get all the good things and the little guys do not. My experience has been that the spin-offs from those megaprojects do in fact filter down to the small and medium sized businesses right across this country. I just wonder if the Hon. Member has looked into that matter in her particular constituency.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my idea is to keep the thing going. That is why I am against cancelling CEDIP. In my area I have some experience as to what happens when grants are cut off to the small producers and the small explorers.
In the mining sector, which is what I am comfortable with, when we cancel incentive grants to small explorers we allow the large corporations to buy up all of the work that has been done by the small corporations and to stockpile.
These large corporations do not have to spend their money in a certain area if there is nothing going on in that country. They can afford to move their explorations to Indonesia or wherever they will. There is no guarantee that they will keep those jobs in the area. There is no guarantee that if they are not producing very much in that area they will purchase anything in that area. There are absolutely no guarantees.
I can tell all Hon. Members that the small explorers and the small business people are far more productive and more cost efficient than the companies which engage in large megaprojects. There is a much larger spin-off from every dollar that these small explorers spend in a community than the large megaprojects that in fact have not started up yet. There have been some announcements regarding them but they have not started up.
I like big corporations. However, I believe the backbone of the country is the small business man and the medium business man, not the large corporations that bail out as soon as they are not making a profit big enough. Large corporations only believe in huge profits;

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
the bigger the profit, the better. That does not mean they believe in people. They believe in profits where they can get them, be it in Indonesia, China, or wherever. That does not guarantee jobs in an area.
I want to see every area of the country benefit, not just certain rich areas like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. That is why I am fighting this measure. I believe the Government is forgetting one thing, that is, what Canadians are all about. It is not big companies but ordinary people who work hard and deserve more consideration than the Government is giving them.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether in view of the hour you would call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Government Orders will be extended until 1.18 p.m. because of the Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Member will have plenty of time to finish his speech.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill C-19 I must note, having listened to the Minister's speech, that even his best friends could not claim that he felt very inspired, very sure of himself, or really very motivated. He sounded unusually flat. He sounded as if his heart was not with the measure.
Strangely enough, I did not hear him making even one reference to the environment, not one reference to sustainable development. He certainly was concerned with the Budget. He certainly was concerned with market oriented approaches.
It seems to me that a Bill of this importance has to be dealt with in the context of the economy and in the context of the environment. The three are closely linked. As you know, Mr. Speaker, each one has an impact on the other two.
The importance of Bill C-19 is in what it does not say. It is important because it is surrounded by a vacuum. It is important because, as we debate it, Canadians do not know what is our long-term energy plan. Therefore, there are some questions that I would put to the Minister which need to be answered within the context of Bill C-19.
For instance, how long does the Minister think we can go on relying on fossil fuels while at the same time by the use of these fossil fuels, coal and oil mainly, we pollute
the atmosphere with carbon dioxide? We do this in the full knowledge of what that carbon dioxide does in terms of strengthening the greenhouse effect which in turn is reinforcing the trend toward global warming. Cancelling the exploration subsidies in the North, as is implicit in Bill C-19, is no doubt a welcome move in a sense although it was inspired not by environmental reasons. Does this mean that it is an implicit invitation by the Government to rely more on fossil fuels developed south of 60? Is that what it means?
Why in the name of fiscal responsibility does the Government cancel one subsidy for fossil fuel development while at the same time, as we learned today from the media, the Government and the Minister are vigorously defending massive subsidies to fossil fuel megaprojects? The two do not gibe in terms of long-term policy. There has to be an explanation given. If something has to stop subsidized fossil fuel development for the sake of the Budget, why not then cancel the very large commitments made to Hibernia, OSLO, Lloydminster, and the Vancouver Island gas pipeline which require investments not by the hundreds of millions but by the billions? There is here evidently a contradiction.
Does Bill C-19 mean an implicit invitation for the construction of more dams, more nuclear power stations and more C02 pollution from coal fired electricity generation south of 60? Why is this Bill introduced in the House in a vacuum, without a framework, without any of the ideas as to what Canada's energy future ought to be? Why therefore is the long term not on the Government's agenda? Does the cancellation of exploration subsidies mean that the Government intends to put in its place a policy of subsidies for renewable sources of energy?
After the decimation of what was in place until November 1984, which resulted in the cancellation of $40 million at the National Research Council alone on renewable sources of energy, it would be quite a conversion on the road to Damascus. We would like to believe that to be possible for the sake of the public interest.
Does Bill C-19 mean that with this Bill the Government is ready to move with energy efficiency, with energy conservation, intended for instance to capture that 30 per cent in efficiency on Canada's part as pointed out by the International Energy Agency, which sponsored an event attended by the Minister last week in Paris? Or, is this Bill the only policy thought necessary at this point in
June 5, 1989

time, unfortunately by a Government which is myopic, which is preoccupied with the short term, which is obsessed by a deficit and incapable of giving Canada an energy policy that takes the environment, the climate, human health and the long-term costs into consideration? These are the questions that we would like the Minister to answer when presenting Bill C-19.
When I speak of the word "costs"in the context of this debate, what I meant is the cost to our economy if we do not succeed in slowing down the climate warming trend, the so-called greenhouse effect, coming about as a result of the pollution produced through the burning of oil, coal, and the like.
Such costs, as we know, could be immense. There would be public works to protect Canada's coastal cities from rising sea levels, agricultural land becoming desertified as a result of gradual increases in temperature, forest acreage lost because of fires triggered by warmer weather and inevitable changes in the species of trees brought about by new climatic conditions.
It seems to me that in this policy vacuum, we are running the risk of being lured into embracing the nuclear option. We know what that entails. It entails risks. It has unresolved health questions and implied high costs. We know the Darlington nuclear station was originally scheduled to cost just over $7 billion. Then the cost jumped to $11 billion. Last week, we learned that it is now at $13 billion. We do not know yet the cost of permanent disposal of nuclear waste, the cost of decommissioning reactors and, as lately discovered and reported in an article in The Financial Post a couple of weeks ago by Stephen Probyn, the hidden subsidies in the form of unrealistically low discount rates for the capital invested in such plants.
To resist the nuclear sirens, so to speak, we must launch energy efficiency drives and renew the drive on energy conservation. We must do that because by postponing every year our ability to achieve the efficiency that other nations have achieved and in capturing the 30 per cent of energy losses incurred, as reported in a study conducted by the International Energy Agency, we incur substantial costs. Why such a drive is not initiated by this
Exploration and Development
Government is very difficult to understand. Is it lack of vision, inertia, or is it both?
Why is this Government approaching energy policies in such a piecemeal backward manner? Why does the Minister of Energy go to Paris rather than Calgary to make a statement-and I quote from his speech of May 30 which he distributed a few days ago. "While we are firmly committed to a market-oriented policy, we recognize that in its pure form, it cannot deal with so-called external environmental effects of economic activity". Why did the Minister not quote his speech fully instead of just half of the statement he made in Paris? The speech was quite interesting. He had the courage to make this statement abroad, but he does not have the courage to make it in Canada.
At the same meeting of the International Energy Agency, the Minister also said on May 30, and I quote: "We must pursue energy policy solutions available to us today such as energy efficiency improvements, while at the same time promoting sources of supply such as renewables".
Did we hear anything about it today? Did the Minister repeat his courageous and important statement at home? Why is it only good in Paris? Why is it only expressed across the Atlantic? Why does the Minister lose the courage when he comes home? We would like to hear it at home too in this Parliament.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has to accept the reality and the political fact-and I will explain in a moment why-that he is also a minister of the environment. He cannot ignore the commitment made by his Prime Minister to sustainable development. It is a commitment that the Prime Minister made a year ago and repeated last night at the National Art Gallery by way of a videotape, in both languages, in which he commits himself to sustainable development. This makes this Minister of Energy automatically a minister of the environment. Therefore, if the Minister of Energy does not pursue an energy policy that takes sustainable development fully into account, he makes the statement of his own Prime Minister hollow, empty and meaningless.
The Prime Minister of Canada embraced, in August of 1988, the Brundtland report. He declared himself on the side of sustainable development. Therefore the Minister of Energy, if he intends to follow the leadership ex-

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
pressed by the Prime Minister, should fall in line with that policy direction, but he does not seem to, and C-19 certainly does not give us any indication or direction.
Through the Prime Minister's statement, the Minister has received his orders from the Prime Minister, who stressed again sustainable development in the Speech from the Throne just a few months ago. This mandate, Mr. Speaker, is being ignored.
Together with this Bill today, the Minister of Energy was expected to offer an environmentally sustainable plan, a broader picture, an indication to Canadians that he and his Government have a clear idea as to where we should be going with energy between now and the year 2030, if you like, to ensure clean and safe sources of energy and sustainable for present and future generations. That has not happened with Bill C-19.
We would like to think that this Government has a long-term agenda. If it is limited to Bills like C-19, we will continue to raise, from this side of the House, the imperative necessity that the Government of Canada, at the present time directed by the ideology of the Conservative Party, has a duty to consult Canadians and to develop a long-term energy plan with a number of factors in mind which makes the development of such a plan more difficult than ever before. We have to take into consideration factors of sustainable development and climatic change which did not exist when we made plans in the past. Therefore, the task is multidimensional and poses a challenge. It seems to me that the Government of Canada cannot escape that responsibility.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Davenport's speech with a great deal of interest. I know of his interest in renewable energy, which I think is certainly a very important move for the future. The reason that I think we mainly find fault with the whole Government philosophy of just market orientation is because we know that long-term planning and energy is something over and above the short-term future which the market looks to. We need Government involvement because we are looking at energy needs in the distant future and which the private sector is not going to look after. Because of this lead time in new
forms of energy, we of course need the energy we have. I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport how he sees the state of renewable energy today and where we are in respect to the time of the former Liberal Government? How long is it going to take us to get into this position because of the neglect of the Government in developing the renewable energy that we need for the future?


Charles L. Caccia: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The key word of course is the importance of "lead" time. Particularly in matters related to energy, lead time is a very important factor. I am sure that the Minister knows that very well.
What has struck me lately, both in reference to the previous Liberal Government as well as to the present Conservative Government, if in the last decade we had shifted the subsidies that we put behind exploration, particularly north of 60, for the discovery of additional sources of fossil fuels and had used those resources which in terms of funds were phenomenal, and I venture to guess that more than $8 billion in the past decade has been put behind exploration of fossil fuel research North of 60, and shifted even a modest portion of that resource, perhaps even half, behind photovoltaics, behind biomass, behind wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy, particularly biomass and photovoltaics, that we would have done very well with the lead time required that the Hon. Member raises. I suspect that the lead time required would have been compressed considerably. Alone the price of photovoltaics per kilowatt hour has been reduced by half in the last 10 or 15 years.
We have invested our financial resources in perpetrating a dependence on non-renewable resources in a disproportionate manner, instead of shifting them, as we attempted to do after the oil shocks in the 70s, more and more behind the renewables.
Now we have to stop for a moment, reassess our strategy, think of the long term. Bill C-19 disappears in an ocean of considerations that are much bigger and more significant, and come to grips with the lead time and ask ourselves, are we putting our money where we should put it? My impression is that we are not.
June 5, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke on a question or comment.


Mr. Kristiansen:: I was interested in listening to the Hon. Member for Davenport, who is also a former Minister of the Environment in the Parliament in which I was present from 1980 to 1984. I was particularly interested in some of his comments regarding the closure of a number of energy conservation centres across the country. While listening to his comments, I could not help but think back to the last election when it also struck me, as it did the Member for Davenport, that there was a conflict between the Government's brave new push on the environment during the election, and its extraordinary commitment of billions of dollars of aid to fossil fuel megaprojects from one end of the country to the other. There seemed to be a bit of a conflict in the priorities of the Government at that time.
In his comments in relation to energy conservation and the priorities of the Government, the Hon. Member asked perhaps rhetorically, why not cancel energy megaprojects such as Hibernia. That struck me as being rather odd, particularly in view of the Liberal Party's vigorous pursuit of the Government on its alleged failure to maintain a commitment to the future development of Hibernia over the past number of weeks. Perhaps vigorous is an understatement, considering the more colourful comments of some of the Liberal Members to my right.
Is the Hon. Member for Davenport suggesting that it is now Liberal policy to cancel the commitment to Hibernia development and elsewhere? If so, is that view shared by the new Government of Newfoundland?


Charles L. Caccia: It is a very fair question. What I am saying in essence is different. If we are serious about the question of energy and energy policy for Canada for the long term, we have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions, and perhaps also some embarrassing ones. We have to visit a situation that, if it is going to be dealt with effectively, will require us rethinking our position on a number of basic premises. When the megaprojects were approved, there was very little talk and knowledge about climate warming. Now we are increasingly being told by
Exploration and Development
the scientific community that we can expect, within the next 40 or 50 years, increases in temperature in Canada ranging between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. Such increases will have a considerable impact on our economy.
We also have to ask ourselves if we can therefore continue blindly supporting certain energy projects which will exacerbate the problem of the greenhouse effect, as if we were not surrounded by a new reality, or should we, as responsible politicians examine difficult questions, including some that may even be embarrassing. I believe that the latter is the route to go.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Is there an interesting answer to the interesting question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it 1.18, the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There have been some discussions. In order to accommodate the schedules of a number of Members of the House, it is my understanding that we not see the clock and that by agreement we move to Bill C-4 at this time. That would enable the three Party spokespersons to speak to Bill C-4 before two o'clock. After Question Period at three o'clock we could then revert back to Bill C-19, the Bill we are presently debating, which would enable some other Members of the House to conclude their remarks on that Bill. The Government finds that acceptable, and I believe there have been discussions relative to the outline I have just given.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on a point of order.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are correct. He reflects the same understanding I have about not seeing the clock at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: There have been some consultations, but the information the Minister has presented to the House was only partially accurate. There has been no decision to change the schedule for three o'clock.
It is my understanding that there is another order that will cover the tariff Bill and that is scheduled to come up at 3 p.m. There will continue to be some discussions between now and three o'clock in order that we are all

June 5, 1989
Energy Supplies
certain as to what is happening. It is my understanding that Bill C-19 will not be the business at three o'clock.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is acceptable. The terms of the agreement are that we have the three speeches, and that we tailor our comments to the time available for the three Parties, prior to two o'clock. Whatever decision is agreed upon among House Leaders or the representatives as of three o'clock will be acceptable to the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.


ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to amend the Access to Information Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned in the prior intervention I will require approximately 12 minutes, and I think that will be seen as an equitable distribution of the time available for the other two Parties.
The Energy Supplies Emergency Act was assented to on March 26, 1979. It is now more than 10 years and much has happened in this House since then. Certainly there will be few here who remember the occasion, even fewer who will recall what it was all about. However, I know that my critic and I were here. Before addressing the particular business before us today, I believe it would be appropriate to give Hon. Members an understanding of the origin of the Act, at least briefly.
Emergency, as we all know, is the sudden juncture of events demanding immediate action. The elements may be known but the timing of their concurrence is not. We can all think of examples, dramatic ones such as earthquakes or disasters at sea or other situations including fire or flood. In many of these cases, it was only afterward with perfect hindsight that the absence or
deficiency of contingency plans was sufficiently recognized and appropriate action taken.
The Energy Supplies Emergency Act itself has such a history, but as such it represents a determination to learn from experience through positive and corrective action. Its raison d'etre focuses on the possible disruption of the international oil market and its impact on Canada. It is therefore expressly designed to ensure that Canada has appropriate contingency plans and the instruments essential for their implementation.
I am sure Members will recall the international oil crisis of 1973 and 1974 or the so-called oil shocks as they were described from that time on. Some members of the OPEC countries interrupted normal oil supplies as a political lever. In fact discussions are taking place in OPEC as we discuss this issue today. Market panic followed with a sharp escalation in the price of oil as buyers competed for supply. Under the leadership of the U.S., a direct result of the situation was the signing in 1974 of the International Energy Program by 16 countries. Today it is made up of 21 countries. I have just returned from those meetings last week, and I want to say that the co-operation in the IEA is as secure today as when it was originally formed.
Countries are joined through the International Energy Agency in mutually supportive planning aimed at enhancing their collective energy and economic security. Canada is an original signatory to the IEP and an active supporter of the IEA. A major component of the agency's programs is an established emergency oil sharing system.
Canada's national response in 1974 when the IEA was formed was the passage of the original Energy Supplies Emergency Act. This Act established the Energy Supplies Allocation Board or ESAB, which is responsible for the Act's objectives and programs. Chief among those were programs to allocate crude oil and oil products and to ration gasoline and diesel fuel during a period of oil shortage. In addition, the board was responsible for fulfilling Canada's obligations in support of the IEA's emergency oil sharing programs.
When the crisis passed, the Act lapsed in 1976 under a sunset clause. The events of 1979-1980, that is, the Iranian revolution and the subsequent Iran-Iraq war, again caused oil market disturbance and rapidly escalating prices. Accordingly, the Government introduced the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 with similar but refined and modified provisions of the earlier Act. This time there is no sunset clause on the Act itself but only on the duration of the board's powers and programs in the event of their activation. In this fashion, the requisite
June 5, 1989

legal authorities are maintained against the sudden need to activate the planned response to a supply emergency.
Therefore, I think it is particularly noteworthy and of special interest to the House that the activation of ESAB's emergency powers and programs under the Act is a prerogative exercised only through a governor in council formal declaration by order of a national emergency or by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum. Further, this declaration is itself subject to the early concurrence of this House according to specified procedures set out in the Act.
Let me address one issue that may be raised in the context of this legislation, that is, the relationship between it and our obligations under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It should be understood that our obligations under the FTA to share oil supplies in an emergency are likely to be much less than those required by theoil sharing system of the International Energy Agency which would be implemented using the provisions of the ESE Act. Under the FTA we can share any reduction in Canadian oil supplies due to offshore disruption through a proportionate decrease in oil exports to the U.S.
Furthermore, under the FTA there is no obligation to provide supplies to the U.S. There is only a requirement to make them available on commercial terms. On the other hand, as a member of the IEA and a net exporter of oil, Canada would likely be required to increase its supplies to other member countries including the U.S. in that type of emergency. With respect to oil supply emergencies, our IEA obligations are clearly more demanding than those under the FTA.
Therefore the resurrection of ESAB necessarily triggered a complete review of the emergency organization and programs. This led to passage in 1982 of a series of amendments to the Act for improvements to the allocation and rationing programs. These amendments reflected an intense period of consultation by ESAB with both the petroleum industry and the provinces and territories. These consultations were mainly achieved through the formation of two consultative committees, the Petroleum Industry Advisory Committee and the
Energy Supplies
Provincial Advisory Committee, and through consumer organizations and associations. This resulted in fully developed allocation and rationing programs that enjoy full support because they are recognized as realistic and compatible with industry and regional concerns. These committees continue to advise ESAB.
The programs for managing available supplies of petroleum and petroleum products necessarily must ensure fair and equitable distribution to consumers in all regions of our country. I believe therefore that Members of the House would benefit from a better understanding of how they operate.
First, it must be recognized that an international market disturbance would have a primary impact on the supply of crude oil. The programs are designed to use our western Canadian resources to support use in eastern Canada which is the area of import dependency. ESAB, with powers granted under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, would activate a mandatory allocation program following a declaration of national emergency by the Governor in Council.
The terms have been with us for some time. Today, as I mentioned to the House, amendments are needed not only to continue with the program but to ensure Canadians that plans are in place in case emergencies take place. I could go through the amendments clause by clause to to clarify the definitions and the clause changes, but I do not have that time today. However, after second reading, if the House is so inclined, obviously I would want to discuss those terms with Members opposite in the legislative committee to make sure that Canada's interests are protected, our international obligations are met, and Canadians can be assured that the best plans are in place in case emergencies have to be met.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) regarding Bill C-4.1 think we are of the same mind with respect to the need for legislation such as this to safeguard Canada in the event of an international disruption and to ensure that Canadians have a secure supply of energy.

June 5, 1989
Energy Supplies
I want to say one thing with respect to the International Energy Association. With relation to the Free Trade Agreement, it may not in any way restrict our obligations under the IEA, unless the determination is that we must share 7 per cent of the oil under the agreement with the International Energy Agency and the United States and the shortage occurs in the United States.
The trade agreement, as the Minister of Energy has said, does not require us to sell oil to the United States. It requires us to make it available. Of course that is splitting hairs. I believe 40 per cent of our oil now goes to the U.S. That is not going to stop. We have now created that dependency on Canadian oil in the United States. There are contracts which assure that that oil is going to be there. Of course, when there is multinational oil companies, the supply of Canadian oil will continue. It may not be at 40 per cent, but an increasing amount of our oil will go.
We are obliged under the International Energy Agency to share up to 7 per cent of our oil with other countries at the time of an international disruption. That amount of 7 per cent that we are to supply may or may not be with the United States. If it is with the United States it would merge with our obligations under the trade agreement. If not, the proportion we share with the United States would come after the 7 per cent that was made available under our obligation under the International Energy Agency. As a result of the trade agreement, we have guaranteed that more of our oil will go abroad. It is certainly not reducing our obligations under the agreement with the International Energy Agency.
The most important point I want to impress upon the Government is the issue of energy security in Canada. I think the Minister understands that nothing must be allowed to reduce the energy security we have in this country.
We are blessed with having a great deal of energy in Canada in various forms. The problem we face is to maintain that security in the event of a crisis, international or otherwise. It is very important that these energy supplies be available to Canadians, and I believe the Minister has said this will not be changed under this Bill.
The fact the clause seems to reduce the ability to make information available in a court of law is a subject that I think we can discuss in committee. However, I am pleased the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) is in the House along with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Bill proposes to eliminate the role of Petro-Canada, and I will ask the Minister at committee why this is done. It appears to be a housekeeping measure to remove the mention of Petro-Canada so that when the Government introduces a privatization Bill on Petro-Canada this Act will already have been dealt with.
I believe that Petro-Canada's role according to Section 3 and Section 12 of the Act has been meaningful. It stated that one of the six directors on the board must be a member of Petro-Canada. That was a sensible provision, but the Government is deleting the need to have one of the directors as a representative of Petro-Canada.
I find that very strange, if Petro-Canada is to remain a Crown corporation. However, if it is the Government's intention to privatize Petro-Canada, it seems the Government will deal with this legislation before doing so. I hope that is not the case. I will give the Minister the opportunity to state whether there is another reason for this Bill in committee.
According to Clause 12, the duties carried out by the representative from Petro-Canada will be taken on by an official of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I believe that Petro-Canada is even more important to this country now because of the trade agreement. While certain segments of the oil and gas industry and all segments of the energy sector in this country believe a continental energy sector exists, there does not exist a continental energy policy. However, we do have our own Crown Corporation involved in the energy sector which can give a very clear picture from its involvement in the market-place.
I believe that Petro-Canada had much to contribute in this legislation by being involved. That involvement is disappearing, and I am concerned about that. I will expand that in committee, but I wanted to advise the Minister of my concern in that regard.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I too will keep my remarks on this Bill mercifully brief. The Energy Emergencies Act, Chapter 89, was passed in 1979 to "provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of a national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the
June 5, 1989

national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada".
Those are very worth-while objectives with which I do not believe any one in the House could have serious quarrel. The existing legislation provides for the establishment of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. In the event of actual or anticipated energy shortages as determined by the Governor in Council, this board would proceed to use its broad powers to administer a mandatory allocation or rationing program, which could include diverting oil or gas from pipeline companies, ordering Canadian ships into service as required, regulating imports and exports, subject to the Free Trade Agreement one presumes, and generally ensuring that the limited supplies in Canada get to where they are needed.
I will not go into the implications of the FTA for energy allocation in emergencies. I believe there will be other opportunities to do so as the current session proceeds through its natural life. However, I will just note that I share the concerns of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) that the FTA has substantial implications for the allocation of energy resources in Canada within an emergency context.
Bill C-4 extends the powers of the board to regulate prices during a domestic emergency energy rationing program. Many of the changes that the Bill proposes are little more than wording changes and are, in fact, relatively unimportant.
However, there are a few proposals that I believe are important, even though at first glance they may appear not to be. I want to deal with three of them.
The first two concern Petro-Canada. Clause 2 has the effect of deleting from the Energy Supply Allocation Board, which currently consists of up to six people appointed by the Governor in Council, a representative of Petro-Canada. Clause 3 would amend the Act to delete from the International Energy Agency Canadaan appointment, being a Petro-Canada representative on that energy agency study group.
The International Energy Agency currently has a study group on energy questions, and current legislation stipulates that Petro-Canada is to be Canada's representative on that group, having responsibility to the board and to the Minister. According to the amendment, Canada's
Energy Supplies
representative on the international study group will not necessarily be a Petro-Canada official. Instead, our representative will be a board member who, given Clause 2, obviously could not be a Petro-Canada official or some other official of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I believe that this constitutes a stripping away of at least some of the public policy prerogatives currently enjoyed by Petro-Canada. Of course, this is consistent with the Government's ill concealed antipathy toward Petro-Canada. It is certainly consistent with its long range privatization project. If Petro-Canada is to be privatized, then it necessarily must be stripped of its public policy functions.
It will come as a surprise to no Member of the House that we in the New Democratic Party caucus greatly oppose any such moves to limit or in fact remove Petro-Canada's public policy function. As this caucus fought for and indeed compelled the Liberal Government to create Petro-Canada back in the mid-1970s, we continue to believe it has a vital public policy role to play.
That is why for us these two provisions in this Act are of some substantial concern. I, too, look forward with eager anticipation to the Minister's remarks in this regard in committee.
The third elementis certainly a closely tied one of equal interest to the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mr. McDermid) whom I note is present. This is not noting an absence; this is noting of presence for the debate today. It is set out in Clause 5 of the Bill. Under the current unamended legislation the Board can now prescribe retail prices of controlled product and of printed material. The existing legislation states that printed material required for a rationing program would be handled by the Canada Post Corporation.
Under the amendment proposed in Bill C-4, and I quote, "any Department or agency of the Government of Canada" could be used for that purpose. This does not preclude the using of Canada Post, assuming that Canada Post is at the time of such issuance still an arm of the Government. However it again is a stripping away from a Crown corporation of a public policy function. In the absence of any strong indication to the contrary, it

June 5, 1989
cannot but be viewed, I would submit, as preparatory to a privatization in this instance of Canada Post.
It seems in fact that in this debate in principle at second reading we are debating two principles in this Bill. The first is that of the prudent allocation of energy resources in the event of an emergency shortage. To the degree that the Bill deals with that, I do not think any of us have any objection.
The second principle seems to be the preparation for the privatization, in part at least, of two Crown corporations. I must note that with that principle-


An Hon. Member:: That is good. I wish I had thought of that.


An Hon. Member:: You are making me feel better all the time. Thanks for giving us an idea.


Ross Harvey: The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Minister of State for Privatization are agreed. They consider me to be suggesting here what is a very good idea. They may so believe, but I can assure both hon. gentlemen that I very much doubt that the people of Canada would think those to be very good ideas. I look forward to further discussion in this regard in committee. However, knowing that there are other Members of the House who wish to participate in this debate and taking some cognizance of the hour, might I suggest that we perhaps adjourn to some subsequent time.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe the arrangement was that we would not see the clock until the representatives of all three Parties had had an opportunity to speakon Bill C-4 prior to the adjournment for Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.45 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
The House took recess at 1.45 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 4, 1989, we were all witness to the first free elections held in Poland in over 40 years.
This historic event is one in a succession of events that promises to lead to the democratization of Poland and guarantees major social and political change in that country. However, 40 years of oppression have resulted in considerable damage to the economy of Poland. Poland's foreign debt stands at between $30 billion and $40 billion. The country's ability to salvage its economy will depend largely on the flexibility of debtor countries to forgive or, at the very least, reschedule the payments in light of current events.
The West has an obligation not only to Poland but to all countries that are in pursuit of democracy to support in spirit and in action an ideology that though not perfect is far the best one designed to date by human mankind.
The West also has an obligation to re-evaluate continually its relationships with countries that penalize its citizens for expressing opinions that differ from those of their own Government.
In short, we should not be afraid to support those people who are striving for exactly the same things that we in the West have fought for and for which will continue to fight.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner) spoke at the Canadian Ethno-cultural Council Parliamentary Day.
The purpose of this meeting is to find ways to bring Canadians together, to achieve equality throughout our society, and to give expression to our national identity.
Exercises and meetings such as today are very encouraging. However, there is much still to do.
June 5, 1989

Let us review the progress and continue to look ahead at what we can and must do together to ensure that all Canadians have an equal state in defining and building Canada's future.
Congratulations to the CEC.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) launched National Environment Week to encourage Canadians to do our part to clean up the man-made mess that threatens our globe and jeopardizes our survival.
Calgary kicked off Environment Week yesterday with our annual river clean-up. It was a glorious day of sunshine that brought out thousands of Calgarians to scour the river banks, picking up garbage and cleaning out junk from the water-families with picnic lunches, community groups and individuals committed to a cleaner environment taking action to clean up our part of the globe.
The message of National Environment Week is awareness and action. There is no more time for study or delay. We must take action now as individuals, as communities, as provinces and as nations to stop the damage to our global home.



James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day, the beginning of Environment Week in Canada.
Somehow the sense of urgency necessary to deal with our national and global crisis must be instilled in the political leadership of Canada and every country. Let me deal with the greenhouse effect for just a moment as an example.
The Minister this morning mentioned that one-half the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activity has been added in the last 30 years. In North
America, we have just 5 per cent of the world population but use 25 per cent of the world's energy and release over 25 per cent of atmospheric C02 and even higher levels of CFCs.
Our oceans are rising. Unless we reduce greenhouse gas production, oceans will continue to rise in direct relation to C02 and greenhouse gases. Entire nations such as the Maldives will be covered by the oceans as the ice caps melt.
The sense of urgency-where is it? In Canada, the Conservatives are closing the regional renewable energy offices and plan to give the fossil fuel industry billions of dollars in welfare to expand and prolong production.
Canada and the world must have action on the carbon cycle, action on reducing greenhouse gases, action on holes in the ozone and acid precipitation. That requires the sense of urgency which is lacking at every level.
Environment Day and Environment Week are appropriate for launching public education. However, let it begin here in this Chamber where decisions on environmental viability and human survival are determined every day by our decisions.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, today all three parties met with members of the Canadian Ethno-cultural Council to discuss issues of concern to all Canadians. The service this group plays as a co-ordinating body for ethnic minorities in Canada is indispensable to the maintenance of harmonious race relations in our country.

Since 1980, the CEC has headed more than 35 national organizations representing the cultural communities, all of which are dedicated to better race relations and the struggle against all forms of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.
This group is inspired by values like equality, justice and fairness. By its very nature and because of the credibility it has acquired, the CEC must be a key player in the development of any Canadian multiculturalism policy.

June 5. 1989
In closing, I would like to thank all members of the CEC for their contribution to building a more open country where equal opportunity for all is a fact, not just political rhetoric.


MONTREAL CONFERENCE ON AIDS
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome - Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important conventions of our time is now being held in Montreal. It is so important because it is about the scourge of the twentieth century, AIDS.
The attendance of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of National Health at the opening of this international meeting is most eloquent testimony to the importance the Government gives to this leading problem.
By warning us not to expect miracles but emphasizing dialogue, co-operation and information, health specialists from throughout the world are showing us how to fight this scourge. To do this, and especially to preserve the dignity of those who have AIDS, now is the time for cooperation, not criticism; for supporting others in difficulty, not discrimination. Above all, we must put a major part of our effort into information and dispelling the falsehoods about AIDS.
In this regard, the Treasury Board's recent directives on protecting, hiring and accepting people with AIDS in the workplace could be a model for all businesses, whether in the public or private sector. In doing so, our Government has shown leadership.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members of the House will join me this afternoon in expressing our sorrow at the slaughter in China and in extending our sympathy to the Chinese people and their friends and relatives here in Canada.
The senseless and brutal actions of the so-called People's Army under the instructions of government authorities have resulted in the death or injuries of
thousands of young people. These youth are innocent of any wrongdoing. Their peaceful presence in Tiananmen Square over the last number of weeks has been exemplary for its non-violence. Their contribution to the Chinese political discourse has represented the highest ideals.
Through its inexplicable actions the Chinese Government has shown the world a most horrifying face. Its actions should be harshly condemned by all members of the international community.
For its part, the Canadian Government must examine the best way to communicate in the strongest possible terms our outrage individually as a country and in concert with others. Immediate attention must be given to the safety of Canadians in China, and the safety of Chinese students here in Canada who must not be put in the position of having to return to China against their will.
The Chinese authorities cannot long ignore the calls of its own people for greater freedom and democracy. Murdering their brightest and best is for fascists. The spirit of the revolution is surely toward democracy, if it is a living spirit and not something only of the past. Let it be said that the students have not died in vain.


THE ARTS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Owen Sound Little Theatre for winning the Ontario-wide festival for amateur theatrical groups held recently in Brockville, Ontario.
The Owen Sound's production of a Lanford Wilson play Talley's Folly took seven of eleven major awards. The awards included best over-all production, technical achievement and set design, as well as leading acting awards for the show's two-person cast, David Leslie and Cory Lapointe.
Congratulations are in order as well to director Ruth Gorbet and her crew for a challenging and a well-accomplished performance.
Owen Sound Little Theatre will now be representing Ontario in the all-new National Theatre Festival which will take place in Victoria, B.C. from July 9 to 16 where I am sure they will acquit themselves with honour and distinction.
June 5, 1989

Again, congratulations for a job well done.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, a crime against humanity has been committed in the People's Republic of China. My wife wept as we watched together in disbelief over the weekend as a once peaceful demonstration turned into a blood bath.
There were gruesome television accounts of tanks and soldiers armed with automatic weapons roaring down the Avenue of Eternal Peace toward Tiananmen Square, trampling and shooting hundreds of student protesters whose only defence was the courage of their convictions.
The great Russian writer, Dostoyevski, once wrote that "compassion is the chief law of human existence". The ruthless and merciless People's Army showed absolutely no compassion in the mass slaughter of students, women and children.
Members of the Hamilton-Wentworth-Halton Chinese Canadian community, which numbers some 20,000, express their shock and horror at the abhorrent events in China. They express their outrage at the Government's brutal suppression of the democratic movement for reform. They call upon the Canadian Government to do whatever is in its power to persuade the Chinese Government to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in China.



Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, events in China have shocked and horrified Canadians. For over ten years, China represented a beacon of progress. China once offered a bold example to the Communist world by moving away from totalitarianism and responding to the will of its people. In two bloody days, that progress has been crushed. Today, the world watches as China reverts back to totalitarianism for a solution to its problem.
Canadians wonder how a nation that once taught the world to let a thousand flowers bloom could so brutally stamp out its own seeds of democracy. If China is to ever
truly be a people's republic, let it stop killing and start rebuilding the progress that it once made.



Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to record for my constituents and for freedom-loving people everywhere the anxiety and sadness of Canadians in response to the brutality and death which has been perpetrated by a repressive military force in Beijing over the past weekend.
This event is both a shock and a lesson for Canadians in that the freedom of peaceful assembly clearly enshrined in our Constitution does not exist for them. It is repugnant to all of us to see internationally recognized human rights violated in so brutal a manner as has taken place in Tiananmen Square.
A China in turmoil is a China in agony, and I want to confirm our democratic resolve in solidarity with the citizens of the PRC that our world history will not be ruled by guns but by peace and freedom.
The carnage of Tiananmen Square demands a response from our Government, a response which will show the students and other citizens in Tiananmen Square and the world that their hopes and dreams for freedom and human rights live on with all of us today in this House.


CONDUCT OF MEMBERS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada sent us here to govern the country and to address the very real and serious problems that face Canadians from coast to coast. Instead, for the past several weeks, the time of this Chamber has been taken up with the self-righteous indignation of Members opposite in their seemingly obsessive, if futile, quest to bring down a Minister or two over an issue which is at best of very limited interest to the public.
I spent last week in my South Shore riding, paroled, as it were, from this place. I must report that on the streets, in the plants and in the offices of Bridgewater, Liverpool and Lockeport, peoples' minds are on the future of the Atlantic fishery, on the need for economic diversification, on unemployment insurance and on ACOA.

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
They simply do not care about the tempest in the teapot in Ottawa, and they are beginning to conclude that Ottawa doesn't care about them.
Lest this Parliament become totally irrelevant in the minds of Canadians, let us turn our attention to the real issues of real people. Let's get on with the business of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, on April 10, we were told by officials from the Department of Employment and Immigration that the impact studies which related to the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system would be made available to us within the week.
That week has come and gone, and after many calls to the Department asking the whereabouts of those studies, and after filing for them under the Access to Information guidelines, we are now informed that these figures have been exempted. Further, I have been told that the Minister herself has had printed copies of these for over two weeks.
As the days go by, we see a pattern developing. Anytime the people of Canada need access to information, this Government hides it from them. Never before has the Canadian Government spent so much energy hiding. They did it on free trade, they are doing it on the Budget, and now they are doing it on UI. What is next?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He knows and can sense the feeling in Canada that we are all filled with
shock, dismay, anger and disbelief at the recent events in China, particularly the vicious move by the leadership of the Chinese Government to murder young students. Canadians cannot believe that a peaceful call for freedom by students in the capital of that country would provoke such a bloody massacre.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would be good enough to bring the House up to date on the most recent information he has and advise us if he can about the situation relating to the safety of Canadians in China and what advice through our representatives he is giving to Canadians in that country?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition correctly states the shock and the disbelief of Canadians at events in China. He will know that we had called in yesterday at noon the Ambassador of China to Canada to express our profound disapproval of the events in China and our expectation that they would be brought to an end.
We were in touch this morning with Earl Drake, who is the Canadian Ambassador in Beijing, who reports that the situation in Beijing is calmer now. There are approximately 600 Canadians in China, about 300 in Beijing and 300 elsewhere. We believe that all are safe. We are urging them to stay in their residences for the time being. We are trying to gather Canadian students into one secure place, particularly in Beijing.
We are naturally following the developments in China very closely, and I will endeavour to keep the House fully informed of events as they arise.


REQUEST FOR VOTE ON RESOLUTION TO CONDEMN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Now that the brave dream of the Chinese students has turned into a nightmare, will the Canadian Government agree that in Parliament, in this House, that the House of Commons move and unanimously adopt a motion condemning the Chinese Government and send its motion to that Government?
June 5, 1989


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is prepared to consider a motion that can be adopted unanimously by the House of Commons.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I received a request for an emergency debate this evening. I think it would be worthwhile for Members of all Parties to have an opportunity to express their thoughts about the situation.
I made arrangements earlier today with the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons to have a confidential briefing for all Members of the House. The briefing will take place in Room 253-D, the Railway Committee Room, at 4.30 p.m. Officials from my Department will be there to provide all Members with all the information we have available.
I had an opportunity to discuss these arrangements with the external affairs critics of the two Opposition Parties.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint Michel and others, we will accept the Secretary of State's invitation to a briefing session.

Mr. Speaker, we all pray that if not today, and if not tomorrow, freedom will finally prevail in China.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY SESSION OF SECURITY COUNCIL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State, now that Canada occupies its new seat on the Security Council in the United Nations, whether he would not instruct our ambassador, Mr. Fortier, to present a resolution under an emergency session calling for international condemnation of the action of the Chinese Government in its massacre against committed innocent students.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are actively considering that initiative by Canada as a member of the Security Council. I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and others Members of the House would agree that an essential first step for us is to become as well informed as
Oral Questions
we can, as quickly as possible about the situation in China and consequently as to the most effective actions that we can take.
But I think we should be in a position to come to those kinds of decisions in the next couple of days. Certainly there is no question that this is the kind of horrible action that requires a reaction by the international community and certainly requires a reaction by Canada.


OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE POLITICAL ASYLUM TO CHINESE STUDENTS IN CANADA
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister is no doubt aware that many Chinese students now living in Canada and attending Canadian universities made some very harsh statements on Canadian television about their government and went so far as to openly condemn the Chinese leaders. Should some of these students prefer to remain in Canada instead of going back to China and an uncertain future, could the federal Government of Canada offer them political asylum?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation, which may be somewhat uncertain, of a number of Chinese students here in Canada, and my Government colleagues and myself are now considering various arrangements, such as extending their right to stay in Canada and perhaps other ways of guaranteeing their safety.


REQUEST AS TO WHETHER MINISTER SPOKE WITH WAN LI
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister will recall that only a few weeks ago. Deputy Prime Minister Wan Li was in Canada on an official visit. He also met members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, and on that occasion he commented on the troubles that were starting in China, and he had been rather encouraging. He said he was prepared to act with all requisite understanding for the patriotic enthusiasm of the young Chinese. I would like to know whether the Minister had a chance to meet Mr. Wan Li, whether they discussed privately the situation in China and whether the Minister made it clear to the Chinese delegation at that time that Canada definitely

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
would not approve of using the army to control the Chinese students.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not have a chance during the visit to have this kind of conversation, but Canada's attitude to the democratic aspirations and actions of the Chinese students was made clear to the Chinese authorities. We all hope that it will be possible to revert as soon as possible to a situation in which democracy can be encouraged, but for the time being, the main challenge for us is to have a detailed understanding of the events in China and to find out how Canada can first of all, help promote a stable situation; second, a situation that will enhance the safety of Chinese citizens; and third, a situation that will encourage democracy.


CHINA-VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, not only today but during the weekend, in his condemnation of this horrific violation of human rights administered by the army in China, at whose instructions we may not know for some time.
I was a little concerned that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his reference to the Security Council, indicated that we may have to wait a couple of days before the Government of Canada takes some initiative there.
Considering that it is appropriate to wait for a couple of days before we know the answers to a number of matters, we certainly know now that there has been an incredible violation of human rights and totally needless bloodshed. This is something that ought to be debated at the United Nations.
When we have seen past unacceptable circumstances there has been very prompt action by the Security Council, would he kindly tell the House why he thinks it is necessaiy to wait for another two days?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is quite correct in interpreting my remarks as suggesting that I wanted to be clearer than we can be in these circumstances as to what exactly is happening in
China before we take action in the Security Council. It might be prescriptive or it might be designed to try to encourage positive developments in China. I accept completely the view that it would be appropriate for Canada to act as quickly as possible to occasion a debate in the Security Council.
The Prime Minister and I have had discussions about that possibility this morning and we are examining it. We will be in touch with Ambassador Yves Fortier and examining the circumstances which would be most appropriate for Canada to follow. We intend no delay, but I am sure the Leader of the New Democratic Party and other Members of the House would want us to be as well informed as to the situation in China as we can be before launching that debate. Certainly I do not intend, by that answer, to suggest a delay.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE DEBATE IN SECURITY COUNCIL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the Secretary of State to perhaps reconsider. He is acting, as all Members of the House are, with very good will to see what role an outside country can play in such horrific circumstances.
Would he not think it might provide precisely the kind of international pressure on the Government of China immediately, if they heard from the Security Council that there was a request for an immediate debate? If I can put it this way, I would like the Secretary of State to perhaps think this over. I especially point out that by demanding an immediate debate and insisting that the Chinese authorities come and justify what they have done, this may in fact force them to stop the violence sooner than otherwise would be the case.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we are considering precisely that factor and weighing it against the possibility that in the immediate aftermath of developments in China, there might be some wisdom in waiting a day or two.
Those are precisely the kind of factors that we are weighing because in the circumstances, all Members of this House and all Canadians would want action that Canada initiated to be as effective as possible. We do not simply want to register our horror and dismay at these developments, but also hopefully to be able to restore a situation that conforms to developments that many of us
June 5, 1989

hoped we had been seeing in China and that we had approved until these terrible recent events.


SITUATION OF CHINESE IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: A third question, Mr. Speaker! The Minister suggested the possibility that the Canadian Government might decide to allow Chinese students who are here now to remain here for an indefinite period, perhaps. Once again, the Minister suggested that the Government had not yet decided, but that the Government is considering this option. My question will be very direct. Can the Minister guarantee that all Chinese students who are here now and are afraid to return to their country can stay here in Canada for an indefinite period?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a direct question and the most direct answer I can give is that we do not intend to create or contribute to circumstances that might threaten the safety of Chinese students who are here in Canada. The way to safeguard or guarantee their safety remains to be determined, but this question is already being considered by the Canadian Government.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the budget leak, more particularly the phone call from Mutual Life to the office of the Minister of Finance.
Last Wednesday the Prime Minister stated in the House:
- the original call came to the office of the Minister of Finance. In the absence of the Minister of Finance it was immediately turned over to the Deputy Minister of Finance.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance the following question. Since it was a member of his own staff, Mr. Ron McCutchan who received the call, could he explain by what logic his own staff told the Deputy Minister instead of coming here to the House, to the lobby, and
Oral Questions
immediately dispatching a message to the Minister? What kind of logic lies in there?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the individual's name in my office is Don McCutchan. Mr. McCutchan is a senior departmental assistant in my office who is on secondment from the Department of Finance.
When the call came from Mr. Masterman he went to see the Deputy Minister of Finance, and events moved from there for the further discussion that Mr. Gorbet had with Mr. Masterman and subsequently the RCMP.


REQUEST AS TO WHY MINISTER WAS NOT INFORMED IMMEDIATELY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister answered everything except the question. I want to ask him why his assistant informed someone else instead of the Minister. It is obvious that the Minister was in trouble. It is obvious that the Minister was here in the House answering questions about this. Did he ask his assistant, or will he ask him, why the Minister was not informed immediately?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that Mr. McCutchan is my senior departmental assistant. He is on secondment from the Department of Finance.


Don Boudria: So?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In my absence, my not being in my office, he went to Mr. Gorbet and told Mr. Gorbet of the details. The two of them called back Mr. Masterman, and by that time we were in the House of Commons and events moved from there in terms of the contact that they had with the RCMP and the things that followed from there.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Canadians want to know if our system of justice is responding to the so-called budget leak in a proper and ethical way. On April 26 the Government House Leader

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
asked for extended sitting hours. After that was refused, the Budget was presented to the press.
On April 27 the Attorney General stated to the House that "there had been a theft of budget material".
The Department of Justice has since given advice to the RCMP and further has contacted Ontario Justice officials.
Has the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons acted in the best interests of the administration of justice in Canada, or has he acted in the best interests of his Government?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions there, but let me try two. In the first question I think my friend made an error. We tried to extend the hours of the House at about 5.40 on April 26.


John Napier Turner: You didn't tell us why.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, that is correct, because your House Leader wasn't here to tell.


John Napier Turner: The House Leader was right here. You didn't tell us why.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has been asked a question and deserves the courtesy to answer.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We subsequently came back and went to the opposition Leaders and tried to go back to the House, but we were refused that. Therefore, we made it public to the media.
On the question as to whether or not I acted in the best interests of the administration of justice, the answer to that is yes, at all times.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC REVIEW OF ACTIONS OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. A journalist and others have been charged in this matter. It is obviously before the courts. However, not all those persons who had access to the material have been charged.
If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is confident that he and officials of his Department have acted competently and ethically in this matter, I would ask the Minister of Justice if he believes
it is in the best interests of Canadians to ensure that the integrity of the system of administering justice in this country continue to be respected?
Would he agree that it would be useful to have a thorough and public review of how he has conducted himself as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to find out if Canadians can trust the fairness and the integrity of the administration of justice in this country in the light of what we have gone through in the last month or so?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has indicated, the matter is before the courts. That is the place where justice should be done. I am convinced that it will be done there.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. KENNETH KAUNDA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, President of the Republic of Zambia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. GEORGE SHAW, PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF TASMANIA
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. George Shaw, President of the Legislative Council of Tasmania.


Some Hon. Members:: 
THE BUDGET
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. First, I want to welcome him back to the House.
My question is about an apparent contradiction to which the Minister of Justice was unable to respond on Friday. If the Minister goes back to May 14, he will see that the Solicitor General told the House that from the outset the Mutual Life leak was under the investigation of the RCMP. On May 18 he stated that there was no
June 5, 1989

evidence of profiteering because of the Mutual leak or, indeed, the leak to Global Television.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance the following question: How could the Solicitor General say this on May 18 when representatives of the four stock exchanges are now saying that at that stage the RCMP had not notified them about the Mutual leak? In fact, they did not know about it until they heard about it from the news media five days later, after Mr. Masterman issued a press release.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I clearly informed the House that the RCMP Commissioner had told me then-and I can reiterate again today that the whole question of whether people could have profited from the public disclosure of a budget document was under investigation by the RCMP. As soon as the Commissioner saw fit to inform me that so far, at the time I informed my hon. colleague, there was no evidence or indication that anyone had profited, he informed me and immediately, at the first opportunity, I told the House. I believe it is important to reassure Canadians on that.
And the Commissioner assured me that this investigation was looking into everything. The RCMP is conducting its own investigation on that, on all the possibilities people had to profit. This whole part of the investigation is continuing.


MOVEMENT OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-COST OF INTERVENTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that response is absolutely incredible when the RCMP had not even notified the four stock exchanges. I want to go after the Finance Minister on a separate question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is aware that in the hours after the premature release of his Budget on April 26 there was considerable movement in the Canadian dollar in Tokyo and elsewhere around the
Oral Questions
world, and that the Bank of Canada also intervened because of movement in the Canadian dollar.
Can the Minister of Finance now tell us, first, what was the cost of that intervention to the Bank of Canada and, second, does he know whether or not there was any profiteering due to speculation in the Canadian dollar in Tokyo or elsewhere because of the premature release of the Canadian Budget?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat, as I said several times in the House, that the next day, people at the stock exchanges said that there was no indication of anyone having profited. And again, barely a week ago, people at the stock exchanges said that no one-
If my hon. colleague believes that people might have profited, you should go yourself to the RCMP and tell them whatever you know about it. That seems most important, because, definitely, the important thing is that Canadians be reassured and that the RCMP conducts its investigation as it ought to so as to make sure that no one profited from a Budget leak, and the Commissioner has assured me of that.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, in June, 1988 the Government of Canada launched a very special initiative called Project Haven to support the development of additional emergency shelters for victims of family violence. Unfortunately not only in my own Province of Alberta but indeed all across Canada family violence is increasing.
Could the Minister of State for Housing tell the House what has been done to date on providing these shelters?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, in the summer of last year the Government announced a program to produce 500 emergency spaces or shelter beds for the victims of violence in Canada. There were to be 500 additional beds over and above what was already in place. That project has been proceeding. There has been

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
a proposal call put out. In fact, some 45 of those 500 places were set aside for the Province of Alberta.
Unfortunately to date there have not been any applications from the City of Calgary, but the Department is expecting to issue a second proposal call and hopefully we will get some proposals from the City of Calgary.
There have been many proposals across the country. All the provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, are prepared to participate in this program for new spaces. Ontario and Quebec are reluctant to provide additional maintenance funding for these spaces, but we do hope they will participate as well.


REQUEST FOR NATIONAL STRATEGY ON AIDS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister participated in an international conference on AIDS in Montreal and I believe learned first-hand of the agony and frustration of AIDS victims and those individuals working with them.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the seriousness of this critical situation: Is he prepared to tell the House when he will call a federal-provincial conference of Health Ministers?
When will he let Canadians, as well as the world, know the date for announcing a national strategy to address the situation of AIDS with its specific objectives, its courses of action, its time date and expenditure program? Can the Prime Minister of Canada inform the House on that most important initiative?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government of Canada involves the dissemination of information with regard to AIDS, funding research into treatment, making potentially useful and safe drugs available as rapidly as possible, protecting the rights and benefits of all employees in the federal work place, including those with
AIDS or HIV infection, and ensuring that all personal records are protected.
That would be the basis of an improved and strengthened strategy that would be announced by the Minister of Health and Welfare who, as my hon. friends knows, is presently conducting very productive consultations with members of the community interested in this problem.
He has had consultations with leaders of groups who are affected with AIDS, who are living with AIDS, and who have very special and important points of view to bring forward.
Yesterday at the conference I chatted with him and with people involved in this process and all seemed to be reasonably encouraged by the progress that is being made by the Government and other intervenors. I would look forward to that strategy in all of its facets being announced in short order.


REQUEST FOR DATE OF STRATEGY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Right Hon. Prime Minister that we in the Opposition want to participate fully in providing meaningful suggestions in order to address this particular situation. In point of fact, I have given that undertaking to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in committee as of last week. The Prime Minister must know that his own Minister of National Health and Welfare has said categorically that there is no national strategy here in Canada to fight AIDS.
In fact, in April, 1988 the Royal Society of Canada provided a blueprint, if you will, for a national strategy.
I want to believe that the Prime Minister is sincere and that he is committed. Would he please give Canadians a specific date as to when he will announce a specific national strategy for the fight against AIDS, with its objectives, courses of action, as well as its expenditure program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he returns to the House after his participation at the conference in Montreal, will be able to provide my hon. friend with the specific date that he is
June 5, 1989

seeking. In fact, he has spoken to me and others about the co-operation from the Hon. Member in regard to development of a strategy in this important area.
I have received a letter today from Mr. Braff, President and Chairman of the Canadian AIDS Society, a part of which I share with my hon. friend and the House:
Mr. Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has noted that People Living with AIDS must be treated with respect and compassion. By allowing PLWA's to make their views known to this conference, you have shown this respect.
It is now necessary to continue the process of recognition and involvement of which Mr. Beatty has so eloquently spoken. People Living with AIDS are expecting many and great things as a result of this conference, as well as a result of the initiatives begun by Mr. Beatty. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to continue to work in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect.
In acknowledging that, I acknowledge as well the support and commitment of my hon. friend speaking I am sure on behalf of all other Members of the House.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Today is World Environment Day and, as Canadians, we should reflect on the fact that we are fast becoming the garbage dump of the United States in respect of hazardous and dry wastes.
Canadians were shocked to learn during the PCB-laced gasoline affair that approximately 140,000 metric tons of hazardous waste is exported from the United States into Canada every year. Last week, specifically Wednesday, there was a Congressional Bill moved in the U.S. Congress that would have placed severe limitations on the capacity of U.S. companies to send their waste to Canada and to other countries.
Under whose direction has the Canadian Embassy in Washington already begun lobbying against that particular Bill?
Oral Questions


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, Canada-U.S. relations with respect to the transportation of toxic waste are regulated under an agreement and by an Act of Parliament.
These rules set very strict standards, which include obliging companies shipping toxic waste to Canada or to the United States to provide guarantees that there are facilities at the point of destination capable of treating the waste.
As for the question of additional U.S. legislation, Canada hopes that controls on movements of toxic waste will be reinforced as much as possible. I have just checked with my Department, and no one in the Department objects to the passage of new U.S. legislation. However, we will not let Americans set Canadian standards. Those standards will be determined by Parliament and we will do so independently and in accordance with environmental requirements.


REQUEST AS TO WHETHER MINISTER HAS GIVEN CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we know perfectly well that Canada is becoming a garbage dump, whether we are talking about the Eastern Townships with discarded U.S. refrigerators all over the place or the matter of toxic substances.
More specifically, I would like to ask the Minister whether he himself asked the Canadian Embassy in Washington last Thursday-the same morning he spoke to our Committee, saying he was concerned about the waste issue-did he give the Canadian Embassy instructions to call the U.S. congressman's office to lobby against a U.S. bill that would put limitations on exports of toxic substances to Canada? Did he give those instructions?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I gave no instructions to our embassy in the United States. I may add that the problem of solid waste coming in from the United States is a problem we must deal with. We know, for instance, that these shipments include used refrigerators that are sometimes stored illegally in Canadian dumps.
During a friendly conversation with the Hon. Member last week, we indicated that we needed her help to make

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
a technical correction in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and if she gives us her support, we will be able to regulate PCBs in solid waste.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. We on this side share the concerns of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council that systemic discrimination in the Public Service is continuing since there is a very low percentage of minorities employed in the Public Service and employment equity is not working.
Why has the Government established a target of employing only 3.1 per cent visible minority persons when 6.3 per cent are employed in the general workforce? Is this not a policy of institutionalizing discrimination rather than eliminating it?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board, together with the various departments and Crown corporations, has been trying for several years to reduce all forms of job discrimation in the Public Service and in Crown corporations.
Objectives have been set to improve the situation by reducing those barriers that prevent people in various groups from having access to employment in the Public Service or access to promotions. So far progress has been made, quite substantial progress, Mr. Speaker, but we want to keep improving our record.
I can assure the Hon. Member that measures are in place, in consultation with the unions, to improve the situation and raise the targets set for the departments and Crown corporations.


EFFECT OF BUDGET CUTS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that under 2 per cent of the Public Service employees whom we employ are people of colour. Surely we can do better than that.
Budget cuts will result in even more public servants being laid off and therefore fewer opportunities for visible minority people to get into the Public Service. What will the Government do about this? Will it establish a special fund that will assist in achieving employment equity for target groups?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, advisory committees have already been established with the President of the Treasury Board for each target group for hiring and promotion in the Public Service. I meet regularly with each of these advisory groups, which make very useful recommendations to us during their work, Mr. Speaker. These groups are generally satisfied with the progress made to date. In the last few years, they, like the Government, wished that progress were faster. With their help and the support of my colleagues, I am sure that I can improve the situation considerably in coming years.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the sad situation presently being experienced by those fleeing the violence in Lebanon.
The Minister's officials stated last Tuesday that up to 1,500 Lebanese people visit the Canadian Immigration office in Nicosia every week. Yet after making their way through the fighting to the Island of Cyprus, up to 1,200 people per week, fully 80 per cent, face immediate rejection while the lucky few face months of delay.
Will the Minister undertake to the House and Canadians today to review the immigration criteria with a view to increasing the numbers eligible to come to Canada from this war-torn country and to streamline the already over burdened process?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member and members of the parliamentary committee for their interest in this issue. It is a very important one.
June 5, 1989

Oral Questions
We have been speeding up the process for family class and sponsored relatives. That system is working. We check into this very carefully on an almost daily basis.
I should say that Canada has done more than any other country in terms of alleviating the situation in Nicosia. We have been taking more proportionately than almost any other country. Of course we continue to watch the situation and will continue to handle it as expeditiously as possible.


PRIVATE SPONSORSHIPS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It also concerns the situation in Lebanon.
Despite the worst fighting in 15 years, the Government's special program is anything but special. To date, the number of people landed permanently in Canada is 131 Lebanese, compared to 1976 and 1978 when almost
12.000	Lebanese people were allowed into this country. In 1983, 3,000 people of Lebanese descent were allowed into this country under truly special programs.
Is the Minister prepared to have her Government match the number of private sponsorships by Canadians of Lebanese descent, as was done in 1979 and 1980 for the Vietnamese boat people when Canadians, in partnership with the federal Government, each sponsored
50.000	Vietnamese applicants? Is the Minister prepared to allow willing Canadians to sponsor and thereby help alleviate the tragedy in Lebanon?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is no limit on the number of private sponsorships. Of course, we will facilitate in any way we can those private sponsorships and the family class categories to which I have referred.
I should state that at the beginning there was some misunderstanding in the minds of some people about what we were doing, because many of the Lebanese who have been in Nicosia are not people who come from Lebanon but from third countries who were making an effort to take advantage of the program through I believe a genuine misunderstanding. That has changed.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two further questions, a single question from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and a single question from the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES EFFECTS ON OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Four years ago, the Government said that energy was going to be the engine for economic growth in Canada. Since that time, offshore drilling on the east coast has collapsed. This year they are predicting that in the second quarter of 1989 only 89 drilling rigs will be in operation, a mere 17 per cent of the rigs available, which is almost half of the rigs that operated last year, although that was not a good year. This will mean that 6,000 fewer people will be working in the energy, oil and gas sector in western Canada this year.
Why is the Government in effect discouraging activity in the western sedimentary basin in the conventional oil and gas industry through its lack of energy policy and its Draconian financial and budgetary restraints?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not bringing forward disincentives, as the Hon. Member is trying to put forward in his question. It was also debated today when we were looking at Bill C-19, namely, the ending of the CEDIP Program. I remind the Hon. Member that the Government has been dismantling the National Energy Program, which was very much a desire, not only from the point of view of economic activity in the country and from the point of view of investment but from the point of view of the industry.
I also remind the Hon. Member that the industry very much wanted the removal of the National Energy Program. I also say to the Hon. Member that we have been hearing some very disturbing signals from Members on the other side of the House. On the one hand, they say that they are not in favour of the megaprojects. On the other hand, they say they are in favour of the megaprojects. I would like to know where they stand.

June 5, 1989
Oral Questions
The Government of Canada is ready to invest in Hibernia. The Government of Canada is investing at Lloyd-minster-


Mr. Speaker:: We will proceed. The Hon. Member for Mission-C oquitlam.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Only 11 per cent of children in Canada receive licensed child care. The Government has reneged on its commitment to safe, affordable, universal child care in the Budget.
Will the Minister agree that just as it is not necessary to hold bake sales to purchase weapons, it should not be necessary to hold bake sales to fund child care?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget we made it very clear that we have an ongoing commitment to child care. We have put in place the tax elements of this, in which we have increased significantly the child tax credit for those lower income families who have children under six years of age. We have clearly indicated our commitment to come back to Parliament with the balance of this proposal some time within this mandate. That states very clearly the ongoing desire that we have to address this very important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a point of order from the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I just want it to be clear that the briefing that my officials want to present today at 4.15 p.m. in the Railway Committee Room, Room 253-D, is available to all Members of the House of Commons, not simply the members of the standing committee. It is on a confidential basis.


PREPARATION OF RESOLUTION TO BE PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a different point of order on the same subject. During the Question Period the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was good enough to say that the Government was responsive to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) that a motion be presented to this House for likely unanimous adoption, condemning the authorities in China for their brutal treatment of the young people in Tiananmen Square.
I therefore want to ask the Government House Leader if we cannot consult later in the day on the appropriate wording of such a resolution, which for certainty and adoption could well be presented by the Government and might well be dealt with tonight during the emergency debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I could reply to that, what I would do, if it meets the agreement of other Members of the House, is prepare a draft resolution which I could circulate in the later part of the afternoon. I will consult with the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) and with the foreign policy spokesman of the New Democratic Party to seek language that we could consider during the debate tonight.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, further to this morning's discussion among the Parties which related to the business of the House, I want to clarify this afternoon's business schedule as a result of those discussions. I think we have reached a schedule which will accommodate the Opposition critics and the Government.
The first order of business this afternoon will be Bill C-17, the Customs Tariff Bill. Should second reading of this Bill be concluded before 5 p.m., it is the Government's intention to call a resumed second reading debate on Bill C-19, the energy Bill. If time did permit following the second reading of Bill C-17 and Bill C-19, we would resume second reading debate on Bill C-4.
June 5, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State (Finance) moved: that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present for second reading Bill C-17, a Bill to enact some tariff changes emanating from the Budget.

As Hon. Members can see, the Bill that we are tabling today is not voluminous. However, it is quite important for many Canadian companies, industries and taxpayers. The Bill will implement the changes to the Customs Tariff made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on April 27, 1989 as part of his Budget.

This Bill would essentially accomplish four things. The first group of amendments responds to requests from the private sector to take into account the evolving needs of Canadian business and industry. Specifically, duties are being removed on time recorders, vessels for scrapping, checking fixtures imported temporarily for manufacturing automotive production equipment, and here is one that has caused some smiles in the department, pheasant blinders and guards. I could get into that in greater detail if the House is interested. These goods are not available from Canadian producers and the duty removal will assist industries in their competitiveness.
The duty is also being reduced on low alcohol beer while the excise duty and sales tax are being raised to bring the treatment of imported low alcohol beer into line with that of domestic low alcohol beer.
Secondly, the Bill extends the authority to restore pre-harmonized system tariff rates. Members may recall that on January 1, 1988, Canada and most of its major trading partners converted their tariffs to the harmonized system nomenclature, generally known as the HS,
Customs Tariff
an internationally agreed system for describing, classifying and recording imported goods.
The conversion was complex for Canada because the customs tariff had not undergone fundamental revision for decades. A major objective, and I might say successfully achieved, was to ensure the change would not affect revenue. For major trade items, the conversion maintained the same tariff rate. Because of the complexity of the conversion, however, all individual rates could not be guaranteed to remain the same, particularly in the smaller trade areas.
Since a completely neutral rate conversion could not be guaranteed, the new tariff approved by Parliament in December of 1987 included Order in Council authority to allow the Government, during an 18-month period after implementation, to respond to requests to restore rates existing before harmonization. This authority was extended to be used to rectify only those changes injuring Canadian manufacturers or importers.
As a result of a number of representations indicating the business community has not had time to fully assess the impact of the conversion and present requests for restoration of previous tariff rates, this Bill would extend that authority for a further 12 months until June 30, 1990. This extension will enable the Government to continue to respond to those cases where the conversion has had a negative economic impact on Canadian manufacturers or importers.
This Bill provides duty free entry for a range of imports which have previously benefited from duty remission by Order in Council. As Hon. Members know, the Government has the authority to remit customs duties by Order in Council in situations where it concludes such action is necessary, an authority which is used primarily where the application of the tariff laws or regulations are having unintended and undesirable results for specific imports.
In the past, the House has expressed concerns regarding the use of this authority. The Government has taken steps to address these concerns through the tabling of all remission orders valued over $20 million, and a semi-annual report of all remission orders approved by the Governor in Council.
In a further effort to deal with these concerns, the Government is taking a comprehensive look at all remission orders to determine those which can be converted to statutory provisions in the Tariff and there-

June 5, 1989
Customs Tariff
by provide Parliament with the opportunity to consider them. Converting these items into the statute itself will provide the private sector with greater certainty regarding the tariff relief and will relieve the administrative burden which the remission orders place on the importing community.
As a result of this initial review, this Bill would convert to statutory provisions in the tariff remission orders providing duty-free entry for the following products: books and printed matter; satellites and satellite subsystems for testing, and articles for use in the manufacture of satellites and subsystems; materials for use in the manufacture of upper atmospheric research rockets; investigational drugs, placebos, and emergency drugs; machinery and equipment for the manufacture of original equipment automotive parts; chemicals and photomasks for the manufacture of semi-conductors; used foundry patterns, core boxes, et cetera, temporarily imported for the making of metal castings; xenon lighting equipment; lamp bulbs for the production of Christmas lighting sets, and laminated glass dinnerware.
Fourth and last, the Bill also extends the Customs Tariff prohibition of importation of pornographic, hate, treasonable and seditious materials scheduled to expire on December 31, 1989. This Bill would extend the prohibition indefinitely to ensure that such materials continue to be denied entry into Canada.
I have already indicated that although the tariff amendments in this Bill are few in number, they are important to the companies and individuals who will benefit from them.
It has been the policy of successive Governments to respond to the evolving needs of the business community and individuals by introducing appropriate tariff changes in annual Budgets. This Bill continues that process. I would ask that the House give it speedy passage.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Minister in speaking briefly to this Bill. Like him, I trust it will receive speedy passage. It is largely a housekeeping Bill. It rectifies previous problems of an administrative nature that have arisen in the implementation of our Customs practices. It recognizes the need to accommodate the requirements of business
to make further adaptations to the new tariff rates and practices.
I join the Minister in recognizing that importers may well require a further 12 months to accommodate themselves to new tariff rates that replace those in effect before the recent harmonization exercise. The harmonization exercise is part of a broader move by Canada toward adapting to more liberal global trading practices. We support the first part of the Bill to enable that process to go forward.
The conversion of certain remission orders to statutory provisions is equally welcome for those goods and products which previously entered the country duty-free. Again, the benefit should be to the business community and to the general prosperity of our countiy.
I noted the Minister's comments about the adjustments to the statutory tariffs in response to domestic concerns. I was glad that earlier in his comments he had referred to the more generous treatment of pheasants and their blinders. I regretted that the Minister in his brief comments did not also draw our attention to the fact that under this legislation mongooses will be allowed into Canada if imported by a zoological institution for display or study purposes. The mongoose, an admirable animal, able to dispatch venomous reptiles with great alacrity, is certain to be a welcome addition to Canada. I say that incidentally, in completely non-partisan terms.
Finally, I want to say a word about the extension indefinitely of the Customs Tariff prohibiting importation of pornographic, hate, treasonable and seditious materials. This is a difficult area. It is not easy for any Government to define or delineate what exactly is pornographic, hate, treasonable and seditious material. However, the Government has moved, I believe, in the right way to extend the present prohibition. There may be problems with it, but I think the move is the right one in the circumstances.
We on this side of the House welcome the introduction of the Bill. We are ready to join in giving it early passage.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to represent my Party in the debate on Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. I will not
June 5, 1989

spend any time dealing with the harmonization component and the delay by one year aspect of it.
I wish to focus on the change that comes in Clause 25 which states innocuously enough:
Code 9956 in Schedule VII to the said Act is amended by striking out the words following paragraph (d) thereof.
A lay person reading that clause will not know exactly what it is talking about. This is the clause that deals with the change in how material deemed to be pornographic, hateful, seditious and treasonable under the Criminal Code of Canada is dealt with.
Currently, there is an annual obligation that the Government come back to Parliament to request the re-enactment of that particular piece of legislation. It has a lifespan of a year. This deletion change means that the section will permanently be in place and that the Government will no longer have to come back to the House for permission and approval. We question that.
First, we question whether this is the appropriate Act to deal with that aspect, in the sense that it goes beyond the normal rules of bringing materials in for the purposes of tariffs or taxation. This can really become a matter of the policy of Canada in terms of how it is to treat material that has been produced in another country, that is, a visual display, electronic, celluloid or in print which deals with pornographic, hateful, seditious and treasonable materials. It is the type of thing where we need that annual mechanism so that as a result of decisions made by the Government or employees of the Government-all we have do is to look back over the last few months and the Rushdie affair and how, as a result of one letter to one Government Department, a ban was placed on that book coming across the border for a short period of time. It was not a permanent ban. Maybe the use of the word "ban" is inappropriate. It was held up for examination even though it had been coming into the country since September of that year.
Without getting into the specifics of that, the concern we have is that by allowing for this amendment under the guise of changes in tariffs, we are making permanent the existing regime. Instead of having a full debate and an
Customs Tariff
amendment coming forward to deal with how Canada approaches this type of material coming across our border, and that is separate from anything that is produced here, we believe this is the wrong vehicle. We believe this is an inappropriate step in this day and age when we do not have a clear definition in legal terms, because of an act of this House and the inability of the Government to proceed with its Draconian definition, a definition that reflects community standards, not just in one community but across this land. It is a mistake to include this in here. At the very least, we will be arguing in committee for its deletion so that we retain the year to year review.
In any case, because of that provision and because we feel it is that important, we in this Party will be voting against the Bill at second reading. We will not belabour the point. We will not, to my knowledge, add any additional speakers, and we will not call for a recorded division. However, we want to go on record as being opposed to this Bill because of Clause 25.
I appreciate the House taking the time to hear from me. Perhaps in committee we will perhaps be in a position to see, on one hand, the rationale of the Government as to why it is included in this way as opposed to some other more upfront vehicle which clearly says "an Act to Amend the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with pornography", and deal with it accordingly and have it go to the Justice Committee or a legislative committee dealing with justice rather than the route it will follow now.


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.


Iain Francis Angus: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to a legislative committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will take a few brief moments to make some comments regarding the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program which this Government unfortunately and prematurely terminated on April 27.
The program was announced with great acclaim just two years ago. At that time it was obvious from the Government's comments that it appreciated the Opposition's co-operation in helping it through the House and that it recognized the necessity for this program.
I wish to take a few moments to read to the Members of this House and to remind them of some of the comments made by Government Members at that time, keeping in mind that these comments were made less than two years ago.
On June 10, 1987 in this House, Mr. Jack Shields, who at that time was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, spoke with respect to this Bill. He made some very interesting comments. He said:
I am sure all Hon. Members are fully aware of the problems the Canadian oil industry and the western producing regions experienced, particularly last year because of the dramatic drop in international oil prices.
He went on to state:
Hundreds of companies went into receivership and experienced bankruptcies. I believe we all appreciate the human and social costs of the situation.
This was a Bill that received a lot of unanimity, which is unusual in this House. In fact, it received a lot of support throughout this country as the Government consulted not only with the Opposition Parties but with representatives of the oil and gas sector. The Hon. Member at that time indicated:
There is now a mood of optimism in the oil patch that has not
existed for quite some time.
He also indicated again:
The purpose of these consultations and briefings was to ensure that the financial support provided by the Government would do the greatest amount of good while respecting the structure of the industry.
He went on:
- it is estimated that the program will attract up to $1 billion in additional investment in the petroleum industry and will create as many as 20,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector.
This was a Bill and a program that was widely accepted throughout this country, a program that was doing good and held a lot of benefit for western Canada, an area of this country that has, as Members know, suffered economically in the recent past.
The Member concluded his remarks, in part, by stating:
The Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program is a signal to thousands of workers in the oil patch in western Canada and the producing provinces that we recognize the importance of the oil and gas industiy and that we have confidence in its future.
Well, just as they sent a signal in passing the Bill, they have certainly sent another signal by withdrawing it so prematurely, something which is most unsatisfying and upsetting to western Canadians.
There was also a Member, Bob Porter, who was at that time the Member from Medicine Hat who in his remarks stated:
While all energy companies will benefit, it is the hundreds of companies in the service sector and the smaller oil and gas producers that will benefit most from this program. An important feature is the provision to allow oil and gas companies to offer flow-through shares which will attract capital and offer Canadians an opportunity to invest in exploration and development in this country.
He went on to indicate that some 2,000 wells would result in some 4,500 direct jobs and over 12,000 jobs in the service and supply sector. I quote again:
While the immediate benefits are obvious, it is vital that the expertise in manpower and technology that Canada's energy sector has developed over the last four decades is to be maintained.
This is a program that supported western development in the western provinces. It was a program that was developing jobs and securing jobs in western Canada. Now this Government has taken the initiative to pull away that program, to simply tell western Canadians that they are no longer important. "We are a Government that is concerned with other areas of the economy but not with western Canada." That is the message being sent by this Government, a message that is most unfortunate and most upsetting for Members. Western Mem-
June 5, 1989

bers on both sides of the Elouse are extremely disappointed with this procedure. As well, just before the last election, the Member for Calgary Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow) indicated that the incentive program was going to be phased out. I quote from Hansard of September 30, 1988. She stated: "The incentive rate would be dropping off and in fact it would be terminating on December 31, 1989".
The Member indicated at that time that the cap would remain at $10 million per company. She also indicated, and I quote:
The Minister has also recognized the number of jobs in western Canada that are totally dependent on the petroleum industry. This incentive means a further $80 million will be injected into the industry which will keep the rigs working, protecting jobs and helping replace Canada's depleting conventional oil reserves.
That was just prior to the election call. That was $80 million added into the program. That was of the so-called guarantees that this Government had put forth.
In fact, the Government at that time indicated during the election campaign that it had not made promises, it had made commitments. That $80 million was part of some $23 billion or $24 billion or $25 billion of so-called commitments that the Conservative Party said it had made to the Canadian people. After the election, this Government came back and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that he was sorry, but these were not really commitments but' were actually promises and now those promises cannot be kept, and this $80 million is simply part of that.
One thing you have to give this Government credit for is that they are very good when it comes to using smoke and mirrors. We could all learn some pretty good lessons from them if we wanted to learn those kinds of lessons, except we on this side of the House are not interested in those kinds of lessons.
This Government came forth with many promises which were supposed to be commitments, turned into promises, which suddenly vanished when the dust had
Exploration and Development
cleared from the last election. This is a slap in the face for western Canada.
This is the Party that for years said it was the Party for western Canadians. It said it was the Party that was going to stand up for western Canadians, election after election, year after year. It seems strange now that they are in power and after they have their second majority that suddenly the West is not as important as it used to be. It is not as essential. I remind the Government that people in western Canada are observing this. Certainly these are items they will remember.
Nowhere in these quotes does one get the impression that perhaps the Government did not think the program was useful or needed. In fact, it was quite the opposite. It indicated that it was a good program. We on this side of the House indicated that it was a good program and that we supported the program as did the Liberal Party, the petroleum industry and the gas industry.
There are many small oil and gas companies in this country right now that are suffering. Certainly the major oil companies are. The Essos of the world are in no danger of going under, but this is a program that was designed to assist some of the smaller oil companies and to keep jobs in the service sector that was part of the oil industry. Now the program has been removed.
There were proposals that were put forth to this Government to not stop the program, not take away the money, but change it slightly. Maybe reduce the cap. Instead of a $10 million cap, reduce it somewhat so that the total amount of money is reduced but the smaller oil and gas companies could take advantage of the program.
In fact, as was indicated earlier, some 90 per cent of the oil companies and companies which applied for incentive grants received only 15 per cent of the income. Some of these smaller oil companies can use that money. They can use it at this time in their development. As the Government indicated in the last House, it is important to maintain that sector and to maintain its expertise in Western Canada. If it goes, it is gone for a long time.
It is this type of attitude and callous disregard that this Government is displaying to Canadians that is making Western Canadians and all Canadians very annoyed. It is a situation that Canadians are going to remember. It is

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
like the old adage that it is not the Opposition that defeats a Government, it is the Government that defeats the Government. This Government is doing a very good job of it. This is a Government that with its second mandate and the first time there has been a second majority in some 35 years in this country, now is taking a high-handed approach to the Canadian public. It no longer has to listen to the Canadian people. That is the attitude it takes.
I remind this House that there will be another election within the next four years and at that time, these are points that the Canadian public is going to remember.
I would like to also quote from a Globe and Mail article by Drew Fagan, who was published on March 20, 1989.1 quote:
For drilling companies across Alberta this has been the winter of their discontent. Although there are 525 drilling rigs in Western Canada, only 160 actually operated in January. And while in February the number increased to 245, that still represents a 33 per cent decrease over the corresponding month a year earlier. At first glance, the situation seems surprising, as the world price of oil has risen substantially in late last year.
That benchmark price is generally the major factor driving activity levels across the energy industry.
But oil and gas companies planned their drilling levels for the key winter season last fall, when oil prices were cratering. And the rise in prices, even though it has been in place almost three months, has met decided skepticism about whether or not it can last -
To finish the quote:
-other factors have also played a major part in making this winter
one of the slowest in the past decade in terms of drilling activity.
The oil and gas industry is in a period of uncertainty. Certainly they are waiting for the OPEC meetings in June to see what sort of pricing they can count on. They are planning their activities long in advance. For this Government to come along, knowing the situation that exists in the oil patch at this time and to simply cut the feet from under the oil companies is a situation that borders on arrogance. This is a Government that prides itself on consultation? This is a Government that prides itself in listening to the Canadian public?
This is a Government that has its own small network of friends. This is a Government that is concerned only with that small group or that small clique that is calling the shots for this Party. To be quite frank, it is something that we, on this side of the House, find hard to stomach.
Although the Government announced just before the election that an extra $80 million would go into the program, that $80 million was taken away when the program was ended prematurely, just five months after the election.
The Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors recently tried to put meaning to the numbers by calculating just what the cancellation of CEDIP would mean to their members.
These figures are from the oil and gas industry which indicate that up to 50 rigs could work with the $80 million stimulus that is now lost, that employment on the rig floor would have been 1,500 people, and at least 3,700 jobs would have been provided. This is a significant number of jobs in Western Canada and a significant number of jobs in a region that is now facing higher and higher unemployment. It is a region of Canada that has been suffering a drought for the last few years. In fact, an indication of the Government's concern for the West is from the Finance Minister, who indicated during the Budget debate that he thought that people in Western Canada were recovering from the drought. The Finance Minister is certainly out of touch with Western Canada when he makes comments like that. It is not surprising that this sort of legislation should come through as well.
Given the continuing need to protect jobs in the industry, especially among the small contractors and service companies, one must ask what the Government plans to do to replace CEDIP. Its premature cancellation has every appearance of short-term political expediency on the part of the Government. We on this side of the House hope that a suitable replacement will soon be put in place.
We suggest to the Minister that, instead of cancelling the program, it is restructured in order that jobs in the oil sector will be secure, the jobs in the service sector that supports the oil industry will remain in place, and
June 5, 1989

that the expertise that is now in western Canada will remain there. Certainly, by lowering the cap from $10 million to $1 million or $2 million would go a long way in saving the Government money, which it claims it wants to do, but it would also go a long way to securing jobs.
A much higher cost is paid when jobs disappear. The Government may save a few million dollars on a program, but the indirect costs are significant. When direct jobs are lost, the spin-off jobs related thereto are also lost. Suddenly, the pressure on social programs and unemployment insurance programs rises at a very time when the Government is cutting the legs offof those programs as well.
We plead with the Government to take some initiative in dealing with average Canadians who are simply trying to pay for their mortgage and maintain some standard of living. However, the Government is ignoring that, has been ignoring it, and continues to ignore it. This Bill is another example of a Government that is out of touch, a Government that has lost complete control of its understanding of the nation's problems. That is why we are opposed to the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on a question or a comment.


Ross Harvey: I was delighted to hear the Hon. Member bring up the question of the economic impact of the cancellation of the CEDIP Program in general in western Canada. The Hon. Member mentioned the drought and the spin-off effects of the loss of direct patch jobs. In Alberta, especially in northern Alberta, most of those who ostensibly make their living as farmers rely as well on off-farm income to keep their farm operations going.
It is a simple fact of life in agriculture, especially in Alberta north of Red Deer, the farm income itself is insufficient to fully cover the costs of the operation and allow a sufficient surplus to provide for a life of comfort and some dignity for the farm families still on the land. Therefore, off-farm income in the non-growing season has become a fact of life. As often as not, in Alberta, off-farm income means the oil patch. There are literally thousands and thousands of people who are registered as farmers for income tax purposes who, in the off-farm season, go to work in the oil patch, work on the rigs, doing the servicing, or even slinging the hash at the sites.
Exploration and Development
Those people rely on that employment to allow them to continue to farm.
The effect of the cancellation of the CEDIP for those people, because the number of companies out in the patch drilling and exploring will be reduced because the over-all level of activity will be greatly reduced, will be far fewer of those jobs available for farmers seeking off-farm income. What we are talking about is not only a program the cancellation of which will be very bad news for the oil patch, which it certainly will be, but we are also talking about a program the cancellation of which will be very bad news for the farm community. I am certain that will prove to be the case in northern Alberta.
I was wondering if the Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte), especially because of the natural gas activity that we know occurs in Saskatchewan, might comment on the degree to which the same might hold true in his province.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I thank my hon. friend for his comment. He has precisely hit the nail on the head. Not only in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but in Manitoba, and I am sure in other areas of Canada, but in western Canada we have an infrastructure where each element is important to the survival of the entire infrastructure.
In Saskatchewan the family farm is the basis of our economy. That family farm structure also supports numerous communities. It supports numerous small businesses that rely on the family farm income. In the last few years because of the situation in agriculture in western Canada, many farmers are now seeking off-farm income. Certainly, the oil patch in Alberta and the oil and gas-related jobs in Saskatchewan have provided much needed extra income for the people of that region.
The federal Government and the Government of Saskatchewan have been talking about the need for diversification. This program was helping to maintain some diversification. By cutting that program, and the loss of jobs that will result from the loss of that program will have an effect directly on agriculture and the many small farmers who are trying to survive, many family farms will lose the extra income.
As my hon. friend mentioned, there are many people who work on the farms during the summer months and spend other months on the oil rigs or in the gas fields. This is one more area that will be lost to them, one more area from which they will not have the opportunity to derive extra income. It is extremely important in light of

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
the fact of the Government's attitude toward agriculture.
In 1985 the then Minister of Agriculture indicated that the Government would be putting forward a permanent drought program. It never came. The Government has been promising some answers for agriculture which have not come forward. Now we know that in the fall the Government will be introducing programs with respect to agriculture, but that program will be dealing with the bottom line. The whole social infrastructure is in danger of collapsing as the Crow benefit is changed, rail lines are removed, and as family farms become larger. Those jobs that are now being lost are very important to the people in that region. If the Government would think of the social and economic benefits that will result from that program as opposed to always considering the bottom line, the Government would reconsider that legislation if it had a mind-set to take that approach and view western Canada from that philosophical point of view.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate this afternoon on the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program. This program has been veiy beneficial since 1987 when it was first established to provide incentives to the oil and gas exploration industry.
In 1986 the price of oil dropped precipitously from $28 or $29 U.S. a barrel to as low as $10 a barrel. The whole industry collapsed during the latter half of 1986. By 1987 this incentive program was brought into being to assist the industry, especially the small producers and it has been beneficial in that regard. It could have been better if the cap had been lower as our caucus has been recommending in that the benefits would have flown to the small producers.
We have to realize that something very dramatic in terms of concentration of the industry has taken place since 1984. At that time we had the National Energy Program in place which was an incentive program to bring greater participation by Canadian oil and gas industry into the industry and to exploit our oil and gas reserves. With the Government's removal of all those incentives, with the collapse of prices in 1986, what we
have seen is cash-strapped Canadian companies being bought up by the multinationals and a massive concentration taking place. This incentive program, especially if it had been restricted to $1 million for the smaller companies as the multinationals do not need it on the same basis, could have continued the development of small and medium-sized Canadian companies to prove up reserves and bring them on stream.
It is incredible that this program is being dropped at a time when the Budget seems to indicate that all the megaprojects are going forward. We are talking about a relatively small amount of money here, $350 million, and we are told that if this program were limited to a cap of only $1 million per producer, the cost would be dramatically reduced to only $80 million per year. It would meet 90 per cent of those who wanted to use the program. I find it amazing that for that relatively small amount of money in terms of jobs created and economic activity developed that the megaprojects, where we are talking about $4 billion or $5 billion for Hibernia and the upgraders and the tar sands projects, are apparently on stream. Whether that will actually happen or not is hard to say.
We are killing off this relatively small incentive program in the western sedimentary basin where we have small jobbers and exploration and development companies which could easily use it. They have their people and equipment in place. It is being killed off at a time when all the megaprojects are still on stream, or have not been cancelled formally.
I recently read a report by the Ontario Corn Producers saying that it is interesting that while the megaprojects are still on stream, for programs designed to encourage the development of ethanol plants using distress farm products or damage for farm commodities, there is no incentive there. In fact, a disincentive is there because of the cancellation of a number of farm programs such as the Advanced Payments Program which is beneficial to corn producers and to western agricultural producers. We seem to be favouring massive megaprojects over the small ones. I don't believe anyone is opposed to the megaprojects. They do bring on stream large reserves but at the same time small incentive programs like the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program are being wiped out.
June 5, 1989

You, Mr. Speaker, represent an Edmonton riding. We know how conscious you are of the some 6,100 jobs which have been lost because of the drop of 32 per cent in the first quarter of this year. We are told that only 70 per cent of the rigs in Alberta are operating today. We are told that if the DECET program is wiped out that another 3,700 jobs will be lost. This is at a time when agriculture generally has suffered in the West with loss due to drought last year and loss in the previous two years due to the international grain wars. All in all we are putting a heavy load on western Canadians at this time.
I know from your perspective, Mr. Speaker, that you are very concerned about this and do not want to see any action taken which would be harmful to the industry. We have to put this into the perspective of the cut-back in the federal-provincial agreements, the ERDA agreements because this has been an incentive agreement by the federal Government to the oil and gas industry. However, the provinces do have similar incentive programs where a portion of the royalties are foregone for a period of a few months to try to bring on stream greater oil and gas exploration and development. We have to be very conscious of the fact that we are selling massive amounts of oil and exporting it into the U.S. right now. We are making commitments well beyond the 25 year period in natural gas. Therefore there is a need to bring on greater and greater supplies and prove up greater reserves in the western sedimentary basin.
Rather than cancelling the program, we are suggesting to the Government that it should be lowering the limit from $10 million to $1 million. This would satisfy some 90 per cent of the applicants. It would save the Government some 85 per cent of the cost of the program. We recognize that this kind of incentive program and cash flow needs are not that great for the large multinational corporations. It is mainly for small exploration and development companies. We think for that reason it should be continued.
For instance, it has been estimated that under the CEDIP program, it would cost the Government some $80 million a year if they use the new proposed criteria which we are putting forward. The industry would generate some $450 million worth of activity and of course develop more gas and oil reserves. At the same
Exploration and Development
time it would create thousands of jobs just by maintaining this program but at a lower level.
The Government should think twice about this. In its own way, it is a regional development program for portions of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Usually in regional development programs, you need to have a system or a mechanism that relates to the raw natural resources of the area. Clearly this is the resource. When the Premier of Alberta spoke dramatically and in very harsh terms about this to the government in 1987, the government responded by bringing in the program, it was one that was useful.
At that time the federal Government had refused to provide a loan of several hundred million dollars or a loan guarantee to the tar sands operations at Fort McMurray for expansion and development. The Alberta Government did it on its own. Then this program came in and the Premier spoke strongly to see it established. The Government responded. The Government should look twice at this proposal before cancelling it completely. We are talking about saving unemployment insurance, and welfare costs. We are talking about people having jobs and the dignity that a job provides. We are not sure how much more anguish there will be in the farm sector this year because of the uncertainty about crops and so on.
The Government should reconsider this proposal when it goes to committee. It could reduce the cap from $10 million to $1 million and specify it for small and medium size oil and gas exploration companies. I think it will find that CEDIP can continue to play a useful role in creating jobs and proving up oil and gas reserves in the western sedimentary basin.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, question or comment. I was interested in a number of the Hon. Member's remarks with regard to the impact of the Bill and the Government's ideological bent in the oil patch.
How would the Member respond to the contention that the Government is not one that is reluctant to interfere in the industry, at least nowhere near as reluctant as it claims from time to time, but rather one with a consistent history of interference in the marketplace in energy, and certainly one with gigantic plans for

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
further interference in that marketplace? I am thinking in particular of the proposed programs for funding of the various megaprojects.
EIow would he respond to the contention that this is in fact a Government not shy of interference, not in reality opposed to interference but one that enjoys a predilection toward interference on behalf of a wealthy and powerful few in the industiy while maintaining its much more rigorous ideological commitment to non-interference in that realm of the smaller independent Canadian companies that constitute the huge majority of companies in the patch but do not control anywhere near the assets of the foreign majors? Could the Member respond to that?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's inquiry. I believe he has perceived the situation very much as it is. A year ago when we were facing the prospect of a general election, the Government made one announcement after another. Hibernia was obviously a massive intervention, with $1 billion or $2 billion, if one counts both the grants and the loan guarantees that were proposed. The tar sands and the upgrader projects are examples of a massive involvement by the Government.
I am surprised that this very small program, CEDIP, would even be noticed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), considering the several billions of dollars under these massive programs which, as far as we know, are still on the table.
As the Hon. Member said, it seems that when we talk about massive programs there are billions of dollars to intervene to assist the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in his riding, or to assist in the development of the tar sands plant in Fort McMurray, or to assist the Minister for International Trade (Mr Crosbie) to get re-elected in Newfoundland. However, when it comes to levels of funding of $80 million or $100 million, it becomes a question of market economy.
We have already seen a massive concentration of oil and gas reserves in the western sedimentary basin during the last four years. Before the crash in oil prices in 1986, these reserves were much more widely held by small Canadian companies, which was the purpose of the whole incentive arrangement under the National Energy Program. When the prices collapsed from $28 to $10 during 1986, these companies did not have the resources to continue for long and there was a massive buy-up. Now there is a concentration of those reserves into the names of the multinationals.
When one considers the purchase of Gulf Minerals by Petro-Canada, there certainly was no hesitation by the Government to intervene in the marketplace and buy up one of the largest Canadian oil and gas companies owned by Petro-Canada. What will happen with Petro-Canada is anyone's guess. I think the Member is generally correct that it is not as much an ideological issue as it is the size of the project. The decision of whether or not to intervene in the marketplace is whether the Government is trying to deal with a specific political situation or give specific advantage to a multinational. That seems to be the general direction the Government has taken.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act. When I read my briefing notes and listened to Hon. Members, I could not help but think back to another debate in a previous Parliament about the ramifications of a government's step to eliminate flow-through shares, and the hue and cry that was created throughout northern Ontario in particular because of the impact of that taxation change and the very quick decline of investment in mineral resource exploration in my part of the world. I wonder whether the Government will have the same problems as a result of its decision about CEDIP.
This program was introduced, effective April 1, 1987, to help the oil and gas industry overcome the impact of the decline in oil and gas prices on employment and investment, particularly in western Canada, caused in large part by the decision of the Government to deregulate energy pricing and marketing. In other words, it decided to take from the industry the system of stability that was in place within Canada so that producers would know their rate of return and purchasers would know the cost. This gave people the opportunity to have a stable lifestyle in the same way as we argue in the House for marketing boards for agricultural products to give some protection to both producers and consumers.
June 5, 1989

The price of oil at the time was $18.45 a barrel. It dropped to about $13 a barrel and rose again to $20. The program initially provided a cash incentive of 33.3 per cent on eligible exploration and development expenses incurred in Canada, up to a maximum grant of $3.3 million on $10 million in expenses per company.
To help debt-ridden small producers, the package allows companies that do not pay taxes to issue flowthrough shares and pass tax credit money through to investors to help raise money. The program was expected to provide $350 million in assistance annually to the oil and gas industry.
A total of $1.25 billion was placed into the program from 1987 through to 1990. When the Bill was dealt with by this Elouse back on June 10, 1987, all three Parties not only supported it but gave it quick passage.
There were concerns raised at the time that the Government took much too long to bring the legislation in. In some ways it was after the barn door was open and the horses had not only bolted but were well past the next pasture. Also we pointed out that it was in apparent conflict with the Government's free enterprise philosophy. This is something, Mr. Speaker, that I know you are very familiar with and would be concerned about if you thought that the Government of which you were elected as a Member was doing something different than its philosophy seemed to suggest.
In any case, that is how it was perceived and how it in fact occurred.
At that time during the debate, my colleague, who is now the Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) stated: "I should like to say that I am cautiously optimistic that the Bill will work. It favours smaller companies. It focuses on grants rather than on tax incentives, allowing some of the smaller companies which do not pay taxes to benefit. It acknowledges the plight of small oil companies as a national issue. It is a national problem about which we all must talk."
It is still short term. The long-term solution is to diversify the western economy. This is no mean feat but is something that must be done away from total dependence upon oil, but oil being the major part of it.
Exploration and Development
That is a very important component. As someone who comes from Ontario, but that part of Ontario which is not part of Metropolitan Toronto or the Golden Horseshoe, distance is a major factor, as it is in western Canada. Yes, we have our resources. Ours are of the mineral variety as opposed to the oil and gas variety in western Canada, and the agricultural resources. We recognize the inherent reality in the way the country is structured. The resources tend to gravitate toward the metropolitan areas, where there is a much larger consumer demand, so that when you add the value you can sell it more readily at a lower transportation cost. The real challenge that Canada faces is how do we develop our structures and our systems to encourage the development of secondary and tertiary industries in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in northern Ontario, so that we can use the resources closer to where we live and work so that we, too, can share in that benefit.
On the energy side I think there is a much greater need to provide mechanisms to allow that to happen. Unfortunately, this Government has seen fit to eliminate one of those elements that in effect encouraged processing in the Province of Alberta, or processing in the Province of Saskatchewan. That is a regret. It just makes even more distant the day on which Alberta residents can see additional jobs created. Not just the drilling and the direct employment opportunities related to exploration and drilling, but additional processing, additional manufacturing that we think they should have without having to get into the battle of stealing jobs from one part of the country to the other. Create the wealth in western Canada, where there is wealth in terms of resources, and use that for the benefit of the people there.
Back in 1986, in terms of western Canadian rig activity, utilization was at a decade-low. Just before CEDIP was introduced, only 35 per cent of available rigs were drilling. One year later, utilization was only 37 per cent, rising to 41 per cent in 1988. This is still well under half of the rigs being utilized for exploration.
I gather that spring is traditionally a time of low utilization but this year's spring is even worse than expected. The President of the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, Mr. Brian Krausert, recently stated in the Edmonton Journal: "We've just

June 5. 1989
Exploration and Development
come through the worst period in our recorded history. The spring has been truly ugly."
At the end of May, only 84 rigs were drilling in western Canada, a 60 per cent drop from the same period last year. This is a plunge the Association estimates has cost
17,000	direct and indirect jobs in the oil patch. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if 17,000 jobs were eliminated in a Hamilton or a London or in Ottawa in the Province of Ontario over two or three months, it would not go unnoticed. In fact, to use the vernacular, there would be hell to pay. People would be clamouring in this House and in the Ontario Legislature for some action. Instead, because they are resource-based jobs, they are spread throughout and not any one particular community is hit by them. They are just bits and pieces around the provinces. It is an invisible kind of unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker, and because it is invisible it does not obtain the attention that is appropriate for the degree of impact, nor does it achieve or obtain the political sensitivity that I think is important for us to recognize. It is a very important situation.
Even before the projected ending of CEDIP, figures for the summer of 1989 were grim. CAODC forecast that only 40 per cent of rigs in western Canada would be drilling in the first quarter of 1989, only 29 per cent or 153 rigs in the second quarter, 28 per cent in the third, and 48 per cent in the fourth. That was before the Budget and before the end of CEDIP.
The managing director of CAODC, Don Herring, stated that after CEDIP even these low estimates will have to be revised. "Now we'll have to revise that figure downward." Many companies are apparently on the brink of bankruptcy. Many oil and gas producers are holding back until June's OPEC meeting on quotas and prices.
The early cancellation of CEDIP will mean less activity and fewer jobs. Early cancellation represents $80 million. CAODC estimates that the maximum impact of this is as follows: Activity for up to 50 rigs only, representing employment for up to 1,500 people on the rig floor and 3,700 jobs at the least.
The Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada wrote to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to express its concerns about the Budget and the early
elimination of CEDIP. In its letter of May 9, the chairman stated: "The abrupt termination of the CEDIP Program by the Government, which will be borne solely by the independent Canadian junior oil company, and the introduction of new taxes on the industry have eliminated at least $250 million in planned capital investment in the conventional oil and gas industry. It puts in jeopardy thousands of jobs in small exploration and producing companies as well as the service sectors that conduct about one-third of the activity in the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. It is unfair."
Not only are oil patch workers and associations distressed at the early elimination of CEDIP, they are also annoyed by the way the Government eliminated it. The program was originally announced amidst much hoop-la by the then Minister of Energy back in 1987. He announced the program would start on April 1, 1987, at the rate of 33-1/3 per cent. On October 1, 1988, the rate would drop to 16-2/3 per cent. The program was scheduled to end on December 31, 1989, about six or seven months from now.
Then came the run-up to the federal election. The Conservatives made announcements relating to Hibernia, Lloydminster, OSLO and the Vancouver Island pipeline. Small producers and Alberta MPs joined together to pressure the Government to modify the program which was about to decline in value.
On September 30, 1988, the Government announced that the program would be phased down less rapidly than originally announced. I repeat, less rapidly. On October 1, 1988, the rate would drop to 25 per cent rather than 16-2/3 per cent. The drop from 25 per cent to 16-2/3 per cent would be delayed until July 1, 1989, and the program would end as planned on December 31, 1989.
This announcement made it possible for the Minister to claim, "This delayed phase-down will inject a further $80 million into the oil and gas industry. This revision will lead to the drilling of an estimated 300 additional wells and will maintain 1,600 oil-patch jobs". However, this extra $80 million was taken away entirely when the Budget was announced. Give one day, just before the election, and take away the next, when safely elected, seems to be the Tory motto.
June 5, 1989

This blatant manipulation was not well received in the oil patch. The Chairman of the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada in a letter to the Minister of Finance dated May 9, 1989 stated:
Based on the government's November election platform, we were shocked by the manner in which CEDIP was handled. Although the Minister of Energy told the industry in Calgary on April 5, 1989 that CEDIP would end (on December 31, 1989) as planned, this budget terminated the program three weeks later in spite of a negotiated clause in the CEDIP Act that was to provide six months notice of such a change. This action is hardly the encouragement needed to create more investment in Western Canada.
It is no wonder that the people of Alberta are beginning to wake up. That is why we now have for the first time a New Democratic Party Member from the Province of Alberta sitting in this House. The people of Alberta are beginning to recognize that they cannot trust the Conservatives, that the Conservatives say one thing before an election and do the exact opposite after. We need Members, such as our New Democratic Party Member, to ensure that the people of Alberta know what is really happening in the House of Commons and what their Government is doing for them and to them.
There are a number of other items that I want to talk about. If the Government really felt that cuts had to be made, even after announcing an extra $80 million just before the election, then the alternative approach-restricting the cap on the program, that is, the maximum amount of grant any one company could receive, rather than the proportion of expenses that could be claimed back-deserves serious attention. This would have given even greater relative support to the smallest companies. However, there is no evidence that this option was even considered by the Government. I am sure that my colleague in committee will question the Government as to whether in fact it did pursue that option as well as others before it arrived at the six-month early termination of the program.
There is really no substitute for a made-in-Canada floor price for oil to provide real stability for the oil patch in these downturns, and to provide employment stability for thousands of workers in the West. My constituents are the consumers of these products. They recognize that on the one hand there is a need for fairness in terms of the price they have to pay, whether it be at the pump or in their homes, no matter whether it is oil or gas. They also recognize on the other hand that the people of the producing provinces, both the workers and the compan-
Exploration and Development
ies, need a decent standard of living. They realize that they need to be assured of stable employment and therefore stable operation of the companies involved.
While I have gone to bat for my constituents before the Ontario Energy Board to make sure that whatever savings achieved by companies such as ICG Utilities were in fact passed on to the consumers and not just kept as additional profits for yet another mega-company, I recognize that there is a need for a stable situation in energy pricing in Canada. While eastern consumers can get energy at a reasonable level, it should not be at the expense of the economy of the prairie provinces. It should not be done at the expense of people who live and work in the prairie provinces. I support the approach that talks about a need for a made-in-Canada floor price for oil so that there will be some stability out there and so that the price cannot go below a certain amount. In that way those people may maintain their livelihood, as can the people in northern Ontario.
I would like to get the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to stop bashing my constituents and the rest of the people around northern Ontario by upping our taxes for fuel that we have to choose. We do not have the alternatives, such as urban transit, as there is in Toronto and other major cities. Then we would be able to take the pressure away from the consumers and allay the feeling that they are being gouged by all and sundry.
I mentioned earlier the intervention aspect and that this is a so-called free-market Government. I want to remind the Government and the people of Canada that in spite of the Government's rhetoric it does believe in interfering in the marketplace. It announced CEDIP in the first place. It announced its participation in Hibernia, Lloydminster and the Vancouver Island pipeline. Negotiations are still under way on some of these projects.
Mr. Speaker, do not let anyone say that the Government has an entirely market-oriented approach. No Government should have that approach. There is a role for Governments to play in ensuring stability so that, where possible, economic growth and wealth is not concentrated in only one part of the country. We have talked a fair bit about western Canada. There is no question that eastern Canada, the Atlantic region, has not had its fair share of economic growth. It is our role as parliamentarians to find ways in which we can ensure

Exploration and Development
that those things happen. That is why it is important that we debate legislation such as this to its fullest.
I look forward to seeing what the committee has to say about this particular Bill. Hopefully, there will be some changes in it, where appropriate, which will make it better for the people of western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte).


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make, followed by a question.
The effect this Bill is having on western Canada has been to cause uncertainty in the Government. The Minister indicated in April, just before the Budget, that the program would continue until its termination at the end of the year. Suddenly, some three weeks later, the legislation was removed completely. When the Minister makes such a comment and then three weeks later the whole program disappears, there is certainly cause for concern among members of the industry. There has certainly been that in western Canada. It certainly has an effect on the confidence that the people in the industry have in the Government. I know it has had an effect on western Canada.
In the Hon. Member's part of the country there is a great deal of mining. The mining industry is very prevalent in that part of the country. Has this announcement and others had much effect on the confidence that people in the industry in that part of the country have in the Government? What effect is it having on people in that area of the country in general?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. We can point to a number of instances in which the governing Party has said one thing prior to an election and said another thing after it. It said one thing before the Budget and another thing after. VIA Rail comes to mind. The Government was not going to touch VIA Rail until it had its studies and reports in place. However, now we know that the Government has cut back drastically to the tune of $1.2 billion in VIA's operating subsidies. We will find out tomorrow when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) appears before the
Transport Committee what exactly it thought it was doing at that point in time.
I think the most condemning comment that ever came out of western Canada-actually it came up before the last election, and one wonders about some of the decisions that people made at the time they went to the polls, those who voted Conservative-is that the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, is more popular in western Canada than is the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). If anything could send Tories quaking, it was the reality that these folks are so bad that it makes the last folks look better. We all know that they were rotten.
In terms of the mining industry and in terms of other industries in northern Ontario, we found out the hard way that even when it is in writing and signed it does not mean that it will happen. We do not believe it will happen until it happens.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief and simple question to ask of the Hon. Member, having noted with approval his remarks this afternoon. I was wondering if he thought it strange that apparently this debate will conclude without any participation from a single Member of the Government benches from Alberta?


Iain Francis Angus: As a new Member, my colleague might think it strange, but we have discovered over the past four and a half years that government Members tend not to speak out, even on legislation they agree with. That is due in part to the fact they don't want to be identified publicly with it or because the Government wants to pass the Bill quickly. The Government leaves it to the members of the Opposition, both Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the New Democratic Party, to carry the debate.
So I say to the Member, don't be surprised. It is the normal procedure, particularly for Alberta Tories.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member on debate.
June 5, 1989


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, I want to start by concurring that my own experience matches in many ways those shared by my predecessor in this debate, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). We are not a constituency with a component in the oil and gas exploration industry, but many of us within the West Kootenay region have been for over 100 years well versed in the difficulties faced by the mining industry. Considering the obvious comparison of what the changes to the whole flowthrough share mechanism has been over the last couple of years and what is envisioned by the legislation before us, we are only too aware of the type of adverse impact the termination of this program may have on an industry that in many ways is similar to the mining industry that we are familiar with in my area.
I want to begin by making a few brief comments regarding the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program which this Government terminated very early on April 21'. The program was announced with great acclaim two years ago. At that time, it seemed obvious from the Government's comments that it appreciated the Opposition's co-operation in helping the program through the House and that it recgonized the necessity for such a program. I want to read a few comments from some of the government Members at that time, keeping in mind that these remarks were made only one or two years ago.
I want to quote the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he said on June 10, 1987, referring to the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program:
This legislation will make possible the implementation of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentives Program which my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), announced on March 25 in Edmonton. I am sure all Hon. Members are fully aware of the problems the Canadian oil industry and the western producing regions experienced, particularly last year because of the dramatic drop in international oil prices. Just as an example of this, exploration and development spending in the western sedimentary basin plunged by more than 50 per cent and thousands of jobs were lost. Hundreds of companies went into receivership and experienced bankruptcies. I believe we all appreciate the human and social costs of the situation.
I am sure all Hon. Members will agree on the soundness of the measures provided by the Bill and the urgent need to support
Exploration and Development
recovery in this key sector of the economy. Just as an aside, let me say that, since the announcement of this program, there have been clear signs that exploration and development activities and plans as reported by the service sector in the oil industry have increased considerably. There is now a mood of optimism in the oil patch that has not existed for quite some time.
As an aside, I wonder, if that optimism was felt so strongly then, what the feelings are now in that same sector as a result of the Government's early termination of this program?
Going back to the remarks:
The Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program is as relevant to the imperatives of social justice as it is to those of economic development. I would like to emphasize that the provisions of the Bill are the outcome of lengthy discussions and consultations with representatives of the oil and gas sector and provincial Governments as well as with my Liberal friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and my NDP friend from Vancouver- Kingsway.
The purpose of these consultations and briefings was to ensure that the financial support provided by the Government would do the greatest amount of good while respecting the structure of the industry-it is estimated that the program will attract up to $1 billion in additional investment in the petroleum industry and will create as many as 20,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector.
He ended by saying:
The Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program is a signal to thousands of workers in the oil patch in western Canada and the producing provinces that we recognize the importance of the oil and gas industry and that we have confidence in its future.
If the implementation of that program was a signal to thousands of workers and to the industry that this Parliament and Government recognized the importance of the oil and gas industry and that we had confidence in that industry's future, then what is the signal given by this early termination of a program that was so welcomed by the industry and so overwhelmingly supported by all Members in the House of Commons?
Next, I want to quote the Member for Medicine Hat in 1987. The Member for Medicine Hat at that time is recorded on page 4589 of Hansard, March 26, 1987. He said:
Yesterday in Edmonton the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced the Canadian Exploration and Development Program. While all energy companies will benefit, it is the hundreds of companies in the service sector and the smaller oil and gas producers that will benefit most from this program. An important feature is the provision to allow oil and gas companies to offer flow-through shares which will attract capital and offer

June 5. 1989
Exploration and Development
Canadians an opportunity to invest in exploration and development in this country.
The drilling of 2,000 wells will result in 4,500 direct jobs and over 12,000 jobs in the service and supply sectors. While the immediate benefits are obvious, it is vital that the expertise in manpower and technology that Canada's energy sector has developed over the past four decades be maintained. This announcement should not be considered a short-term solution but an investment in the future security of energy resources for the benefit of all Canadians.
I want to go back to the last few words, that this announcement, that is, the establishment of the program, should not be considered a short-term solution but a long-term investment in the future security of that industry. Here we have the Government, after bravely announcing that this was not a short-term solution, coming in less than two years later and terminating, against the advice of many people in the industry, and closing it down. That is an example of short-term expediency, not long-term planning and certainly not the kind of consultation with an important area of the private sector in western Canada, that we should expect from the Government if it wants to appear to be doing the proper job for the long-term security of this industry and devout working Canadians.
I want to quote one additional source from Hansard. In a statement on page 19810 of September 30, 1988 of Hansard the then Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) stated:
- the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced today an adjustment in the phase-down of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program. The incentive rate from October 1, 1988. to June 30, 1989, will drop from 33-1/3 per cent to 25 per cent. As of July 1,1989, until December 31,1989, the rate will be 16-2/3 per cent. The cap remains at $10 million per company or related companies.
The Minister has also recognized the number of jobs in western Canada that are totally dependent on the petroleum industry. This incentive means a further $80 million will be injected into the industry, which will keep the rigs working, protecting jobs and helping to replace Canada's depleting conventional oil reserves.
Nowhere in these quotes from government Members does one get the impression that perhaps the Government does not think the program is useful, or that the program was needed or is needed today. There are many indications that the program is needed just as much today as it was two years ago.
I quote from The Globe and Mail article by Drew Fagan published on March 20, 1989 as follows:
For drilling companies across Alberta, this has been the winter of their discontent.
Although there are 525 drilling rigs in western Canada, only 160 were actually operating in January. And while in February the number increased to 245, that still represents a 33 per cent decrease over the corresponding month a year earlier.
At first glance, this situation seems surprising, as the world price of oil has risen substantially since late last year. That benchmark price is generally the major factor driving activity levels across the energy industry.
But oil and gas companies planned their drilling levels for the key winter season last fall, when oil prices were cratering. And the rise in prices, even though it has been in place almost three months, has met decided skepticism about whether or not it can last-
- other factors have also played a major part in making this winter one of the slowest in the past decade in terms of drilling activity.
Although the Government announced just before the election that an extra $80 million would go into the program, that $80 million was taken away when the program was ended prematurely just five months after that election. This is the Government that said it was in favour of long-term planning, not short-term giveaways.
The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors recently tried to put meaning to these numbers by calculating just what the cancellation of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program mean to their members. As an addendum to their press release on the cancellation of the CEDIP, the association stated:
In terms of employment and activity the cancellation of CEDIP would have the following maximum impact:
(1)	up to 50 rigs could work with the $80 million stimulus that is now lost.
(2)	employment on the rig floor would have been 1,500 people and at the least. 3,700 jobs would have been provided.
This was was said with the following assumptions:
(1)	money would have been spread evenly over the year. This means to earn $80 million, operators would have spent $450 million.
(2)	average central Alberta well is $500,000, which means 900 wells could have been drilled.
(3)	average central Alberta well takes ten drilling days, or 9,000 work days are lost.
June 5, 1989

(4)	there are 240 days left in the year, and a rig could work 80 per cent of the time, or 190 days.
(5)	using 9,000 days and 190 rig days/rig = 50 rigs running full time.
That is a major loss.
Given the continuing need to protect jobs in the industry, especially among the small contractors and service companies, one must ask just what this Government plans to do to replace CEDIP. Its premature cancellation has every appearance of short-term political expediency on the part of this Government. We in the New Democratic Party hope that a suitable replacement will soon be put in its place.
There is an old saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The saying that this Government perhaps should listen to is if it is working, don't break it. That appears to be what is happening here.
I mentioned earlier that this was a Government that, almost as an article of faith, says that it is a business-like Government and a Government that consults with industry, business and those on the ground floor of our economy. It is a Government that administers on a long-term basis, not simply for the short-term and with grab-bag expediencies.
This action by the Government in the cancellation of this program, in spite of all of their words just a few short months ago, puts the lie to those assumptions. This is not a business-like Government. This is obviously not a Government that consults with major companies, workers or with communities who are engaged in large areas of the private sector, at least not in Western Canada. They have forgotten their roots on the other side of the House. They have forgotten their roots with not only level-headed people in the business community, but they have forgotten their roots in that section of the country that gave them some of their strongest political support over the last one or two decades.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They had better think again, because just as the oil and gas exploration industry in Alberta and other major sections of the oil patch in Canada have been learning that this is a Government of short-term expediency as a result of what they have done with this legislation, so too have the people of my constituency
Exploration and Development
and other historic mining exploration and development areas across the country learned that. Because of the shenanigans, over flow-through shares and the up-again, down-again changes to those programs, people have found out that they cannot rely on the word of this Government when they say they are going to do something for the long term and will introduce a program that lets industry and investors know what the ground rules are for a significant period of time so that they can make the necessary adjustments to gain the maximum amount of revenue and support to those communities and to those industries.
One cannot operate a country this way. For those on the other side who say things are a lot better in the mining and oil industry than they were in the bad old days-and we know which bad old days they are referring to when they use those phrases-I would like them to realize that in good measure because of the changes to the flow-through shares mechanism regarding exploration and drilling in the mining industry that in my own constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, which historically is one of the major areas in Western Canada when it comes to mining exploration and development, unemployment levels have gone up from some 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent back up to 16 per cent and 17 per cent. In some cases, it is as high as 19 percent. We are again approaching exactly those same depths of unemployment as we had during the worst years of the resource debt in the early 1980s.
This is the Government that pledged to begin to change that in the resource areas of this country and particularly in the resource areas of Western Canada. They ignore those commitments at their peril. I ask them to reconsider both this legislation and their whole attitude.
One of those changes that they might also consider, and it is relevant to this particular area of discussion, is their decision to place both the mineral development agreements and the forest resource development agreements under the Western Diversification Fund.
Again, that is a short-term fund for particular companies and particular industries. It does not lead to the kind of long-term planning that is necessary both in the forest industry and the mining industry if we are to see stable and planned growth take place whether publicly or privately within those important sectors.

June 5, 1989
Exploration and Development
The resource communities of this country need a long-term commitment. They need long-term commitments from industry, from the labour force. Most importantly, to set the ground rules, they need to have some long-term planning and commitments from the Government that when a program is in place for a specific period that it should at least last for that long so that we all know the ground rules and begin to work to change our resource communities and our resource industries from the boom-and-bust cycle into long-term, stable growth so that we and succeeding generations can count on an increasing share of the wealth that this country can produce.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments the Elon. Member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: British Columbia enjoys a substantial natural gas industry. Certainly, New Democrats in British Columbia know this because it was the very far-sighted administration of the Elon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) who pioneered the creation of the marketing agency that the New Democratic Government in British Columbia put in place to handle that province's natural gas: collecting the gas from the producers in that province, and paying the small independent producers the best returns they ever had for natural gas in that province, marketing it, and pocketing a great deal of the rent earned thereby for the people of British Columbia.
There is still a substantial natural gas industry in British Columbia. It is still characterized by a fairly large number of independent Canadian firms.
I was wondering if my hon. friend might offer some speculation as to what the impact of this Bill could prove to be on those natural gas firms operating in his province that have benefited so handsomely from legislation put in place by a previous New Democratic provincial Government?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: If I were a Member from northeastern British Columbia, I would be in a much better position to answer the question.
As I stated earlier that while there are similarities between the oil and gas exploration sector and those within the mining industry, I am not directly familiar
enough with the experiences to be able to relate back one or two lifetimes ago, in political terms, to be able to give a clear and concise answer to the question posed by my hon. colleague.


Ross Harvey: Speculate.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I hesitate to speculate. I wish the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) was present. The legislation and the change in the marketing mechanisms that were brought in at that time did assist the industry within my own Province of British Columbia. I only wish that in the not too distant future we may see those types of initiatives taken again by a Government of a similar bent.
In responding to my hon. colleague, one thing I can be very clear on is that, unlike the Government that simply preaches being businesslike and talks about consulting with all sections of society before precipitating actions, I know that myself and my colleagues whether provincially in British Columbia or federally here are committed to consultation with all sections of the Canadian community, including all segments of the business and industrial community, to ensure that even though we may disagree on some particular points, we do understand the importance of stability and establishing ground rules that we can count on for a foreseeable period and thus plan both our private and our public activities in such a manner as to ensure the maximum benefit for the greatest number of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on a question or a comment.


Ross Harvey: The principal aspect of this Bill is that it will result in a withdrawal of federal government money from an area of the energy industry characterized, at least in Alberta, by a large number of small independent Canadian firms. One of the places in which the federal Government is continuing to promise at least the investment of substantial sums of money, certainly sums far greater than is accounted for by this premature cancellation of CEDIP, is in the proposed Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. It was promised again during the last federal election.
Does the Hon. Member accord any greater credibility to the promise that was made during this federal election than he does now to the promise made during the prior federal election by the Government, or indeed at any of the provincial elections by the current Social Credit
June 5, 1989

Government? Does he indeed accord any credibility to this promise whatsoever?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I am not quite sure where to start, but I think I know how to finish.
The problem with the commitment, the sacred trust, or the promise, whatever it was, of the Government during the last election to the Government of the Province of British Columbia, and I do not think it was to the people of British Columbia because the people did not ever say that they really wanted it, was that it would provide significant money to build a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. The Government appears to have done a bit of a shuffle on that. We are not really certain whether it is still committed to that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Fully, $150-million worth.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: So the figure of $150 million is still there. I have a great deal of difficulty in keeping track of opinion in British Columbia in terms of whether or not the people of Vancouver Island want that natural gas pipeline. I know that most of the industries on Vancouver Island have stated that they have no great need for it. Many of the industries on Vancouver Island have suggested they have alternative means of energy production over which they have direct control that they would like to proceed with. This may or may not have a serious adverse impact on that development.
In the Throne Speech, as well as during the last election, the Government stated that the environment has the greatest of all considerations. Yet in the so-called planning process for this natural gas pipeline, the Government wanted to direct it through the main source of water supply for the greater Vancouver regional district. That has created an almost unheard of degree of unity and outcry among all the citizens of the lower mainland of British Columbia. All considerations of environmental impact studies were to be cast aside in somebody's headlong rush to establish the route for this pipeline. Apparently because of that strong, vociferous, and united stand by the citizens of Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia, there has been a backtracking. We now have some assurances which I hope hold water, or gas as the case may be, that there will be a proper environmental impact study.
Exploration and Development
Now, apparently, there is also some due consideration, whatever that means, to finding an alternate route perhaps up the east side of Indian Arm in order to circumvent the watershed of the lower mainland, if such a pipeline does in fact go ahead. On both the grounds of actual need and perceived need by the public, which does not seem to exist in British Columbia, and by virtue of the environmental impact, plus the need of this Government to supposedly save money to spend on other priorities, we really wonder where it is at. Again, the Government seems willing to spend money on a program that we do not know is needed. The people who supposedly want it do not know if they want it. However, the Government wants to spend the money even though it states that it has not got it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been instructed by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division to a later time. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the Bill now before the House will be deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to call the Members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to you, Sir, that at the point at which you called the question, the clock was very clearly past five o'clock. We had other speakers prepared to speak the next time the matter was brought before the House, but because of the haste in which you proceeded, we were unable to do that. That is why I forced the vote.

June 5, 1989
Canadian Museum of Oceanography


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Elon. Member that I have a clock in front of me. It was not quite five o'clock. That is why I proceeded with the vote. I regret I cannot watch every clock in the Chamber. The clock that is in front of me is the one that I watch. Therefore, it being 5.05 p.m. we will proceed now to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   MUSEUMS MEASURE TO ESTABLISH CANADIAN MUSEUM OF OCEANOGRAPHY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider giving serious study to the establishment of a Canadian Museum of Oceanography in the National Capital Region, which would include among other things a national freshwater and saltwater aquarium containing specimens of all of Canada's aquatic fauna.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate a motion that is very important for the National Capital Region and I am even happier that my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has kindly agreed to second this motion.


Don Boudria: With pleasure!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hope that all the people of the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will have the opportunity to visit this fine museum, this wonderful aquarium, which I am sure will be built somewhere in the National Capital Region, which perhaps some day will extend to Plantagenet, as the Hon. Member for that riding and many of his constituents would like.
Mr. Speaker, I first thank the members of the Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business for choosing my motion and thus allowing it to be debated in this House for up to five hours.
Also, I wish to congratulate the task force on the National Capital Aquarium, a committee headed by the Aquarium Lovers' Society of the Ottawa Valley. This committee of businessmen and professionals from our community has laid the foundation for a project that I trust will soon take shape. Sincere thanks for their
perseverance to people like Alan Emery and Robert McFethridge, who spared no effort to obtain the human and financial resources needed to move this issue forward.

This project is not new. It has been with us for some 20 years. In my case, it dates back about 10 years where it was the object of debate in my riding in 1979. Last year and in years gone by I did have the occasion to present a similar motion in the House for debate. Unfortunately, it was not always drawn. It sometimes happens that parliamentary initiatives just do not come to debate. But I am very happy today to have the privilege to debate this most important project.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, economic growth and increased tourism in the National Capital Region over the last few years have prompted attempts to find new attractions that could make our National Capital Region worthy of all Canadians, attract Canadians to their National Capital and interest them in our national institutions and museums. I, for one, believe that a Museum of Oceanography would do just that. Aquariums are very successful. Unlike some other cultural institutions, they are capable of supporting themselves. Of the 10 major aquariums in North America-and Ottawa's would be a major aquarium-none are going broke. Their financing sources are as diverse as the fish inhabiting their tanks. The National Capital Commission chairman, Jean Pigott, welcomed the idea when it was proposed in 1986. She said:
We welcome the idea and would like to be very encouraging to the museum. Aquariums throughout North America are drawing large crowds and we recognize this.

Mr. Speaker, what are the advantages of a national museum of oceanography and a national aquarium?
A museum of oceanography with freshwater and saltwater aquariums would, in my view, be an essential adjunct to our cultural network. Looking at the various aspects of a project of this kind, we see there is a lot more to it than just a tourist attraction. There are any number of benefits, and these include meeting the educational, community and cultural needs of the Canadian people. A study carried out in 1986 showed that 60 per cent of the visitors interviewed visited a historic site and 40 per cent a museum. In addition to being an activity centre for all Canadians, offering shows and entertainment and showcasing Canada's aquatic life (mammals, water, plants), the Museum of Oceanography would be an educational centre for research and conservation, concentrating on pollution-a major concern today-, reproduction physiology and propagation, the impact of acid rain, and behaviour of fish and marine
June 5, 1989

mammals, while demonstrating Canada's expertise in the fishery sector and stimulating the general interest of the public. We estimate attendance at 1.1 million visitors during the first year. That is a lot of people!
By giving visitors an insight into various conditions in our environment, our conservation practices and Canada's water resources, we can teach them to protect the environment and to show respect for our ecology.
The museum would of course be associated with well-known scientific institutions and maintain close relations with research centres, colleges, universities and other educational establishments.
There is much material available to those who are interested in this subject. In looking over the material, I was interested by the Scripps Aquarium Museum in La Jolla, California. It is an interesting example of an aquarium-museum. Founded in 1905 and affiliated with the University of California in San Diego, the institute has an extensive collection of marine animals. It specializes in the study of infections contracted by aquatic fauna, aquariology and pigmentation research. They publish a quarterly newsletter and were very proud to associate themselves with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the University of California at San Diego with a special edition of that quarterly newsletter.

Mr. Speaker, here in the National Capital region, the issue of financing and relations with educational institutions has been given very serious thought. A study started in July 1988 by the National Capital aquarium committee shows it would be economically, financially and socially feasible to build and operate this kind of aquarium. The project I favour and endorse would become financially self-supporting and could be directed by a non-profit organization. Self-financing would be based on admission fees, private investment -the municipality selected would also invest a certain amount-, membership fees, donations, product sales, franchises, special events, funding campaigns, and other sources.
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
The Vancouver Public Aquarium, which is a similar project, makes an annual profit.
Although a substantial financial contribution from the federal Government is expected and would be desirable, a minimum contribution might include the gift of a lot of at least 20 acres plus the expertise the government has among its employees.
Mr. Speaker, we have some major human resources in both science and technology, in aquatic sciences and research that has been done by our scientists in this field, and I think this would be a major contribution on the part of the federal Government in setting up the museum.
As for cost and economic spin-offs, construction costs are estimated at about $51 million, while the total start-up cost would be $67,721,000. However, total economic spin-offs during the first year of operations would amount to $204 million. It would create 1,752 jobs during construction and thus fill the void left with the completion of the National Gallery and Museum of Civilization; as well, 150 permanent jobs would be created in this new museum.

I appeared to make my comments to the committee considering Private Members' initiatives. The Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Thorkelson) had asked me if I would consider accepting an amendment to strike out the words "in the National Capital Region" from my motion if it was put forward. Of course, I said at the time that I was mainly interested in the project because the study that had been done was made for the National Capital Region and I cannot speak for any other region. I am here to present something for the region that I know best.
A great number of factors have been taken into consideration, such as the number of visitors we have every year, the existing facilities, other attractions and more. However, this project does not prevent other municipalities from wanting their own aquariums. On the contrary. If other municipalities have the same potential as my region, then they should present such a project. I believe very strongly that a country which has

June 5, 1989
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
borders on three oceans and has one third of the fresh water resources of the world should have in its national capital a national aquarium-museum of oceanography.
In the National Capital Region we need not seek the public will, we already have it; we need not seek the leadership, we already have it; what we need now is the political will and I hope both sides of the House will give their approval to this project.

Mr. Speaker, six municipalities have suggested possible sites for a national aquarium. The City of Ottawa has proposed nine: the Le Breton Flats, Victoria Island, Britannia Park, the DesChenes Rapids, Lansdowne Park, Dow's Lake, Mooney's Bay, Bayview and the Arboretum. The City of Hull has suggested Leamy Lake, Jacques Cartier Park and the Armory; the City of Gatineau, La Baie Park; the City of Gloucester, Green Creek; Nepean, Shirley's Bay, Black Rapids and Jock River; and Hull West has suggested Meech Creek.
So we see that the municipalities have shown a fair amount of interest in this affair and they have all participated in developing this project.
Obviously, site selection will be based on the following essential criteria. The committee that conducted the study considered the following criteria to be essential: proximity to water, amount of land (18 to 20 acres), adjacency to an urban area, public services and minimal environmental impact. Also, location on the Ottawa River, accessibility on foot from other tourist attractions, accessibility from major arteries, etc. will be considered.
With these criteria, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the committee will choose the best possible site for the success of this project.
Let me conclude by saying that the National Capital Region is Canada's fourth largest, with 820,000 inhabitants. The most important museums are found here. However, the region is also one of the few national capitals in the world that does not have its own aquarium. The Museum of Oceanography with a freshwater and saltwater aquarium would fill this gap.
As I said, according to the study, the participation of the federal Government is essential to this cultural, touristic, educational and environmental project.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks with the hope that both sides of the House will support this motion, which asks the government to give the project serious consideration. Let us proceed quickly.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who just gave that sermon on behalf of the location of an aquarium in the National Capital Region. It is always dangerous to compliment Members opposite.
The last time I spoke in the House of Commons, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier was protesting the rise in interest rates on behalf of the debtors of Ottawa-Vanier and the National Capital Region, paying no attention to the fact that there are many more investors in this area than there are debtors.
Now he comes before us with a novel venture, paying no attention to the fact that there is no ocean in the National Capital Region and there are no ocean species or ocean facilities of any kind. That is why I credit the Member, because he is always there looking after the National Capital Region. Of course in the end, he made the worst possible argument, that they have all the national museums of Canada right here in this National Capital. It apparently comes as no surprise to him that they should have one more. I do not want to make sport because I know his intentions are of the highest order. I know that he wants to do the best for his constituents and all the residents of the National Capital Region. However, I am sure the rest of the country would take the very firm, honest and clear position that the National Capital Region has had more than its share of national institutions and that other areas of the country should be considered for any more national institutions.
I do not want to put down the Member any further than to indicate what the definition of oceanography is. What the Member is suggesting is a Canadian Museum of Oceanography. I have the Oxford Dictionary which states that oceanography is a "Branch of science concerned with the study of the ocean, the composition and
June 5, 1989

characteristics of the water, plant and animal life, and the ocean floor."
Now, what worse place to study oceanography than Ottawa, the National Capital Region? I could rest the case there but I want to go on in a more positive vein, without any further criticism of the Member, and point out the advantage of east coast locations.
The place that I have in mind, of course, is the Port of Halifax, which obviously has all of the advantages which the National Capital Region does not in terms of the definition of oceanography. We have an ocean. We have a year-round port, a harbour that can accommodate any kind of vessel and any kind of facility. Indeed, we have many of the facilities in place. In terms of the museum-type operations there is already in the Port of Halifax the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic which has over
150,000	visitors a year. It includes over 15,000 artifacts of a Maritime nature. There is not a great facility in terms of an aquarium, but I am sure there are ample facilities to which an aquarium could be attached if the national Government were prepared to fund such a venture. I did not catch all the financial implications that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier indicated, but I am sure he is calling upon the Government of Canada to assist financially in this project.
If you have been to the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in the Port of Halifax, Mr. Speaker, and I think you have, you will know that it houses the famous Acadian Canadian Scientific Survey Ship and a number of other facilities. We now have one of Canada's famous corvettes available to the public for inspection. Beyond that, there are enormous other oceanography institutes in the Halifax Metropolitan area.
First and foremost is the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, a federal Government institution that has broad services related to oceanography. There is of course Dalhousie University facilities and the other university facilities. Halifax is one of the outstanding university centres in North America with seven degree granting institutions in the area. Beyond that, there is international flavour, the International Centre for Ocean Development is located in the Halifax area. I am beginning to think we are almost as bad as the National
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
Capital Region but we have facilities that relate to ocean activities and to the fishery.
I could go on with the facilities that are available which would form a welcome environment for a Canadian Museum of Oceanography and for the related aquarium facilities but I am sure they are pretty obvious to anybody who is familiar with the Port of Halifax. I do not want to be negative, as I indicated, and indicate the reason why such an institution should not be located in the National Capital Region. Besides that, I have only 10 minutes and I am sure I could fill a much longer period of time with the negative side of the Member's proposition.
Let me speak in broader terms. I am sure the Member will understand and he will not take this as criticism. The National Capital Region is blessed not only with the normal institutes of Government but beyond that, it has the National Gallery, the new Civilization Institute and a myriad of other facilities. I cannot imagine anybody seriously suggesting that to this great mass of public facilities should be added yet another facility when other parts of the country suffer from economic difficulties and suffer from the need to attract tourists and visitors to the area. Just as I am saying that, I see he is nodding. I think the Member for Ottawa-Vanier will agree that on second thought the Port of Halifax would be a better place for such an institute. He did indicate in his presentation that he was only involved in the proposition for the National Capital Region.
I am sure, as I have already indicated, the facilities available in the Port of Halifax, he will realize that that proposition is preferable to his own. He indicated that he is not open to any amendments. I would not ask him to consent to an amendment. However, I would ask other Members to consider the proposal put forward in light of other areas of the country, particularly the east coast of Canada. I will allow the Members from the west coast make their own arguments.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, because of my colleague from the federal constituency of South Shore, that there is a close connection between the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in the Port of Halifax and the Fishermen's Museum in the Port of Lunenburg. They have always worked on a joint basis to cover the area. We would have that kind of co-operation so we would be helping not only the provincial capital of Nova Scotia but we would also be helping the whole of Nova Scotia.

June 5, 1989
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
I think that is what we all want to do. We want to benefit the whole of Canada. We realize that the National Capital Region is a fine place but it has had its day in the sun. I think it is time that Members from the National Capital Region share with the rest of the country. I do not think that anybody can seriously disagree with that proposition.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very brief intervention to the motion put forward by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I certainly support the principle of the motion, the desire to establish a Museum of Oceanography in the National Capital Region. As the Hon. Member has pointed out, it already has the catchment area, both in terms of people who reside in the region as well as the vast number of tourists to support such a facility.
Where I do have some concern, it is over whether or not this is the National Museum of Oceanography. I am sure that if not the Member for Ottawa-Vanier, his colleague who seconded the motion will agree that one of the things that we as parliamentarians have got to stop doing and what we have to start doing, and particularly impose upon the Government, is to develop an appropriate public process for designation of communities and locations within those communities to establish federal Government buildings or museums and so on. I say that in the context of the kind of battles that we have seen over decentralization, where jobs are taken out of the National Capital Region and moved to Charlottetown, or moved to North Bay. We have seen in Ontario where the Ontario Government is arbitrarily moving ministries from southern Ontario to northern Ontario. In all of those, what has happened is that it has been hands-on, the laying on of hands. Somebody decides: "Well, we need something in Thunder Bay, so what are we going to send up there?" This is as opposed to going through the process of saying: "Here are the needs. Here are the resources." After we have decided to decentralize, or in this case to develop a new facility, where is the most appropriate place to put it? Do we put it some place where perhaps it does not have as large a catchment area but needs the economic stimulus?
What I think we need to do is develop a process that can be imposed upon the Government of the day no matter which Party forms it. In this way decisions can be
taken in the public realm. That is to say that if the Government decides to decentralize a particular government Department then it will put out proposals. It will say what things upon which it will judge an area. The Government will be able to say the following. "We will judge you on your unemployment rate". "We will judge you on your connections with electronic services since this is an electronic services Department". "We will judge you on transportation components because we have to have access to major communities across the country", and on and on.
I quite clearly support the development of a Museum of Oceanography here in the National Capital Region. I also support the concept of developing a similar facility on the Great Lakes somewhere, or wherever it is deemed to be appropriate. However, I say that not necessarily supporting it as the national museum or the Canadian museum of oceanography.


Don Boudria: The motion does not say that.


Iain Francis Angus: I realize that it does not say that. However, there is a minor twist. As Hon. Members know, we deal with words and their interpretation in the House. When one states: "Canadian Museum of Oceanography", some will interpret that as the only one, the one supported by the federal Government. In all sincerity, I understand the intention of the Hon. Member. He is working hard on behalf of his constituents as he always does. I support the concept he is promoting.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on Motion M-361 moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
First, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his excellent initiative and I am sure that all Hon. Members of this House are glad to know that some of us have the talent of coming up with innovative ideas of this kind and proposing them in the Parliament of Canada. The Hon. Member opposite from Halifax-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -from Halifax West, I think!
June 5, 1989


Don Boudria: from Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), that's it- I am sure that he too is a little envious of the good idea suggested by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. He almost said so. He almost admitted it. It was almost a confession on his part, Mr. Speaker, when he said that the centre should be located in Halifax. It is like saying, "I find that a good idea too, except that I am sorry I did not think of it."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's right!


Don Boudria: That is what the Hon. Member opposite has just admitted to us today. We had that admission.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has already suggested this initiative in the past. I remember it well. It is the second time he suggested it to us. I trust that the Conservatives across the way will understand once and for all. Usually even Conservatives should be able to understand after a second explanation- if one speaks slowly enough, of course! But in any case, we shall try to make them understand and to make the Hon. Member for Halifax West understand that such a museum is desirable for the National Capital Region.

It has been said earlier that this would be the national museum of oceanography. That is not quite what the motion states. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider giving serious study to the establishment of a Canadian
Museum of Oceanography-
I say to the Hon. Member from Halifax and all other Hon. Members that if they, too, have a good idea like this there is hope for them yet. If they do not have a good idea they could always consult us. We will provide them with a few good ideas, free of charge. Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition are very co-operative in terms of assisting the Government in providing better representation for all Canadians, as I am sure you know very well being the non-partisan person that you are as the Speaker.
The motion proposes to have this museum of oceanography in the National Capital Region. The Member from Halifax said that maybe it should be in his riding. The Member from Thunder Bay said that perhaps it should be located in his riding. The Hon. Member from Halifax uttered the word "costs" some place in his speech. My
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), did not ask the federal Government for any funding for this project. I know that is awfully hard for the Hon. Member across the way to understand. However, I will repeat it. Obviously, what would be required, at least in my opinion-or what could be required-would be for the federal Government possibly to contribute the land. We have the Lebreton Flats here in Ottawa which we have been saving for about 30 or 40 years for some good idea.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here it is.


Don Boudria: We have a good idea right now. It is something that could be of benefit to all Canadians. The Hon. Member is not asking for a federal Government grant or anything of the sort. There is a good spot here to locate it. There is a good catchment of people. There are half a million people in the national capital, three-quarters of a million if we include the ones living on the other side of the river. We have people from all over the country and from all over North America and elsewhere who come to visit the National Capital Region. Those tourists could come to visit this fine centre, this aquarium, this oceanography museum and contribute financially, as they do in this sort of establishment.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier mentioned similar centres in Vancouver and California, which are privately-owned, fairly profitable enterprises. We should not assume that a museum of oceanography, an aquarium of this kind is an expensive hobby, because usually, the reverse is true. And I think that here in the National Capital region we could use something like this. This time, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for a museum that will cost $250 million to build. We are not asking for anything like that. What we want the federal Government to do is to take a serious look at the feasibility of establishing a museum of this kind in the region. Studies have been made. My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, as we all know, always does his homework, we have had ample proof of that today! There are any number of reports, Mr. Speaker, including a report by Lavalin's Econosuit, a company well-known to the Government opposite, to say the least, which prepared a report on this type of museum in the National Capital region and made a favourable recommendation.

June 5, 1989
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
I myself, as a Member from the National Capital Region, although I would like the National Capital to expand somewhat into my riding, as I have said in the past, and I am taking this opportunity to say it again, I would like a museum of this kind in our region. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of museum and the kind of facility that attracts the whole family, and there are many Canadians, many people that would like to see this kind of facility. The Hon. Member for Halifax says: Well, Ottawa has to be the worst place for this kind of centre. He wasn't listening very carefully to the eloquent speech by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, because he would have realized that we are here in part of what used to be the Champlain Sea. In the National Capital region, we are close to Pink's Lake, a very historic body of water that goes back to prehistoric times, if I am not mistaken, and has certain kinds of fish that used to live in the ocean and have now become freshwater fish. A facility of this kind would include saltwater and freshwater fish and the rest. It would be an aquarium, which I think would be a very useful, very attractive and very desirable facility as far as tourism is concerned.
After all, Canada has the largest expanse of ocean surrounding it of any country in the world. We have oceans on three sides, and here in Ottawa, in the national capital of our country, when citizens come to visit, they will be able to see something really Canadian, the ocean. There is nothing more Canadian than that. I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his excellent initiative.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to participate in this debate. I wish to compliment the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for bringing forward this very important topic. The idea of a Canadian Museum of Oceanography is an excellent one. I confess that I cannot totally agree with his suggestion as to where the museum should be located, the National Capital Region. I am a little closer to buying the suggestion of my friend, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). However, if we look at the museum complexes that already exist, we will find that in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, we have the basis of
what could be a Canadian national museum of oceanography and marine life in the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic.
One of the reasons this suggestion is a meritorious one, that we should consider designating a national museum of oceanography, is the important role that the ocean and marine life has played throughout Canadian history. Who knows exactly when the first Europeans crossed the Atlantic, but when they came, whether it was in the 14th or the 15th century, they came looking for our fish. We are still looking for our fish. In fact these days, we are having difficulty finding as many fish as we might like to have. However, it is still an important part of the life of Canada, not just Canada and the Atlantic, but indeed the sea life impacts from one end of Canada to the other. We are after all surrounded by three oceans: the Arctic, the Pacific, and the Atlantic. There is no question that marine life has played a very important role. One could tell, through such a museum, a very stirring story of courage and enterprise, of centuries of history and development.
We could look at the evolution of the fisheries as a source of economic wealth and development and the technological changes that have occurred throughout the years. Indeed, it would be very appropriate today to see such a museum focus on environmental issues and concerns and ecological needs.
My home is about 15 feet from the Atlantic Ocean, literally. The cove around which I live in the community of Hubbards, I have seen over the last 40-odd year changes in the ecology of that cove. Saturday last I was in fact swimming in it and observing the bottom and snorkelling. It is extraordinary to see the changes that take place. If we had a museum that properly demonstrated how the environment of the ocean and the ecology can be impacted, it would be a tremendously valuable education for our young people.
I think the idea of a national museum is simply an excellent one. We are particularly aware in Atlantic Canada today of how important our ocean is to us and how we can be in difficulty when the resources of that ocean are not readily available to us.
My hon. friend from Halifax West talked about some of the facilities that already exist in Nova Scotia that provide the basis for an excellent museum of oceanography as well as marine life generally. He spoke about the
June 5, 1989

Maritime Museum of the Atlantic which is a beautiful facility on the shores of Halifax Harbour, that has with it one of the earliest oceanographic vessels that were in use in this country. Generally speaking, it provides as a museum a concept of sea life in the shipping industry going back over the last couple of hundred years, wherein the Province of Nova Scotia has played a central role.
He might also have mentioned the Atlantic Command Museum which is located in HMCS and CFB Stadacona in Halifax which provides a naval history museum as a complement to the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic. He spoke of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, one of the premier oceanographic institutions of the world. Surely there could not be a better location to expand on that facility and make it available to people visiting that area to see the impact and the role that the oceans play in our life in our society.
There is one other extremely fine institution that exists in Nova Scotia, and it happens to be in the famous, historic town of Lunenburg. When we think of the ocean what town in Canada is better known than the Town of Lunenburg; the town where the Bluenose was built; the town where the Bounty was built? We have today an outstanding Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic in Lunenburg. I would encourage my hon. friend opposite to come and visit the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic. I would encourage all Members to come there. There is no better place to spend the summer than the South Shore of Nova Scotia. I look forward to doing that myself, and the sooner the better.
The Hon. Member will find there a marvellous aquarium of the sea life of the Atlantic; live fish, lobsters, scallops and clams. You name it, they have got it in their natural habitat as it has been recreated. We already have a marvellous aquarium in this facility. The museum also provides an opportunity to understand the harvesting of the ocean. We have a display, for example, that traces the technology of the fishing industry, over 400 years as it has evolved both in-shore and on the Grand Banks. It also provides an opportunity to visit two floating museums, the Theresa Connors, which was a two-masted schooner that was active in the Grand Banks fishery in the 1920s, and a salt banker, the Cape North, which was
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
one of the early steel hull longliners. It seems to me that we already have a marvellous facility.
The previous speaker made the suggestion that possibly we should have more than one of these museums. He, I am sure, would be pleased to visit the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic, which provides the basis of the kind of oceanographic museum that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier anticipates. It would be marvellous to have all types of museums in all parts of Canada. However, the reality is that when you talk about national museums, you have to focus on a major centre.
I do not see how anyone could seriously propose to have an oceanographic museum anywhere but by the ocean. You can build a beautiful building in Ottawa, and they have. I have taken advantage on occasion to visit the beautiful museums that we have here that are being built. We will soon see the opening of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. We have the wonderful National Art Gallery. We have the National Aviation Museum and wee have the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography. We all look forward and I would encourage the Government to provide the resources so that we can soon have a new National Archives. However, there is no reason that everything national in Canada must be in Ottawa.
The country began on the East Coast. Our first industry was the fishery. That is what brought people here before they began the settlements of Newfoundland. We have had settlements close to the ocean and involved in the sea life for over 200 years. To me it is inconceivable not to mention the fact that it is not particularly practicable: How can you have an oceanographic museum without the ocean? You can build a great-big tank, but it would be a better idea to encourage people to travel to the East Coast so they can develop a real sense of the ocean. The concept of an aquarium gives people the opportunity to see up close what various types of marine life are like, both fish and the flora and fauna in the ocean. If you see it in a tank in a big city like Ottawa or Toronto, Ontario, it is not the same as being right beside the ocean when you can walk down the shore and see some of these things as well.
It is important to understand that as we evolve our museum system in Canada, we have an opportunity to share these resources for the benefit of all Canadians

June 5, 1989
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
because not all Canadians have the same opportunity to travel.
In Atlantic Canada, we live by the sea. The sea is the pinnacle of our lifestyle. The obvious place for the jewel of the museum system that does focus on the ocean, it seems to me unquestionably is Atlantic Canada. I humbly suggest that Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, one of the most beautiful towns in Canada, would be the ideal place to implement this otherwise excellent idea put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the arguments of my hon. colleagues in favour of adding another museum to the National Capital region of Canada, in this case a museum of oceanography. We can readily understand the advantages of this plan, especially with regard to Canada's history and present-day environmental and ecological issues.
As shown in a federal document published in May 1988, Challenges and Choices: Federal policy and program proposals for Canadian museums, museums have fundamental importance for Canadian society. Serving the collective memory of the nation, they are symbols of national identity and pride, centres of creativity and learning, places of magic and enjoyment.
In short, small town community museums or major center multidisciplinary institutions are important in Canada, for they serve to preserve certain aspects of the world's human and natural history for the enlightenment of present and future generations. The activities of our national museums and the Museums Assistance Program which benefit Canada generally confirm the Canadian Government's commitment to this important component of our cultural life.
We are about to officially open in Hull the new Canadian Museum of Civilization. The new National Gallery of Canada opened its doors last Spring to a concert of universal praise and the National Aviation Museum has just completed phase I ot its relocation project in Ottawa East.
Moreover, new facilities for the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Aviation have been announced and the construction work should begin within a few months.
Yet, I question the advisability of a proposal seeking the Canadian Government's help for another major heritage establishment in the Ottawa-Hull region which is already properly served, as everyone knows, by four national museums and their ancillary out-buildings.
In the area of heritage museums, my Hon. friends should not overlook the fact that several very worthy and valuable initiatives have been taken in various parts of our country which are not so well provided for in that respect as the Ottawa-Hull area. I should like to emphasize the fact that Quebec has only 90 museums, while Ontario has 265, nearly three times more, and British Columbia 126.
However, the official opening in Hull of the splendid new Canadian Museum of Civilization which will take place this month indicates a will to rectify this inequality.
Elsewhere in Quebec, however, creative and hard working people are impatiently waiting and anxiously hoping for a positive reply from the Canadian Government which would help them realize their heritage projects.
Several of these projects for which there is no funding available at this time would be just as important for the cultural development of our country as a Canadian museum of oceanography, because they would meet likewise real needs as far as education opportunity, community enlightenment and tourist attraction are concerned.
While we are considering new initiatives, however exciting and important, let me remind you that Quebec still does not have a great science and technology museum. Why? Because we can not find the money for such a project even though serious feasibility studies completed in 1986 recommend it. It is unfortunate that there is no such museum in Quebec, especially since we are living in an era of rapid and inevitable changes when we should show and even celebrate scientific and technological accomplishments in order to develop our scientific knowledge and that of our children.
June 5, 1989

The substantial number of valid projects in Quebec in relation to available funds is only part of the problem. Several museums face serious requirements regarding exhibition, protection and preservation of their own collections. For example, to name only a few in Montreal, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, the McCord Museum, the Musee d'Art contemporain, the David M. Stewart Museum and the Musee des arts decoratifs are all seeking new funds to complete renovation and expansion projects required to adequately preserve collections they are already responsible for.
Therefore, I would like to make sure that in looking at the proposal to further examine the new proposed museum of oceanography, we keep in mind that many other important projects, in Quebec as well as in the rest of the country, have long been confined to a priority list awaiting for a favourable response.
Our enthusiasm towards a new project, as legitimate as it may be, should not lead us to forget that several other valuable and well prepared projects deserve as much consideration and support from us.
In concluding, M. Speaker, I would like to say to my honourable colleague from Ottawa-Vanier that his proposal is certainly valuable, interesting and surely very creative. However, on the one hand, we should consider that in a context of budgetary restraints where funds and resources are no longer flexible, as we had hoped, it is not possible for the time being to envision such a venture.
In a context of budgetary restraints, the funds that remain available for everything that relates to culture should be directed first at reinforcing the existing institutions, particularly the museums which have a history and a tradition and which already have collections that, for a lack of funds, cannot be developed, and at the same time, at making available to these institutions funds to expand, or at least to renovate the structures that accommodate these collections.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, should we have enough funds available, I would suggest to my hon. colleagues that we implement the numerous initiatives which are as good as the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier and which have already been considered and found to be meaningful and profitable for the whole country. It has already been planned that these initia-
Canadian Museum of Oceanography
tives would be implemented throughout Canada to enhance the various regions of our beautiful country.
Thirdly, I would like to remind my colleague whose motion stated that:
the Government should consider giving serious study to the establishment of a Canadian Museum of Oceanography in the National Capital Region -
- that even though my colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said that it did not cost anything, we have to realize that as soon as the Government undertakes a study, it needs money. A study of this magnitude cannot be conducted without the allocation of funds and, should it find this project warranted, we will have an addition to the long list of projects that are considered priorities. We should not be naive enough to think that, should this project be accepted, the next step would not be to ask the Government for funding. Our colleagues in the House are all aware of the financial problems we are facing as a Government.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the validity of the motion presented by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. I think that his proposal is indeed very worthwhile, creative and interesting, but at the moment, I suggest that we postpone it until a later date and give priority to other projects that have already been found to be worthwhile.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know it is close to six o'clock and I can well understand why my colleague from Carleton-Gloucester would like to have the floor at this time. I also know that there are certain negotiations going on about the debate tonight at eight o'clock and that there are certain things which possibly could be done now that would allow for the debate tonight to be a little more focused. Could the time allocated to my colleague from Carleton-Gloucester be just taken up until negotiations are terminated so that we can come to the House before we adjourn for supper so that we can pretty well get our understanding here as to what happens after eight o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Canadian Museum of Oceanography [Translation\


Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important motion which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the governemnt should consider giving serious study to the establishment of a Canadian Museum of Oceanography in the National Capital Region, which would include among other things a national freshwater and saltwater aquarium containing specimens of all of Canada's aquatic fauna.
I think that is an absolutely essential educational project for Canada, a countiy that opens on the Atlantic ocean in the east, the Pacific ocean in the west and the Artie ocean in the north. We have a multitude of big and small lakes, everywhere.
I can understand Government Members wanting to establish, maybe, an aquarium or a museum of oceanography in their region, be it Halifax or Vancouver. If the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) or for Tuktoy-aktuk were here, I imagine he or she would probably want the museum to be located there. All things considered, it is not a matter of a very specific location, should the museum be in an area here of there to develop what exactly we do not know? Would a museum on the Atlantic ocean be a fair representation of the Pacific ocean? Would a museum on the Pacific ocean, in British
Columbia, be representative of James Bay and the Far North? I do not think so. But I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that the Capital is indeed the City of Ottawa, and that this is where the core, the home of the Canadian Government is, and we should not play and fiddle with it and scatter every activity almost everywhere in Canada when refering to the Capital which should represent everything national and not just local. If we must have a national museum, it should be located in the National Capital Region.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it has to be located in a place where there is some land available, and I can assure you that in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester there is indeed available land-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he will have approximately six minutes left in his debate the next time this private Member's Bill comes up.
It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m. at which time the House will proceed to discuss the question of recent events in the People's Republic of China.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.

Monday, June 5, 1989
[Editor's Note: continuation of proceedings from Volume A.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has granted leave to the Hon. Member from Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the recent events in the People's Republic of China.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That the House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in this democratic Chamber of a nation which is a member of the fellowship of civilized nations, to join with my colleagues on all sides of the House in shocked revulsion at the horror and brutality visited upon those who wished only that their country would continue its, until now, significant promise of joining that very fellowship to which we belong.
I refer to the bloody China, the violent China exposed on the television screens of the world in these last few horrific days in scenes that could only be judged obscene. These events have occurred because many Chinese have been encouraged to believe that the great counter-revolution led by Deng Xioaopeng in economic reform, and indeed in other areas, offered the hope that democratization on the political front could be hoped for. The rigid, monolithic, centralized communism of the past was
to be abandoned in favour of a new approach to building a Chinese economy that was described by Ding Xiaoping in the aphorism, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."
This was to become the basis of a new approach. Practice became the soul criterion of truth in meeting the material needs of the Chinese people. There was some success. Communal farms were broken up. More and more small private enterprises appeared. Control of industry became decentralized. Factories were allowed to keep their profits. Local governments and enterprises managed their own export and import of goods and services. China became more open to western investment and technology exchange. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, most strikingly perhaps in September of last year, bond and stock markets were opened in Shanyang and Shanghai.
Canada has benefited from these changes. Canadian imports to China have risen rapidly over the last few years, to a point where in the last year we had about $2.5 billion worth of exports, just about doubling the $1 billion of imports. Canadian investment has grown considerably. Thirteen Canadian companies and four major chartered banks have opened offices in China. Canadair has been operating a plant in Chien-chiang province producing parts for its Challenger aircraft since the early 1980s.
However, these economic changes were not without their problems. We know that increasingly inflation, profiteering and rapid corruption began to characterize the Chinese economy. These became the subject of widespread discussions as economic change was reflected in a loosening of the strictures of free expression and on the press. But as so often has happened before with reform, there were rising expectations and increasing demands for change in the direction of democracy. This rising tide of expectations was distilled into the massive student protests that earned the admiration of the world for their manifestly restrained and civil exhibition of youthful idealism in the pursuit of democracy.

June 5, 1989
Remember those smiling faces and the expressions of comradeship between the students and those very people who would become their executioners. We had a notion, as I am sure they did, of a kinder outcome. Remember, too, how during the weeks of fear of imminent confrontation between the Government and the students, our attitude turned to admiration for a society which appeared to be capable of withstanding massive protests with such restraint.
Few leaders of democratic governments would have tolerated, we thought, for so long such massive disruptions of one of their largest cities without some response. We should have been forewarned because it was only a year ago, rather silently, rather quietly, ignored by many nations, that China exercised its army to oppress the efforts in Tibet to pursue freedom. There were deaths there. How many? Few know. There were many injured as well. Many were placed in prison for no other reason than that they sought freedom for an independent Tibet.
Few would have been surprised then had there been used tear gas or water hoses or similar riot control devices. But it was shocking, after such restraint when the protests were weakening to see the full force of Chinese armed might unleashed, to see tens of thousands of battle-hardened troops supported by tanks, personnel carriers and helicopters, a complete and terrible arsenal attacking without quarter the unarmed youth of the country. Who will forget the sputter of AK-42s, the falling bodies, some crushed under tanks, the tearful efforts at rescue. When it was all over, 2,600 of China's young people lay dead in Tiananmen Square. Many, we understand, were trucked off by the army to be incinerated so that their numbers would not be known. At least 60,000 were wounded. Thus, did the People's Army declare war on the people and the Communist leadership held a glorious victory over thugs and robbers. But we know differently. The battle may not yet be over. The leadership, having displayed their contempt for the people, may have to face the Chinese masses.
In the City of Wu Kang, students blocked the railway tracks. There is a general strike in the Province of Chien-chiang. Students have mounted barricades in Shang-hai.
We know too of an internal power struggle continuing in the centre of Chinese power, between the voices of reform and the forces of oppression. As well, it is increasingly evident that the army that was so visible in Tiananmen Square is itself divided between those who sympathized with the struggle and those who support the regime.
The world's leaders, with virtual unanimity, have reacted with shock and horror to the events in China. And so did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). When he spoke, I am sure he spoke for all of us and all Canadians in condemning what has happened in China.
We understand and sympathize too with the hurt and frustrated anger of the nearly 4,000 Chinese students in Canada who mourn their brothers and sisters. Canada must say to them: "You are free to stay and benefit from the protection that this democracy affords its citizens as if you were one of us".
As well, we must assure Canadians that our compatriots in China are protected. Some 600 students and embassy staff already have been moved to a safe haven. But there is fear that we know too little about how many Canadians are in China and where they may be. Some are workers, some are tourists. We must make every effort by consulting travel agents, airlines and all possible sources to ascertain their identities and their locations.
It may be that the struggle in China will lead to a new leadership and a new regime that will renounce the terror. So long as there is a glimmer of that possibility, then we should not act precipitously. But we dare not wait too long before translating words of condemnation into action unless they be remembered as empty rhetoric.
There is no doubt that China will suffer immensely as a result of the events there. It is now a nation characterized by chaos and disorder. Inevitably their efforts at economic reform will suffer.
China's foreign relations and its trade with other nations will also suffer because there cannot be business as usual for a nation that treats its own citizens as the Chinese Government has treated theirs.
June 5, 1989

We must be prepared to take action if events do not quickly translate themselves into the kind of change that is tolerable. If there is no progress we should consider recalling our Ambassador.
In respect of trade with China, which is considerable, we may want to consider that we cannot do business as usual in that sphere as well. But we have a policy on which all sides of the House agree: That is, we cannot continue to provide aid to those governments characterized by the abuse of human rights and the lack of respect for democracy.
At present we provide something of the order of $115 million in aid to China. I would call attention to the Three Gorges Dam for which Canada has already provided $14 million in terms of feasibility studies. It is not only a large and important project, it is a questionable project. It is one which will displace about one million Chinese and it has not been subject to an appropriate environmental appraisal.
There is no doubt that this kind of examination would raise serious questions on its own merits whether that project should be continued. We should serve notice that it will not be a project to be supported in the future and we should withhold our support on the basis of conditions as they are now any increase in foreign aid to China, and if matters do not change, to terminate government-to-government aid completely.
I am sure the result of this debate will be unanimity on all sides of this House in expressing horror and condemnation. But I hope there will also be agreement in this House that we should not proffer empty words and that unless there has been certain progress we will tell this Chinese government that this country will not allow business as usual so long as the youth of that country, just as in any country in the world, are being slaughtered by a government that is supposed to support them, to aid them, to allow them to have the benefits of a future rather than death in the struggle for democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I join people throughout the world in denouncing the brutal repression of defenceless demonstrators by the Chinese armed
forces. The whole world watched with amazement, horror and disgust as a peaceful call for freedom and democracy was repressed in bloody fashion. The first day Tiananmen Square was occupied by the students, Canadians, like others throughout the world, witnessed this struggle for freedom and human rights. All of us here in the House and across the country are dismayed to think that these students whom we saw on television every evening were victims of such a barbarous act.
I am sure that the 360,000 Canadians of Chinese origin share our indignation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, we extend our heartfelt condolences to them. We also extend our condolences to all Chinese students in Canada who saw their brothers, sisters and friends perish.
In adopting this measure today, we clearly show that Canada will not stand idly by while this struggle for democracy and human rights goes on.
The situation in China is troubled, to say the least. It is reported that shooting is continuing. It is also reported that major demonstrations are going on in other centres, like Shanghai.
We shudder when we hear the Chinese authorities announce that the repression of the "counter-revolutionaries" has just begun.
It is also reported that the army, in its desire to crush the democratic movement, is considering other attacks, in particular on the University of Beijing.
We should be indignant about the repugnant acts of the Chinese leaders. The excuses invoked by the Chinese authorities are in my opinion both flimsy and upsetting.
In the last few weeks, the world has seen hundreds of thousands of young Chinese demonstrate peacefully for democracy, freedom of expression and the press and an end to government corruption.

These demands of the Chinese students are not outrageous. The students were not attempting to topple the state. The critical element before us in this House is that the students were acting peaceably with hope, even with joy, with a genuine excitement, with a sense of pride in their country, with a sense of fulfilment that they could make China a better place.

June 5, 1989
The world will not buy the argument of the Chinese leaders that they were putting down a dangerous insurrection. We saw those peaceful students and then we saw those students killed by AK-47 rifles and crushed by armoured personnel vehicles.
There is no rationale to this. There is no justification within the human condition for what is happening. It is a blatant murder of Chinese young people authorized by the Chinese authorities. Surely the Chinese Government must be made to understand that any further actions of this sort will only worsen the situation.
It is particularly sad for me and other Members of the House who have followed this issue to realize that over the last 20 years China appeared to be making strides, and indeed, was making strides to enjoy better relations with countries around the world, to take its rightful place on the international councils of power as the most populous nation in the world.
The Chinese Government, the leaders in China must be made to understand that all the good-will built up over the last several years, all the international friendships, all the increase in commerce, all of the increasing influence of China over world affairs can be shattered by the ferocity and brutality of the past few days.
It is frightening to think that innocent students are the victims of power struggles, internal, invisible power struggles at the top of China's hierarchy. Struggles for spheres of influence at the top of the Communist Party in China is no excuse for genocide.
Chinese leaders must be made to understand that acts of repression debase all moral authority for a government and inevitably debase all moral authority anywhere. The Chinese leaders are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by what they are authorizing now.
Canadians have a special bond with China, stretching back a century to the missionaries, Mr. Speaker, your own family, stretching back to the genius of Norman Bethune. The Chinese have recognized and honoured Canada's humanitarian interest in their country. We urge them to recognize and honour the humanitarian interests expressed by an all-Party resolution and the moral authority that this Chamber can reflect of the opinion of the country.
Canadians were proud when Prime Minister Trudeau helped lead the way in recognizing mainland China, and in recognizing Communist China as a real and legitimate voice of the Chinese people. We were proud to recognize the legal authority of China's leadership to speak for their country. We were proud to use all of Canada's influence in helping China find a solution to a series of problems they had at that time as it related to their international recognition.
That is why an emergency debate, which you have, if I might say so, Mr. Speaker, so wisely allowed in this House of Commons is so critical. That is why the proposed unanimous resolution from Canada's Parliament is so vital and so relevant. The Chinese Government and the Chinese people have long understood Canada's attempt to be good friends. We have never asked China to adopt our way of government. We have never asked China to adopt our way of life. We have never asked China to adopt our economic system.
We understand that China is a great world power and that we are not. We understand that China must find Chinese solutions to Chinese problems. We also understand as members of the human condition, that these solutions must reflect human justice, must recognize human rights to which China now ascribes as a member of the United Nations.
When Canada played a role in prodding the western world to recognize China, we did it because it was fundamentally right, because it was the right thing to do. We urge the leaders of China today to understand that their actions over the weekend and now are abhorrent to all notions of humanity. We ask them to understand that the fundamental and right thing to do is to end the oppression, to understand that a world which has reached out to China, and rightly so, will never turn its back on the Chinese people again. However, the world will turn its back on the leadership in China if this barbarism continues.
Attempting to clamp down on the news media is only making the situation worse for China. Attempting to destroy freedom of the international press to report what is going on merely underscores the essential validity of the protest of the Chinese students.
Chinese leaders cannot allow press reporting of uprisings, or protests, only when it suits their convenience. They cannot allow international television crews to film their leaders meeting on a friendly basis and amicably
June 5, 1989

with student leaders, and then a few days later engage in total censorship of the press when Chinese leaders are having troops fire on those same students.
All of us who value freedom are grateful to Canadian journalists in China, and indeed American and other reporters who remain in China attempting to tell the truth to the rest of the world, even at the risk of their own lives. It is a very dangerous role they are playing on behalf of the world.
Similarly, we are grateful to our own Canadian Government personnel and their families who remain in Beijing, also at considerable risk themselves and who are there to help other Canadians, and to retain what we can of discourse with the Chinese Government.
There are a range of issues on which we expect the Government to provide Canadians with answers in the very near future. What actions will Canada take with regard to our $2.6 billion of exports to China, or our $955 million of imports from China? What of our more than $35 million of overseas development assistance to China? Indeed, what of China's total debt to foreign banks of some $13 billion? What of China's close to $50 billion of foreign exports? What individual economic or diplomatic initiatives are being considered by Canada and other nations? What new advice can our Government provide to Canadian students and tourists in China?
I know these are difficult questions and we do not expect immediate answers. There must be time to think it through. The essential elements of our response must be clear to everyone and soon.
First, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I am grateful once again that you allowed this emergency debate so that individual Members of Parliament from all stripes and all Parties can express their outrage on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of our constituents at the actions of the Chinese Government.
Second, I am glad that all Parties have agreed upon the proposal I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) this afternoon upon a resolution of condemnation. That resolution must make clear to the Government of China that the Government must take
total responsibility for what was clearly a premeditated order to fire on peaceful protesters.
The House of Commons resolution before Your Honour is a unanimous statement by the elected people of a free country which has attempted over several years to help China open doors to the rest of the world. We are doing it in a constructive and, indeed, with respect to the people of China, a friendly mode and a friendly posture.
Third, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must continue to voice Canada's outrage forcefully and directly in the highest echelons of all world organizations and with all other governments. We are not going to be satisfied, I do not think in this country, with the nuances and the niceties of diplomatic language when we are clearly shocked and revolted at the actions of the Chinese Government.
I believe that our Canadian Government must give favourable consideration to allowing Chinese students permission to remain in this country beyond the expiration date of their visas, if they so request. We should give favourable consideration to allowing more Chinese citizens who fear repression to leave their country and to come to Canada.
The Chinese Government must understand that it has violated fundamental international principles of human rights.
Canada moved to admit China into the United Nations, a move fervently sought by the Chinese government of the day. Now we must move within the United Nations to use our new influence at the seat of the Security Council to call for an emergency session to condemn China and to censure the Chinese Government for its massacre. The less delay in doing so the better, because the Chinese Government must understand that we will not tolerate their sickening justifications for their despicable actions. The Government of China must be told by the world to put an end to its repression.
Of all the western nations, Canada has had a unique relationship with the People's Republic of China. We were there, we helped open those doors. We must use every ounce of moral suasion that this House can give, the unanimous voice of the people of Canada, and use our special relationship to put an end to this murder and massacre.

June 5, 1989
In the course of human history Governments all too often have taken decisions which come from the dark side of human nature. The decision of the Chinese Government to use tanks against young students comes from that dark side of human nature. Such a decision taken by a single human being would be madness. Such a decision taken by a group of human beings is collective madness.
We have witnessed an extraordinary few days in contemporary world history. We have seen food riots in Argentina at the very time of the successful renewal of democracy in that country. We have seen a changing and desperately uncertain time in Iran, a small but tremendously important step toward pluralism in Poland, and major steps in the arms talks between the two superpowers.
However, all of these, important as they are, pale for ordinary Canadians when contrasted with the terrifying images coming from the most populous nation in the world. They are terrifying images as more than a million young military conscripts are turned by the Chinese Government against more than a million young Chinese students.
Alongside those terrifying images is the uplifting image that we saw of a single defenceless student on his own standing in front of and climbing up into a tank. We have witnessed an act of terrorism of a Government against its own people.
The force of the House of Commons and the moral influence we have on behalf of our people must indicate to China that that Government must cease its brutality or the repercussions for China and the world would be incalculable. The repercussions for the future in terms of human events will be unfathomable.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for exercising your discretion in this matter. Because you cannot speak for yourself in this Chamber I want to unite your voice with mine and the peoples of the constituencies we share in the Pacific city, conscious of these events perhaps even more sensitively than are people in other parts of Canada.
I want to say to you, Sir, on behalf of the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, that it is with great sorrow and real anger that I join with other Members of this
House and other Canadians in a total and utter condemnation of the current leadership in China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want also to express my appreciation to you, Sir, for granting this emergency debate and to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), and other Members of the House who have sought this debate tonight. I know that all Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, all Canadians share a deeply felt sense of horror and of outrage at the events that have unfolded over the last few days in China.
We have watched a country's Armed Forces turn on its own citizens in an indiscriminate and brutal fashion. We have seen unarmed students and citizens gunned down and overrun by tanks. We have witnessed troops shooting from behind at fleeing crowds. We have heard of military units dealing summarily with even non-violent acts of resistance.
Tiananmen Square, which has been the site of so many important historical events over the decades and over the centuries, now adds to its legacy one of the most tragic occurrences of modern China.
The situation is evolving very rapidly. The latest news we have had from our Embassy in Beijing only minutes ago is that the violence which started in the Chinese capital is now spreading across the country. There is growing evidence that the military is at odds with itself. We have received reports that there is now fighting between various factions of the military. The appearance is one of military chaos. Those forces who unleashed the initial program of violence against the students in Tiananmen Square appear to have set entrain a chain of violence that cannot now be easily contained.
How could this have happened? As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, we had hoped and believed that China was on the road to extensive and fundamental reform. For 11 years the Chinese leadership has been pursuing a range of policies aimed at opening China up to the outside world. Hallmarks of this welcome reversal of earlier centralism and isolationism have been the decentralization of decision making, the encouragement of private enterprise, and the welcoming of increased trade and economic exchanges with Canada and other western democracies.
June 5, 1989

During the past few years we have also seen welcome change on the political front, even if the depth of reform has been less than in economic areas. We have seen more freedom of the press, more freedom of speech, more freedom of association, less control on travel, more flexible policies on emigration, and even some tentative signs of willingness to accept legitimate political action expressed through vehicles other than the Communist Party.
Indeed, the last few weeks of political difficulty were in some ways a signal of the great strides that China seemed to have taken. Students in great numbers were tolerated in the non-violent expression of their desires for further change. Their cries for greater democracy, for the establishment of basic rights and freedoms appeared to be getting through to the Government. We watched some of China's leaders express sympathy, understanding and, most important, respect for the objectives of the intentions of the students.
Those were positive signs of a nation in the process of change. Many among us believed that China would somehow manage this pressure for change by becoming more democratic, more open and more respectful of its own people.
When the tanks and the troops moved in on Tiananmen Square on Saturday night, it was clear that the forces of darkness and not of light had triumphed. It was clear that leaders who had urged restraint were being brushed aside. It was clear that the aspirations of a few were being placed ahead of the aspirations of the many.
It is very much because of the great strides forward which China has taken over the last decade that the events of the last few days are so tragic for China and so tragic for those principles and freedoms which we hold dear and which we had thought were starting to find their proper place in Chinese political life as well.

Mr. Speaker, our relations with China have been very important to us and they still are. In 1970, we were one of the first Western countries to resume diplomatic relations with the People's Republic after that country's twenty years of isolation.
Since then, our relations have become such that anything that happens in China is a matter of great interest to Canadians.
Exchanges involving scientists, students, cultural groups and teams of athletes became common and have been encouraged by both sides.
Our two countries have organized the twinning of many provinces and cities. All this has enabled us to have high level discussions with the Chinese leaders on matters of common interest. Such matters might range from regional disputes to protecting the environment and how to make the world trading system more sensitive to the needs of our two economies.
Our trade has benefited both our countries. Thanks to our development assistance program, we have expanded China's ability to modernize and we have introduced in China the Canadian way of doing things. I firmly believe that the range and intensity of our relations with China has enriched both our countries.

The extent of the friendship between Canadians and Chinese that has grown over the last decade makes the carnage in the streets of the Chinese capital particularly difficult to accept. As we examine what our response should be, however, we must remember that we will cherish our friendship with the Chinese people, that we are not going to become in this country anti-China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our condemnation and our outrage should be focused on the violent and aggressive actions that we cannot and will never condone and on those who initiated and encouraged those actions.
As soon as the military strike against the civilians in Tiananmen Square became known to us on Saturday, we made clear our abhorrence of the unnecessary and indiscriminate use of force against unarmed students and citizens. As the events unfolded and the extent of the violence and the killing became clear, we called on the Chinese Government in the strongest possible terms to take steps urgently and immediately to stop the aggressive and senseless killing by its Armed Forces.
Yesterday at noon I had the Chinese Ambassador called in to underline the seriousness with which we

June 5, 1989
viewed the situation and to ensure that he passed to his authorities our call for a stop to the killing and also passed to them the depth of our outrage.
We, of course, have not been alone in calling on the Chinese leadership to stop the carnage and to return to peaceful methods to resolve their political crisis. Most western Governments, Governments from around the world, even Communist Parties in other countries, have joined in condemning the brutality of the methods chosen to clear Tiananmen Square and to crush all and every expression of dissent by the students and other civilians once the military action had begun. This Government remains ready to offer humanitarian assistance or supplies if those are requested or needed.
In assessing the actions which should accompany our condemnation of the violence and the killings, we must bear in mind the need to safeguard Canadian lives, as well as the need to build pressure on the Chinese government.
At the time of the outbreak of violence there were approximately 600 Canadians resident in China, roughly half of whom were in Beijing. In addition, there were a number of business visitors and tourists scattered around the country. Our first concern, because of the violence, has been the security of those in the capital. As a precautionary measure in case of further military action against the universities, our Embassy evacuated all Canadians from the city campuses and is currently providing temporary accommodation to the 75 or so students who are affected.
We are in constant contact with our Ambassador Earl Drake, and we have contingency plans for the evacuation from Beijing of the students, other Canadians, and the staff of the Embassy. We have put into place arrangements whereby aircraft can be made available at short notice for evacuating Canadians to nearby Asian cities, and then onward transportation arrangements can be made after that if necessary.
After consultation with officials in Beijing, we decided about an hour ago to advise Canadians in Beijing to leave that city now. Our Embassy will be assisting them in making their departure. I will of course keep the House advised if we decide to proceed with a complete evacuation.
I should take the opportunity to indicate to Canadians who might be concerned that if they have questions to
raise, we have established an 800 number, 800-267-6788. I know there are many Canadians who have relatives or friends in China who would want to call officials. We will hope to provide them with as accurate information as we can.
With respect to bilateral actions that we might take in response to the crisis, we have already deferred or cancelled all events that were planned in the immediate future. We have postponed the signing of a series of memorandum of understanding on development assistance projects which were to be signed later this week. We have suspended the nuclear co-operation consultations that were begun after China joined the Atomic Energy Agency and which were to proceed early next week. We will be taking similar action with respect to other scheduled negotiations and discussions. We are advising the provinces and non-governmental organizations with planned consultations with Chinese counterparts to follow suit.
Although there are no high level visits in either direction planned for the coming few weeks, we would deflect such visits until a more appropriate time. At the multilateral level I have asked our Ambassador at the United Nations in New York to begin immediately consultations with other UN members and with the Secretary General on means by which the moral suasion of the United Nations might be brought to bear to support the voices calling for moderation and restraint in China. Canada fully supports the statement issued by the Secretary General today calling for restraint.
With respect to the large numbers of Chinese students in Canada, and I believe there are some 4,500 here at the moment, we recognize the troublesome time for them. While we trust that before long the situation in China will no longer be repugnant to them, we understand their concerns. As my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration announced earlier today, we will be sympathetic to any requests for extending their stay until calm returns to their homeland. My colleague has also taken steps to suspend for at least a two-month period all removals to China under the terms of the Immigration Act.
Some countries have announced the suspension of programs of bilateral military co-operation and sales to China. Canada does not have any such formal arrangements and has sold in the past only very small amounts of non-lethal equipment to the Chinese military. I can
June 5, 1989

assure you, however, Mr. Speaker, that the Government would not grant export permits for military sales of any sort in the current situation. Furthermore, I have asked that the modest program of defence relations between the Canadian Armed Forces and the People's Liberation Army which saw a visit to China last year of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I have asked that those relations be suspended immediately.
Sir, what is transpiring in China is tragedy of global proportions. Let us hope that the events of the coming weeks see China and its great people emerge without unnecessary bloodshed and with renewed commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms in an increasingly democratic country. I only wish that I could find greater cause for optimism at the moment.
There have been consultations among the Parties in this House, and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion which I have the honour to put, seconded by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member of Parliament for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House, noting that:
-the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China is important to Canadians and has been of benefit to both countries over the past many years;
-authorities in the People's Republic of China have directed the armed forces of China to attack the unarmed civilian population of Beijing in contravention of all humane principles of conduct;
-the students and citizens of Beijing were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms as is the fundamental right of all peoples of the world; and
-the authorities of China resorted to the use of excessive and indiscriminate armed force on a scale and scope which appalls all Canadians and has resulted in the tragic deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians; therefore:
unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been further consultations among the Parties. I think you would find unanimous consent within the House for the allocation of the normal time for 20-minute speeches for the balance of the debate this evening and that as it comes due to each Party, each Party have the right to share that time among two Members, three Members or simply with one Member, but that each Party make its choice for the balance of the evening thus allowing many more Members of the House to be able to make comment on what is indeed a very serious situation.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the comments of the representative of the Government that there have been some discussions, and we do agree that each Party allocate their time appropriately.
However, I want to raise a second point. As part of the previous discussions with regard to the motion moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, there were to be a few comments as part of the seconding process by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the Hon. Member for Oshawa. I wonder if perhaps the opportunity could be given at this moment now for that to occur.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That would be very appropriate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to express my views fully in the House. For those reasons, I am glad to second the motion of-the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs in expressing what I believe reflects the view of the entire House and, through the House, the entire country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of members of my Party to second this motion as well. I would like to say at the outset that not only do we totally

June 5, 1989
agree with the content of the motion, but I listened with care when the Secretary of State for External Affairs had his say. I want to commend him without reservation for an excellent speech on a most serious subject. Ele gave a response on the part of the people of Canada that the nation would expect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly on the motion, I would like to begin by saying that like many Members of this House I saw today in a local newspaper, The Ottawa Citizen, a photograph of a young Chinese woman. It was one of the most poignant photographs that I have seen in my political life. Perhaps in terms of all the rather horrible images the world has seen in the last 72 hours, it symbolizes in a terribly graphic way what is going on. It was of a young women who, on the one hand, was in a very militant pose with her fist clenched in obvious anger at what was taking place. At the same time, there were two large tears obvious on the young woman's cheeks. You saw simultaneously the rage being expressed by a person against the violation of human rights that her Government at home was inflicting and, combined with that rage, you saw a sense of horror, a sense of total and profound grief. That is what I was reading into it. I am sure that that was there. That person abroad was reflecting what happening in her own nation.
It is a terrible event in the course of our times to witness what is taking place in one of the world's great nations. Like the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition, I too have witnessed the evolution of what has gone on in China in the last few years with a considerable degree of optimism. I thought that the rigid Stalinist communist model was breaking down and that there was a move toward freedom, toward a pluralistic society, a peaceful, conflict laden but not violent conflict, not murder but verbal conflict, an evolution toward an open society not unlike what we were seeing elsewhere in the communist world.
%
In Poland and Hungary another remarkable event took place this past weekend. For the first time in that part of the political universe since the Second World War-or I suppose more precisely since 1956 in Hungary and events leading up to that that were suppressed in 1968 in Czechoslovakia-there has been what seemed to be a hope for humanity in these parts of the world. High among these nations was what was taking place in China.
It was led with remarkable courage not only by the students in Beijing but with overwhelming support by the population in that cityas we have seen in recent weeks.
We saw this courageous reaching out for freedom of one of the colossal nations of this world brutally and violently suppressed by a Government or part of a Government, by the Army or part of the Army, certainly those with power in China, in a way that is clearly unconscionable.
There are times in human history when violence is justified, that is, only to defend oneself or one nation defending itself. However, to use violence against the defenceless, to use violence against men and women who have been peacefully demonstrating for freedom and democratic rights is an abomination that ought to be condemned by free people everywhere.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In concluding, I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we support the Government's decision to take the action announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) this evening. We hope that the Chinese people, in the days to come, will develop an approach that is without violence.

We hope that people who have authority in that great nation will sense the indignation and moral revulsion that is occurring among people in every nation of the world, whatever the political ideology. There seems finally emerging among the majority of nations a sense of human rights and human dignity that is causing us all on a global basis to respond to this callous and cruel action in China.
Let us hope that those with power and authority, rather than dissolving as the Minister has indicated is likely into what can turn out to be an horrific civil war, will come together, will bring peace to that troubled land, and will make up to their own people having created now a date that will live forever in the history of China. Those with authority now have a lot of mending to do and a lot of soul wrenching acts to take. Let us hope those with power and authority will come to peace with their own people in China.


Some Hon. Members:: 
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate and thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast (Mr. Kilgour) and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy) who this morning called through their motions for an emergency debate, together with my motion on behalf of my Party.
I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for having the wisdom to adjourn the House to allow this emergency debate to take place.
It is with a heavy heart that we hear the news from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that the violence is spreading across the country and may even cause a chain reaction. That is very sad news that we hear during our emergency debate.
Over this weekend the world was witness to one of the most brutal incidents in modern history. It is an incident which was in itself shocking, but even more so when it seemed only last week that a peaceful demonstration held by the most promising of populations, that is the students of a country, was going to be met with restraint and that eventually this restraint would lead to discussions that would be of mutual benefit to all parties concerned.
However, this was not to be. Somebody decided that enough was enough and that the acceptable method of dialogue and discussion was not the route to take. Somebody decided that the only route that would be successful was that of violence, of bloodshed and of murder, as expressed by our Leader just a few moments ago. Yes, Mr. Speaker, murder. That is what it was. It was the murder of thousands of young people who were unarmed, defenceless, and wanted to save their country from a Government that they believed was immoral, unethical, and a Government that they now believe is evil.
There are many theories as to who was behind this entire episode. Some believe it was the Army. Some believe it was a move made by an opportune politician to slander the reputation of the present Government. Some believe it was the Government itself.
Whoever was at fault, the reality lies in the number of young people dead and the number of young people dying. At a time when historically positive events are taking place in other countries around the world, when the Soviets promised to pull out of Afghanistan and are opening their doors to political and economic reform, when Poland's Communist Party has relinquished a
sizeable amount of power to a trade union. Solidarity, when we are all looking forward to free elections in Namibia and the occupied territories, it is a travesty to see China so robbed of any semblance of respect for the human rights of its citizens.
One could have foreseen, were we still in the early 1900s, that Gorbachev's visit to China and the reaction of students to it would be the cause of more than a little unrest. But today, with China being governed by so-called moderates and its movement toward economic reform, it seems inconceivable that such an event could ever take place.
Our relationship with China has increased, as has China's relationship with the rest of the world. Canadian exports to China nearly doubled in 1988. Our imports rose by nearly 20 per cent. China's foreign trade in general has doubled since 1982 and stands at approximately $40 billion.
What is the world's reaction going to be if this situation continues to get worse? We in the West are all known for making grandiose statements with respect to our relations with countries that have human rights problems, but we are also known for taking into account ad nauseam the implications of such actions on our relationship with these countries.
Our own country has gained a reputation for rhetoric on the question of human rights. We swore economic sanctions to South Africa and then suddenly found that our trade with South Africa has more than tripled this year alone. We updated our export control regulations so that trade with countries with gross human rights violations would be more difficult. Yet we find that we continue to import and export to countries such as Panama, Colombia, Chile, and Iran.
In response to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that Canada had no military sales to China, I would like to point out that, according to Statistics Canada, Canadian exports to China in 1988 included arms and ammunition, aircraft and space craft for nuclear reactors and associated equipment amounting to over $80 million.
We continue to insist that emergency debates in the Security Council would do no good toward resolving the situation in Lebanon. We give in to threats from terrorist Governments by quietly scolding them and then looking the other way. We then send messages of condolence on the death of a man who was known to have detained and

June 5, 1989
executed thousands of people for no reason other than political expediency.
Now, faced with an event that has shaken the world and involved one of the world's most powerful countries in terms of technology and nuclear superiority, what are we going to do? At the very least, are we going to re-evaluate our relationship with China? In so doing, are we going to reconsider our ODA commitments which totalled close to $36 million in 1988?
What about the mega Three Gorges Dam project that we have entered into with China? Granted, the Chinese Government has agreed to put off the project for five years. However, what kind of guarantee do we have now that the project will not continue? At the cost of $17 million to the Canadian taxpayer, it was like pulling teeth to even get the Government to admit to the cost of the project.
Last year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the UN Human Rights Declaration. This year, Canada will sit on the UN Human Rights Commission after an absence of four years. In January of this year, in a press release announcing the annual consultations in preparation for the 45th Session of the UN Human Rights Commission, the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) stated in the House: "In previous years, we have played an active part in the Commission's work in an observer capacity-but this year we will be able to play a leading role. We can submit resolutions and exercise a greater influence." She went on to say: "When we are confronted with flagrant violations, our short-term goal internationally is to work toward rapidly improving the conditions of those who are deprived of the full enjoyment of their human rights".
The Bush administration has outlined at least major initiatives in order to improve the situation somewhat for the people in China and those connected to it. Although Mr. Bush clearly stated that he will not take any steps to precipitate a breakdown in U.S.-China relations, he announced U.S. humanitarian aid to be provided to victims of the military assault through the International Red Cross and hearings for visa extensions for Chinese students studying in the United States. Mr. Bush also stated that all aspects of United States-Chinese relations will be reviewed in light of the developments. This
is why we welcomed the news made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs tonight in the preamble to the resolution.
The European Community has strongly hinted that relations with China will suffer as a result and in fact stated that planned talks next month with the Chinese on expanding economic contacts are cancelled.
I am a bit puzzled by the reaction of our Government to the situation. When our Leader asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would call a meeting of the Security Council, the response was at best non-committal. We have not as yet heard of what action we intend to take with respect to our seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. Neither have we heard what assistance, if any, we will provide for the victims of this bloody event. What are we waiting for? The precedent has been set already. If we are not going to be the first in doing something, let us not be the last.
Canadians across this country are lending their support to the victims of this massacre and to Chinese Canadians. The Ukrainian-Canadian community and other ethno-cultural groups have already sent messages condemning the Chinese Government's actions giving full support to those who are fighting for democracy and freedom in China.
Canadians all over the country are concerned that, although the situation is a bit calmer, it could once again erupt and lead to a civil war. That is why I say it was with a heavy heart that we heard the comments that this crisis may chain react into something more serious. Yet the Government makes statements such as being encouraged that there appears to be more calm. There was more calm before this weekend, but as we heard today from the Secretary of State, that calm has disappeared.
We are very concerned about the safety and security of the 600 Canadians who are reported to be in China. I would like to ask the Government to do whatever is necessary, even if it results in an adverse change in our relationship with China, to ensure their protection. I would also like to urge the Government to grant political asylum to those Chinese students who request it so as not to put their lives in danger upon return to China. Again, that was welcome news that we heard from the Secretary of State on this item.
June 5, 1989

I would like to remind the Government that Canada was the first western country to actively support China's admission to the UN back in 1971, as we were reminded in the House by our Leader. Our role, therefore, will be critical in arriving at a solution to a situation that involves one of the most internationally powerful countries whose very mood affects the peace and security of our planet.
In closing, I would like to thank members of all three Parties for lending their unanimous support to the resolution which we just passed in this House. The summary of the resolution needs repeating. It states:
That this House - unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with heaviness that I rise this evening to voice the outrage, the profound disappointment and the moral condemnation felt by Canadians because of the brutal, evil act that has occurred on the part of the Chinese Government in oppressing well-meaning, freedom-loving people, especially the students and the workers of China. There is not a Canadian who has been watching television in the last week or 10 days who is not appalled by what has happened over the last 48 hours in China.
We all stand here to condemn the Government of China. The military of China have personally acted against the students, but it is the Government of China that must take responsibility for this act. We condemn that government for their acts. However, it is important as we stand here this evening, each of us individually condemning the acts of the Government of China, that we remember the acts of the students and remember to applaud the students of China and do whatever we can to support them and let them know that we will never forget their model of non-violent confrontation with the authorities of their country.
I personally was breathless over the last days as I watched the news broadcasts coming out of Tiananmen Square. As I watched the proceedings, I could not believe that if a group of students in the same numbers with the same emotion were gathered together in a square in North America, that we would see the same
demonstration as we saw in Tiananmen Square. It was a scene of non-violence, of love, of caring, one person for another, committed togetherness, but most important there was a great show of non-violence. We must take our lesson from the students of China and the workers who stood with them to confront their government and the difficult situation they were facing at the time. The recent history that they demonstrated to us showed not only their hope but filled us with hope that there were other ways and means of resolving difficult conflicts in our world.
The Government of China has now violated international principles of human rights. We cannot watch this happen without a reaction. We do have a reaction. We have the reaction of the millions of Canadians, coast to coast in this country, who are all affected by the scene that has taken place in our living rooms. The reaction of the Government of Canada must occur at different levels. Tonight we have all supported the resolution of condemnation against the Government of China. On the other hand, as a second action we must look at our aid and trade programs with China. As has been said earlier, Canada at the moment is contributing about $36 million in bilateral assistance, that is, government to government assistance to China. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said, we cannot in our condemnation of the Government confuse the issue and end up by condemning the people of China. We must try to assist them however we can. But government to government assistance is not going to help the people of China at this time. I think that this Government must look for ways and means of supporting the people of China through non-government organizations' activities.
We must look at our trade with China. The value of Canadian exports to China at the present time is $2.6 billion, while the value of imports from China to Canada at the present time is about $955 million. We must consider what we are importing to Canada. As thousands of students in Tiananmen Square have sacrificed their lives and their hopes for peace and democracy in their country, perhaps it is time for Canadians to look at what we can sacrifice to help these people to achieve peace and democracy in their country. Do we really need imported clothing, footwear, electronics in this country that are produced in China? These things must be looked at.

June 5, 1989
We must continue to let our condemnation be known in the type of meetings and negotiations we have with the Government of China. I am pleased to know that at the present time we would not sanction any further high-level talks and negotiations with the Government of China. The people of Canada cannot forget what is happening in China at this time.
As I near the end of my allotted time, the question comes to my mind, where do we go from here? In my religious tradition, Mr. Speaker, there is a story of a man who was blinded on the road to Damascus. It is the story of a man who persecuted people, who caused people to die because of his causes and his issues, but at an instant of blindness he realized the evil of his ways and he converted. I pray to God that the Government of China can come to realize the evil and error of their ways and turn the sacrifice of the thousands of students into a base for a renewed and a different China, a China in which people can look forward to living in peace and hope and democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, thank you once again for permitting tonight's emergency debate on the all-Party motion now passed to the effect that the House
unequivocally condemn the brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.
Probably every Canadian with a radio, TV or newspaper has been transfixed by the events unfolding since Saturday in the People's Republic of China. For example, my daughter's Grade 5 class discussed the events today at length. They were all horrified, I am told, that the soldiers had turned their guns on unarmed civilians. Can there be a Canadian of any age anywhere who has not expressed his or her outrage in different ways over the past 72 hours to a spouse, neighbour or friend? Is there one person among us who did not marvel at the virtual absence of violence, the presence of love, which was just indicated, during the almost two months of civilian protest for democracy? With these non-violent beginnings, the bloodshed of the past 72 hours has been much more outrageous in the eyes of the world. With every student and civilian who protested in Tiananmen Square was the hope of greater freedom and a peaceful
transition toward democracy. These dreams and aspirations were shattered by the first machine-gun fire and the first casualty.
As other Members have said tonight, we MPs must make it perfectly clear that our protest and our indignation lies not with the People's Liberation Army but with the Chinese Government itself. There have been conflicting reports as to who ordered the troops to fire on the civilians. Some believe that it was senior Party leader Ding Xiaoping. Others believe it was President Yang Shangkun. One newspaper asserts that much of the shooting was done by the 28th Army, believed to be personally controlled by troops loyal to Yang. Whoever issued the initial order, I believe it is now incumbent upon the entire global community, particularly Canada, to condemn the Chinese Government itself for its earlier actions and aid the Chinese citizens.
A protester in Vancouver yesterday cried out "We want the whole world to condemn the brutal massacre by the Chinese Government". Mr. Speaker, we MPs are doing our part tonight from all sides of the House in the best tradition of Canadian representative democracy. Canadians must be willing to lead the way in forging new paths for the Government and the protesters to settle their disputes free of guns and free of molotov cocktails. Lest we believe that the worst is over, today's Ottawa Citizen reports that the military took the offensive in the streets and on the airwaves, warning that the capture of Tiananmen Square from pro-democracy protesters was "just an initial victory" predicting a long fight against the "dregs of society."
Again, Canadians from the Ville de St. Jean jusqu'a Nanaimo, jusqu'a Yellowknife must publicly insist that this is a government to government dispute and not one primarily between the Canadian Government and the People's Liberation Army. We are all here tonight to speak out against the massive human rights violations by the highest levels of the Chinese Government.
I believe that it is important that we state some of the abuses witnessed by both demonstrators and reporters and to advise the House of the outrage now being expressed by much of the international community. French President Francois Mitterrand said yesterday: "A regime that is reduced to firing on its youth to survive,
June 5, 1989

when the youth it has educated rises up in the name of freedom, has no future".
According to The Toronto Star today:
"Perhaps the most horrid scenes of the Government's slayings occurred on Tiananmen Square. Tanks crushed to death several students who remained huddled in the tents set up on the plaza during three weeks of demonstrations", eye witnesses said.
There was also a report from one Beijing student eyewitness that tanks had crushed students who had linked arms in a last ditch embrace of the snow-white "Goddess of Democracy" statue, a sort of Statue of Liberty made of plastic that students had put up in the square.
The Star reported that a "story of carnage emerged as victims of the violence in Beijing recalled how the People's Liberation Army soldiers shot, clubbed and even strangled their way through a sea of unarmed protesters". The Star went on to report that one doctor said he examined the body of a man in his mid-20s who had been chocked to death by metal chains the soldiers had hidden in their hats for crowd control. One man, who was near a foreign reporter, asked: "Does America know what happened here? Does the world know?" These words echo the fears of many Chinese people. They fear that their blood is running in the streets and not being seen by the world.
The People's Republic governmentally controlled media called yesterday's military raid on the square, "A glorious victory over counter-revolutionary turmoil". The only mention made of the human carnage that accompanied the assault was when a "maverick for Radio Beijing's English language service asked listeners to protest the most barbarous suppression of the people". What courage that individual displayed.
Similarly, courage was shown by many thousands of people, young and old, in Beijing and many other centres in the People's Republic.
The Vernon Daily News quotes a student leader as saying: "The whole city, the whole country, the whole world is watching. We students are not here just for the people of this city but for the sake of history and all society".
It would appear that the brutal force with which the Government suppressed the recent protests has forged the will of the Chinese population.
Today, many of us watched as a single man risked his life while for several minutes he stalled a column of tanks in Beijing.
One reporter from this continent reported the general feeling amongst those newly anointed freedom fighters:
An art student nearly incoherent with grief and anger as he watched the body of a student being carted away, his head blown up by bullets, said: "Maybe we will fail today, maybe we will fail tomorrow, but someday we will succeed. It is a historical inevitability".
What we are witnessing now is a government at war with its own people. The Globe and Mail reports an old Beijing resident as saying:
"In 1949, we welcomed the army into Beijing,"-referring to the crowds who hailed the arrival of Communist troops at the end of the Communist revolution. Then he waved toward a line of 50 army trucks that were blocked in a sea of more than 10,000 angry men and women, and added, "Now we're fighting to keep them out."
The Chinese people and the world are now both at one in finding it difficult to understand why the People's Army is killing its own people. That feeling, combined with dissension amongst some of the troops, may provide the setting for a tragic civil war.
I implore my colleagues to do all we can in our own ways, to the limited extent that we can do anything, to ensure that this tragic civil war does not occur, to ensure that more blood does not flow in Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere, to ensure that those crushed under the armoured carriers yesterday and the day before, protecting their Statue of Liberty, have not died in vain.
Finally, let me remind Members that China, with more than one billion people, roughly one-fifth of the planet's population, is a pre-eminent player on any world stage and all Canadians of goodwill have nothing but fond hopes for the Chinese people.
I was told today by the president of the Chinese Canadian National Council, that Canada has something between 500,000 and 700,000 residents of sole or part origin in China. Toronto has up to 250,000. Your city, Mr. Speaker, has approximately 100,000, Edmonton and Calgary each 20,000, and so on across Canada.
They and all of us, whatever our origin, are fully united in this issue: the killing must stop.

June 5, 1989

The killing must stop immediately.

To sum up, I am certain that all of us here in this House are united on five principles: first, a non-violent way of settling this government-citizen dispute must be found immediately; second, these events, which so strain Canada-China bilateral relations, are something we all regret; third, this is essentially a human rights issue and Canada must be loyal to its best tradition by speaking out without any hesitation to condemn these killings; fourth, this is a government-to-govemment dispute, not a Canadian-Chinese issue, as the Secretary of State so properly put it earlier tonight.
Above all, as I said before, the killing must stop.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to speak on this issue tonight. It is of global proportions. Before I talk about China and this terrible tragedy, I would like to bring it down to a human level.
Tonight, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Duckman are worrying about their son Owen. Owen left for China in late April on a three-month study group with 24 students from Ontario. Owen is from Queen's University. A couple of hours ago, Judi was telling me how excited her son was about the prospect of going to China. He is in Yang Sue at the University of Sue Shaw, about 90 miles from Shanghai. They are very worried because they are getting almost no news out of that area. She talked with Owen about a week and a half ago and things were relatively quiet at that time. I have assured her the Canadian government will be doing everything possible to make sure that Owen and the other students come safely back to this country.
It is ironic that one of Owen's tasks in addressing the Chinese students was to explain and discuss democracy, what it was all about, what its benefits were and so on. I know every Member in the House will pray that not only Owen but all of our Canadian citizens over there, whether they are studying, on business trips, or visiting, will have a safe return.
I noted the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) mentioned that they just recently decided to advise all Canadians to leave Beijing. Perhaps that may
spread to other areas. I have assured Mrs. Duckman of our co-operation on that concern.
I think most people were excited these last few years about how the world was moving toward a global village of more peace and greater respect worldwide for human rights.
Some remarkable things have happened in the U.S.S.R. over the last few years. It will host a human rights conference in 1991. It is allowing refusniks to leave in very large numbers compared with just two years ago. It had a form of election when I was there in late March. People like Mr. Sakarov, a long-time dissident, was elected. Mr. Yiltsen in Moscow got almost 80 per cent or 90 per cent support. Let us hope and pray that country continues in the direction that it seems to be taking.
China as well, for many years, began opening the door and moving toward greater freedom, greater respect for fundamental human rights.
Along came this terrible shock just a few days ago. No one in the world predicted this. It was a difficult issue they had, but they had these thousands of students simply protesting for greater freedoms, for a move toward democracy, and then because I guess of the power struggle at the highest levels, the so-called moderates and the rights, the rights certainly for the sad hour won out with the loss of who knows how many lives of students and other people. In a very balanced way, I know our Government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), will try to bring pressure on the officials in China, whether it is direct to them through the ambassador or through the United Nations. We do hope that some solution can be found in the very short time before there is a further massacre of innocent human lives.
I wish to thank my colleague for allowing some time for me to speak on this important matter in a very personal way.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Canadians are astonished and horrified at the events in China. Ten years after the first Beijing spring and 21 years after the Prague spring, a surge of hope and rebellion against an ossified regime appears to have been crushed once again.
June 5, 1989



The first time I visited China was in 1973 at the end of the cultural revolution. Since then as commercial, educational and cultural relationships between our two countries increased, I had the occasion to visit China on many occasions. I must say I took great joy in watching the evolution of that great country and the standard of living of its people and the joie de vivre on their faces as their living standards and freedom increased. In fact, it was not just joy with China but it was joy with the capacity of humankind to improve on its condition.
Throughout this period, however, as material conditions improved, two matters of increasing importance continued or began to appear on the scene. The first for those of us who talked to students either in China or here, the problem of favouritism began to manifest its face, the difficulty that young Chinese students who were not plugged into the Party, to the hierarchy, had in obtaining positions abroad or positions within China, or improving their own lives as indeed their education should have warranted.
The second was the fact that with increasing economic freedom came the demand for increasing political freedom, political freedom that was not forthcoming. It is paradoxical that in the Soviet Union the regime there has come to the conclusion that economic freedom and economic growth is not possible without increasing political freedom. It was manifested that China which in fact took the first steps along the road to economic freedom did not realize this fundamental fact. Many of us took the occasion to talk to the Chinese leadership, those that we had access to, as to how they would handle the problem. We were assured that they could, and we believed them, as indeed we were assured that they could handle the sit-ins in Tiananmen Square, and that this would simply be one more stage on China's march to progress.
It is with deep tragedy that we came to the realization that we were wrong. At the news of the army's action, the world was outraged. When we see pictures and television of wanton death, the world is horrified. When we talk to the Chinese students who are here in this country, we are pained by their isolation. Equally, we are affected by a profound sense of loss. So much progress has been halted by a leadership which is so very much out of touch.
It is very clear that we must move to protect the Canadians who are in China. Clearly, we must move to protect the students who are here in Canada. We must also ask ourselves if at some point, as we begin to study the evolution of the United Nations itself, Canada should not begin to ask whether it should not extend its ability to react to situations where Governments make war on their people. We have all been brought up to understand and to agree to the principle that the United Nations must not interfere in the internal affairs of individual states. Surely at some point the actions of some Governments become so reprehensible that the world cannot stand by. Surely in any event it is not too much to ask that the great powers themselves come together and bring some kind of concerted action to this great tragedy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I rise to support the Government's resolution. I would like to say one thing on a slightly different issue. As a new Member, I have now been in this House for some six months. There have been highs and lows. I have watched partisan and petty bickering. I have seen things happen in this House which I do not think should have happened in a democracy. Sometimes, as with many others, we have asked ourselves: "What are we doing here?" I must say that it is on a night like tonight when this House comes together to express the total indignation and repugnance of our country that I am very proud to be a Member of this House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I also am joining with my colleagues on all sides of the House in supporting the resolution of condemnation. I am sorry that we did not have a chance to debate a similar resolution when the people of Kurdistan were gassed by the thousands and left dead in the streets, and when the people of Tibet were massacred by the thousands.
In each of these cases I think what causes us to rise and to swell in one collective indignation is the fact that in China this week, as we have seen in Kurdistan and Tibet, we see a small snapshot of man's inhumanity against humanity. We wonder whether it is a political system or whether it is in fact the collective reflection of how desperate people can be in the search for power. I too had an opportunity to visit China in 1982.1 must say that it was a very fleeting visit.

June 5, 1989
It was a visit where I was struck by the thirst for information, not only by the Chinese students, because being somewhat of an extrovert myself, while I was there I took to the streets. I had a small Chinese dictionary and learned a few phrases and went out and spoke with the people. Many of them had never spoken on a one-to-one basis with a westerner. They had questions that they wanted to ask me about our civilization, about our so-called capitalist system and how in fact we could go out and speak in a democratic fashion.
One Sunday morning, in a covert fashion, I was taken by a taxi driver to a Catholic church. I had an opportunity to witness a Catholic ceremony at six o'clock in the morning. Afterward, we spoke with the priest who himself had been a victim of the cultural revolution.
I spoke with him and I said: "How can you follow through the Catholic religion in China when in fact the Chinese Government has made it quite clear that Rome and the Pope have absolutely no place to play in your particular religion?" He said: "When you have gone out and worked in the field, and when you have suffered as we have under the hands of the Gang of Four during the cultural revolution, you accept this particular restriction as one step on the road to democracy."
Just as I spoke to the students, I spoke to the workers in the streets. I saw the look of fear in their eyes, not in 1989, but in 1982, when worker organizers would stand on the comer and if they spoke too long to a stranger, if they spoke too long in their halting English, organizers would come up and say: "It's time to move on." The quiet peace-loving Chinese people, even though they were thirsting for information would follow instructions and would move on.
In one particular case, in one surreptitious visit, I was invited to visit the home of a Chinese person. In that home lived a young man, his mother and father, the three of whom shared one bathroom with about 15 other families. It was the China that we did not see according to the official vista. He and his mother and father shared a room which was approximately 10 feet by 20 feet.
They invited me into their home and served me crabs. To them it was a dinner of luxury, something which they spent a whole month's salary to put together. When I saw the crab legs I thought that we in Canada would probably toss off the amount of fish that they were so proud to offer to their guest. They hungered for information.
That is why when I saw the throngs of students gathering in Tiananmen Square recently who were prepared for the first time in a long time not only to throw off the shackles of the cultural revolution but also to stand up and be counted for democracy I as one from the West was in my heart rooting for them saying: "Thank God that the wave, the undercurrent, the search for democracy that has so touched the people of China over the last number of years has found its fruition in of all places Tiananmen Square".
What we saw this weekend was the brutal hand of anarchy, the brutal hand of totalitarianism striking down those students-not just the students but the workers and people who were coming together to speak for freedom, to bring forward the Statue of Liberty. When the armed forces came through and started to shoot them down brutally in the streets, we saw phalanxes of students forming a human chain going to certain death because they believed in a democracy and a freedom which China has not seen for many, many years.
We in the western world and Members on all sides of the House, as well as other Governments around the world, are not seeking ways to blame the people of China. The people of China, as the people of Poland, have kept alive their hope in the face of oppression and in the face of certain death in some cases, and in other cases the anarchy of the cultural revolution. They still have the memory of working on the farms, of having intellectuals and people who had so much to contribute to their culture being sent off to work in the rice paddies to do the bidding of the Government.
What we do reject as a Parliament and as the people of Canada is the fact that the armed forces of China and the Government which was directing those armed forces is moving to smote down a movement to freedom which we should be embracing.
June 5, 1989

I must hope that the Government of Canada will not only condemn the armed forces but that it will also condemn the Government. I hope that it will consider moving with economic sanctions.
Yes, it is true that we carry out $2.6 billion worth of business with the Chinese people. However, I do not think that should be a reason for us to prevent movement in the area of sanctions. I was most concerned that the Government has not yet put that particular issue on the agenda.
We need commitments so that those young people who are now speaking out in Canada will not be sent home, not only in the short term while the situation remains unstable but in the longer term. We also need an expedited process so that those people in China who want to flee the certain horror of the current situation are given every opportunity by the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to seek comfort and freedom in another land. We have much work to do.
There is an inscription on the outside of the House which I saw coming into the Chamber tonight. What I would like to say to the people of China and to those who may be listening to the word of the outside through the English-language dailies which are still publishing in China is this. It is from an inscription in one of the stones outside which I think characterizes what we should be saying, something which has been said before:
To you from failing hands we throw the torch. Be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die. we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flanders field.
That is something which happened once. It can happen again. I urge all of us not only to support the resolution but to do everything that we can to encourage that flame to continue burning in China for the people of China.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marie Gibeau: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians followed with intense concern the tragic events in Beijing on the weekend. Like many Canadians, I had been fascinated by the unprecedented demonstrations by students on Tienanmen Square, since the middle of April. This blossoming of a democratic spirit that we also saw in other communist countries in recent months proves that a political system cannot prevent indefinitely the expression of a people's fundamental values or go against the dynamics of the human spirit.
We were profoundly moved by the sight of immense crowds in their quest for democracry, taking great risks to reinforce their demands for a more open and more representative political life in the People's Republic of China. The Government has already expressed our profound dismay at the aggressive measures taken by the Chinese military against their own unarmed citizens. The fact that there were so many victims has shocked and appalled the Canadian people.
As pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his press release on June 4, we have appealed to the Chinese Government to act immediately to put an end to the indiscriminate killing by its military forces. The same press release also expressed horror and outrage over the indiscriminate use of force against the students and civilians of Beijing and the inexcusable behaviour of the Chinese military.
We know that many other countries have also expressed their revulsion at the tragic loss of life caused by the military attack on student demonstrators and their supporters. The whole world cannot be other than shocked at the extent of the tragedy. We want to express our heartfelt sympathy for the families of the victims.
History teaches us, however, that such repressive measures will not necessarily prevail against the courage of an entire people, because the desire to see a more open and more representative political system will not be repressed lightly among the millions of Chinese who took part in the recent demonstrations, and this despite the very high price some had to pay for their convictions.
During the last decade, Mr. Speaker, China has opened the door to the West and started some very important economic reforms. These developments had given us hope that the most populous country in the world would also be able to respond to the appeal of its students for greater political openness. We continue to hope that their country has not gone down a path from which there is no return.

June 5, 1989
Canada has long had ties with China. Many Canadians owe their living to our trade with China, to having a window open on the Pacific. Our country is becoming increasingly involved in Trans-Pacific affairs. In addition, the Chinese-Canadian community adds an important dimension to our interest in China. I know that many members of this community have relatives in China, and I share their concern for the well-being of those relatives. What is happening there cannot be held indifferent to Canada and Canadians. The efforts of the media to draw our attention to what is happening in the People's Republic of China and the response of Canadians have shown that distance does not dim our concern.
We think it is very important to secure the safety of the Canadian community in China. We are monitoring the situation very closely-it is our priority concern-, in co-operation with our embassy in Beijing and our consulate general in Shanghai.
We are relieved to hear that the necessary measures have been taken to ensure the safety of Canadians in China.
We are also setting a priority on re-examining our bilateral relations with China to ensure that the Chinese authorities have a clear understanding of our concern regarding the human rights situation in that country.
The events of the last few weeks showed that the students' protest movement was greatly debated by the Chinese leaders. When the demonstrations began, the Chinese government handled the students' discontent with great restraint. How unfortunate it is that the caution of the early days gave way to brute force; how unfortunate it is that negotiation was ruled out in favour of guns.
Human rights and fundamental democratic rights are at the centre of Canada's foreign policy, wherever these values are threatened. We cannot let the events of the last few days in China go by in silence. I know that all Hon. Members here today share my anguish at the suffering of the students and citizens of Beijing.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I had the privilege to know one of these Chinese students who had chosen to learn French as a second language as a way to learn about the western world. French was a difficult language
for this student, who had also been able to obtain a training position with a firm of consulting engineers. He was eager to learn, full of intellectual curiosity and wonder at everything going on in our world. The symbolism of the Statue of Liberty on Tiananmen Square seems to me to represent this curiosity and this desire for independence and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, in unequivocally condemning this brutal use of force against the peaceful people of Beijing and asking the Chinese authorities to stop this senseless killing immediately in order to begin dialogue with the Chinese people without delay, the House of Commons of Canada did not speak lightly. We are a peaceful people. We are a people who do not necessarily have a tradition of interfering in the communities or internal affairs of other countries. But the action taken by the Chinese Army is something that we cannot tolerate and for this reason, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to rise this evening to join my colleagues in the House and denounce this decision of the Chinese government.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep concern and outrage that I participate in this emergency debate this evening. In the past two days, we have witnessed a remarkable and a tragic thwarting of democracy in China. Nearly two months ago, students first gathered in Tiananmen Square to call for democratic change in their country. Their demonstration was peaceful and courageous. They caught the attention of the world; they captured our hearts; and they spoke for repressed people around the world.
As events unfolded in the Square, I remembered the visit that I made to Tiananmen Square just one year ago. In April 1988, I participated in the inaugural China Airlines flight between Toronto and Beijing. When I visited Tiananmen Square, I marvelled at its size and its openness, and I shared a sense of history that as a Canadian I was visiting China at a remarkable time in history. But, as I watched the tanks roll into Tiananmen Square over the weekend, crushing the barricades erected by the students and firing on defenceless people, I sat horrified and despondent, horrified at the senseless slaughter of innocent people and despondent about the future course for China.
June 5, 1989

For over 10 years, the world has stood in awe of the dramatic changes underway in China. We applauded the economic reforms first announced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 as he turned back the excesses of the Cultural Revolution and challenged his country like never before. Deng's promises of readjustment, restructuring, consolidation and improvement made the world sit up and take notice at this incredible country once again. Business ties between China and Canada expanded as western nations were invited to join in a remarkable position of reform. Joint business ventures involving Canadian companies have expanded and China has even considered establishing a bank in Canada. In my community of Scarborough, China has also announced plans to open a huge trade centre.
Well, in 10 short years, China overhauled its economy and turned communism upside down, changes to agriculture and industry opened new opportunities for both peasants and city dwellers alike. New contacts were also made with the outside world as China encouraged the West to participate in their reforms. Here in this Parliament we formed a Canada-China Parliamentary Friendship Group of which I am very honoured to be a member.
The reforms that began in China also helped usher in changes throughout the communist world. Communist systems in eastern Europe, Africa, Central America, began re-examining their thesis of the command economy, one-party rule and state-run societies. They began to focus their resources on responding to and meeting the will of the people.
In fact, we have experienced an incredible irony. On the very day that the Chinese communists violently repress a call for democracy, the communist party in Poland is conceding defeat to Solidarite after a free election. Ten years of reform in China today mean very little indeed.
After nearly two months of indecision and confusion, the Chinese leadership demonstrated that it has no capacity for political change. The tragedy over the past days reveals a country where politics is dominated by personality and where leadership is cloaked in mystery. China's political weaknesses have resulted in the horrible spectacle of an army charging down the Avenue of Eternal Peace, opening fire on thousands of unarmed students who were calling for freedom.
Just as the democracy wall was destroyed a few years ago, Chinese leaders have again shown their intolerance to freedom. By using violence to sustain its political power, the Chinese leadership has chosen a course that is uncivilized and certain to fail. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote:
Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle.
Well, it is time for the lies and the killing in China to end. Canadians can only wonder about the future of China and indeed the prospects of Hong Kong when it becomes part of China in 1997.
I applaud the actions of our Canadian Ambassador in China. Canadian students in Beijing University have been placed in secure accommodations and other Canadians in the country are being contacted. I also understand that Canadians seeking information on their relatives in China can contact the 800 number, 800-267-6788. The role of our embassy in this situation is to guarantee the safety of Canadians in China, and I believe all Members should commend the Ambassador for the very difficult job that he is doing in Beijing.
I support the resolution that condemns the brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of civilized dialogue with the people of China.
To the over 40,000 Chinese Canadians in Scarborough, I offer my condolences for your countrymen and my sincere hope that peace and freedom will again prevail in China.
[Translation\


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak during this important debate tonight, and I want to thank you for allowing this emergency debate.
The violence of the events in China has shocked and saddened us all, and I am pleased that the motion presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs received the unanimous support of the House.

The Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin), who spoke earlier said that this was one of the evenings on which he was particularly proud to be a Member of Parliament. It is always a high point in the life of Parliament when we are able to come together as one mind and express on behalf of Canadians a particular view. Of course tonight what we have expressed, both in

June 5, 1989
the granting of this emergency debate and in the debate itself, and particularly in the unanimous resolution adopted by the Elouse, is the unanimous outrage that Canadians feel about the events in China.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) put it well, though, when he said that it should be clear to all who may be listening, both here in Canada and abroad, that what we are talking about here is an unequivocal condemnation of the actions of a particular Government in a particular time and place in the history of China. We are not talking about the Chinese people themselves. We begin this debate with a tremendous respect for the history of China as a civilization and for the Chinese people themselves.
We begin, I dare say, with a respect for the Chinese Revolution, something which many people have studied over the years and have recognized as not only a great struggle, but a struggle that has resulted in many achievements for the Chinese people. Many people have looked with awe at the ability of a country with so large a population to feed and provide for itself in a way that has been the envy of many other countries of the world. That is why what has happened this last weekend is a political as well as a human tragedy, that a revolution which begins with the long march and with so much struggle and passion for social justice should come to a point where the People's Liberation Army is firing on the people themselves.
I think a great many Canadians are saddened not only by the loss of life but by the tremendous and painful irony that that must be for all who have watched the struggle for justice in China and which has its antecedence in the Revolution and in the overthrow of the Nationalist Chinese regime, a regime noted for its brutality.
I also want to say that I wish the House had more of these kinds of opportunities to express our unanimous condemnation of gross violations of human rights. As someone else said earlier, we know that tragedies of this proportion sometimes happen without the world taking any notice at all, or taking very little notice. I am reminded of the genocide which has happened against
the people of East Timor, or the chemical warfare which the Iraquis used on their own people in Kurdistan, or the actions of the Chinese Government not so long ago in Tibet. The list goes on and on of events which do not receive the kind of attention that this event has.
We are glad that this event has received that kind of attention, but I think we also have a responsibility to say that there are many more occasions on which the House of Commons could unite to condemn human rights violations. Perhaps we should see this as a precedent setting move for further parliamentary action in the future, should such occasions arise. We, of course, hope they do not.
I would like to go over some of the things that have been suggested in terms of a Canadian response, things which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has covered. I would like to just speak for the record as to how we, in the New Democratic Party, view some of the areas which we have to concern ourselves with as a result of the tragic events in Beijing.
It has been suggested that Canada-and my Leader raised this in the Question Period earlier today-call for a debate in the Security Council. It was also suggested earlier that a self-understanding of the United Nations may well prevent the kind of full debate that one would like to see in the United Nations.
I am told that the Security Council's mandate has to do with conflicts between nations rather than within nations. If that is the case, as I believe it is, in many respects that is a very serious limitation. It is a limitation reflected in the statement by the Secretary General today. It is only a paragraph long. It says that this is essentially a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, and he urges utmost restraint. It seems to me that more should both be required and permitted within the context of the United Nations than now seems possible.
I urge the Canadian Government to explore every opportunity, as it said it will, to see how the moral suasive powers-I think that is the way the Minister put it-can be used to put pressure on China in this instance to make sure, first of all, that the killing does stop and, second, that the road to democratization which China
June 5, 1989

was on and which the students so ably represented is a road that is resumed.
Some people have called for the immediate withdrawal of the Canadian Ambassador to China. Certainly this is something that the Government must consider in the days ahead, particularly if it becomes obvious that those who ordered the troops on the students are solidifying their power in the country. Although, as you know, we are not sure. I do not think anyone is sure at this point just exactly what is happening in China. There are strong indications of conflicts within the People's Liberation Army itself. It may be some time before we know who it is appropriate to speak of when we are speaking about the Government or authority in China.
In any case, this traditional gesture of protest is something the Government must consider, but we appreciate that in the next few days and perhaps for the next little while this will be a judgment that will have to be made. Having the Ambassador on site may well be something that will be useful in terms of advancing the security of Canadians who are in China, although as the Minister said, it may well be that all Canadians will have to be evacuated from Beijing and not just the Ambassador in the form of a withdrawal.
With respect to Chinese students in Canada, I was glad to hear the announcement by the Government as to how to deal with the predicament in which many of those students find themselves. The point is well taken that the Government must now begin to think about what it will do with respect to those students if there is a long-term problem. Even if things were to return to an acceptable state in China, these students may still have a long-term problem in terms of having identified themselves as people who were afraid to go home and who may have stayed here longer than they had originally planned. There are some long-term considerations with which the Government will have to deal with respect to Chinese students here in Canada. We urge the Government to do everything possible to facilitate both the safety of the students in terms of staying here, or in China, should they eventually return there.
This past weekend I was at the New Democratic Party convention in Manitoba. Everyone was upset to hear
what had happened in China. What struck me and even made me feel old for a moment was how upset the Manitoba Young New Democrats were, how upset students were, and how upset students around the world are. They feel an identity with those students in China.
Whether they have ever been in China, or know Chinese, or whatever the case may be, they identify with those young people who for so many weeks now have gathered in Tiananmen Square in a non-violent, idealistic and courageous way. I was struck by the way that young Canadians identified with those students.
Not so long ago I was a student. I remember the events of 1970 when students were fired upon at Kent State University. I believe at that time only four students were killed. This obviously was not something ordered by the national Government. It was an order that came from much lower down the totem pole than that. Yet that event, along with others, so eroded the moral credibility of the policy that the American Government was following at that time in Vietnam that it was not very long before that policy crumbled altogether.
It did not bring on an election victory for the students in 1972, just as this much more massive, tragic, and hardly even comparable event may not bring an immediate victory for the students and what they are seeking. However, I think that I can say with confidence that this much blood will not be shed in vain. This much blood is never shed in vain when it is the blood of the non-violent which is shed at the hands of the violent. Always out of this kind of violence comes a victory that may not be apparent today, and it may not even be apparent in the months or years ahead. We hope that it will be readily apparent in the near future. However, I am confident that this much blood of the non-violent shed by the violent will not be shed in vain, just as the blood of incomparably fewer students in previous situations in other countries was never shed in vain.
Those who know me know it is not my habit to say complimentary things about journalists, but a word needs to be said about many of the Chinese and international journalists who have brought us the coverage of events in Tiananmen Square that they have over the last few days at great risk to life and limb. It is the type of event that gives one a certain respect for the profession when journalists are willing to persist in obviously dangerous

June 5, 1989
situations so that word and image can get out to the world so people can know exactly what is going on.
There is an irony here that should not be missed. People are doing a lot of talking about the hardliners. In this context, if I understand it correctly, the hardliners are the people who want to see the economy of China westernized. Deng Xiaoping and others have become known for their economic reforms. In that sense they have not been hardliners when it comes to economic ideology. It turns out that they have been hardliners when it comes to political ideology. It is important to say that because so often the concept of being a hardliner is used with a broad brush and implies both political and economic rigidity which in this case is not an accurate way of describing what is going on.
The task for the western world will be to drive home the point, particularly if the so-called hardliners, in this case the people who ordered the troops on the students are the people who emerge victorious from the struggle which is now going on from the chain of violence that they set in motion, not only in rhetoric and motions here in the House of Commons, however important they may be, but to drive home the point in practical and concrete actions about how much offence is taken by the world at what has happened in China. At the same time China must not be driven into isolationism and hostility toward the rest of the world. That will be dangerous for us all. In this I do not care one whit about who happens to have investments in China or joint ventures. I am not talking about the economic dimension. Economic matters should always be subordinate to larger moral and political values. I am talking about the fact that we are dealing with one of the largest countries in the world, a country which, if things go awiy in China, can affect all kinds of things which are either progressing well at this point or have the hope of progressing well.
Recently I had occasion to speak to the Asia-Pacific Foundation in Vancouver. It was an opportunity for me to have a good look at many things that are happening in the Asia-Pacific region. One of the things one was delighted to note was that it was an era of reconciliation and so many old enemies were reconciling. When I spoke in late April it was just previous to the first visit by a Taiwanese Minister to the mainland since the revolution.
China-Japan relations are warming, Russian-Chinese relations are warming, Russian-Japanese relations are warming, and the Southeast Asian countries are trying to find a solution to problems in Indochina. Without a China that knows its mind it maybe very difficult to solve the problem in Cambodia. All of this will have a profound effect on a great many international situations that are important to us all.
Therefore it is incumbent upon all of us to think very carefully and of course it is even more incumbent upon the Government because they are the ones who have to act, but it is incumbent upon us to think how we react to these events. Whatever we do, we have to do actual things. We cannot be guilty of saying our piece tonight and being done with it. Whatever we do, we have to do it from that sense of outrage which is unanimously shared by Canadians, and particularly shared by Chinese Canadians and others who have had the good fortune to visit China over the last few decades. I notice that people who have been to China in the last decade or so have had a special pain in their hearts about what has gone on there. I believe that speaks well of the Chinese people. It speaks well of the hopes that many have had and should still have for the future of China. China as a civilization and as a nation has been around for a long time. It will be around for a long time yet. What those students were after, and what I believe in great measure they will have achieved by their deaths, will yet come to pass.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great distance between our country and China in geographic terms. There is a great distance as well between the Chinese and most Canadians in cultural terms. There is no distance between us whatsoever tonight in the shared emotional response to the tragedy that is unfolding in China.
This century which in so many ways highlights steps of human advancement and progress, is also the century of the most unspeakable horrors inflicted by mankind upon other humans. It is perhaps one of the most discouraging things for people around the globe tonight to see on the news that has just been broadcast, the unfolding events in China. The often hoped for sense of progress towards civilized methods of government, orderly and peaceful methods of resolving differences, in fact represents a stage of human progress. It is black chapters like the one
June 5, 1989

that is being written now that bring us up short with the realization that too often the veneer of civilization is just that, a very thin veneer.
As this tragedy unfolds as one more chapter in China's long history, it is perhaps very important for all of us in this country and elsewhere around the globe to make a distinction between the people of China and those who are currently in authority in China and have set in motion this chain of events.
It is very clear that China with its centuries of rich culture and human endeavour has a very great deal to teach the rest of the world. But China has nothing to teach the rest of the world about how to deal with political change. What we have seen in the last two days represents the most complete and abysmal failure of a government to respond to change within its own country. When the point is reached where armed soldiers turn and fire on unarmed civilians within their own country, no more greater statement of bankrupt political thinking could be made than that which was carried by the signature of those machine guns firing and those tanks moving along the Boulevard of Eternal Peace.
The Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) when he spoke earlier referred to events in Europe, particularly in Hungary in 1956. I was 11 years old in 1956 and delivering newspapers on my paper route door to door. After several days of seeing photographs on the front page of The Toronto Telegram showing students in running shoes with Molotov cocktails in their hands up against the heavy-booted soldiers and the steel-plated tanks moving through the streets of Budapest, I became very depressed and for a number of weeks was inexplicably in a state of melancholy. I feel the same sense tonight, and I mention Budapest in 1956 for two reasons.
First, because that image of students standing before those tanks as the troops of repression swept into Hungary is a direct parallel with the scene that Canadians saw just a few moments ago on national television. They saw students standing before tanks in the streets of the capital city of China with nothing but their human bravery and their commitment to their beliefs in democracy against that awesome military threat that was only feet and inches away from them. Therefore we see a parallel in a sense.
If we are to see some similarities between now and 1956, let us see another one. In retrospect, many people saw Budapest in 1956 as a time of lost opportunity because coming from the people was a strong drive for political freedom in a communist controlled country. The West did not respond at that time because the West was preoccupied with other activities; the French and the British in the Suez and the Canadians also in the Suez crisis. The Americans were preoccupied in 1956 with electing their popular general, Dwight Eisenhower, as President.
There were many other distractions. It was only in retrospect that many people regretted that there had not been a greater sense of the historic moment so that those within Hungary could have felt appropriate support.
We are now witnessing another moment of history. It is more than right for all of us to stand here as representatives of an outraged Canadian populace and give expression to the justifiable horror which we all feel. It is not only right, it is necessary that around the world those who are democrats express that feeling unequivocally.
Beyond expressing outrage, I am saying that we must be creative in how we are viewing this unfolding situation in China. Most assuredly this is another historic moment. There may be opportunities if we think creatively, if we view the situation with an open mind and listen especially to those forces within China which in some form or other we can assist at this time. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Transcona spoke about the ironies in this situation and the distinction between who are the hardliners and who are not the hardliners. Following on his line of thinking, I believe it is very important that we do not at this time fall too easily into putting labels and categories to a situation that is extraordinarily complex.
Using all of the resources of our country, including not only Canadians with experience in China but many who are now Canadians of Chinese background, and being open to all the possibilities that this situation presents, we must speak as we are tonight and act as a Parliament as we are tonight. However, in the days ahead, as this chain of events continues to unfold, we must look for ways that we can, as one of the world's countries that has a very special relationship with China, continue to support those forces of democracy and those forces of

reform within the country. To do less might very well mean that in 10 or 15 years we would look back and see that an opportunity had been missed.
The upheaval that is currently taking place in the communist world is truly remarkable. Events are happening these weeks and months that two years ago people would have thought quite impossible. Certainly in the example from China, in contrast to the example in eastern Europe, we are seeing that economic reform must be accompanied by political reform.
For these reasons I join with other elected representatives of the Canadian people to stand in the House of Commons of Canada tonight and express, as all others have, support for our resolution which unequivocally condemns this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of China, to issue our call to the authorities in China to cease the senseless killing, and to adopt immediately a course of dialogue with the Chinese people.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to improve upon the moving words that have been spoken by so many of my colleagues from all corners of the House tonight about the tragic massacre which has occurred in China over the past few days.
However, I want to take this opportunity to add my voice on behalf of my constituents in full support of this unanimous motion of condemnation against the senseless and vulgar decisions taken by the Chinese Government to slaughter its own citizens. Surely such actions demonstrate the total vacuum of leadership which exists in China at this time, and surely all the world deplores any system of government that must resort to violence as the final measure of its incompetence and its inhumanity.
Yesterday in Fredericton, New Brunswick, a peaceful and orderly demonstration was conducted by Chinese citizens to express their shock, anguish, and anger over the events that had just taken place in Beijing. They were joined by students, both foreign and Canadian, and by local citizens of several cultures and languages, in a community expression of sympathy for those who suffered and of outrage that this world is capable of such atrocities.
That demonstration in Fredericton cannot help but cause us to realize how truly fortunate we are in New Brunswick and in all of Canada to enjoy a system of democracy that is so stable, so secure, and truly so peaceful. It surely cannot help but cause us to reflect upon the values, the challenges, and the opportunities which we are privileged in this country to pursue in the future building of our own great nation.
After watching the horrors of China this weekend, surely we shall realize how blessed we are to have the chance to join with the many people of Canada, with the several world cultures that make up our population and the official languages of our population, in one magnificent, unified nation.
I am moved by the accord that exists in this House tonight condemning this unspeakable scene from a country so far away. I cannot help but be brought back close to home and express the wishes others have expressed here tonight, that such accord as we feel on this subject will move us on to other subjects closer to home, that we shall remember this evening and be moved to make this House more an instrument of progress and resolution, reconciliation and peace in building our own great nation.
It is a privilege, as the Member of Parliament for my constituency, to rise in the House and be able to express the sadness, the dismay, the anguish, and the anger of the citizens whom I represent over the atrocities that we have seen this past weekend and to express the wish that the unfolding of these events will in due course move us to greater goals and pursuit of the unification and strengthening of our own country.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place tonight to join in this emergency debate on the situation in China, I am aghast when I think of the terrible atrocity that has taken place.
Television and mass media bring these events much closer to us than ever before possible. Yet the horror we have seen on our TV sets is in reality magnified one hundred times for those who find themselves in the middle of it. I simply cannot understand why this has happened.
Television has brought catastrophes into our living rooms before: mass genocide in Jonestown, airline disasters, Bhopal, Ethiopia, but this one is different. Over the last month we have watched student calls for reform blossom into a full-fledged movement for democracy.
June 5, 1989

Now we see the Government's attempt to crush it, a brutal, sadistic, deliberate, unprovoked, unforgivable attack on its own citizens.
This carnage is like nothing we have witnessed since the Second World War. Indeed, it is the first time in the 40-year history of communist China that the Government has turned its guns on its own people. This is a state driven human slaughter. It has happened when global expectations for peace and freedom are at an all time high.
Yet, it is an avowal of failure. Because of its actions, the Chinese Government has not crushed the movement for democracy. Far from it. The blood of the student protesters and their civilian supporters will give impetus that will shake the Chinese Government to its very foundation.
There are many questions on our minds this evening. The first of these is about what the Government in China will do next. Another is about what we in the outside world can do. Certainly there is little encouragement from these Chinese officials, whereas yesterday we heard their promises that this was only the beginning, that more needed to be done to bring what they call dissidents in line. We must condemn the actions of the Chinese Government. We must offer our voice of condemnation to that of the world reaction.
If the Chinese Government could order this course of recent events, perhaps Canada should re-examine our expansion of trade with China. In 1988 there were $2.6 billion in exports from Canada to China, nearly double the $1.4 billion of the previous year. Chinese imports to Canada rose from $812 million to $955 million in 1988. China needs Canadian knowledge and technology to propel it into the 21st century. For most Canadians, respect for human rights is as important as technological advancement. We must demonstrate this belief through our trade policies.
In this trying time of world drama and tension, it is a blessing that with our country's wonderful system of democracy, our three political Parties chose and were able to conduct this emergency debate this evening. I personally feel so exasperated at being so far away, so much appalled and yet so unable to help. Many people globally have expressed their shock and horror. Now is
our moment to do something with our emotions and turn them into actions. It is Canada's moment to help turn world-wide opinion into nation-wide action.
We have heard so many pleas from people in China that reporters must get this story out to the world. We now know that they have and it is our turn to get our message in the strongest possible terms to the people of China, to tell them-no, to show them-that our heart and our thoughts are with them.
In my own riding of Nepean, over 2,000 people are of Chinese ethnic origin. Over half that number consider the Chinese language their mother tongue. That 2,000 figure in my riding is exceeded only by one other Ottawa area riding and represents almost exactly one-quarter of the persons of Chinese origin in all Ottawa area ridings. To put that in perspective, one out of 100 national capital resident is of Chinese origin.
The immediate concern of all Canadians, particularly Chinese Canadians, is for the safety of their family and friends in China. Our concern, however, is also for the future, the future of China and the future of Hong Kong. I join my colleagues and all Canadians in calling on the Government to use any measure at its disposal, be it diplomatic or economic, to indicate clearly to the Chinese Government that we will not tolerate nor easily forget such abhorrent action.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise to take part in the emergency debate on the events of the past weekend in China. The actions of the Peoples Liberation Army, in their crushing of the pro-democracy movement, can only be described as crimes against humanity.
The horrors that all Canadians witnessed on their television sets over the past couple of nights are completely repulsive to the human mind. Canada's reaction to these atrocities should be swift and conducive to the magnitude of the crime committed by the People's Republic of China against its own people.
We can trace the roots of the unrest to the initial reforms set out by Deng Xiaoping in the late seventies and the early eighties. The former premier of the Peoples Republic of China set out a brave agenda for the economy of China that would turn the isolationist tide that characterized that nation's foreign policy for the better part of 40 years.

June 5, 1989
Premier Deng seemed to infuse a breath of fresh air into the stagnating Chinese economy. Unfortunately, this political stalwart has outlived his welcome and has exercised a rational vengeance against his own people. We have learned from various media sources that it was upon his order that the Chinese military violently dispersed the youth demonstrations in Tiananmen Square.
I say that this is the most reprehensible action that a political leader can take against his own people and should not go without strong international retribution.
The demonstrations in Beijing are a result of the rising expectations precipitated by the economic reforms of the past 10 years. The Government of the People's Republic of China seemed to be opening up its doors to allow foreign investment and greater free market interaction so as to facilitate a more rapid pace of economic development.
As a result of the successes of this policy, the Chinese people demanded what seemed to be part of the natural progression towards freedom. They demanded that justice and equality be part of the Chinese communist system. They demanded that rules of fairness and equity be followed by the upper echelons of the Communist Party and that no one should profit from their position within the state system.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Chinese gave their lives for these principles. As Canadians, we cannot afford to take for granted the principles of freedom enshrined in our Constitution. In fact, we should become very much aware of them as a result of these recent events.
The expectations of the students in Beijing were heightened by the political reforms taking place throughout the Communist world. Since the Soviet Union was preparing for its first democratic election in over 70 years, the Chinese people could not remain unaffected by this new attitude. Unfortunately for the Chinese, glasnost has not yet reached the People's Republic of China.
Instead of forging ahead and preparing for a more democratic system, the Chinese political elite decided it was better to protect their entrenched positions within
the system than to secure the freedom and prosperity of the Chinese people.
Mr. Speaker, political changes in China have always come through the student activist wing. During the past few weeks, the whole world was able to witness that the massed students on Tienanmen Square were peaceful, only demanding their basic political rights and the principles of freedom. That is why the violence shown by the government was in no way justified.
Unfortunately, Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng preferred to use brute force instead of showing understanding and initiating some kind of compromise, faced with this movement for freedom and democracy.

All Canadians looked on with dismay as the statue erected in the square called the Goddess of Democracy was destroyed by a tank over the weekend. The image of armed vehicles roaring up and down the Avenue of Eternal Peace in the heart of Beijing could only make one think of the paradox that China is today.
On the other hand, we have the youth of China. The students at these universities represent the best and the brightest of the Chinese people. The youth of the country are being sacrificed for the political ambition of an ever ageing gerontocracy. For the first time since the Communists have taken over Mainland China, innocent civilians have been victims of their own Armed Forces. As a Canadian, I find this fact most reprehensible.
This is indeed a heinous crime. Estimates of the casualties in Beijing range from 500 to 3,000 people killed and up to 10,000 people injured. China has not seen such absolute bloodshed for decades. Instead of joining the trend toward global peace and understanding, the Chinese Government has shown its true colours and has demonstrated that it will not tolerate any challenge to its totalitarian political power. The fact that the people being shot were unarmed and being passive in their resistance heightens the revulsion at this deed.
Students, women and children being shot at random is simply unacceptable in today's world. The immediate evil tactics of the Chinese Government will not be forgotten by our world. Stories emanating from Beijing are indeed horrible. One unconfirmed incident, as reported by The Globe and Mail, told of 100 people linking arms to act as
June 5, 1989

a human barricade against the oncoming tanks. Soldiers then opened fire against these unarmed civilians killing scores and injuring many others.
A second wave of people stepped over their fallen comrades to act as a second barrier against the armoured column. To everyone's horror they, too, were mowed down. News reports from Beijing indicated that many were killed or crushed by the tanks. Others reported that indiscriminate shooting by soldiers killed many innocent bystanders.
Through any examination of the facts the truth is undeniable. The political leadership of China must be held accountable for the crime it has committed.
As one of my Party's spokespersons for multicultural-ism, along with my colleague the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills), I am particularly concerned for the Chinese population here in Canada. The shock to many Canadians who still have family and friends in Beijing must be enormous. I hope the federal Government will co-operate to the fullest of its ability to alleviate any undue anxieties these people may feel. I also hope that the federal Government assists these people through whatever means possible to send necessary aid to their people in China who desperately need our support in their struggle for democracy and freedom at this time.
I am also concerned with respect to how events in China will affect Canada's refugee system. It is highly likely that the events of the past weekend will create a new tide of immigrants from Hong Kong who are ever more fearful of the colony's reunification with the mainland, as well as from the mainland as prospects for political reform grow fainter.
I hope that the federal Government treats these anticipated cases with great care and compassion. Canada should open its doors to those refugees from the turmoil in China who will obviously be affected as a result of their involvement in the student demonstrations.

The Canadian Government must consider the options open to it. As a country that cherishes the sacredness of
human life, as well as the basic rights of freedom, we must make known our anger very clearly. The Canadian Government must first recall its representative to the People's Republic of China as a sign of disapproval. It should also consider the possibility of economic sanctions to express the horror felt by Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canada should use the opportunity provided by its seat on the United Nations Security Council to gain the support of other states for unanimous condemnation of the reprehensible acts of the Chinese Government. It is high time that this Government used Canada's good reputation as an involved country and passed a firm resolution on this subject.

China is an ancient land that has in its history endured much hardship and oppression. The events of the past weekend demonstrate that this unfortunate trend will continue and, according to some reports, expand to other cities.
I hope that the Government of the People's Republic of China reconsiders its decision to crush the peaceful demonstration. Until the time when this wrong can be corrected, I hope that the Canadian Government and the global community take the strongest measures possible to condemn this horrible act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, just when we thought the world had taken a small tentative step out of Churchill's broad sunlit uplands, hope has turned to heartbreak, exultation to dejection.
How did it happen? What happens now? What should Canada do? What should Canadians and China do?
When I heard the news that the tanks had moved into Tiananmen Square I was in Drumheller to get a progress report on the Canada-China dinosaur project, a joint venture of our two countries that has as its objective a travelling exhibition which will, if all goes well, attract some 12 million visitors in the great cities of the world and show the palaeontological resources of our two countries which have yet that one other item in common.
A visiting palaeontologist who was in the Drumheller region on the weekend from the People's Republic of

June 5, 1989
China had a son who was demonstrating in Tiananmen Square. He was full of anxiety as to his son's fate.
Since the Second World War there have been notable public uprisings of this kind. There was one in 1951 in East Germany, in Budapest in 1956, and Tibet in 1959. There was the one in the Prague in the spring in 1968. There was that wonderful moment in February 1986 in Manila when an 82 year old grandmother with the power of prayer and a flower stopped a tank which had rolled out of the barracks. In the words of Jaime Cardinal Sin: "People power defeated the weaponry of the oppressor".
Now, in 1989, we have the slaughter in Tiananmen Square. What has led to the uprising? What has led to the tyranny which put it down?
I am told that there is a dichotomy in Chinese society between the urban and the rural population. Life is more difficult in the cities. Prices are higher. There is crowding and tension which leads to a good deal of anxiety. There is, of course, the yearning for freedom, a yearning for political freedom and perhaps more economic freedom. It is a yearning which might to our eyes and our ears be somewhat naive and idealistic.
I had the opportunity this afternoon to speak with Professor Leslie Green, a distinguished international jurist, a Professor of International Law at the University of Alberta who just in the last seven days has returned from lecturing at Beijing University and at Harbin University in Heilongjang Province of northern China. While in Harbin, Professor Green was asked questions about human rights by the Chinese students. To quote the Professor directly:
-their questions were excellent. Let me give you an example because I think it reflects the student mentality in the area.
The question posed to the professor was:
In your country, Professor, if students wish to demonstrate, do they need Government permission?
Professor Green replied by pointing out:
- in Canada you don't need government permission but the police have to approve your route, and if you deviate from the route they will push you back. They didn't like that answer, they had been led sort of by western reaction to assume that all students have to do is come out and everything in the garden will be lovely.
They also said to Professor Green:
- in your country, if a visiting dignitary, a head of state comes, and wants to invite people to dinner, will the Government interfere if he invites a leading dissident?
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that that is what happened with President Bush. Professor Green replied:
-I don't think it would happen in Canada, because the Chief of Protocol of External Affairs would ask to see the guest list in advance, and I think that is correct. They didn't like that answer, either. So you can see the sort of temper they were in, but they asked their questions the way that wouldn't embarrass me.
Within the Chinese society and the Chinese culture students have traditionally had a special place. The scholar has had a special place, as the incubator of tomorrow's intelligentsia.
Another factor which I believe has led to this tension in Chinese society is something that perhaps no society is immune from. We see it on our own continent, that is to say a resentment of the life-style of a leadership elite.
We also must examine the role of the western media both in the encouragement of liberation movements and sometimes in their collapse. We look back to the Budapest situation of October of 1956 and there is no doubt that in that situation there were broadcasts by liberation radio organizations in Western Europe which led the Hungarian people to the belief that if only they threw off the Soviet oppressor the western nations would soon come to their rescue. Of course, that was not to be. The West chose not to act in Hungary in 1956.
So we examine in the age of television what role the western media, playing to a western audience but bringing the picture directly out of the Forbidden City and Tiananmen Square from Beijing into our own homes, may play in interacting with the attitudes of the students themselves.
Professor Green again had some comments to offer. He said:
When marshal law was declared and the western press made so much of the non-action of the military, the presentation of flowers and the hugging and the sitting crosslegged without weaponry, would have been the sort of thing to lead the government to assume that this was the beginning of something more than just a student protest. I also had the feeling from what we could see and sense that it was dying out, that if the government would have sort of let it run, it would have subsided quietly. Again, the students were a little unreasonable. You couldn't really expect the government to agree
June 5, 1989

that the conversations between government and student leaders would be televised to the public.
Yet, paradoxically, the students told Professor Green, both in Beijing and Heilongjang, thank God for the BBC, because that wonderful public broadcasting organization which had established such a great reputation for reliability during the Second World War and the years since then was the main source of the students for active accounts of what was happening within their own country.
Are we going to have another Budapest, another night of darkness? I asked Professor Green that question this afternoon when we discussed the situation in Beijing. He said:
I think to a certain extent, that is what has happened in China. And I am not blaming the western press. What I am saying is that with their reactions, with their comments rather than straight reporting, they may have encouraged the students to go a little further to make more extreme demands and to terrify the government into believing that what was starting as a pure passive resistant demonstration by youngsters, which could be disregarded and allowed to wear itself out, was becoming the beginning, the seeds of the civil war.
So we listened tonight with great concern and apprehension when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) reported that minutes before he spoke reports had come from our embassy in Beijing that there were reports of some civil strife among military units in various parts of China.
Canada's interest in all of this is, first of all, human and humanitarian. I share the sentiments of other speakers tonight who are horrified by the unnecessary use of force that has taken place and the blatant disregard for human rights.
In Alberta and British Columbia over the last few years, as indeed in other parts of Canada, there has been a blooming of activity with China, joint ventures, delegations constantly going, the twinning of communities. My own City of Edmonton is twinned with Harbin and the Province of Alberta with Heilongjang.
The Middle Kingdom is truly the centre of gravity of the world's population. It began with the missionaries, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out tonight, and continued with Norman Bethune. Alvin
Hamilton first sold wheat in China and we led many of the western democracies with the Trudeau Government recognition of the PRC in 1970 and leading its sponsorship for UN admission later on.
Canada has $36 million of overseas development assistance with China, $771 million worth of imports into Canada, and double that in exports to China. The Chinese have built our country, our railways, our service industries, and many are active in our professions and in Government. We now have a Lieutenant Governor of our western-most province who was born of Chinese parentage and who came as an immigrant to this country.
So what should Canada do in this situation? First of all, we endorse the resolution. Second, we must give comfort and reassurance to the families of Canadians in China. I am pleased at the rapid action of the Government in ordering a plane sent to Beijing for those who are unable to get out through civilian airlines.
We should offer a haven in Canada to those Chinese who seek it, be they students or refugees. I submit that finally, and I say this with great regret because of my deep interest in the Canada-China dinosaur project of the Ex Terra Foundation, we should withhold the hand of new co-operation from the regime responsible for the slaughter.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this veiy serious matter, a matter that has left us and the world thunderstruck. As one who has experienced the peace and tranquillity of the Chinese people, a peace-loving people, I would like to urge some caution and restraint in the handling of this matter which, while I quite readily concede has affected lives, nothing we can say or do will reverse what has happened. What we can do and what we should do remains very important, not only to other lives, but as well could quite well prevent the rebirth of a cold war between Canada and the People's Republic of China. Our international diplomacy and our international diplomatic maturity is currently at test.
We have a peaceful and friendly existence with the Chinese people, it having lasted over a period of many years. That in itself is worth life. Our friendship is of value to them as is theirs to us.

June 5, 1989
The indiscriminate taking of life that has occurred is something that should be condemned and every human being, every father, mother, sister and brother, has a right to take issue with what has happened in Beijing. Perhaps at the beginning of our day tomorrow it would be appropriate to observe a moment's silence to acknowledge the sacrifice for peace and democracy that those young Chinese students gave.
We should make the point that we would hope that some day every government in this world would be democratic and would provide for an individual's right to speak, to be heard and understood. We make this claim as an attempt to strive toward a more perfect life and to do so driven by peaceful motivation. It is most unfortunate that a segment in this world has not complied with our basis for the attainment of individual human rights.
What exists is a breach in what appeared within a natural flow towards the attainment of individual status and accomplishment and the opportunity for people to feel better about themselves and to some day soon attain those rights and privileges which we as Canadians enjoy and perhaps sometimes take for granted.
I want to give some history as to my involvement with the People's Republic of China. It was at the urging of our local Chinese community that the City of Regina began the pursuit of establishing a twinning relationship with a city in the People's Republic of China. It was, as well, with the urging of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that this move be encouraged and undertaken as a measure for, not only economic development for municipalities all across Canada, but as well for an opportunity to assist in providing the People's Republic of China with some of the municipal technologies that we had available that could provide them with a better life. As well, and perhaps even more importantly, there was the opportunity to establish a relationship, to build bridges, to make friends, to build trusts so that we might both mutually enjoy each other's peace. It was often theorised that the button to the bomb would not be pushed by your twin.
This pursuit was followed to the point where the City of Regina was twinned with the City of Jinan, Shandong Province in PRC. This relationship and trust was extended further, to the point where the City of Jinan agreed to exhibit at an industrial trade show to occur in
Regina during the months of July and August at the Regina Buffalo Days Exhibition.
The trust that was required was enormous in that they are, without any guarantees, bringing a display that they hope to sell that is worth somewhere in the order of $150,000 to $200,000. This does not include the freight, set up, tear down and commitment required to bring this display to Canada. I now believe that this exhibition to be in jeopardy and I am therefore anxious that dialogue commence as quickly as possible.
This exhibition is the faith that the Chinese people have placed in us and is not something that we should take as a commitment given lightly. Therefore I would encourage that those of us who have comments about the situation do so in a manner that is constructive, compassionate, and which will not seal the doors to a renewed friendship that was so long in the making. Kindness and understanding can retain this friendship. Arrogance may lose it. Spontaneity may weaken it. Diplomacy may be the only tool we have to retain this relationship.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the motion that conveys our concern with the loss of life that has occurred, our compassion and sympathy for the relatives of those who are the survivors, our support for the continuation of the establishment of human rights for those living in the People's Republic of China in a peaceful way, and our support and encouragement to those who participated in Tiananmen Square who did so with the resolve of the attainment of their pursuit in a peaceful manner.
We should be sending to the People's Republic of China our expression of continued interest and concern and hope that the Chinese Government seek a speedy truce to the civil conflict and continue in a fashion which encourages dialogue and rejects bullets. We should not be acting out of haste. There are no medals to be won by being first. We should act carefully, with determination, and with the objective to assist in the resolve of this turmoil facing the world's largest population.
We should offer our prayers to the effort and cause of those who lost their lives and to those who continue the pursuit. I entreat Members of Parliament to be diligent and understanding, to have the peaceful goals of the Chinese people as our goals as well, to cast aside aspirations for being on the front pages of our newspa-
June 5, 1989

pers, to pursue that which can be done in the true spirit of Dr. Norman Bethune, and to seek no other gratification other than knowing that we can continue to be leaders in striving for world peace.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak and condemn the inhuman acts perpetrated by the Chinese Government against her own people. I understand the aspirations of the Chinese people who protest for freedom. I cannot fathom the insanity of action by the Chinese authorities.
Indeed, Beijing's Tiananmen Square will henceforth stand in world history as a slaughterhouse for innocent civilians whose only aspiration is for the betterment of their own people, for the dignity of their families-the very foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
The brutality which the military has used in quelling the forces of democracy is horrifying indeed. Civilians of all ages and from all walks of life are being slain. All are being sacrificed because they had the courage and determination to pursue the universal goal of freedom. The catastrophe in China affects all human beings irrespective of race, religion or political allegiance. In Canada, our collective indignation is symbolized by the unanimous consent and agreement of all political parties to debate this issue in the House of Commons tonight and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consent.
We must not only speak as enraged democratic people, but also in consciousness of the many Chinese Canadians who must feel particularly shocked by the events in Beijing. Chinese Canadians have participated fully in the economic and social growth of our country and have helped build some of our most important national institutions.
What is behind this sudden surge of support for democracy on the part of the students? This is a question that must be examined. Why suddenly are these students protesting against the political party that has ruled their lives all along?
Basically, China has given her citizens new economic freedom but has denied them political freedom. The current Chinese leadership believed that economic reform would be enough. They believed that the Chinese
population could be seduced by the importation of consumer goods and would be apathetic to the demand for political freedom. The authorities were wrong.
The demonstrations by these students signalled to conservative Communist Party members that they were wrong. The demonstrators called for specific political reforms; for increased funding for education which would make it possible for more Chinese citizens to escape poverty; for the publication of the income and assets of top party leaders to provide public accountability and prevent corruption; for the support of liberal policies and greater democracy; for open dialogue between the students and government that would be open to the public and broadcasts uncensored on national television. Above all, they called for the freedom of the press, speech and assembly, values which all societies in the world strive for.
Instead of granting the desired pday olitical freedom, the Communist Party acted desperately to preserve their control at the expense of human lives. By setting the military on unarmed civilians, the Chinese leaders illustrated that they are barbaric, without a heart and who govern without consent. They obviously adhere to Mao's maxim that power grows from the barrel of a gun and ignore that true power emanates from the people.
This morning, Beijing Mayor Chen Xitong warned that the Government and the Communist Party had reached the end of their patience, and I quote: "If anyone continues their resistance, they will be severely punished."
It has also been reported that Deng has said, and again I quote: "Even if they're functioning out of ignorance, they are still participating and must be suppressed."
It is the people of China who have reached the end of their patience with Chinese leaders who are ignorant. They are ignorant of the needs of their citizens: the need for political freedom and for personal independence. Indeed, the very basic need to live and to be free to live.
The concerns that these events cause us are many. We are concerned about the lives of the protesters in China as well as the Canadian citizens whose lives may be in danger.

June 5, 1989
The brutal way in which the Chinese Government is reacting to the quest for political freedom also makes us realise that the political, social and ethical values for tolerance, of the need to protect human dignity, which we see as a given in Canada, have not yet spread to the leaders of China.
We must also be concerned about the future of the citizens of Hong Kong. The poor example set in Beijing in the past couple of days bodes ill for the people of Hong Kong after its integration with China in 1997.
We must also be concerned about the future of Chinese students currently in Canada. They must never suffer because they have expressed indignation about the way their government is treating Chinese citizens.
Government over-cautiousness as a response to the violence in China when human lives are involved is in itself a threat. Inaction on the part of other countries might encourage the Chinese Government to proceed with its use of force in the belief that it will not be punished on the international scene.
I therefore salute all freedom-loving governments and peoples who unite to condemn the inhuman acts of the Chinese authorities. Our Government must ask China to take note of the lessons of successful revolutions, of solidarity in Poland and of the victory of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. The signals that we send to China now will have a far-reaching effect beyond China and might encourage democratic forces in other oppressed countries. We must apply diplomatic and economic pressure, including asking for an emergency Security Council session of the United Nations. This will send a clear message that the international community stands behind the students and workers, the men and women, the youth and the elderly in China who have sacrificed their lives to obtain a universal human value-freedom.
Now is not the time to worry about our trading relationship with China. The urgent priority is to take action to stop the bloodshed. Economic considerations must be subservient to consideration of human lives. We must provide moral support for the oppressed and suppressed people of China, and signal to the Chinese authorities that we condemn their actions. We must tell
the Chinese leaders to react with tact and not tanks, to give goods and not guns.
I add my voice and those of my constituents in Winnipeg North to those in the House who have expressed deep indignation at the unspeakable action of the Chinese authorities. By our united action we demonstrate to the whole world and, more importantly, to the freedom-loving people of China that we Canadians are committed to freedom, justice, and peace for all peoples. We are behind them. We love and care for them. Indeed, we ask the Chinese Government as we demonstrate tonight in Parliament to give her people both life and liberty.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the tragedy of this weekend's massacres in Tiananmen Square. The past months and years have been especially hopeful for the world. We have witnessed glasnost and perestroika, the hopeful talks for arms reduction, increased international trade and global integration, and a spirit of openness is being felt throughout the world as we address problems such as environmental degradation and the AIDS threat.
In the past week alone we watched students gather in Tiananmen Square to fight for democratic reforms. In another part of the world, the people of Poland have participated in their first semi-democratic election. People gathered in Montreal this weekend to talk openly and candidly about the AIDS threat.
After the malaise of the last years caused by arms escalation, increased cold war tensions, and the poverty of the Third World, our generation has played an important role around the world in returning hope to mankind and nowhere more so than in China where, in the last six weeks, students took it upon themselves to demand that democratic reforms follow the Government's economic reforms.
The student movement in Tiananmen Square owes its beginning to the strength and courage of a few young men and women who understood that democracy does not just happen. It is built, and the price of reform is hardship and self-sacrifice. They soon discovered that their strength and courage, camaraderie and character were contagious.
By Sunday morning Beijing time, Saturday morning our time, the dreams that began in the hearts of a few idealistic students had permeated men, women and children of all classes in Beijing society. People around the world watched as they fought in unison to prevent the Chinese army from removing them from Tiananmen Square. I watched on television as a woman on the street explained very matter of factly that all they had to do was
June 5, 1989

explain to the armed soldiers moving in on trucks that they, the soldiers, were people first and that they should not attack the students. For a while, the world was transfixed awaiting reform somewhat anxiously. Perhaps we were too complacent. Perhaps we should have been encouraging the students and supporting them rather than waiting.
We as Canadians have a history of looking outward. One of our former Prime Ministers, a personal hero of mine, Mr. Lester Pearson, was awarded a Nobel Prize when he saw tensions grow in the Suez Canal region and he provided a release valve. Canadian peace-keeping troops have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their ongoing peace-keeping missions around the world. Those peace-keeping missions reflect the Canadian notion of duty to brother. We have a glorious history; at least we have had a glorious history. As has often been said in times of crises, the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. Perhaps it slipped our minds that the welfare and the future of the Chinese students was inextricably bound to our own, that we too had to stand up to be counted in this time of reform.
Perhaps our caution was justified and our reluctance to hope for too much was vindicated. The bloodshed of the last few days has set the world spinning. Yet despite ourselves, despite the distance between our two countries, somehow we were bound to the fate of the Chinese community at the other end of the earth. Because we are tied to the situation, it is now incumbent upon us to act unanimously in condemning the Chinese Government. We cannot shy away from the situation twice, not when lives have been lost. The hope that was dashed from the students who were demonstrating peacefully, and that hope which was dashed from ourselves, must be reclaimed. And it shall be, for hope springs eternal in the heart of man.
In order to achieve this end, in order that the lives of the young students were not lost in vain, it was imperative that a unilateral resolution be passed immediately in the Elouse. I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for acting so promptly this evening. It is imperative that we commit ourselves right
now, openly and honestly, to use any powers we may have to stop this violence.
Canada has a very special tie to China, and a very special relationship. China's increased international trade has benefited us greatly. Canadian exports to China nearly doubled in 1988, rising to $2.6 billion from $1.4 billion in 1987. Imports from China rose to $955 million in 1988 from $812 million the preceding year.
We have a history of relations with China stemming largely from early and continued Chinese immigration to this country. We owe our Chinese community a great deal, not the least of which was the construction of large tracts of the trans-Canadian railroad. At times, as we all know, we were less than honourable to the Chinese community. But we have grown as a nation and we have grown to respect one another. In my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood, the Chinese community is vibrant and dynamic and a tremendous asset. The Lee family in the housing community, Maiy Shih looks after health care, King Wong works diligently with the seniors, Y.S. Pong works with the youth, the Lum family, Dennis Leung, the students of Riverdale Collegiate and Eastern Commerce, these people are all making contributions to our economy, our culture and to our way of life. The pain they are feeling is our pain just as the pain of the international student organizations is and that of those who believe in fundamental human rights.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, like other Members in this House that tonight, I rise with great sadness and frankly great anticipation. Much that is very important has been said here tonight. I intend to be brief, and like the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), perhaps a little personal. I too have had the opportunity to travel in China. I have travelled in China twice for extended periods of time. I stand here tonight, having viewed the events of the weekend, and having, as other Members have done, watched the footage tonight and heard the analysis. My greatest concern is for the people of China, but not just for their safety. The people of China are willing to make their own decisions and sacrifices. I am concerned for the spirit of the Chinese people, a people that has had a long and proud history, that has a great culture which has found its way through

June 5, 1989
much of eastern Asia. But while that history and culture are well-known and strong, they are full of strife. It is a history that is full of conflict, foreign invasion and foreign imposed conflict that has led to much hardship, not the least of which has been in the last 80 years.
Despite that, they are a people who are dedicated to their families, who love and cherish their children, a happy people, a people that love fun, jokes, that love to play games and as my friend my Hamilton East said, a terribly inquisitive people, a people of great searching for knowledge, for education, a people who want nothing more than the ability to make their own decisions, to have discretion in their lives and to have the responsibility for those decisions. While there has been some economic reform in China, there has not been the political reform that is so essential to reinforce it. Sadly we in North America have had a picture painted of that great country that I am afraid is inaccurate.
Perhaps if I might be a bit pejorative, the American media has painted a picture of a country that has not come as far as our friends to the south would like perhaps, but it is a country that would like to come that far some day. I am particularly concerned when I think of the people of Shigatze in Tibet that had 20,000 monasta-ries and today has 34 as a result of the Cultural Revolution. There are people who walk hundreds of kilometres to observe their religious practices in a society that does not understand the Chinese, the regime that has been imposed upon them. The Chinese do not understand the lamism of the Tibetans. We have seen death and bloodshed.
My friend has talked about the students in Shanghai who walk up to any foreigner and say hello, how are you, where are you going, what are you doing, what is your name, are you alone, who are your friends. I think also of a very old man who came up to me in a park in Shanghai and said, you are going the wrong way. In a park on a sunny morning at 11 o'clock there is no wrong way but this man wanted to speak English. He had not spoken English for 20 years. He was taught English by a forestry company and he spent 15 years working for an agency
relocating Jews who were in Shanghai after the second war. All he wanted to do was talk to someone from outside to learn more.
I spent four days on a boat going from Muhan to Chong King and for two of those days I was the only non-Chinese on the boat of 800 people. The curiosity of the people that came to watch this not terribly slim, blond, bearded, left-handed foreign devil use chop sticks-all there was was curiosity and an urge to know. They wanted to know why I did not wear two pairs of pants like everybody else wore against the cold. They wanted to know what they could about Canada, anything they could find out. I spoke very little Chinese and they spoke no English, but in two days there was a remarkable exchange of information.
The spirit of those people despite the state, and perhaps in spite of the state, wants to move ahead in terms of knowledge, in terms of understanding. They are an inventive people who know that with their own resources can make their lives better and better for their children. What we have seen in the last three or four days is a repression of that spirit. If that spirit is what is broken, then China, and I would say the world, would be the losers for it. If that spirit if not rekindled and supported by the Members of this House, the people of Canada, the people of the western world, we cannot expect them to come on their own. This motion and the sentiments of all Members of this House bring that moral support that is so essential.
In closing, I spoke a few moments ago with an American friend who taught for a year in Shanghai. At the end of the phone conversation, he said to me, the old leaders used their benchmark as having participated in the long march. The new leaders will comment that they were in Tiananmen Square.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, because of the severity of the debate and the intenseness of the debate and the seriousness of the topic, many Members of Parliament from all three Parties want to take part in the debate. I think that you will find that we have unanimous agreement to extend the sitting to 1 a.m.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the government side, we give our unanimous consent to permit all Members who wish to speak until 1 a.m. the opportunity to do so.
June 5, 1989


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, as the Elon. Members have indicated, it is a very serious issue and there are a number of speakers for the New Democratic Party who want to express a number of concerns but I think we can accommodate the concerns we would like to raise between now and one o'clock. Therefore, we give our unanimous consent to extend the sitting to allow adequate participation in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker from Newfoundland, I think when you hear of a tragedy to another nation and you have had a chance to have a relationship with individuals and with that nation itself by visiting it and coming to know it, indeed you have a very special feeling when the nation stands in turmoil as China stands tonight.
I can remember only too well sitting and talking with students in China at their universities in larger groups and in smaller groups in their dormitories. They were the same kind of questions, the same kind of young people you would find at any university in Canada with the same hopes and aspirations for their nation. In fact perhaps in China this group is more special because they have only been learning about freedom and liberty in the sense that we know it since 1978. As I listened to them talk about freedom and try to understand what freedom and democracy meant, as naive as they may have been, their hope and their enthusiasm for freedom and democracy and opportunity was contagious. As they told us about this, we started to feel the great hope of the young people for their China. One could feel the power of that new found liberty alone beaming from the eyes of these new young warriors of the reform generation. These young people were only 10 years old in 1978 when things started to happen in China. Each year of their life has been a new opening, a new growth and a new sign of hope.
How my stomach turns tonight in revulsion as I think about how the bayonets of a ruthlessly led military have poked out the brightness of their eyes, the passions of their hearts and now treads on the spirit of China. It is a spirit that was beginning to feed the nation. It is a spirit that was beginning to industrialize the nation and provide new opportunities, a higher standard of living and
greater opportunity for all Chinese. That spirit has been trampled.
After the shock, the horror, the anger and the pain, we stand in the House tonight to cry out in frustration with the world: "Let the carnage stop now". I wish I could believe it would. As we speak tonight, let us honour the memory of those who died. Let us honour not just those who died but those who are dying in hospitals throughout China tonight. Let us honour not just those who are dying tonight in China but those who will die in the next days.
This is not the end. It is the beginning in China, hopefully to a renewed China.
In tribute to these martyrs let us turn away from the anger and passion of the moment and look ahead toward a stable China that is at peace with itself and within the world community. Condemn, yes. Sanctions, yes. Review our policy and express our outrage. Let us do all of these things, but do not burn all our bridges. We will need those bridges to help rekindle the brightness of their eyes and the passion of their hearts and their spirit.
A stable, free prosperous China must be the goal of this Parliament and the result we are trying to project from this debate. If we are to be part of that, while we condemn those who have caused or condoned these atrocities, we must also buttress the bridges of those friends so many of us in this House and across the world have started to make inside China. They need our moral support and our strength now like they have never needed it before. We need a strong free China restored in order that peace and prosperity will prevail throughout the entire region.
Two weeks ago we welcomed Wan Li, the chairman of the National People's Congress. We talked with him and his group of Parliamentarians about reform, about hope for their nation.
Tonight, many of us, as members of the Canada-China Parliamentary Association, have been invited not to be here tonight but to be at the Chinese embassy with the ambassador and his staff to celebrate another in-road, the establishment of the Canada-China Parliamentary Association.
When he phoned me this morning in Vancouver and we talked about the reception tonight, I was quite angry. I had been up watching the news and I saw these things

June 5, 1989
happening. My first reaction was to cancel the whole initiative, take a stand.
As I listened to the ambassador, I could hear the anger and sorrow in his voice at the tragedy of his nation. I could begin to understand the suffering that must be going on in the embassy among those who spend their lives trying to build bridges to us in Canada. I realized that we must not cancel, that we must postpone. We must postpone that so it can be one of the bridges on which we will start to rebuild, pending a renewed China moving toward freedom and prosperity.
Through its actions, the Government of China has learned and taught many hard lessons. It has demonstrated the fragility of trust and co-operation between itself and the world, and between ourselves. Out of respect, Canada has largely accepted China's counsel on the region, in world bodies or discussing international politics. We have even turned a blind eye occasionally because we have developed a trust in its view. But it has damaged that.
As I turn my blind eye a 1 ittle bit toward the remote region of Tibet, I wonder if history may show us in default for benign apathy and neglect when we should have investigated and should have raised that issue more aggressively in the international forums of the world.
China is important not just to Canada, it is important to the world. It is more important than it was 10 years ago. It is a powerhouse of the world, economically, socially, and politically. It is in turmoil now.
That turmoil has left a large vacuum. There is the Chinese-Soviet initiative on Kampuchea. How will China exert controlling influence over the Khmer Rouge to prevent another blood bath in the killing fields of Kampuchea? Will the front line states of Vietnam and Thailand fill the vacuum or will ASEAN collectively pull together to prevent another civil war in Kampuchea?
Let Canada begin to prepare its part in a peace-keeping mechanism so that we will not sit here again for another night on a debate on Kampuchea. Instead, we will begin making the peace.
In 10 minutes it will be morning for us. It is 12:45 p.m. in China right now. It would be my hope that as we
condemn China in this resolution, we would also unanimously pray for the safety and reform of the reform leadership, young and old, inside China, that China will know peace and prosperity, and will return to fulfil its rightful and full role in our international community.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably one of the most emotional debates of my 10 years in this House.
We join unanimously in all parties to condemn the present leadership of China that has brought about such carnage and violence against the young students in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. These were students who were demonstrating peacefully, not to overthrow the Government but to demand a hearing, more freedom, and an end of corruption of high officials.
We pay tribute to these students tonight, many of whom died for their cause. The massacre of fellow citizens by the People's Army will never be forgotten in Chinese history or in the minds and consciences of all who uphold human rights.
We in the New Democratic Party support the position taken by Canada as outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tonight. Canada has strongly protested the carnage and violence. It has taken steps to protect Canadian nationals in China. It has extended visas for Chinese students in Canada, has suspended certain bilateral events and it has supported the statement of the U.N. Secretary General calling for restraint.
In my remarks I want to briefly mention some of the information that I had, having consulted with leaders and friends in the Chinese Canadian community in order to bring their views to the House tonight. I might say that we learned about an hour ago that the People's Liberation Army now has moved into most of the major universities in China. Most Canadian Chinese people that I spoke to are stunned, are very concerned at the bloodshed and totally condemn the Government actions in China. They condemn the infringement of human rights, the taking of human life and the fear of security for persons who were involved in the demonstrations or those who supported the students. Canadians of Chinese origin oppose the violation and the slaughter. Many
June 5, 1989

demand the resignation of the present leaders for their incompetence, their corruption and as one friend said: "their craziness".
My contacts in Vancouver stress the strong need for continued monitoring of violations of human rights. Some are preparing to donate blood as are persons in Hong Kong. Other aid is difficult to plan at this time until things stabilize. The Chinese Canadian National Council whom we contacted has met with External Affairs asking that Canada demand an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, urging close monitoring with the withdrawal of diplomats and economic sanctions if this becomes necessary. I must say that I think many of us will agree with earlier statements in this House, however, that it is important not to isolate China and to do everything positive to support progressive change.
The Chinese Canadian National Council ask that Canada use every means possible to stop the massacre and to influence world opinion to return China's leadership to sanity.
I want to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by urging Canadians not to allow the carnage and violence which we have seen on television, and which has been so intolerable and upsetting to all of us, the kind of repression that leaders in China have promoted, to prejudice us against China and all that has been achieved by this great country.
China's civilization began thousands of years ago and is the oldest civilization in the world. The People's Republic of China in the early days of Mao Tse-tung, and I was in China in 1973, learned how to feed 1.2 billion people who were starving. This was a miracle. They developed health services and universal child care services, and care for children and respect for the elderly that Canada might well emulate. It is tragic that Deng Xiaoping who introduced economic reforms and normalized foreign relations should be the one to condone the repression of rights and the brutal massacre of Chinese students. We must remember that there were other moderate leaders, like Zhao Ziyang, whom we hope will rise to lead again.
Canada and China have a special friendship. For me, I must say, it is symbolized in a memory that I have of a little girl whom I encountered by accident in 1973 when I was visiting a village on the outskirts of Shanghai. This little girl was sitting at a table of children playing teacher. I asked the interpreter what she was saying and
I was told that she was saying: "You must serve the people like Dr. Norman Bethune."
Many of my constituents and friends in Vancouver East can trace their families back 12 generations in their villages in China. I join them in deep sorrow tonight which I know they must be feeling. China has always survived and overcome disasters in the past. The people of China are strong. I cannot help but feel that the spirit of the courageous students in Tiananmen Square will rise again and that a long march will commence to renew a peaceful revolution that will lead to human rights, justice and greater freedom in the great country of China.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that it is getting awfully close to 12 o'clock, I think that we should allow the pages to go home. I do not think that we require them any longer, as they will have to be here early in the morning to commence. Can I have agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we know a special kind of horror when we see those who would bring a message of refusal to acquiesce any longer in the leaden monotony of an oppressive regime; those who would bring a message of greater freedom and deeper humanity and a richer future; and those who would bring these things in the spirit of peace and non-violence and love, when we see them gunned down on the orders of evil and barbarous men, utterly corrupted by their contemptible thirst for unyielding power. I first knew this horror in 1970 when I saw on television, and heard on the radio and read in the newspapers of the gunning down of four students at Kent State University of Ohio, and the gunning down of six black students at Jackson State University in Mississippi. I hoped then never to see such hateful barbarism again.
However, I have seen it again, over the last 72 hours on a scale that dwarfs those crimes against its own citizens committed by the Nixon administration.
There are three stages, I think, in our response to this all but unimaginable tragedy. First, we cry out in horror at the staggering inhumanity of the events we see before us. Then we cry out in anguish with the pain and the fear that those events evoke. Then we cry out in rage that all basic tenets of justice and humanity should be so obscenely brushed aside, that mass murderers should stride through the squares and avenues of one of the

June 5, 1989
world's great cities with cold, ruthless state sanctioned determination. Our responses across this country run the gamut.
I would like to read a couple of quotes that were reported in today's newspaper. Today's Edmonton Sun stated that more than 200 emotional Chinese students and their supporters staged a rally at the University of Alberta. The article states at that rally: "Medical student John Zhag said his wife-a doctor in Beijing-spoke over the telephone yesterday about her experience in Tiananmen Square.
"First they used clubs, then they used bayonets", said Zhag. "Some people stayed there, so the soldiers used machine guns."
The article continues:
As Zhag's wife took cover, a neighbour's 14-year-old daughter had her head shot off at the neck by what the wife believes was an explosive bullet -
And the Edmonton chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council yesterday denounced the government of Deng Xiaoping and Premier Li Peng in telegrams to the United Nations, Ottawa, the Alberta government and the City of Edmonton, said chapter president Ken Kwan.
"We call upon three levels of Canadian government and the UN to take immediate action against the Chinese government,'' said Kwan.
The following is a quote from the Edmonton Journal:
Ken and Maylee Kwan quietly fastened banners to Edmonton's China Gate, then placed flowers at its base.
"Putting flowers here is our way of expressing our sorrow,'' explained Ken Kwan, a 34-year-old landed immigrant. "My heart ached, literally."
I received the following letter today. It is dated June 5. I received it this afternoon. It reads as follows:
Dear Ross:
I and my family are very worried about our friends in China. Over the past five years we have come to know well a number of Chinese students posted to the Alberta Research Council and to the University of Alberta. Because these men were not allowed to bring their families to Canada, they "adopted" my children as substitutes. In many ways they have become like uncles to my two little girls.
We fear that these men and their families, if they have not already been harmed, will become the victims of future purges. It would be a double tragedy if this were to happen. They have already lost a decade of their lives because of the "Cultural Revolution".
We want the Canadian government to do more to protest the slaughter of China's best and brightest. A simple statement of the Canadian Government's "shock" is not enough, in our opinion. At the very least we expect the Government of Canada to grant asylum to any Chinese students now in our country.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Brunelle, Becky, Robin, Elizabeth
Tonight in this Chamber and across the country, we join in pain, rage, resolution and hope. We hope fervently that the beleaguered Chinese people may find quickly an end to the violence and to the Government of these murderers who launched this violence. We hope for wisdom and justice on the part of the Canadian Government as it represents all of us in these dark hours and days.
We resolve to redouble our efforts in aid of those brave, terribly brave Chinese students and workers whose vision of a free, democratic socialist China still shines brightly through the darkness which seeks to envelop that unhappy land.
We will all progress. China will be free. Elowever, why must the price be so painfully high?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of obligation on behalf of the constituents who I have the honour to represent in this Chamber that I rise to join my colleagues from all sides of the House in a fine moment in this parliamentary democratic tradition to condemn the Government of China for its brutal actions in the last number of days. Not to be moved by the footage which we have seen on our television screens would be almost impossible and bordering on the inhuman.
Just over one hour ago on CBC's The National it was particularly moving to witness the courage of the one individual who challenged a tank and who, in the end, overcame. The savagery and butchery that we have seen and the death of innocent defenceless students was indeed deeply and profoundly moving. When life is snuffed out in the manner that we have seen it, no one man or woman, no matter how powerful, how rich or how strong can condone that type of brutal action. Yet when it happens to young people, young students who are standing up for principles that they and we in this
June 5, 1989

country deeply believe in, I think the feeling runs deeper. We feel a deeper sense of loss, not only because their hope came to a premature end but perhaps, more important, because they will not be able to share in that day when China will finally see its way to re-establishing the dignity that belongs to each and every one of us by right and not by privilege as anointed by the state.
When I was watching the mobilization of troops and armed vehicles moving in on the people in the square, I was reminded of very similar scenes not too long ago in Manila when the same type of human uprising was taking place. People were mobilizing and standing up for freedom. The response of the Filipino regime was to mobilize the tanks, the guns and the artillery. In that particular experiment, the people won. The people silenced the machines. The people silenced the guns. "People power" won.
I remember being in Manila shortly thereafter and buying a T-shirt with the illustration of persons lying in front of a tank with a victory sign and stating: "People power rates". I had a hope that somehow in the Chinese context we would have the same ending, the same victory, that the people would be able to silence the tanks and the guns. Elowever, unfortunately, that was not to be. The ending to this particular chapter was very different. It was very dark and sad. It is for that reason that this evening in this Chamber is so important.
We all know that we live many miles away from Beijing. To be precise we are 7,000 miles away. Yet it is as important for us to speak as we are in one united voice so that this ripple, hopefully, will join the other ripples around the globe. In the end we will have a tidal wave of public opinion which will render a measure on Chinese society, particularly on the Chinese Government.
On the one hand this public opinion will begin with a ripple this evening, started in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It will find its course around the globe. It will send not only strength to the people who have had the courage and the conviction of their principles to stay the course but at the same time send a message to the Government of China that we will not tolerate or condone such action.
Indeed, our voice of frustration, our voice of disgust and of anger must be expressed loudly and boldly. In the face of such action it would be morally irresponsible for nations which call themselves progressive and civilized to turn a blind eye to developments on the face of the globe. If history has taught us one thing, it is to be vigilant and not simply to be silent in the face of conflict and controversy. If we condone it through silence, it is far easier for similar events to be repeated. Therefore, it is important not only to register a comment on what has happened but, hopefully, to avert what may happen in the days and weeks ahead, to inform the Chinese Government through this international understanding that there must be a better way.
While China lost many young sons and daughters, the civilized world as well, including Canada as a member of that international community, suffered yet another setback. While the scenes are fresh in our minds and China has occupied and dominated public opinion in the last number of weeks, we have other tragedies around the globe every single day. We rise in our place one day and talk about the situation in Lebanon. We rise on another day and talk about the calamities in the Soviet Bloc countries. On another day, it is the question of refugees in Latin America. This time, unfortunately, our thoughts and our minds have been registered on China where Chinese citizens, students who mobilize peacefully as human beings, have been made enemies of their own state, strangers in their own home, refugees in their own backyard.
How many are there in the world? We talk today of perhaps up to 3,000 individuals who perished, 10,000 people injured, scores of others intimidated, pressured and tortured. Yet there are some 10 million to 15 million people in the world today who are on the move. Therefore, I hope that through this action in the House today, and I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for showing expeditious leadership and a sense of grace, it is my deep hope that the outpouring of world opinion will move the Chinese government, not the army, to revisit its own conscience, to express its guilt, to admit and recognize that it erred, and to reinvest once again its trust and its confidence in its own people.

June 5, 1989
If it does that, then at the veiy least the lives that were quickly spent would not have been in vain. It is through those deaths that would have set in motion the ultimate catalyst, the ultimate force that will trigger a dynamic return to dignity and respect for human beings and the ability to express themselves in liberty and freedom. For this, I commend and congratulate all my colleagues for showing Parliament and Canadians that we can rise to the occasion and affect the life, changes and movements of the world around us.


Diane Marleau: I must express today the horror that the people of my riding have expressed as they viewed the events of the last 48 hours in Tiananmen Square.
I must say that never before in the history of mankind has this kind of tragedy been brought so quickly into the homes of each and eveiy one of us. Nowadays, we have almost instant telecommunications. We have out in China reporters who are every day, and this minute, risking their lives to bring us what is happening. We must make every effort to ensure that our media is ever free to react and to report courageously the events that are around us. We may not always like what we see, hear or read, but it is essential so that we may govern and shape our future accordingly.
I react today to this horror in many different ways. First, I react as a mother and as a parent. I have children of university age. As a parent, I know that after having nurtured them through childhood, taught them as much as I could, now they are in fact shaping their future, the future of our country. We may not as parents always agree with what our children do, but we must always respect them, for they are our future. To have them cut down so savagely is a horror that only someone who has lost a child could really understand. As such, I want to offer my condolences to all of the families of those who have been slain.
I react also as a woman. It perhaps strengthens my resolve as a parliamentarian that we do need more women in politics. I cannot help but believe that had there been women in power in China right now, we would not have had this senseless slaughter. Somehow I have to believe that women would never allow this kind of thing to happen. I believe that we value life very highly.
I react also as a parliamentarian. I am very proud what we in this House have accomplished today by joining together to condemn what is happening in China. We must impose some sanctions, but we must also be very wary not to harm those whom we seek to help. It is a great dilemma for any Government.
How anyone can condone the slaughter of their best and brightest is absolutely impossible to understand. But there is one thing in which I have great faith, and that is that somehow, some day, those who have not been slaughtered, those who have been spared, will rule China. So there is hope.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, world public opinion, it can be said, is horrified and saddened by what has happened in China. Exercising raw power, the state has established its authority, and it has done so through violence, killing, repression, and with the use of brute force. This is a hard blow to civilization. I would describe it as a step backward in the evolution of humanity.
Why does the conflict of ideas have to be resolved through the taking of lives, one inevitably must ask? How can the rulers in China assume, on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent, that they have the mandate to repress and steamroll the population when dialogue and peaceful change seem to be the processes leading eventually to a solution? I don't know the answer to those questions, but those are certainly questions that trouble me.
So we are involved tonight in this debate in which we are all converging to the same conclusions with the hope that this Government will find the wisdom and the strength and the foresight in the name of decency and in the name of the values we cherish, to make some difficult decision and perhaps suspend the pursuit of Canada's economic interest in China until the present regime is replaced by people who respect the lives of their own citizens. We have to call on the Government from this side of the chamber to put human interests before economic interests and even to go so far as to stop government-to-government aid. This is not so much because we believe in the effectiveness of sanctions, but because this is the only way we can express the frustration, shock and moral indignation of what we have seen and heard through the media over the last few days.
June 5, 1989

Canada evidently has a role to play in the world community. The United Nations definitely offers a forum to Canada to advance some of our ideas. Inevitably, thought goes to the forum of the United Nations as the place where matters of this kind ought to be resolved. We know that technically this matter cannot be raised there because the Government of China is part of the Security Council. Nevertheless, ways must be found to raise this matter at the United Nations because that is the only body where international indignation can converge, can find full expression and generate the pressure that maybe will have impact on the present ruler in Beijing.
Therefore, we have to find ways of registering, through this Parliament, a message which only parliamentarians can register and, with the help of parliamentarians in other jurisdictions, mount a campaign that will eventually cross the oceans and reach the sensitive nerves of the decision-makers in that great country of China.
We are all saddened by what has happened. Words are inadequate to express the emotions. Others have expressed them here tonight and others will speak, but it is clear that from all sides of this House the strong political will is emerging that something must be registered beyond the scope of speeches with the decision-makers of Beijing to bring them to their senses.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join my voice to all Members of this House in denouncing and condemning the officials of the Chinese Government for their flagrant disregard of human life. In this emergency debate, we are addressing the turmoil in China, the danger it poses to Canadians in China and the consequences for Canada's relationship with that country.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to recall what the debate is about. It is on a motion which reads as follows:
That this House, noting that:
the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of
China is important to Canadians and has been of benefit to both
countries over the past many years:
authorities in the People's Republic of China have directed the armed forces of China to attack the unarmed civilian population of Beijing in contravention of all humane principles of conduct;
the students and citizens of Beijing were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms as is the fundamental right of all peoples of the world: and
the authorities of China resorted to the use of excessive and indiscriminate armed force on a scale and scope which appalls all Canadians and has resulted in the tragic deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians; therefore unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.

We are outraged by the violent suppression of freedom of expression, violence against unarmed students resulting in the tragic loss of life through brutal force. This violence and bloodshed has shocked all democratic societies. We saw, in Tiananmen Square, unarmed students and civilians who formed human barricades through their sheer will to stand up for democracy in the face of incredible odds. We saw raw courage on the faces of students fighting for issues which we take so much for granted here at home: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. We saw the most uncivilized, brutal approach by the Government. We saw complete disregard of the necessary standards of human conduct in a civilized society. We have seen this horrendous story unfold before our eyes.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should express our respect and appreciation to all members of the press and electronic media who are really responsible for bringing this painful experience of the students and indeed the Chinese people into our daily lives. We must thank them for their courage and their presence on the scene, and also for having stayed there to make us aware of this dramatic situation.

I believe that the members of that profession of journalism-all journalists, reporters, cameramen, audio-visual men-those brave crews who have brought this unfortunate, regrettable, unthinkable uprising to the world stage require our respect. They have shown us the face of youth thirsting for a more democratic society while maintaining pride in their country and their heritage, the vision of the tanks rolling down the Avenue of Eternal Peace, the destruction of that symbol of democracy referred to as the goddess of democracy. We have

June 5, 1989
seen the tears and felt the horror, the anger, the hope and the hopelessness. All expression of human emotion have entered our homes on our screens because of these professionals. They have brought the unerring eye of the camera to bear witness to the horrors, to the killings, to the unfairness of this struggle.
These reporters have shown a commitment to their profession, to responsible reporting, to the courage of their convictions that have of course shown the kind of concern for human rights that is the only way the world could have seen and now express their total repugnance for these acts.
There have been genocides, atrocities, unconscionable aggression and mass loss of life around this world that have not been addressed, but left in silence because these visual reports, these scenes, were not available. The doors were closed. The media had no access and so no one spoke out. It was like a complicity of silence. Often that is not really so. It is just the absence of our fearless, competent journalists to report and so bring the pressure of world censure to bear.
We are grateful to all these very brave people for staying and for facing the risks in the name of democracy.
Canada's daily journalistic broadcast through Radio-Canada International in English and Chinese is vital and all the more so right now. Canada is a tempering, calming, sobering voice of influence and can bring solace to those mourning their loss because they know we are watching, listening and speaking out.
The killing must stop. These very sad scenes demonstrate that Chinese authorities have lost their moral authority. They have violated fundamental principles of human rights. The brutality of the dark side of human nature has unfolded before our eyes. We are outraged, shocked and revolted at these despicable actions. This tragedy has touched the hearts and homes of millions of Chinese.
We as Canadians have to review our stand and determine whether or not and when to take economic and political sanctions, if the situation does not change. We do not want to push the Chinese people back into isolation and a more closed society. We do not want to bring more suffering. However, this maintenance of our political and economic contact should be conditional upon a change, and a move for a peaceful and respectful solution to the needs of the Chinese people by a caring and open Chinese leadership.

I say to the anguished families in mourning, be comforted because in spite of the great sorrow you feel now, your loss will not be in vain; freedom will definitely triumph.

To all the families whose hearts and homes have been touched, know that the torch has been passed to you and that in the end democracy and freedom will survive. Be assured that these brave young lives which have been snuffed out will not have been in vain. You and they have given hope to millions of Chinese and to the citizens of China. They shall be remembered and their dreams will one day become a reality, for you and I know that repression cannot forever be subdued.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, tonight Members of the House meet to debate in emergency session the significance of the events which have just taken place in Beijing, and to articulate the reaction of Canadians.
Why is this important? Why do we call this emergency session? Perhaps the first reason is the sheer size and importance of the Chinese population of over one billion. Another is the shocking number of casualties on the weekend. Last is the stark contrast between the ideals manifested by the peaceful demonstration in Tiananmen Square and the brutality and loss resulting from the armed intervention.
We in the House represent more than 300,000 Chinese- Canadians. We must record the common sense of sorrow and fear for the future felt not only by Chinese-Canadians but by all of us.
June 5, 1989

As we watch events unfold, we see human rights, often taken for granted by us, disregarded and violated by a misguided military force. Those rights include the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to life, liberty and security.
History shows us that few places in the world have escaped the pain and sorrow associated with growing democracy. Revolution has little regard for life, and usually renders life subordinate to power. Canada itself has known its Papineau Rebellion, the Mackenzie revolt in Upper Canada, and the Riel Rebellion. Each was in its own way a building block of our nation and spilled our blood. Most of the democratic freedom we have today has been bought and paid for with the blood of those who fought the battles of revolution and liberation, liberation from tyranny, oligarchy, and fascism.
However, what is perhaps so cruel about the blood of Tiananmen Square is that it has been shed at a time when men and women around the world could rejoice at progress in achieving democratic change without the bullets and the bayonets. Such changes can be seen to be taking place all around us, for example, in the Philippines, in Poland, and in the U.S.S.R. We pray that the people of Panama may yet attain the democratic change they seek without armed struggle. That is why we find the events of Saturday night so cruel.
We collectively must record our justifiable disgust and condemnation of those who ordered and carried out this brutality. We must hope that the blood that has been spilled and the life that has been lost will cause all citizens of the People's Republic of China, on all sides of the conflict, to pause before more bullets fly, pause before there is more retribution and bloodshed and seek out peaceful means of resolving the current political conflicts.
That is the only road that will truly fulfil the goals and justify the sacrifices made by so many in all the rebellions, revolutions, and wars that have preceded us.
I call upon the Government to tangibly manifest the indignation of Canadians at the violence in Beijing, and take steps to assist wherever it can in bringing about a peaceful resolution of this disturbing conflict.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is 12.35 a.m. and this evening Members from all sides of the House rose to disapprove of the Government of
China's action against its own people. I am no different. I am fortunate and happy to be a part of the House and part of this democracy, one of the best democracies in the world. It is a model democracy. I hope that some time Canadians have the opportunity to travel abroad in order to compare our democracy with what exists elsewhere.
Nothing can stop the people from voicing their concerns, nothing at all.
Over the years the Chinese people have become known as achievers. With close to one billion people living in China they have managed their own affairs peacefully and from time to time have been forced to voice their concerns. The Chinese revolution was a decision of the people at the time. Today, from what I am able to see and hear, the Chinese people have once again set their minds to achieving democracy.
On Sunday I attended the demonstration in front of the Chinese Embassy. I saw a group of students who exemplified a peaceful and non-confrontational approach. Those were students here in Canada who spoke out in support of their colleagues in China. I was somewhat disappointed when I saw the Government of China, and I have the opportunity to know the Ambassador here in Canada, use its own army to fight its own people. I was disappointed when I saw the armed forces moving in in order to crush a peaceful movement conducted by a group of peaceful students. That criminal act committed by the Chinese army cannot be tolerated. We in Canada have to exercise everything that we can in order to stop it.
Many people spoke about the possibility of economic sanctions. What we have to keep in mind is that if we take those actions we do not want to harm those who need our help the most. We do not want to harm the Chinese people. When the Canadian Government supplies assistance through our programs, we supply it to the people and not to the Government. We hope that our assistance goes to those who need it in those countries.
Because we are part of the United Nations and we occupy a very important role on the council, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has suggested, we should exercise our role and use all means possible for us in order to ensure the Chinese Government stops its action.

June 5, 1989
I wish to commend the Hon. Secretary of State on his speech today in the House in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I am veiy proud to be part of this society that not only speaks of democracy but exercises democracy.
I would like to commend the members of the Chinese community who were out in full force on Sunday in support of the Chinese people. I also want to congratulate members of my community who are anglophones, francophones, Italians, and people from all walks of life who marched on the embassy in order to voice their concerns in support of the Chinese people.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today with great sorrow. One has to have had first hand practice or knowledge of things that happened to share not only in speaking but in sorrow. In my early days, my parents fled a dictatorship from the country of my birth to come to my home country which is now Canada. Relatives of mine were lost in the Polytechnical Institute in Athens, Greece, in 1974 when the Government of the day decided to do what the Beijing Government did a couple of days ago. In 1974, the Government of the day in Greece overran peaceful students and killed hundreds of them.
I have a large community of Chinese people in my riding. My heart, thoughts and sorrows go out to them. At this particular time, as we speak, there is a vigil at some churches. I would like to take my turn here today along with my colleagues and Members of this House to condemn the happenings in Beijing. Canada must take a positive step in order to send a strong message to the Beijing Government. One has only to watch the news and speak to people to see unarmed students run over by tanks, cut down in cold blood. What did they have to protect themselves? Just their bodies. Thousands of people were killed and thousands wounded. The cameras were only able to show us part of the realization, perhaps only one-fifth or one-tenth of what happened.
It is not over yet. As we speak at 12.45 on this debate, the killings still continue. I shudder at the thought that at this particular moment, a bullet is flying at a student and a student's body is just about to fall.
We have to commend the reporters who brought this to us. In 1974 when things like this were happening in my country of birth, it was 24 to 48 hours before we learned anything. But in this age of fast telecommunications, we are able to find out first hand. I join with the rest of my colleagues and condemn those killings in Beijing.
All Canadians of Chinese origin are watching with horror as the events unfold and friends and brothers are being killed. The price of democracy is a high one. In many countries the price of democracy has to be paid with thousands of lives. In this particular instance, we were told one time that 63 students were killed, at another time 2,600 were killed. I am wondering what the real number was. You can watch on television and you can see the smoke going up in Tiananmen Square. What were they burning? Were they burning people's bodies? How can anybody stand there and think that people were being burned, not even given a decent burial. I shudder.
The price of democracy is indeed a high one. The students are paying as we speak with their lives that price of democracy. I hope that the price of democracy not only in China, not only in Panama, South Africa and other parts of the world comes soon as we on globe of ours are able to stand up one day and say that we indeed have the best democracy. It will be a long road. A lot of sacrifices will have to be made. I guess history will take a look at Tiananmen Square and say that this was part of the sacrifice. How much longer, how many more mothers, how many more fathers have to sit there and shudder? I join my colleagues and I condemn what happened in Beijing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 12.45 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.45 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 6, 1989