1989-06-16

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 12, consideration of report stage of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and the motion of Mr. Tobin:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately
after line 33 at page 19 the following:
"(17) An employee statement obtained pursuant to a collective agreement is privileged, and no person shall have access to such statements, except as authorized in writing by the person who made the statement."
Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the last consideration of Bill C-2, I believe the House was debating Motion No. 9 which stands in my name. At that stage I had already spoken on the motion, as had a number of other Members. Certainly on this side on this particular motion there will be no more speakers. We will have speakers on Motion Nos. 10 and 11.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the House will know we are on Motion No. 9, and the Hon. Member for Regina- Lumsden has the floor at the moment.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that point of order was in aid of.
As I was saying last Monday, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would have stood up and said on each of the amendments which we have debated why they were not acceptable to the Government and for what reasons. Following the discussions in the committee on each of these items, my colleague, the Liberal Party critic and myself came in with amendments going at the same matters in a different way, hoping that that would satisfy the Government's earlier objections. We still cannot find out why they do not like these amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary did not rise. I noticed that the chairman of the committee was here for prayers, but he has now left. I was hoping that he would rise.
I do not think an employer should be allowed to take a statement from an employee involved in an occurrence, incident or accident until after the investigator for the board has taken a statement. In other words, just like the scene of an occurrence or accident being quarantined until the board investigator has arrived at the scene, so should those employees who are affected. They should be quarantined from the tender mercies of their employer who might want to take a statement for disciplinary purposes or other reasons. That is why I feel the Hon. Member's amendment does not go far enough. However, it is a good amendment in that it protects the confidentiality of the statement taken from the employee. This is a good principle and one that we support. I urge government Members to accept it as well.
There is not sufficient protection either in the collective agreement as it would pertain to this Bill or in other statutes, and we want to secure the privilege of those statements given by employees, be they management or rank and file. I urge government Members to accept this amendment. It will be supported by my colleagues and I, and I trust that the Government has seen the error of its earlier ways and will accept this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?

Accident Investigation


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber- St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 24 by adding immediately
after line 36 at page 22 the following:
"(3) The Board shall append to the final report any recommendations made in the draft report but not included in the public report, and recommendations and comments made by the Minister of Transport or any other Minister or observer designated as such under 23(2)(d)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the committee, we initially tried to have three parts of Clause 24 deleted from the Bill because of something to which all members of the committee agreed. The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board must not only be independent but must be seen to be independent. Lo and behold, the Bill provides for a draft of the final report of the board on any accident or incident in any one of four modes of transportation to be sent to the Minister and other observers to make comments and representations.
We lost out on getting that provision deleted from the Bill so the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that not only is no influence attempted but that there is no
perception that some influence may be attempted to be placed on the board by some external force and go unnoticed.
If a major change is made to the final report, the public one, the only way of finding that out is to compare it to the draft report which quite correctly has limited release. Originally, we wanted to do away with the concept of a draft report altogether. Then we tried to see that the draft report have wider distribution. This failed because of the very good reason of confidentiality. That position may not be supported by the Liberals, though I hope they will support it, or Members on the Government side. Government Members certainly do not want to see this happen. However, it was suggested by several groups that we must make this attempt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Railway Labour Association representing some nine railway unions said that the unions wanted no part of this, would not be the slightest bit interested in getting a draft report and that the draft of the final report should not go out to anyone.
During the course of an investigation and during the course of board hearings, the Minister will have an observer on hand as well as at the site of the accident or incident. So will the other representatives of employees or companies involved. Those who qualify as observers under the legislation will have ample opportunity to make representations both to the chief investigator and to the board when it is deliberating, hearing witnesses and receiving evidence obtained by the investigator and provided by other sources. There will be ample opportunity for them to make their views known and to comment on whether or not they think there are any omissions or if an investigation was carried on improperly or insufficiently before the final report is drafted. Therefore, I do not see any need for a draft of the final report to be sent out for people to make comments on.
Since people will be allowed to make comments on a draft report, we are trying to provide here that any representations, comments or requests made by the Minister or any other Minister or any qualified observer who receives the draft of the final report shall be appended to the final report. Then we can check to see what differences there are between the draft report and the final report. It will all be out in the open as to what
June 16, 1989

kind of comments and recommendations were made by the Minister or others.
I do not want anyone in the Chamber to get mixed up. There are interim reports which have nothing to do with this section. Interim reports are covered in Clause 25, and will be made by the board as and when it deems necessary to correct something that occurred and could be a cause of further accident or occurrences. This will have the matter corrected without waiting for a final report. The Minister may request interim reports if he thinks there is something wrong somewhere and wants to be able to act on it. He can call the board up and request an interim report. We are not suggesting that there be any changes in that.
However, I do not think the draft of the final report should go out to anyone anyway, but since it is going to, the public has a right to know. It should be perceived as well as believed that the board is independent; that no improper pressure or influence was attempted on the board in order to get it to change the draft of the final report.
That is why we are asking in this amendment that all representations made by the Minister or other observers have to be appended to the final report. Then everyone will know, and that will enhance the independence of the board. It will not only appear to be independent but it will be. All its proceedings will be in public, unless for a specific reason it orders some portion of a hearing to be in camera, but generally speaking everything is out in the open.
That is why in this draft report there should be no opportunity or temptation for anyone to attempt, in an improper manner to influence the board or get it to change what it feels should be in the final report. If the board does make a change, we can see what requests or representations were made, what change the board made, and the reasons for it. If they are proper and justified, that is fine. Again, it is out in the open.
The Government should be leading the line-up to enlarge and enhance the real independence of the board. This amendment does in fact do that. I hope the Government will decide that at least this amendment does improve the legislation, does enhance the independence of the board and ensures even more that no one
Accident Investigation
can exercise any undue influence, pressure or improper action upon the board, its members or any of its staff.
Once the final report is delivered to the President of the Privy Council, copies should go to all the Ministries and to interested observers and interested parties. I presume that the report will also be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. If it is felt that anything is fundamentally wrong in the report, by the Minister or any of the observers, the Minister can make further inquiries. If there are omissions or inadequacies in the final report, it can be gone into again by the Minister or by anyone else he may appoint to do that.
I hope the amendment will find favour with all my colleagues and that it will receive the support of the Government and the Official Opposition.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) spoke with such characteristic eloquence on the rationale and with powerful reasoning and persuasion behind the authorship of the amendment that he proposes to the House that there is not much that I or any other Member could possibly add that would enlighten Members.
We in the Official Opposition support the amendment of the Hon. Member. We support the basic notion that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, and the independence of the board must not only be practised, but must be seen to be practised.
What the Member is proposing in his amendment is that, given in the process of investigating and coming to conclusions about an accident or occurrence in the transportation field, and quite possibly a loss of life, it is extremely important that public confidence in our investigation agency be maintained, especially in the light of the Gander experience and the deep division on the CASB board, the conflicting opinions about what caused the crash and terrible loss of life in Gander.
Given that it is important that public confidence be maintained, the Member proposes to the House that any draft report, and there is a provision for a draft report in this Bill, submitted to Ministers of the Crown prior to a public release of a final report, and any draft report cany with it an obligation that any comments by Ministers, and more importantly any subsequent changes to the draft that are reflected in the final report, be noted when the final report is released. The public will then have an opportunity to see whether between the draft and the release of the final report there have been any changes, and if there have been, who recommended them and on
June 16, 1989

Accident Investigation
whose advice were changes made. In other words, the public needs to know there is not an ability behind closed doors or in secret away from the public's eye to change a recommendation.
I hope that the people appointed by the Government to serve on this board are people of such credibility and integrity that that type of practice would not be permitted in any case. I would hope that the Ministers of the Crown undertake their responsibilities in such a manner that they would not attempt to exercise that type of influence in any case. I and all Members would expect that.
However, if there is nothing to hide, and I submit there is nothing to hide and we take the Government at face value in submitting this Bill, then there should be no hesitation in supporting the amendment of the Hon. Member and providing for the full disclosure of recommendations made at the draft stage, and more importantly the ability to see what changes were brought about in the final report as a result of those recommendations made at the draft stage.
We support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 19 to
25 at page 31.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment proposed by the Liberal Party to Bill C-2, but frankly I think it goes far beyond the purview of the Bill, which is the whole question of accident investigation. I submit that the amendment is fundamental to Members of the House because the principle expressed in Clause 32 has a direct impact on the whole notion of the principle of fundamental justice.
Members of Parliament who have not been part of the committee process should know that the clause we are seeking to amend by this motion is Clause 32 of the Bill. It is a clause that sets out the responsibilities of an investigator, that is somebody who goes out and conducts the investigation into an accident on behalf of the multi-modal agency.
This particular clause sets out the responsibilities of an investigator vis-a-vis a court of law, in particular whether or not there is litigation before a court of law having to do with the cause of an accident when victims or their families may be attempting to seek legal redress. In short, they are suing those who may have been responsible for an accident.
I want to read the clause that I am trying to amend, because I think Members will understand that what we are talking about is far more important that just this Bill. There are three sections to Clause 32. The section I am attempting to amend reads:
An investigator whose evidence may be admitted by affidavit under this section is not compellable to appear as a witness in the proceedings unless the court, coroner or other person or body before whom the proceedings are conducted so orders, for special cause.
I ask Members to reflect upon that. The evidence of an investigator may be admitted before a court of law, yet the investigator who submitted and drafted the affidavit is himself not automatically compelled to appear in a
June 16, 1989

court of law to defend the conclusions he has reached. The defence does not have an automatic right to crossexamine the author of an affidavit that is submitted in a court of law as evidence. I want Members to think about, especially those who are members of the Bar, what this amendment says.
As I just said, this clause is comprised of three sections. In referring to the affidavit, the first section of the clause reads:
-in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the truth of those observations.
In the absence of proof to the contrary and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the affidavit as submitted by the investigator will be accepted as proof of the truth of those observations.
We have a situation in which an affidavit authored by an investigator may be submitted to a court of law. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be accepted as proof of the truth of the observations. The investigator himself has no automatic obligation to appear before a court of law to defend his observations, unless the party in question who takes exception to those observations proves to a judge that there is cause to disturb the investigator in his normal duties and compel him to appear before a court.
The fundamental principle of justice, I submit, is the right to cross-examination. It is an automatic right. I question that notwithstanding putting this clause in the Bill whether or not any judge will pay any attention to it anyway. I submit it is not for Parliament to make any kind of determination on who should or should not appear before a court of law, to make any kind of judgment or to try to send any kind of signal to a coroner or a judge that only in exceptional circumstances should an investigator of the Crown be called to defend his observations. I submit Parliament in this context really has no role whatsoever in trying to give direction to a court, to a coroner, or to an inquirer.
The effect of my amendment is simply to wipe out entirely subclause 32(3) which indicates:
An investigator whose evidence may be admitted by affidavit under this section is not compellable to appear as a witness in the proceedings unless the court, coroner or any other person or body-so orders, for special cause.
Accident Investigation
Its seems to me it is not for Parliament to make that determination. It is for a court. I do not think that Parliament in any way, shape, or form should seek to give advice to a court or should seek to indicate that it is our desire, unless there is special cause, that the normal right of the defence should not be exercised.
I submit that if we care or value at all the fundamental notion of justice, which must have as its centre-piece the right of cross-examination, Parliament would be acting in a wise and judicious manner in simply removing a clause that not only directly impacts on the ability of people to cross-examine a witness in terms of the proceedings of the multi-modal Accident Investigation Board but sets a rather onerous and dangerous precedent in legislation enacted by Parliament.
I cannot find anywhere in any federal legislation any precedent for this kind of clause being contained in the Bill. It does not exist in any other legislation that has ever been passed or contemplated by the Parliament of Canada.
By the way, I submit that the Government means no harm; there is no devious plot nor evil design on the part of the Government. It happens to be one of those things that in the process of drafting a Bill is slipped in, perhaps with another intention.
I can tell Members that the intention is that investigators are quite frequently tied up in court having to defend their observations as contained in affidavits. The Government is concerned that their investigators spend their time out investigating accidents, not being tied up in courts. That is a fair comment on the part of the Government, but which is the greater need? Is it the need to free up our investigators from a court of law, or the absolute primary requirement to ensure that justice is upheld and that the fundamental right of cross-examination is maintained?
It may be inconvenient for the Government to have investigators tied up in the courts. It may be inconvenient for the investigators. It may tie up valuable time, but we cannot solve a problem of inconvenience on the part of investigators by tinkering with one of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, the right to cross-examination.
I do not allege any evil design. I do not allege any plot or conspiracy. I simply allege sloppy drafting of this Bill. I simply allege that those who seek to solve the problem of an investigator spending more time than he likes in a

Accident Investigation
court of law have interfered in a fundamental way in sound and basic principles of justice. I would call upon Members to remove this clause.
The only effect of removing this clause will be to put back into the hands of the courts, the coroner, and the judges, back where it belongs in the judicial system or normal body of inquiry, the decision on who appears or does not appear as a witness.
Parliament should not be attempting to give any direction whatsoever. We should not deny or reduce even in the slightest manner the possibility of a lawyer, representing a client, having an investigator come to defend the accuracy of his observations.
I hope that Parliament, in a non-partisan way and in the interests of producing a better Bill and a good Bill, will accept the amendment that I propose. I submit this simply in the interest of ensuring that we produce good legislation and do not inadvertently interfere, in a Draconian way, in the proper proceedings of justice.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am something of two minds on this amendment. The clause that my good friend wishes to have deleted ends with the words:
- unless the court, coroner or other person or body before whom the proceedings are conducted so orders-


Brian Vincent Tobin: "For special cause". Leave it to the court.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course, that is designed, I gather, so that when there is a lawsuit involving hundreds of millions of dollars following an air crash which drags on for three or four years, a top-notch investigator of the board is not spending months and months sitting around in the court room. That is nice. I agree that it is not a good thing to have happen.
On the other side of the coin, the remarks of my colleague are well taken. If an attorney for a claimant wishes to dispute evidence in an affidavit or brings in other expert witnesses who dispute what is in an affidavit of an investigator, all that attorney has to do is ask the court or the coroner to order that he appear. However, that does not guarantee that the court or the coroner will so order. If the court decides not to issue an order, there
is no way the author of the affidavit can be questioned as to its accuracy or otherwise.
The deletion of this clause means that an attorney in a court, or one involved in litigation following an accident, may just call him as a witness. If he does not come, then he can ask for a subpoena. However, it makes it easier for an attorney who, let us say, is acting for the families of people who were killed in an occurrence. Deleting this clause makes it easier for that attorney to have the investigator appear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It maintains the status quo. That is what it does.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In other words it keeps things the way they are. Frankly, if a court were not to order it, I suspect there would be appeals and a higher court would strike this clause down. I think it would be thrown out of court.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would have to agree with me, even though I am not a lawyer and I do not think he is either.


Mr. Belsher:: Thank goodness.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: From many a legal discussion I have had with legal eagles, they think that this is a pretty weak piece of legislation, a pretty weak clause which is not likely to stand up on appeal, and that a higher court will just strike it down. That would involve appeal after appeal and dragging the case out even longer at great cost to everyone concerned, including the Government.
On balance, I agree with the Hon. Member. I think that his motion should be accepted. We should delete subclause 32(3). I do not think it serves much of a purpose anyway. It will not accomplish what the Government would like it to accomplish.
I fully agree with my colleague that anything that even appears to impinge upon what is a fundamental tenet of our justice system is not good law. We should not have anything in the Bill which appears to impinge. It might be all very well to say: "Well, this would never happen anyway, the court would order him to appear, or the coroner would order him to appear". We cannot be sure of that. In that situation in a court case subsequent to an accident justice would not be fully done. If a court or coroner fails to issue an order then justice would not be fully done.
I agree with my colleague that this is not a partisan issue. I think all members of the committee felt strongly about this legislation and think that it is basically good
June 16, 1989

legislation. We have moved some amendments and a few of them were accepted at committee. We did this to try to make a better Bill. That was the intention of all members from all sides in the committee. It was the intent of the motions my colleagues and I have moved at report stage. They are in order to make a better Bill.
I sometimes wonder why I spend so much time trying to help rewrite the Government's legislation in order to make it better. Maybe we should just let it go through as it is and let the Government get into a lot of trouble. However, if one is a responsible parliamentarian, one tries to do one's job and hopes to get the Government to mend its ways.
I do not think there is any malicious intent or devious intent on the part of the Government. It was just an attempt to set some kind of a limit on how much time an investigator might have to spend in a trial because he is required as a witness. I do not think this clause will accomplish that. The greatest danger is that the right to cross-examine is harmed in any way, shape, or form. I hope the Government will accept this amendment as well as the others which we have put forward when it comes to voting on them on Monday night.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Forgiveness of Debts Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

At this time, the House should proceed with the deferred divisions at report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the divisions are deferred until Monday, June 19 at 6 p.m.


FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS (SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Landry that Bill C-10, an Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the Governments of certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize that this Bill has the support of our Party and I hope the support of all Members of the House.
Before we vote on the Bill I want to take this opportunity to discuss, for a few moments at least, the issues which underlie this legislation.
The Bill itself would forgive the debts of certain sub-Saharan African countries. As I understand it, the House has already provided in past budgets for the funds that would be covered by this Bill, but the Act itself is necessary. It gives us an opportunity to speak directly to the issue of Third World debt and to speak, therefore, about one of the most pressing problems in the world, that of the crushing burden of debt on societies which comprise probably two-thirds of the people of the planet.
If we were to pause and review our stewardship of this planet, we would quickly come to see four related problems: first, the problem of the environment; second,

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
the arms race; third, the issue of lack of freedom; and fourth, the issue of poverty. As the Brundtland report has so eloquently and clearly shown, these issues are inextricably linked.
Today in this country the issue of the environment stands at the forefront. The environment is threatened, not just by this society's overuse of resources, but by the tremendous increase in the use of chemicals and other substances which attack the air we breathe, the ozone layer, the oceans, and the waters. Throughout the world the environment is under attack, in part because of the extraordinary expenditure on the arms race and because of the distortion of economic resources that go to the arms race. This in turn has put pressure on Governments and others to seek to control in the most arbitrary ways the freedom of their people who seek themselves to press for the use of resources for the basic fundamentals of human existence.
All this has driven millions, if not billions, of people in the world to live in crushing poverty, which in turn puts pressure on the environment and resources. In many countries of the world, the forests, the waters, and the lands are under assault because of the desperate need of people just to meet the basics.
With regard to our responsibility as a country, most of us live in an affluence that previously was undreamed of in human history. Our affluence assaults the environment of the Third World and contributes to the poverty of so much of the Third World. Since the end of the Second World War, Canada has participated in efforts to try to improve the economies and the social conditions in other parts of the world. One of the major ways that has been accomplished has been through Official Development Assistance. For years, however, our Official Development Assistance has been in the form of loans to Third World countries, which have normally required repayment over a period of time.
At the same time, we have been giving a relatively paltry sum to assist the development. We have been making it increasingly impossible for Third World countries to meet the obligations we have imposed upon them. Changes in exchange rates, lack of fixed prices for commodities, and total instability in the international economy imposed through our multinational institutions have created a situation in which Third World countries have found it impossible or very difficult to meet the obligations imposed on them. Probably more money is
leaving, both from government and commercial loans, to pay them back and to pay the interest thereon than we are turning back to the Third World to assist it in its economic development.
There have been a number of major studies in this regard. The Brandt report highlighted a number of years ago north-south issues, our interdependence as a planet, and the need to deal with Third World debt for our own interest economically.
The recent document entitled Our Common Future, commonly known as the Brundtland report, named after the chair of that committee, has linked those problems with the environment. This Bill would confirm at least the minimum, that is, the forgiving of debts we imposed on the Third World. The repayment of them has made it even more difficult for that cycle to be broken.
I would like to use this opportunity to call the Government to account for another policy which has been imposed, that is, the reduction in the budget of Official Development Assistance. It seems to me that it is the height of hypocrisy for this Government, on the one hand, to bring forward Bill C-10 forgiving debts which in some sense have already been forgiven and, on the other hand, to reduce significantly the funds provided through Official Development Assistance to break the cycle of poverty in the Third World.
I had an opportunity many years ago, in 1972-1973, to spend a year in Tanzania on a CIDA project. One of the feelings I had at that time was that while this program was on the face of it a donation by Canada to Tanzania and to the Third World, in the final analysis, myself and my family gleaned much more from Tanzania than Tanzania got from the program, even though I hope I was able to provide some assistance in the work that I did. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have worked in the Third World under various programs: CIDA, CUSO, Canada World Youth, OXFAM, and many others. We have learned as much from these as we have given.
The Third World has given much to this country in the way of its resources, in its understanding of human history, and in both beauty and other values. The very least we can do is to adopt this Bill, and from this Bill we must take other more important steps toward the alleviation of poverty in the Third World. We must restore the cuts to Official Development Assistance. We must use our role in the IMF and the World Bank to assist the total restructuring of the international economy so that
June 16, 1989

this critical problem that faces the world today can be truly addressed in the immediate years ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy 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.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0.31


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent crisis in China, my office in Scarborough was contacted by a constituent who was unable to reach his son.
Bill Brown's son, Stephen, was teaching at the University of China in Wuhan. Officials at External Affairs worked tirelessly to locate him. This morning Stephen Brown arrived safely in Hong Kong.
On behalf of Mr. Brown and his family, I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his officials for the outstanding assistance that they provided. Their work throughout this crisis has been exemplary and I applaud those efforts.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon -Souris):: Mr. Speaker, one of the events of National Environment Week which did not receive as much public attention as it deserved was
the announcement of Environment Canada's decision to honour hundreds of volunteer weather observers across the country.
These observers record morning and evening temperatures and the total precipitation each day in their respective areas. The data is forwarded to the Atmospheric Environment Service on a monthly basis and entered into the National Climatological Archives.
Since 1871 a network of 176 volunteer observers has now grown to approximately 2,300 strong. Climatological awards for volunteer service have been issued in my constituency of Brandon-Souris to the staff members at the International Peace Gardens, the Spence family of Medora, the Sexton family of Deloraine and the Lowe family of Waskada.
In addition a special award to the Renton family of Deloraine has been granted for 24 years of high quality weather reporting.
Thanks to these and hundreds of other volunteers, Canada's Climatological Archives have been greatly enriched.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of the People's Republic of China continues with the total and absolute repression of its people. The Chinese Government has arrested and imprisoned individuals who had the courage to tell the whole world, via the electronic media, the truth about the tragic events in China.

Canadians are particularly concerned with the death sentences imposed on three reformers in Shanghai. These protesters were accused of burning a train which minutes before smashed through a human barricade killing six demonstrators.
Reports say that no one was injured or killed as a result of the blaze set on the train. In my opinion, the real criminals were the authorities who ordered the train to proceed. Now, Mr. Speaker, the death toll as a result of this incident will increase to nine, unless people in

June 16, 1989
Canada write to the Chinese Embassy urging them not to impose the death penalty.
I call on the Government and all Canadians to express their deepest condemnation on the imminent execution of Chinese demonstrators. The global community must do everything in its power to prevent China's descent in ever deeper political turmoil.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend representatives of the Canada Safety Council are meeting in Winnipeg with seniors' interest groups to begin preparations for National Seniors Safety Week, November 12 to November 18.
The theme of the event is "Safeguard the Best Years of Your Life". Its purpose is to draw attention to safety issues affecting seniors, to identify accidents and health hazards which can confront seniors in the home and to promote measures which can be taken to reduce deaths.
Older Canadians sustain a rate of accidental death and injury approximately three times higher than the rest of the population. More than 20 per cent of deaths are caused by home injury with accidents due to falls heading the list.
A conference such as this one is vitally important in improving the quality of life of Canadian seniors. I applaud the council for its initiative in organizing this event and extend my best wishes for a successful National Seniors Safety Week.



MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, recently as part of the National Access Awareness Week, the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) presented the first ever five star community awards at the annual conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Vancouver.
The awards recognize communities across the country that demonstrate a strong commitment to the ideal of
full and equal access for disabled Canadians in the five star areas of transportation, housing, employment, recreation and education.
The awards ceremony was the crowning moment for a very successful National Access Awareness Week in which more than 400 communities participated.
The Minister gave 16 awards to the civic leaders of 14 cities, towns, districts and a regional municipality in recognition of their action to improve community access for people with disabilities. Two cities, Kitchener and Ottawa, each received two awards.
Let us join all Canadians in congratulating this year's recipients of five star community awards for their contribution to the integration of people with disabilities into the mainstream of Canadian society.



DISASTERS


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, last night at a company work site on Plinkquet Street in my riding of St. Boniface thousands of litres of petroleum products exploded, shooting clouds of smoke, and I quote from the newspaper report:
-hundreds of metres into the air, creating an inferno of flame too hot for firefighters to approach-
Between 150 and 200 homes were evacuated within two kilometres of the fire. At least six chemicals were stored at the plant. One, in particular, methylene chloride, becomes an extremely toxic hydrochloric acid when exposed to air and mixed with moisture in the lungs.
I call upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight) to provide this House with details of his Department's involvement, if any, in the evacuation and subsequent handling of this particular situation. I also call upon the Minister to inform this House as to how well the evacuation procedures undertaken last night worked.
I would call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) to inform the House regarding the potential health hazards which may have occurred and which still may be of concern to the residents of St. Boniface and the surrounding areas.
June 16, 1989



RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CANMET PROJECT JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Canmet project joint action committee in northwestern Quebec submitted its report on June 12, 1989 to (Quebec) Mines Minister Raymond Savoie and to Assistant Deputy Minister Marc Denis Everell, who is responsible for Canmet. At a press conference, Claude Drouin, committee chairman and executive director of the Quebec Mining Association, reviewed the contents of the report and the committee's recommendations.
The committee's mandate was to support the emergence of a centre of excellence for mineral technology in northwestern Quebec. Public consultations made the committee members aware of 13 interesting site combinations in the area of Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or. The committee unanimously chose the Or Val site, which belongs to Aurizon Mines in the Val-d'Or mining area located in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent choice because this site is ideal for establishing Canmet's mineral technology research laboratory in Quebec.



PAKISTAN


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to express our concern about the continued persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
In Pakistan there are approximately five million followers of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam. The Ahmadi Muslims are peace-loving people celebrating their one-hundredth centenary this year. Sadly, the Pakistan Government has prohibited centenary celebrations at the international headquarters at Rabwah. This
repressive action is consistent with government behaviour towards the Ahmadiyya movement.
Ahmadi publications are censored, their right to freedom of assembly is violated and government measures incite intolerance toward them. Discrimination is a daily fact of life.
Actions against the Ahmadi people extend to violence. Ahmadiyya Mosques are regularly vandalized. Such an incident occurred as recently as last week. In April of this year a large mob set on fire over 50 homes. Many Ahmadi have been assaulted and some have been killed.
It was hoped that this persecution would end with the coming to power of Benazir Bhutto but this has not been the case.
I urge the Canadian Government to express in the strongest terms to the Pakistan Government that the actions against the Ahmadi people are unacceptable. I have already written to the Pakistan ambassador on behalf of the NDP.



THE LATE DAVID PEREGRINE

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, today the arts world, and especially the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, is in mourning. At a press conference held in Winnipeg last night, the Ballet's artistic co-ordinator announced that their principal dancer, Mr. David Peregrine, 34 years old, tragically lost his life in a plane crash in Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that some day we will have to leave this earth, but we are rarely given prior notice. And when death takes away someone in the full flower of his professional life, the shock is even more intense.
On behalf of my fellow Members, I would like to extend our sincerest condolences to Mr. Peregrine's family and also to his family in the arts, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, one of Canada's most prestigious ballet groups.

June 16, 1989



NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Stormont-Dundas, I would like to congratulate Ihgwi secondary school of Avonmore, Ontario, on the victory of their Reach for the Top team at the national championships which were recently held in Winnipeg.
The Thgwi Team, comprised of coach Dan Maloney and students Allan Coleman, Stuart Pollock, Peter Simard, Claude Theoret and Neil Wheeler, can be proud of the excellent manner in which they represented their school and their province. They are indeed worthy champions.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today, we read in the newspapers that both Opposition parties are going to resort to a fundraising method that is, quite frankly, outrageous. With the help of their friends in the financial world, our friends in the NDP and the Liberal Party are not only going to finance their operations by using credit cards, they also intend to swell their ranks by urging Canadians to borrow, at a time when a parliamentary committee is debating the skyrocketing interest charges on credit card balances, and even Opposition Members are criticizing banking practices on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the precarious financial circumstances of these two Parties seem to be more important than the interests of consumers. Personally, I feel Canadians will soon realize whose side the Opposition is on.
Voters did not put their trust in them on November 21 last year, and history now proves they were right. The Liberals, the world's experts on debt, have now embarked on a new era, an era of double talk. Our NDP friends, those sworn enemies of the Establishment, have just made a major about-face.
Mr. Speaker, the two Oppositions Parties are absolutely shameless!



ALASKA HIGHWAY


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1992 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the Alaska Highway. We, in the Yukon and northern B.C., are inviting the world to celebrate this anniversary with us by coming north and driving the highway.
In fact, the federal Department of Public Works has recently published a brochure on the highway which promotes this event. One activity will be a car rally.
It is crucial that the necessary funds are allocated to highway maintenance now to ensure that travelling this route is a pleasant experience, not only for northerners but for our visitors from all over the world and for the exciting activities planned.
For two years, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay) has received hundreds of signatures on petitions. There have been unanimous all-Party resolutions from the Yukon Legislature.
There have been numerous interventions by myself asking this Government to recognize the importance of this sole land route to northern B.C. and the Yukon.
I call upon the Government to immediately increase the level of funding for maintenance and improvement of the highway. Let's do Canada proud in 1992.



ENDANGERED SPECIES


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today 300 African elephants will be slaughtered by poachers and their tusks cut away by chain-saws to supply big bucks for the international illegal ivory trade.
Yesterday, 300 elephants were killed, tomorrow, there will be another 300. Altogether this year some 70,000 African elephants will be slaughtered.
June 16, 1989

Yesterday the Government of Canada announced that this fall it will vote to move the African elephant to the highest level of protection, that which is currently enjoyed by the Asian elephant under the convention for the protection of endangered species. In the meantime, the Government has indicated it will impose new restrictions to ensure that Canada does not become a dumping ground as part of the illicit ivory traffic. It is actions like that which Canada has taken and must continue to take as part of a global response to see that the endangered species on this planet get the protection they deserve.



THE LATE DAVID PEREGRINE

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two matters today. First, I note with sorrow that the Royal Winnipeg Ballet has been hit by tragedy again in the death of its principal dancer, David Peregrine.
Mr. Peregrine received international recognition when he won the Bronze Medal at the World Ballet Concour, partnered with Evelyn Hart. He had been with the Ballet since 1975 and its principal dancer since 1980. Mr. Peregrine will be greatly missed by the company.



THE ENVIRONMENT


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, Consolidated Professor Mines Ltd. has recently applied to operate a gold mine at Shoal Lake, Ontario, the source of Winnipeg's drinking water. A recurring consequence of the mining of gold is the production of arsenic. As a result, there is a fear that Winnipeg's water could become contaminated.
The building of the mine would touch on several areas of federal responsibility, namely fisheries, Indian Affairs, interprovincial waterways and international affairs since Shoal Lake is an arm of Lake of the Woods, an international waterway.
Further, this Government has already promised Canadians a safe drinking water act. This is the perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate in
Oral Questions
action, not just words, its commitment to the environment.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has pledged to Canadians that he would put the environment ahead of profits. Let the Minister demonstrate this commitment today by putting the safety of over half a million peoples drinking water ahead of the profits of one company.
I urge the Government to listen to the Winnipeg Water Protection group and undertake a full federal environmental impact assessment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Minister met with the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China yesterday, I think. Did he have the opportunity to express to him the indignation Canadians feel with the ever more frightening increase in the number of violations of the most basic human rights in China, and in particular, did he warn the Ambassador that the killing or execution of students who were sentenced in such summary fashion could have very harmful consequences for future relations between the Government of Canada and his country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting here yesterday with the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China. I expressed the grave concern of the Government of Canada and Canadians with respect to reports on the treatment and execution of students in China.
I indicated that it would be impossible for Canada to consider a "business as usual" situation, as suggested by some Chinese spokespersons. I stressed the importance of this issue for all Members of the House.
In fact, I gave the Ambassador a copy of the official report of last week's Debates to show clearly and directly what was discussed and the questions and answers here

June 16, 1989
Oral Questions
in the House, so as to leave no doubt in the Chinese leaders' minds as to what Canadians think.
I asked that our opinions be passed on to China's leaders.


ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT UNITED NATIONS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his words. Certainly, it will be more significant than just words if Canada takes some initiative at the Security Council at the United Nations. I understand that the Minister is still looking at this possibility.
Ambassador Fruitier will be here next week. Will he then be in a position to tell us precisely what type of specific actions Canada could take at the UN to enhance the positions which the Minister is indicating by words but not yet by action should be taken.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in so far as actions are concerned, the Hon. Member and the House will know that Canada has recalled our ambassador for consultation, as other countries, I believe, have not yet done. We are actively examining actions that can be taken through the United Nations.
I am asked a specific question as to whether or not Ambassador Fortier will be in a position next week to indicate precisely what action might be taken. I cannot answer that question. I do not know whether he will be in a position next week.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we are examining every avenue that is open to us which would result in effective action. Next Thursday morning I will be convening, at the Prime Minister's request, a national round table involving Canadians expert in China, including Canadians of Chinese origin, so that we can supplement the work of the Government at home and internationally with the advice of the Canadians who are knowledgeable about China.
I do not think there is any doubt about the attitude of the Government or the people of Canada. There is, given the nature of international institutions, the challenge in trying to find ways to make our views be felt effectively. I assure the House that we are pursuing that vigorously.


POSSIBLE DEFECTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the Minister confirm this morning that there have been a number of defections from the Chinese embassy here in Ottawa and that a number of Chinese have asked to remain in Canada? If so, could the Minister tell the House that these people are welcome and that everything will be done to make it possible for them to remain in Canada and obtain landed immigrant status as soon as possible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in very general terms, regarding citizens of China who might indicate their desire to stay in Canada, we would respond to those cases in the most sympathetic way.
It has been the practice of Secretaries of State for External Affairs for some time not to comment on specific questions regarding events relating to personnel of embassies or consulates, and I think it would be wise for me to respect that practice.


SECURITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday at the Justice Committee, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service refused to confirm or deny the presence in Canada of the MSS, the Chinese security intelligence service. The Director, however, was prepared to confirm the presence in Canada of other hostile foreign intelligence services. I would submit that the Government has an obligation and indeed a duty to be forthright in this matter.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware whether or not the MSS, the Chinese intelligence service, is operating in Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I paid particular attention to the testimony of the Director of CSIS yesterday. He indicated that the service keeps an eye on the situation concerning the Chinese community in Canada. Any
June 16, 1989

undeclared intelligence operation in Canada by foreign intelligence services is unacceptable and it will be dealt with by appropriate authorities.
CSIS is responsible for investigations against national security. It reports to the Government which takes the appropriate action that it deems necessary. I can add that in light of the unusual interest and circumstances here, I would be prepared to arrange a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party or a Member of Parliament each would designate early in the new week to deal with matters that might arise in these circumstances. I think they would be better dealt with in that way.


CHINESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Director of CSIS was being somewhat selective in that all Canadians, including those who may be at risk, have a right to know whether Chinese intelligence officers are gathering intelligence in Canada. Let there be no mistake. We are dealing with a callous and brutal regime with no concept of due process and with the capability of committing the most heinous crimes against humanity.
I put my question again to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he aware of the presence in Canada of these intelligence officers, and if he is not, will he inquire and give the House his undertaking that he will declare these people persona non grata and take immediate steps to have them removed from Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think I would add only two things to what I said in my earlier response.
First, I raised with the Chinese Ambassador yesterday allegations with respect to activities that would be improper by officials of his embassy or consulate, and he denied that those activities were occurring. I can report that fact.
The second point I would make is that the Hon. Member has been with me in India and in eastern Europe in circumstances that were sensitive. He comported himself on those occasions in an entirely commendable way, recognizing that there are sometimes circumstances that should await discussion. I would hope
Oral Questions
that he would conform to that high standard here before the television cameras of the House of Commons.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As he will know, in British Columbia last night, members of the public were advised to no longer eat shrimp, crab or prawns taken from the entire Howe Sound area as well as the Prince Rupert area. I wonder if the Minister would advise the House what other species along the coast of British Columbia have elevated levels of dioxin and organochlorines. Would he also tell the House when the Government first learned that the levels of dioxin and organochlorines in crab, shrimp and prawns in Howe Sound exceeded safe levels for human consumption?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the Government is conducting a sampling program all over Canada to examine and identify the level of dioxins and furans at the exits of paper mills. The data is being collected. It was being examined and analyzed by different Departments. When the analysis was known at the Department of National Health and Welfare, all other Departments were notified of the situation and a decision was made immediately by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to close those fisheries.


VIOLATIONS OF FISHERIES ACT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows from a report that was completed last July and was sat on by the Government for more than six months, there are still 17 out of 23 B.C. pulp mills that are in significant non-compliance with their existing licences, and 17 of the 23 are acting in direct violation of the Fisheries Act of Canada.
I wonder if the Minister would tell the House when the Government plans to bring forward regulations and enforcement procedures so that there will be zero discharge of these kinds of toxic, life-endangering toxins into the environment of British Columbia. When will the regulations and enforcement procedures be brought forward? The overwhelming majority of pulp mills, not only in British Columbia but right across Canada, are

June 16, 1989
Oral Questions
violating their licenses and are in direct violation of Canadian law.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, concerning pulp and paper mill pollution, the action of the Government is twofold.
First, there is the furan and dioxin problem, and this is regulated under CEPA. As of now, we are devising veiy tough and comprehensive regulations, that should be put into force next year. For the rest of the pollution, it is regulated under the Fisheries Act and the actual regulations were enacted in 1971 and apply only to mills built after 1971. The majority of mills were built before 1971 and do the most polluting. We have to deal with a situation that goes back more than 18 years.
In two or three years we will be able to issue and enact a new set of regulations for the other kinds of toxic materials exiting from paper mills, but those will be comprehensive regulations applying to all existing mills, built before or after 1971.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to understand. This is one of the largest and most widely used fishery areas in all of Canada. More than 400,000 recreational anglers make use of the Howe Sound area. Shrimp, prawn and crab fisheries have now been closed. British Columbians have been told as of 11 o'clock last night to no longer consume any of those products.
The Minister has not told us what other species have elevated levels. Would the Minister at least tell us when, on what precise date, there will be zero discharge regulations and enforcement procedures put in place? What steps does the Government plan to take today to compensate those boats that are now tied up with their crab pods, prawn traps and shrimp pods tied on board? What is the Government going to do, nothing?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken very stringent measures. We have closed fisheries where we have been advised by the Department of National Health and Welfare that the levels of furans and dioxins were too high. We cannot be more drastic. We have stopped the fishing of those species. For the rest, there will be very tough new regulations as early as next year. The Hon.
Member knows very well that the issuance of new regulations as global and complicated as those take a few months, and it will be done no later than 1990.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, there are over 2,000 Chinese Canadians in my riding. In the past four days, I have interviewed 700 people of Chinese descent due to the current crisis in China. Because of peaceful pro-democratic demonstrations of the students here in Canada, their parents are under House arrest in China.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs send his strongest condemnation of this type of harassment of Canadian residents to the Chinese Government and ask that those being held under house arrest in China be released immediately?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his active interest in the matter. It is entirely helpful that he and other Members of all Parties in the House are in close and active contact with members of the Chinese community in Canada. I conveyed that view yesterday to the Ambassador in my meeting with him.
There is obviously a difference of view between Canadian authorities and Chinese authorities as to what the facts are. There is no doubt in the minds of Chinese authorities that Canada finds any actions of that kind unacceptable. I have asked that that view be conveyed to Chinese authorities.


WORK PERMITS AND VISAS OF CHINESE NATIONALS IN CANADA
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In light of the situation in China which may continue for a long time and the fact that only eight-week extension visas are being issued to Chinese students and visitors, will the Minister take steps to allow the issuance
June 16, 1989

of work permits and extensions of visas beyond eight weeks?
Will the Minister today announce what concrete steps will be taken to resolve this unfortunate situation? These students need our help, and they need it today.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize that these students need our help. Perhaps I could clarify for Members exactly what we have done in terms of Chinese citizens currently in Canada, not only students.
Four things can happen that would allow them to remain in Canada: first, to continue in their present status as students, visitors, or temporary workers and sympathetic consideration will be given to extending student or visitor status; seek permanent residence on compelling humanitarian grounds; submit a regular immigration application at a Canadian consulate in the United States or at a Canadian Embassy or consulate in another country of their choice where normal criteria would apply; or submit a refugee claim.
Because there is such great concern about this matter, we will be putting out a package this afternoon in the form of a press release of the detailed information of steps that Chinese citizens in Canada can take.


CHINESE NATIONALS IN CANADA-LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I, too, have a large Chinese population in my riding.
As protesters in China begin to face arrest, trial, and even death, Chinese citizens on visas here are increasingly concerned about their future. I know of a number of those students in Canada who are convinced that because of their activities it is now impossible for them to return to China.
I ask the Secretary of State: Will the Government be moving beyond its present program of visa renewals and no removals and bringing forward a special program to grant Chinese citizens in Canada landed immigrant status?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister has just indicated in the House a series of measures that the Government has already taken.
The Hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister stated some days ago in Vancouver that we will not be sending persons back to danger in China.
The Hon. Member will also know that there is a process under way now in which we are re-evaluating several aspects of our policy, whether it relates to Chinese citizens who are here or whether it relates to the general question of Canada's relations with China. We are proceeding with that as quickly as possible but also in a way that is as careful and comprehensive as possible.
In addition, with regard to the particular situation of students, a meeting will be held this afternoon, a consultation initiated by the Government of Canada, involving representatives of provincial Governments and non-governmental organizations that is designed to look particularly at the problems faced by Chinese students in this country.
Out of that I expect two groups will emerge. One will be an advisory panel available to give advice on any questions which may cause concern to those students. The second is an assistance panel that will be seeking ways-financial assistance, perhaps employment opportunities and other ways-that can contribute materially to the capacity of those persons to stay in Canada.
If Hon. Members have practical suggestions that the Government should be considering to deal with the type of problem quite properly raised by the Hon. Member, we will certainly look at them in a most positive way.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Gordon Fairweather, Chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board, has recommended that students in Canada who feel their lives would be in jeopardy if they return to China should make a claim for refugee status.

Oral Questions
What advice would the Minister give to these students?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in response to the question from the Member's colleague, we wall be issuing a package of information later today to make clear the options available to Chinese citizens in Canada.
Our officials will also be involved in the meeting this afternoon with the NGOs and the provinces, in order to expedite the situation and to assist with any further measures that we might take.
We will continue to work very closely with the private sector, the community, and the Department of External Affairs on future measures.
However, there is more than one step, and I do want to make that clear. There is more than one thing that can be done, and that is why we will be issuing this package.


ALBERTA BUSINESS LOANS PORTFOLIO
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave to the Minister of Finance a series of figures showing that between 1982 and 1988 Canada's chartered banks yanked $9 billion out of their business loans portfolio in Alberta. This 50 per cent claw-back by the banks cost Alberta between 100,000 and 140,000 jobs and countless business enterprises.
Why did the Government do nothing while the chartered banks threw literally half of their business loans portfolio overboard?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is putting a somewhat pejorative interpretation on those numbers. I thank him very much for giving me notice of his question.
What has happened since 1982 up to 1988 is that we have seen a significant shift in the relationship in the bank loans to Alberta relative to the rest of the country. At that time the proportion of loans to Alberta was twice the size of its proportionate size in the economy, 25 per cent of business loans as opposed to its share of the GDP, the national income, of 12 per cent.
During this period of time that has come into line, so that it is roughly about the same proportions in both business loans and in its share of the economy.
That is partly as a result of the change in the resource sector. In the resource sector I understand that the loans are down from $10.8 billion to $5.6 billion as the result of a change from a very powerful and very strong period at that time and a number of loans related to takeovers related to the National Energy Program. That has worked its way out of the system, and there has obviously been an impact on other loans as well.


REVERSAL OF POLICY-POSITION OF MINISTER
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, in fact, what has happened has been virtually restricted to the banks. At the same time as they were gutting their Alberta business loans portfolio, local financial institutions such as the credit unions, the mortgage loan companies, and the trust companies when they were going through a difficult period in Alberta, increased their asset base in Alberta. It is only the banks that have abandoned their Alberta portfolios.
In fact, it is not only the resource sector. In that category of loans under $5 million there has been a 33 per cent decline in the bank business loans portfolio in Alberta.
The Minister has responsibility for banking in this country. It is not something that the provincial Government can do. Will he put what pressure he can on the chartered banks to reverse this disastrous policy on behalf of the businesses and the people of Alberta?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks what we will do to change this matter. In fact what we did was change the National Energy Program, which was a very large factor in the disastrous impact on the resource sector itself.


Ross Harvey: That is not true.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that it is not true. He should go to speak to people in the resource industry in Alberta. They will say that yes we did kill the National Energy Program. Yes, they will say that this was a good thing for the resource sector. Yes, they will also say that it is setting the stage

for a healthy resource sector in the future, and that is in place right now.
I was going to say that the Hon. Member might be interested, but clearly he is not listening. I should also say that I have spoken to members in the banking community over the course of the last couple of years because I have been aware of this drop taking place. They advised me that the relationship between the size of the Alberta economy and the size of the bank loans is now coming into balance. They expect to see a more normal relationship in the future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As of yesterday morning, the External Affairs 1-800 number for Chinese nationals was not offering assistance in any of the Chinese languages. Today, many Chinese in Canada are panicking because the line is constantly busy.
Will the Minister add more lines to this information number? Will he also arrange to have persons who are fluent in the various languages to facilitate the flow of information to a very frightened people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member tries to get her facts right and she generally is very appreciative of the quite excellent work that has been done by officials of the Department of External Affairs.
The fact is that throughout the operation of our hot line we have had operators available to speak to callers in both Mandarin and Cantonese. They have not been answering the telephone in Mandarin or in Cantonese. They have been answering in French or English, but that capacity has always been there on the hot line.
There had been a decrease in the use of the 1-800 number and for that reason the number of hot lines had been reduced. I will see if our information corresponds with that provided by the Hon. Member. If there is a need for new hot lines, they will be installed.
Oral Questions


Mary Catherine Clancy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he will act on it.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Fear and intimidation are constant within the various Chinese communities in Canada right now, as have been expressed in my riding of Halifax and across the country.
Will the Minister outline for the House what steps his Department is taking to alleviate this fear among Chinese nationals in Canada and to increase their protection in this time of peril and need?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have raised some of the concerns that are at the root of most of that apprehension directly with the Chinese Ambassador because there have been allegations of names being taken, photographs being used, and harassment being practised.
The views of Canada have been conveyed, the fact that this is utterly unacceptable to us has been conveyed. We will take a range of other measures. I will tiy to make available to Members of the House a precise listing of not only things that have been done but more particularly of people who can be consulted in the event there is a difficulty.
May I make this point: the Department of External Affairs and the Government will do everything we can. I think that one of the most helpful developments has been that to my knowledge Members of Parliament of all Parties across this country, in whose constituencies there are Canadians of Chinese origin or Canadian citizens, have been actively in touch with those persons. I would encourage that to continue.
It is one thing for the Government to be available and to have its services available, but it is far more helpful for Members of Parliament, in our own constituencies, to make it known that if there is anyone with a concern they should come to the Member of Parliament and the Government of Canada. If information reaches me that is accurate and on which we can act, we will act.
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION

June 16, 1989


VIA RAIL ATLANTIC ROUTE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Transport.
In 1985, the Deputy Prime Minister promised the Mayor of Saint John that his Government would not shut down VIA Atlantic if 200,000 passengers used it by 1990.
In 1988, 240,000 passengers have used the VIA Atlantic route and the figures for the first quarter of this year show an increase of 23 per cent. Clearly, the people of Atlantic Canada have lived up to their end of the deal.
I want to ask the Minister if she will promise that the Government will keep up its end of the deal.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport and myself have stated in this House earlier, the decisions relating to VIA will be made once we have received the plan from them, hopefully at the end of this month or early into July. At that time all facts will be taken into consideration and decisions will be made.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has said that only 3 per cent of Canadians use VIA. According to Transport Canada, most people travel by car. Of those who do not, 20 per cent use VIA; 40 per cent fly; and 40 per cent take the bus. That is the real situation.
Will the Minister read her own Department's figures? Will she do the honourable thing and let VIA provide the service it is capable of and that Canadians have come to expect?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, we always do the honourable thing. We make our decisions based on facts and figures.
As the Minister of Transport stated, there are only 3 per cent of Canadians that use the train. VIA is a national service. Three per cent of Canadians nationally use VIA. When the decisions are made, they will be made on the facts that are presented to us by VIA's
studies and its financial plan that it will give to us at the end of June.


ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It relates to election expenses. In the committee yesterday, Jean Marc Hamel, the Chief Election Officer for Canada, indicated that we need some laws to restrict third party advertising during elections.
Being that the Government has indicated in a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister that it wants to remove all reference to third party advertising-in other words, make it completely wide open-I would like to ask the Minister if the Government has changed its mind and will put restrictions on third party advertising during the election campaign. Second, when will it start its inquiry into the Elections Act which was promised in the Speech from the Throne?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my friend that in the Speech from the Throne the Government made very clear that we intend to set up an electoral reform commission to look at all matters vis-a-vis amendments to the Act. By putting this into the hands of an independent commission, I think that it will be able to work quickly and hopefully address the items to which my hon. friend refers.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I asked when. The Government did not answer. I asked what the Government's position was, whether it reversed itself on third party advertising. That was not answered.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. He is aware that the Starr affair is now implicating not only Liberal cabinet Ministers in Ontario but members of his own caucus.
Has the federal Government checked to make sure that the laws with regard to charities and the tax

deductions of this charity have been upheld? In other words, is the law of Canada being obeyed and has the Government initiated an investigation into this matter?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is yes. In the broader perspective, while an individual took some very serious and questionable actions within that organization, I can confirm that after Revenue Canada looked into the matter very closely and worked with the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto section, corrective action was immediately taken by the association.
This included asking for the resignation of Miss Starr and two other people who had been associated with Miss Starr in the foundation which was making those contributions. The council is now doing everything it possibly can to comply with the rules and regulations of its charitable status. Of course we are actively monitoring it and full co-operation has been given to us by the council. As a result of corrective action that was taken, there is no consideration at the present time to revoke the charitable status of that organization.


ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Given the appalling slaughter of African elephants by poachers who are killing for the illegal ivory trade, as was brought to the attention of the House earlier today by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and given the Minister's announcement yesterday of new Canadian initiatives to curb ivory imports to Canada, can he advise the House how and when these new measures will take effect?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member. The House will be interested to know that 10 years ago there were about 1.4 million African elephants. That number is down now to about 600,000. There is a rate of kill of 300 per day. Canada is in full
Oral Questions
compliance with the obligations that we have undertaken. However, there is no question that more must be done.
I indicated yesterday that we will be introducing very quickly further restrictions on imports of raw or worked African elephant ivory.
In addition, the Conference on Trade in Endangered Species is holding a meeting in Lausanne in October. As the House may know, there are two categories of protection. Asian elephants are in the most protected category. African elephants are not yet. Canada will be pressing at the Lausanne conference in October that African elephants be accorded the fullest possible protection.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
As the employer of one-quarter million Canadians in the Public Service of Canada, does the Minister approve of yesterday's announcement by the Public Service Commission that it is abandoning the merit principle for lateral transfers in over 20,000 positions thus opening the floodgates to administrative patronage?
Does he agree that employees should now lose the right they have through the courts to appeal when less qualified, less capable people are appointed without competition?
As the employer, is he concerned about the weakening of the quality and impartiality of the Public Service?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would just like to underline for the Hon. Member that the Public Service Commission reports directly to Parliament. It does not report to Treasury Board.
Now that she knows that and I have confirmed it, I would like to say that in my view this is by no means an abandonment of the merit principle. The Government stands firmly behind the merit principle and is willing to foster the merit principle in every instance, at the same

June 16, 1989
Oral Questions
time ensuring the greatest efficiency in the delivery of government services throughout the country.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the Minister can say that when this action by the Public Service Commission ensures that transfers are not subject to review and that managers are not accountable for the application of the merit principle in over 20,000 positions. If that is not an abandonment of the merit principle, I do not know what is.
The Minister is absolutely right when he said that the Commission was established as an agent of Parliament-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Marlene Catterall: -and it should consult with Parliament before abandoning its mandate.
Will the Minister and his colleagues refuse to approve the Order in Council robbing employees of their right to appeal non-merit based appointments? Will he and his colleagues allow Parliament before approving the Order in Council-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister will answer the question.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of the situation. I think it would be appropriate for the Public Service Commission to be approached on this particular matter. In spite of the fact that it reports officially through me to Parliament, it could certainly be seized of the matter.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I think that perhaps Members opposite should wait for his answer before deciding to applaud.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: In today's major daily newspapers Canada Post wasted yet more taxpayers' dollars in printing a list of 80 municipal officials who Canada Post claims are supporting the new privatized rural post offices.
Given that Reeve Janice Bush of Haggerty and Richards Township told me this morning in a telephone conversation that she never endorsed this principle and that the only thing she approved of was the fact that the privatized post office was better than no post office at all, I want to ask the Minister the following questions: How many more of these endorsements are phoney as Canada Post is in its corporate plan?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Gallup organization conducted a survey of all the communities that have had their service changed. Some 97 per cent of the people said that they found the service satisfactory. Some 90 per cent said it was as good or better than before.
Why did the Hon. Member not talk to Denis Pom-mainville of St. Albert, Ontario, which is in his riding, who endorsed the service as well?


Don Boudria: That is another one that is phoney. I am glad the Minister raised that one as well.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him very clearly how many of those endorsements are phoney. Why are we being conned by Canada Post? Is the Minister an accomplice to this as well, or is he just merely approving that kind of nonsense?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in the Hawkesbury Express, a newspaper published in the Hon. Member's riding, people were asked: "Is the mail service any better?" Marilyn Hall of Hawkesbury said: "Yes". Catherine Laviolette of Kilmar said: "Yes". Monique Fournier of Hawkesbury said: "Yes".
His own constituents when asked by the newspaper in his riding say that the service is better. Why is the Hon. Member insisting on being a mouthpiece for Jean-
June 16, 1989

Claude Parrot rather than a representative of his citizens?


Don Boudria: I am a mouthpiece for my constituents.


THE ENVIRONMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of the Environment with respect to Manitoba.
The Minister will know that late yesterday evening there was a very substantial fire in Winnipeg, in St. Boniface, but it is also of concern to the people of Winnipeg-Transcona because the plume of smoke from the fire blew over the northeast end of Winnipeg.
Will the Minister of the Environment tell us whether federal officials, federal inspectors are on the site now? Has the Minister directed any of his people to make sure that both emergency procedures went according to the way they should have and also that environmental regulations were observed? What will be the federal follow-up to this event? Obviously, it is of great concern to the people of Winnipeg.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. It is something that is worrying.
What we know is that it was an explosion of 160 one-litre drums of some kind of paint or solvent. Four family homes in the surrounding area had to be evacuated. However, people have returned now to their homes.
The situation is under control. We are analysing possible run-off contamination. Samples have been taken. We will have some results within the next few hours. The situation is under control. It is closely monitored. I am ready to inform the House and keep it posted as often as necessary.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my information is that more people than that were evacuated.


SHOAL LAKE MINE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, also with respect to the Manitoba environment the Minister will know that there is growing concern about
Oral Questions
the prospect of a new mine being opened in Shoal Lake. It was raised earlier in the House.
Could the Minister tell us whether or not he is prepared now to order a federal environmental assessment review of this project? He has the capacity to do that.
We just learned today that as a result of slack regulations we have the problem in the Howe Sound. Why do we not act in a preventive way now before Shoal Lake is poisoned, order a federal environmental assessment review, and bring in a safe drinking water Act while we are at it?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Shoal Lake mining project is under discussion by all Ministers involved-Ontario, Manitoba, and the federal Minister, myself. We will make sure that all federal environmental requirements will be met in this case as in any other.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for tourism, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister or whoever is present.
The Tourist Industry Association of Canada is becoming increasingly concerned about difficulties at the Pearson International Airport. Already there has been a major cancellation, that of the Professional Convention Managers Association. It was originally scheduled for Toronto and is now going to Dallas, Texas.
What does the Minister intend to do, as soon as possible, to prevent further losses to the tourist industry that is so important for Canada?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the congestion problems at Pearson International Airport have been under investigation since the beginning of the year. Consultations were held with some 200 people in the Toronto and surrounding areas. We are working on the plan. A decision will be made public very shortly.

Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1989

Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to 17 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee of Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND

Robert René de Cotret: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an Act to amend certain legislation respecting superannuation and other pensions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT


Charles Joseph Clark: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, the National Defence Act and the Trade-marks Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO AMEND

["Standing Order 57 does not say the Minister is limited to one specific bill, and therefore, I must conclude the Minister has the right to announce a series of bills. However, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for raising this question. Perhaps it could be usefully examined by the Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Member's Business, but for the time being, the Chair accepts the proposal made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis)."]
Robert René de Cotret: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an Act to amend the Non-smokers' Health Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia.
They point out their concern for what appears to be a growing militarization of our economy, and the support that the Government of Canada gives to developing our form of the multinational complex that promotes, aids, and abets the arms industry. They are asking Parliament to pass legislation ending this particular process.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter unrelated and pursuant to Standing Order 36, again I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Kamloops residents who are outraged at the Government's decision to change the Unemployment Insurance Act to take money from the unemployed for training programs.
Obviously the unemployed, particularly in the regions of Canada, are having an incredibly difficult time. To see their benefits reduced to enable the Government to provide money for training and re-education is absurd. They are suggesting that a more appropriate place to begin to collect tax would be from some of the 60,000-plus profitable corporations that do not pay any income tax at all, as opposed to dipping into the pockets of the unemployed.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in the House from citizens of Powell River, Texada Island, and other residents of the West Coast.
Order Paper Questions
They ask the Government to launch a public inquiry into the Government's ability to prevent, contain, and clean up oil spills on the coast of British Columbia.
Many of these people volunteered to work with the Ministry of Transport and the Environment to clean the beaches. They undertook on behalf of Canadians to try and mitigate this oil spill. They lost clothing, took time off work, and bought bags with money out of their own pockets. They understood that they would be compensated for this by the Government of Canada that would then sue the perpetrators on their behalf.
It now turns out that these people will be suing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in small claims court to go good on the promise that the Government originally made. Hopefully the Government will respond to the petition before they have to take it to court and before the House rises.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 52 and 60 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 52 and 60 be made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Copps: 1.	For each year since 1980, has the government published a brochure which provides information on the fuel efficiency of automobiles available for sale in Canada and, if so (a) what number were published (b) at what cost (c) what number were distributed to the public?
2.	For each year since 1980, has Canada imported hazardous wastes and, if so (a) what number of tonnes (b) what types (c) what means were used to transport the wastes across Canada's border (d) what was the country of origin (e) at what border point did the wastes enter Canada

June 16, 1989
Business of the House
(f) what number of the shipments were inspected to confirm their contents (g) were any of shipments refused entry and, if so (i) what number (ii) for what reason (iii) to what country was the shipment eventually sent (h) what was the destination of these shipments?
3.	For each year since 1980, has Canada exported hazardous wastes and, if so (a) what number of tonnes (b) what types (c) what means were used to transport the wastes across Canada's border, (d) what was the province of origin (e) at what border point did the wastes depart Canada (f) what number of the shipments were inspected to confirm their contents (g) were any shipments refused entry by the country of destination and, if so (i) what number (ii) for what reason (iii) to what place was the waste eventually sent?

Question No. 60-Mrs. Stewart:
Has (a) the Minister for External Relations (b) the President of CIDA (c) any member of the President's staff travelled outside the country on official business from January 1988 to the present and, if so (i) to what locations (ii) on what dates (iii) for what purpose (iv) for what length of time (v) what was the cost of the trip (vi) were there other members of the party and if so, what were their names and functions?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement as a follow up to yesterday's statement on business. I understand that we are making progress on second reading of Bill C-10. This is the only item of business that the Government intends to call today. The Government would be agreeable to moving Private Members' Business up and commencing that as soon as second reading on Bill C-10 is complete if, in fact, it is completed before two o'clock.
With respect to Monday, we are trying to schedule Bills to meet the convenience of Members. Therefore, I wish to indicate a change. We will not be calling Bill C-15, an Act respecting plant breeders' rights, at eleven o'clock but rather we will call Bill C-ll, an Act respecting Borrowing Authority. There may be further Bills
called as time permits on Monday but we will continue to consult with our colleagues opposite in an effort to make sure that we are not inconveniencing unnecessarily any Members.
I do wish to indicate something to the House. Yesterday I said discussions were under way to complete a reasonable amount of work on Bills currently on the Order Paper by June 30, 1989. However, I wish to give formal notice of the Government's intention to invoke Standing Order 57 in order that second reading of Bills C-15 and C-21 be completed, that third reading of Bill C-ll be completed and that second reading of Bill C-20 be completed prior to June 30, 1989.


Mr. Allmand:: Disgraceful. This is closure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is outrageous. I do not know if the Government is trying to turn the House of Commons into China II with the trampling of democratic rights but it seems that we are being given notice that the Government plans to proceed in the same despicable way.
I want to remind the Hon. Minister that Bill C-15, plant breeders' rights has not had a single speaker speak to it to date, not one. Debate has not even begun on it.
On Bill C-20, the Excise Tax Act, we have only had one speaker. This Bill is going to impose a vast network of taxes on the people of Canada. Bill C-21, we will have closure after only two speakers from this Party. I want to send a very clear signal that once again we are seeing a contempt of parliamentary tradition. We are seeing a contempt, if you like, of the Government permitting adequate debate on critical issues in the House of Commons. We find this repugnant. We find it unacceptable, dictatorial and something we have now come to expect.
I think what this Government is trying to do is to make Canadians immune to these Draconian and anti-democratic measures when they are prepared to trample on the rights of parliamentarians by not permitting adequate debate on these very critical Bills.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was almost impossible to believe the words of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) when he announced in the House that the Government is invoking closure on Bill C-21 after only three speakers I believe it is from the Official Opposition who have spoken in this important debate.
June 16, 1989

Here we have a situation where the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, with the support of Conservatives on that committee, moved that that committee travel throughout the country to consult on measures in that Bill. That report was sabotaged in some way or other in the House. We then have the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDou-gall) saying that she did not consult and does not intend to consult on the Bill. Now after only a few Members speaking in debate the Government is introducing closure on measures which significantly affect unemployment insurance all over this country. This is, as my hon. colleague says, a hijacking of democracy. It is an insult to Parliament and all our parliamentary traditions. If the Government is going to act in this particular way in dealing with important Bills, we will find ways to deal with the Government in like manner so that it will not get its business through this House.
It was not our purpose to obstruct on that Bill but simply to continue the debate so Canadians could understand what is a very complicated piece of legislation. It is very difficult for people to understand the implications of unemployment insurance legislation. The terminology is difficult and a certain amount of debate is necessary so Canadians can understand what is happening to them. For the Government to move this kind of measure at this point in the debate is totally unacceptable.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I merely gave notice of the Government's intention to move closure in the event that we are unable to pass these Bills at the stage referred to by June 30. The House will know that notice is a normal thing. The closure motion has not been moved. It is simply notice.
I would like to make one comment. I think my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party suggested that the debate on Bill C-15 had not been commenced. I believe if he checks the Notice Paper he will note under item No. 15 on page 14, it states:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture for
the second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of clarification by the Hon. Minister. I simply want to reiterate that on a Bill that is literally going to transform the entire patent field when it comes to life forms,
Business of the House
something that.has incredibly vast implications, it must be debated thoroughly at every stage. There have been two speakers from the New Democratic Party on Bill C-15 but if we were doing our job properly, we would be spending the next two or three weeks on this piece of legislation alone. The implications in terms of patenting life forms in this country are horrendous. It is important that parliamentarians not only have an opportunity to express their views on behalf of their constituents but to hear other views on this very critical issue. It is for that reason that we find this move despicable and completely unacceptable.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say as a new Member of this House that here we have the occasion of the Government giving notice of closure on Bills that it is just beginning to be processed through this House. This is the same Government that waited until April 3 to call this House back into business.
It seems to me that the words of the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) are mild compared to what might have been used. This is an absolutely outrageous suggestion from the Government that it is to proceed this way.
The Minister is now suggesting that he is going to hold a club over the opposition Members regarding their response to these Bills. I want to say as forcefully as I can through you to the Minister that this Government has forgotten the traditions of this House and, even if I may say, the traditions of his own Party in coming to this House with the suggestion that he makes here today.


Mr. Gatuhier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a procedural matter. I must say I deplore the approach taken by the Government, but if I understood the Minister correctly, he is giving notice on four pieces of legislation, namely, if I am not mistaken, Bills C-15, C-21, C-20 and C-ll.
I would like to ask the Chair whether Standing Order 57, as it stands, covers a situation where a Minister gives notice on four pieces of legislation, or are we to understand that he must give notice every time he intends to dispose of legislation, as opposed to doing all four at once.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer the question, I believe the Hon. Minister may give notice for several bills at a time. However, I will check, and I will get back to the

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
Hon. Member in a moment. I am almost positive the Minister is right.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I have to read Standing Order 57, I will do that, but I read the Standing Order very carefully. My interpretation is the one I mentioned just now, namely that the Minister may give notice that he will invoke closure under Standing Order 57, but only on one measure, one bill, and not several or a whole series of bills, and I would ask the Chair to give me some clarification.


SPEAKERS DECISION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing Order 57 does not say the Minister is limited to one specific bill, and therefore, I must conclude the Minister has the right to announce a series of bills. However, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for raising this question. Perhaps it could be usefully examined by the Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Member's Business, but for the time being, the Chair accepts the proposal made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Landry that Bill C-10, an Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the governments of certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de Grace.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-10 is to partially forgive
the debts owed to Canada by certain sub-Saharan African countries. It is satisfying to note that the countries of the world are finally giving some attention to this most critical and serious problem of Third World debt.
I say finally because I can recall attending international conferences at the United Nations and elsewhere only four and five years ago when representatives from Latin America and Africa pleaded with representatives of northern and western countries to pay more attention to the developing crises in their countries as a result of the overwhelming debt owed to the North.
Very little was done at first. Perhaps this was due to the fact that at that time the officials and the ministers dealing with the problem in northern and western countries were principally Ministers of Finance and officials in departments of finance. But finally, people who are involved in external affairs and in development assistance have become involved and we have seen some movement. While no problems have been solved yet, at least attention is being given to this extremely serious matter.
We saw in Toronto last summer at the Economic Summit decisions taken to reschedule sub-Saharan African debt. These proposals went forward in the form of the Paris Club plan for a rescheduling of that debt. Then this March, we saw the new Secretary of the Treasury for the United States, Mr. Brady, making additional proposals toward a solution of these debt problems with particular reference to Latin America.
It is heartening to note that Members of Parliament are also getting involved. I had the good fortune to attend a conference organized by Parliamentarians for Global Action, a parliamentary association which is active in this Parliament. This was a conference which this global association of parliamentarians organized at the end of March in Amsterdam, Holland.
At that conference, we had Members of Parliament from most of the G-7 countries and from all political parties. From Canada we had Conservative and Liberal Members. From the European countries, we had Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, radicals, et cetera, with officials and experts discussing how we might on a multi partisan basis deal with the problem of Third World debt. I am pleased to report as well that in this House, for the last few days the Standing Committee on
June 16, 1989

External Affairs and International Trade has been paying special attention to this problem.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this problem of Third World debt is extremely serious and destabilizing for world peace. What is particularly upsetting, when we look at the facts, is that many of these countries are paying back to creditor countries in the north, countries like the United States and Canada and the western European countries, more in the form of interest than those countries are paying in development assistance. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
We have countries in the north boasting about their programs for development assistance on how much they give to African and Latin American countries through their development assistance programs. Yet, on the other hand, those same countries are forced to pay, in the form of debt and interest, moneys back to those very same countries so that in many cases those countries are debt receivers. The northern countries receive more from those poor developing countries than they are giving in assistance.
Let me cite some figures. According to the World Bank, developing country debt now exceeds $1.3 trillion. That is hard to imagine. I can think in terms of millions and billions of dollars, however, when we get into trillions it is very difficult to imagine. But that is now the total debt figure-at least it was at last report-for developing country debt. That is $1.3 trillion.
By the way, the $1.3 trillion is in U.S. dollars. These developing countries have transferred $85 billion U.S. dollars to developed countries since 1982. In the cases of the most highly indebted, this translates to more than 2 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in the period.
If we can put this in other terms, in recent years the net transfer of capital from the Third World to the rich countries has taken place in large amounts. There has been a net transfer from the Third World, from the poorer countries, to the rich countries. Between 1981 and 1985, net capital export from Latin America moved from U.S. $0.2 billion to U.S. $42.4 billion.
In Asia, the transfer was from $1.7 billion in 1981 to $9.7 billion in 1985. In Africa, from $5.3 billion in 1981 to $21.5 billion in 1985. It is obvious that this makes a farce of our development assistance programs and our philosophy for development assistance.
Forgiveness of Debts Act
If we look at sub-Saharan Africa, which is the main focus of this Bill before the House today, the total outstanding debt of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 1985-and that is the most recent report that I have-is about $100 billion. About $100 billion at the end of 1985. The International Monetary Fund estimates $76 billion, excluding arrears of at least $11.6 billion.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the countries most indebted are Nigeria, with $16.6 billion; the Sudan, $7.7 billion; the Ivory Coast, $7.4 billion and Zaire, $4.6 billion. I could go on and on. These debts and the repayment of the debts and the schedule for repayment is extremely important, not only for the suffering and hardship in those countries but also because it is a destabilizing factor in world peace and world politics.
The foreign debts of those countries have been estimated to be the major cause of depression in those countries in the 1980s. Since 1980, many developing countries have experienced a depression more severe than the Great Depression of the 1930s in the industrialized world. The three post-war decades of slow improvement in the living standards of these peoples is such that these developing countries have begun to go backwards. While there had originally been some improvement, now there is backward movement.
This is not only a question of the situation of the peoples in these countries. It is also a question of stability and humanity with respect to those areas. It is sad to note that since 1945, which was the end of the Second World War-which we talk of as the last war, which in fact it was not-there have been 125 wars in which 30 million people have been killed, two-thirds of those people being citizens as compared with one-third military, and three-quarters of those wars have been in the developing world.
In the developing world, there is depression, instability and debt. That is why we have to consider the problem of world debt not simply as a financial and economic question but also a question that affects the whole world. It is a question of peace. When we deal with questions of war and peace, we do not simply look at the number of weapons and nuclear arms involved, we have to look at the causes which lie behind conflict. One of the causes

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
which lie behind conflict is the severe poverty that exists in many of these countries.
Bill C-10, the Bill before us today, forgives the debt with respect to certain sub-Saharan countries in Africa, 13 countries which are listed in the annex to the Bill. While it does not solve the problem, it is certainly a move in the right direction. My hon. colleague, our Party's critic, has pointed out some of the shortcomings in the Bill.
Today I appeal to Canadians to understand and support the reasons which lie behind a Bill like this. When I happen to meet some people in the street, they ask why we are forgiving the debts of African countries. People ask why we do not do this for Canadians, why we do not forgive the debts of Canadian farmers and business people instead of forgiving the debts of these African countries. In Canada, we do have very significant programs to deal with this, though they are not enough. We on this side criticize the Government for not doing enough, but there are programs like Old Age Security, the Canadian Pension Plan, certain regional development programs, the Canadian Assistance Plan, Medicare and the like, programs at the federal and provincial levels that deal with the problems of Canadians. As well, there is a Bankruptcy Act in Canada. We have insolvency legislation so that when people get into debt over their heads, they can get out of that debt and start all over again. We do not drive them into the ground and let them starve to death. We have legislative means for helping them. Unfortunately, in the international arena that is not the case.
When countries like Brazil, Argentina and Peru have debts with banks in Canada, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, there is no international Bankruptcy Act that would allow these countries to get back on their feet again. If we believe in the philosophy of bankruptcy and insolvency legislation for those who live within our own national boundaries, we should translate that spirit into the international arena and should be ready to forgive debts in certain cases which would drive the country to what I would call complete insolvency. That is what some of the proposals that are now on the table are attempting to do. I am referring to the decisions taken at the Toronto Economic Summit last summer where a plan was put forward for rescheduling
certain Third World debt, known as the Paris Club for debt rescheduling. It is certainly not enough. It will not solve the problems, but at least it is a beginning and a move in the right direction.
On March 10, U.S. Treasury Secretary, Nicholas Brady, a member of the new Bush Government in the United States, unveiled a plan in which he exhorted commercial banks to forgive a portion of their Third World loans in return for guarantees that at least some of the debt would be paid. One would think that would be looked on with reason and with a long term view. Unfortunately, some of the banks, including some Canadians banks, have not been too sympathetic to that proposal.
A certain number of parliamentarians met in Amsterdam at the end of March, and I was one of them. We met at a conference organized by Parliamentarians for Global Action and after two and a half days of discussion, we put out a document entitled,"The Amsterdam Appeal". In that appeal, we stated:
We agreed that the recent new debt relief policies-although moving in a more positive direction-are insufficient and need substantial extension. In fact, the new debt strategy requires a "Toronto plus" and a "Brady plus" approach. The debtor countries require both debt reduction and new concessional finance as a pre-condition though not a substitute for valid and sound domestic economic policies. Funds for debt policies reduction should be additional to those already allocated for aid.
Then we made certain specific recommendations, some with respect to Latin American countries whose debt is principally commercial and is owed to creditor banks in the northern hemisphere. We made other recommendations with respect to the sub-Saharan countries whose debt is principally with governments of countries in the north. Since the Bill we are dealing with today focuses on the sub-Saharan African countries and their govemment-to-govemment debts, let me mention some of the recommendations that were made.
We said again that the Toronto Summit set an important precedent by authorizing debt reduction in connection with rescheduling in the Paris Club, and we said that the need of African and other low-income countries for external resource flows and debt reduction has not yet, however, been adequately addressed. We recommended first that there be a write-down of a significant portion of the Paris Club debt. Second, we recommended that
June 16, 1989

there be a moratorium of 10 years on all official interest and principal payment obligations.
Further, we recommended that the budgetary costs of these debt reductions be added to aid donor commitments and not be taken from existing aid allocations. That is very important because the existing aid allocations are being relied upon for certain projects in Third World countries and to simply take some of those moneys for the debt reduction would not solve the problem. We also recommended that aid donors who have not already done so plan a program of cancellation of their aid-related debts and, through this Bill, there is the cancellation of certain debts. Finally, a very interesting recommendation made by the parliamentarians in Amsterdam is that the International Monetary Fund consider the sale of a portion of its gold holdings to finance additional multilateral concessional lending to low-income, debt-distressed countries.
These are some of the proposals made by parliamentarians, experts, financial people and businessmen to try to resolve these important problems. In conclusion, I would like to make an appeal to Canadian citizens to understand how serious the poverty is in these countries of Africa and Latin America. We must reach out to them to do things which will support them in the development of their peoples and countries. I recall how Canadians and people from all over the world responded a few years ago when they saw on television the starving children in Ethiopia. They responded with great heart and gave in substantial amounts. They gave through rock concerts and in many other ways. That was because they saw very graphically on television how horrible the situation was. It has not gone away. The fact that we do not see it on television every day does not mean that it has gone away. It is still there in Latin America. It is still there is Asia and in Africa.
I urge the Canadian people to support our Government and urge it to do more in order that we can have a world where there is co-operation between peoples and not conflict and war.
Forgiveness of Debts Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. As the previous speaker indicated, I would like to suggest that it is a step in the right direction.
Bill C-10 on which we are completing discussion today is a Bill that forgives the govemment-to-govemment debt that a number of sub-Saharan countries have with the Government of Canada.
It is important to recognize those countries as identified in the Bill. They are the Republic of Camaroon, the People's Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Ivory Coast, Gabonese Republic, Republic of Ghana, Republic of Kenya, Democratic Republic of Madagascar, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Republic of Senegal, Kingdom of Swaziland, Republic of Zaire, Republic of Zambia and Republic of Zimbabwe.
This at least is a recognition by the Government of the incredibly bleak conditions that face the people in those sub-Saharan countries. Time and time again we are reminded as Canadians, normally through the news media, of the terrible conditions that exist for the people in those countries. We are not reminded every day because those terribly horrible conditions are not news, as we normally define news. They are on occasion flashed on our television screens or covered in various publications. For the people of the sub-Saharan, and generally people of developing countries, these terrible conditions go on day after day, year after year, decade after decade.
As parliamentarians, we are aware of those situations. Over the years we have urged the Government of Canada to take appropriate steps. That is why today it is fair to say that on a government-to-govemment basis steps are being taken. We support this particular initiative to at least ease some of the debt burden that those countries have in terms of debts they owe to the Government of Canada as a result of a variety of aid packages and aid loans over the years.
However, it is important that we now go beyond this. While we say that this is a step in the right direction and as a result of this initiative that we are passing in Bill C-10 a small amount of the debt faced by those countries will be eliminated, it is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the iceberg being the problem. The tremendous

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
debt problems those countries face is something that I do not believe Canadians are able to easily comprehend. I say that for two reasons.
When we in our country get into serious debt problems, either as individuals, as organizations, or as businesses, we have legislation that recognizes that from time to time this does occur, often through no fault of the players but because of changing circumstances. For example, a farm that might be struggling through difficult financial or climactic times may find itself in a bankruptcy situation. Often when people find themselves with a serious debt problem, it is not necessarily because of their inability to deal with the financial challenges that face them, but is as a result of outside circumstances that create this debt situation to a point where repayment of the debt is simply impossible.
In our country when that occurs to individuals, businesses, organizations, we have backruptcy and insolvency legislation to deal with that in order to attempt to recognize that steps must be taken to pay off, as much as possible, those to whom the money is owed. But we are not in a position to drive those individuals into starvation, or literally to destroy the lives of the people and their families involved. We have taken on a rather humane view of financial crises that individuals, groups and, companies experience.
That same logic and goodwill ought now to be extended to the developing countries. When one looks at the plight that they are in, at the incredible financial and economic challenges faced by them, in most cases those challenges have nothing to do with the people themselves but are foisted upon them from outside.
We all recognize that as a result of a variety of forces, the sub-Saharan countries have faced incredible drought problems. Rural and particularly nomadic peoples have been forced to move off their traditional lands and focus their activities in certain areas, and as a result overgrazing and desert expansion results. It seems that the natural environment that has sustained previous generations for hundreds and thousands of years simply evaporated overnight as a result of desert conditions extending into the sub-Saharan area day by day.
If we were honest, we would all recognize that the developed countries, the First World and the Second World countries as we define them, have exploited the
Third World countries, the Fourth World countries and the developing countries for years and years. They have gone in and extracted their natural resources and taken advantage of the desperate situation in which the people find themselves and have exploited the people in a variety of ways.
We do not have to look any further than the so-called free trade zones on the American-Mexican border where people are working for a few cents a day. Those same people working in a country such as Canada would be paid $7 or $8 an hour. That is the reality. We have exploited those people in these countries for decades.
Now those countries find themselves in a desperate situation financially. We have to ask what our response has been. By "our" response I do not necessarily refer to the Government of Canada directly, but I do indirectly, because it involves our chartered banks that operate overseas, it involves organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, organizations of which we are a part. The answer that those organizations have placed on those countries is to impose what can only be described as a new right concept in terms of applying market-place forces on those countries and asking them to cut back on important government services in terms of developing urban and economic infrastructure, cut back on education, cut back on health care, and cut back on housing. In other words, imposed a veil of poverty and starvation on the people of those countries. That is the reality. We can couch it in all manner of fancy economic terms.
Recently, not in the sub-Saharan but in Venezuela, some pointy-headed bureaucrats who sit in Washington, D.C. making decisions on behalf of the IMF have suggested an incredibly oppressive package be placed on that country. That country has been given no alternative because it needed a carry-over loan because of the tremendous debt situation it is experiencing.
The International Monetary Fund stated that it would loan Venezuela the money to cany it over the next number of months, if it imposed upon its people a harsh and cruel program of restraint. That country was given no alternative. We saw rioting in the streets as the gas prices were increased significantly and people had to abandon their cars because they simply could not afford the cost of gasoline. They then had to depend on a public
June 16, 1989

transportation system which was already overburdened in some of the major cities, and whole cities ended up in chaos. There was rioting, killing, looting and burning as a result of the poorest of the country being the hardest hit. That decision was made by pointy-headed bureaucrats sitting in the United States with no understanding of the political, cultural and economic reality of those Third World countries, and no sensitivity.
We are part of that process. Canada, being a participant in the IMF and a player in the World Bank decisions, would have an opportunity to influence some of those decisions. When we look at the whole process of structural adjustment that the IMF, the World Bank, and the banks in the other developing countries are imposing on these developing countries, no wonder they are ending up virtually worse off as a result of this so-called adjustment.
I think it is only fair to say that adjustment becomes more intelligible when understood as a technology of control. What First World countries have determined is that our way of life in countries like the United States, Canada, and Western Europe ought to be imposed on the developing countries regardless of their culture, the realities of their economies, their traditions, or their social values. We are going to impose what has worked in our country on theirs.
We must recognize that what has worked and resulted in the prosperity that we experience today in countries like Canada, the United States and Western Europe is a result of exploitation of Third World countries. It goes right back to the very beginning with the Conquistadors going into Latin America and extracting, in a barbaric way, the resources back to Spain. We see the same thing here in terms of the reaction to exploitation of our native people through the fur trade from the very beginning of the Canadian economy.
We have to admit that our prosperity, wealth and lifestyle, of which we are veiy proud, to a certain extent in some cases and to a large extent in other cases, is based on the exploitation of people in the developing countries. So there is no way that we can impose our system of exploitation now focused on them because there is no one left to exploit. They cannot apply the
Forgiveness of Debts Act
same methods and technology of exploitation to those around them.
It is an unrealistic solution. Canada can make a difference in the international community, particularly as we participate in these international organizations that are making the decisions to impose this new right solution called "Structural Adjustment" on the people of the developing countries.
In conclusion, I want to say that we certainly do support this initiative. It is, hopefully, not an empty initiative that simply gives the impression that Canada is concerned.
I have spoken about the fact that while we might make some small concessions in terms of govemment-to-gov-emment loans due Canada by tearing up those papers requiring that loan repayment, we fail on two other counts that I think we have to recognize. There is one I have just mentioned in terms of our participation in organizations such as the International Monetary Fund. Also, how serious are we in developing and supporting the economy of the sub-Saharan countries?
The way we evaluate the Government's concern is by what we do with our overseas development assistance programs. Do we extend additional assistance to those countries in desperate need? Do we look at the developing country and identify new ways and means of supporting its efforts toward self-reliance and self-determination? I am afraid it is a very sad day for the Government of Canada to have to admit that, no, we are reducing our commitments.
As a matter of fact, during the last Budget, that section of the Budget that had the deepest, most wicked and cruel cuts, was that of overseas development. CIDA, one of the arms of our foreign aid work has made a tremendous difference in terms of changing, on a relatively small scale, the local economies in terms of developing people's basic training and skills, developing local infrastructure to allow people to develop self-determination and self-reliance. This Government has curtailed large expenditures in those areas. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
We can stand here for days and listen to government Members talk about their concern for the Third World and their interest in assisting Third World economic development. The reality is that we should be prepared to put our dollars to assist in those initiatives. I am sad to say that the reality is that the Government says, no, we

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
are not only going to cease expanding in these areas, we are going to reduce our commitment and reduce it significantly.
I say it is a sad day. While we see this Bill as a signal that perhaps the Government has come to its senses and recognized the responsibilities and obligations we have internationally, let us hope that we will see a change in attitude in terms of the amount of money we put into official overseas assistance. We should also take a more aggressive and pro-active position in organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should urge our chartered banks that also have huge obligations in the Third World to recognize that we should be treating those countries and those people in much the same way as we treat our own people in this country through our bankruptcy and insolvency legislation.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the debate today is certainly a critically important one. In some respects, it shows the concern of the Government for Third World nations in great difficulty.
I would like to ask my colleague about the prospect of External Affairs and the Government of Canada tying agreements such as this to certain specific conditions. I would like to put to him the proposal that the high seas drift-net fishery in the Pacific Ocean is one of the most destructive undertakings in the world. It has been put forward as the biological destruction of the Pacific Ocean.
In this particular arrangement, we have countries who are buying high seas illegal fish from Taiwan, a country that manufactures, processes and catches fish illegally. The question is whether we, as humanitarians, are prepared to make an important gesture to these countries.
We do not have any diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Therefore, we are not able to undertake a treaty with them or open discussions with them. What we can do is stop the flow of illegal produce.
The question I would put to my colleague is whether it is reasonable to ask those countries to join with us in an action that would protect an enormous part of the environment of this earth by stopping the flow of illegal high-seas fish that are captured in the north Pacific by stopping the destruction of millions of sea mammals and sea birds. This activity is described as strip mining and is destroying the Pacific Ocean. It is so critically important
that we give consideration to Canada becoming involved in a major gift, as it were-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Halliday):: Order, please. The Chair would ask that you try to demonstrate the relevance of that question to the Bill under debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to demonstrate the relevance of it as there is an indication that the flow of illegal product moves into these Third World countries. The dilemma we have is that with an illegal operation in Taiwan we do not have any influence to exert on Taiwan. These countries could assist us in return for the gift of forgiveness of loans by Canada. We could certainly be in a position with External Affairs to make it a condition that they not accept this illegal, destructive produce in return for that gift; that they join with us in the United Nations to stop this activity and that they also form a third-party arrangement through agreement to stop the activity which destroys the Pacific Ocean. It is vitally important to us that in a gesture such as this, where Canada is forgiving loans to other nations, it would not hurt to ask whether they would be prepared, in return, to join with us on such an important undertaking.
This Government's record on this particular issue, where it put five observers on foreign ships that were plundering the ocean, the Americans withdrew from it. They said it was absolutely ridiculous and more direct, vigorous action had to take place. This Government's action on the high seas drift-net activity is absolutely disgusting. It is destroying jobs. It is destroying the environment.
We should be asking other nations to join with us. It is a fair and relevant question to my colleague that I hope he has time to answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the question demonstrates to me, as much as anything, the incredible interest the Hon. Member for North Island-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has in the destruction of the resources of the Pacific as a result of the drift-net technology. On every occasion possible, he raises the concerns of so many people on the West Coast of British Columbia. The Government appears to be taking little interest in this initiative. I think we all agree, and I see a number of nodding heads-I am sure I speak for everyone in the House- that we would all like to see the Minister of Fisheries take a much more aggressive position in terms of the Taiwanese, Japanese and South Koreans fishing with the
June 16, 1989

use of the drift-nets which are literally destroying that Pacific Ocean resource.
Having said that, I think perhaps the most appropriate response would be to say that, yes, actions can be taken but actions can only be taken if the Government of the day has the will to stand up to countries such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, which countries are overfishing. If you like, Mr. Speaker, fishing might be the wrong term. It is the biological destruction of the resources of the Pacific Ocean-a total destruction of that resource.
In summary, I appreciate the Hon. Member's intervention. It was a thoughtful one. It is one that he has made often. Hopefully, the Government will be listening soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Halliday):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Welland-St. Catharines- Thorold.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment you on the latitude that you give Members of the House of Commons when entering into these sorts of debates.
Bill C-10, is a Bill for the forgiveness of debt in-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In terms of referring to another Member's intervention, I suggest that the high seas drift-net fisheries is such a dangerous and destructive thing that the Hon. Member should probably include the topic in his speech. Perhaps the question of the relevance of tieing this issue to loan forgiveness is important. I would like to hear him stand up for the people of Canada and indeed for the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Halliday):: I am afraid that that is not a point of order. It might be a point of debate.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I do not withdraw anything that I said.
Forgiveness of Debts Act
To get on with the debate at hand, it concerns the forgiveness of debts in the sub-Saharan regions. I want to go on record with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), in saying that my Party concurs with the principle of what this Bill is trying to do. In our concurrence, however, we do not thoroughly agree with everything that is being done, but we believe that we are on the right track in terms of the forgiveness of debt in these particular countries.
I wish to try to put a more human face on the debate and what is going on in Africa now. Three months ago I had occasion to have a luncheon with the Minister of Health for the Sudan. She had been visiting Canada along with her brother. They spoke to a number of parliamentarians here on Parliament Hill. They were telling us about the state of health of the people but, more particularly, of the children of the Sudan which left us very near to tears.
A few years ago I was in Washington. I overheard a conversation between two representatives of farmers' groups from a country called Lower or Upper Volta, I am not sure which. They were talking about mechanizing in their country, mechanizing in order to bring forth better crops. Since I have a farm implement dealer factory in my riding, I was pretty much interested in what kind of machinery they were using. They were talking about mechanization and the fact that they were at last going to get, I think, a horse or a donkey rather than having the children and the wife pull the ploughs. We are dealing here with countries which are not only underdeveloped but which about I think it would be fair to say lack even the basic tools to feed themselves.
In this debate I would like to put a human face on Bill C-10 and what is happening in Africa. For almost 900 million people, approximately one-sixth of mankind, the march of human progress has now become, in my opinion, a retreat. In many nations development is being thrown into reverse. After decades of steady economic advance, large areas of the world are sliding backward into more abysmal poverty.
Throughout most of Africa, average incomes have fallen by 10 per cent to 25 per cent in the 1980s. In the 37 poorest nations, spending per person on health has been reduced by 50 per cent and on education by 25 per cent over the last few years.

June 16, 1989
Forgiveness of Debts Act
In almost one-half of 103 developing countries from which recent information is available, the proportion of six to eleven-years olds enrolled in primary school is now falling. Not only do they not have the money to take care of themselves in terms of health and food, they cannot even nourish the minds which in the future might get them out of their cycle of poverty. In other words, it is the children who are bearing the heaviest burden of debt and recession of the 1980s. In tragic summary it can be estimated that at least half a million young children have died in the last 12 months as a result of the slowing down or reversal of progress in the developing world.
For most of the countries of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, almost every economic signal points to the fact that development has been derailed, per capita GNP has fallen, debt repayments have risen to a quarter or more of all export earnings, share in world trade has dropped and the productivity of labour has declined by one or two percentage points each year throughout the entire 1980s.
It is the young child whose growing mind and body is susceptible to permanent damage from even temporary deprivation. It is the young child whose individual development today and whose social contribution tomorrow is being shaped by the economics now. It is the young child who is paying the highest of all prices and who will bear the most recurring of all costs for the mounting debt repayments, the drop in export earnings, the increase in food costs, the fallen family income, the rundown of health services and the narrowing of educational opportunities.
Too often, spending money on health or education is regarded as a form of consumption which can only be afforded in times of plenty. Protecting the health and education of these children is the basic of all investments in the physical and mental capacity of the next generation and, therefore, in the social and economic development of all societies and, most particularly, in the societies of the sub-Sahara.
It is no longer necessary for approximately 40,000 young children to die every day, every day even as we speak in the developing world, and for so many millions more to live on with ill-health and poor growth. The advances already achieved during the 1980s in immunization, in family spacing and in the drafting of a convention
on the rights of the child are among the great humanitarian achievements of our times, something in which our country has taken a part. However, these are jewels in a tarnished crown. Without restoring the forward momentum of economic development, it will become increasingly difficult to sustain such progress.
Two elements have dominated the deterioration of economic prospects over so much of the developing world in recent years. They are rising debt payments and falling commodity prices.
The total debt of the developing world is now over $1,000 billion U.S. In many countries annual repayment of interest and capital amount to more than the total of all the new aid and loans being received each year. On average, repayments now claim about 25 per cent of the developing world's principal export revenues.
The developing world still depends on raw materials for the majority of its export earnings. However, in the last 10 years real prices for the developing world's principal commodities have fallen by approximately 30 per cent. The fall in new commercial lending and the inadequate and static levels of official aid complete the four walls of the financial prison in which so much of the developing world has been incarcerated during this decade.
In 1979, a net of $40 billion flowed from the northern hemisphere to the developing nations of the south. Today that flow has been reversed. Taking everything into account, loans, aid repayments of interest and capital, the southern world is now transferring at least $20 billion a year to the northern hemisphere. That is a difference of $60 billion which could be used in helping these developing nations. As a result, most of the affected nations have been forced to adopt economic adjustment policies in an attempt to stave off balance of payments crises while at the same time meeting debt obligations, maintaining essential imports and struggling unsuccessfully to return to economic growth.
The need for adjustment is not really in question. The manner of adjustment by contrast is an issue which is both complex and controversial. Now with or without support from the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, adjustment policies have usually taken the form of a dampening down of demand, a devaluation of the currency, a withdrawal of subsidies on fuel and stable food
June 16, 1989

stuffs and deep cuts in Government spending. In total over 70 developing nations are now struggling to adjust their economies by just such methods.
I have here, as an aside, a copy of The Financial Post. This great literary newspaper seems to be in favour of just this type of thing. I know when they are in favour of something like that, it is a very good reason for myself and anyone in the Liberal Party to be against it.
It is the poor and the vulnerable who are suffering the most, and for two main reasons: First, the poor have the least economic "fat" with which to absorb the blow of recession. Often three-quarters of the income of the very poor is spent on food and much of what remains is needed for fuel and water, housing and clothes, bus fares if they have buses and most needed of all, medical treatment. In such circumstances a 25 per cent cut in real incomes obviously means going without even the basic necessities in these countries.
The second reason is that the poor also have the least political muscle to ward off the blow. The services which have been lost or radically pruned are health services, primary education and food and fuel subsidies, the services on which the poor are most dependent and which they have the least opportunity to replace by any other private means.
Over the last decade, for example, the proportion of Government expenditure devoted to health has fallen in most countries of sub-Saharan Africa, in more than half of the countries of Latin-America, in the Caribbean and in one-third of all the nations of Asia. There is little doubt that adjustment strategies are failing in at least two major ways. First, as I have already pointed out, they have placed a disproportionate burden on the poorest and most vulnerable, and the children are those who are the most vulnerable of all.
Second, they have succeeded in a principal aim of allowing indebted economies to escape from debt to return to healthy economic growth. It is this second failure to restore growth which must be urgently addressed in order to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable, and also to contribute to a quickening of economic growth of a kind which smaller and poorer producers could both contribute to and benefit from. Despite the hardships being visited upon the poor, present policies for coping with the debt crisis are
Forgiveness of Debts Act
manifestly not succeeding in restoring economic growth to the most indebted nations.
For sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, the agonies of economic adjustment are evidently not the birth pangs of a new economic growth. Sooner or later the fact will have to be faced that in many countries attempts to pay interest and capital on the full amount of present debts is fundamentally incompatible with return to economic development. That is why at the beginning of my intercession today I said that our Party was in favour of the principle of this particular Bill. Debt payments at present levels may not only reduce consumption and all the human hardship that that implies, but also a reduction in investment and in future economic progress.
I want to quote a few figures from a paper which was written by Mr. John Locksley. In the past two years, it has become apparent that the world debt crisis is not confined to the large debtor countries, and that most African countries are facing debt obligations which they will find very difficult indeed. They are less spectacular than famine, and less threatening to our own financial institutions than debt difficulties elsewhere. The African debt crisis is of daunting proportions. Unless the outside world moves quickly to render assistance, many African countries will experience immense social and economic dislocation and deprivation as they seek to service their debts. That is why this is a good gesture on the part of this Government.
Figures for African debt outstanding are notoriously unreliable, but the International Monetary Fund estimates that they are over $130 billion. This figure has more than doubled in the last 10 years. It is now the equivalent of 150 per cent of the whole continent's total annual exports or 30 per cent of its total GDP. The debt of sub-Saharan African countries is equal to 230 per cent of exports and to 68 per cent of GDP figures which are well in excess of even the large problem debtors, the difficulties of which are so well documented.
The annual costs of servicing this huge debt have risen sharply from $3,6 billion in 1978 to over $15 billion today. Over the same period, Africa's export earnings have risen by only $20 billion. The bulk of this increase has been used for what? For bettering the lifestyle of the people there? For bettering their lives? No, for servicing the debt. Annually these commitments now absorb 28

June 16, 1989
Natural Gas Exports
per cent of all the export earnings, the highest for any region of the world outside of Latin-America.
It is apparent that many of these countries will be devoting significant proportions of their income and foreign exchange earnings for debt servicing in the years ahead. The negative consequences of this scenario are likely to be horrendous for the economic and social well-being of the affected peoples, most of whom even without this burden live close to the subsistence level. Their ability to purchase imports, so vital to the operation of their economies, will be severely constrained. This will lead again to unemployment, an excess capacity in industry and trade, a fall in investment and a lack of input into such key areas as agriculture, health and education.
I think that the point has been well made. I think that Members on this side of the House have stated the position of our Party. We are moving in the right direction in this debt forgiveness, but this Government should extend itself even more. It should reconsider, or at least consider in the next budget, and see to it that these people in Africa do not have any more cuts in CIDA, do not have any more cuts at least from this country. We should be opening up our hearts and in this case our purses so that the least fortunate people on this planet can have a chance to survive and live their lives in some kind of dignity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   ENERGY NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Ross Harvey: That, in the opinion of this House, the "surplus test" should be restored so that no exports of natural gas from Canada would be permitted unless it could be shown that volumes slated for export were surplus to Canadian needs reasonably projected over the 25-year period following the commencement of the proposed export.
He said: Mr. Speaker, no doubt to the delight of those present here this afternoon, I propose to keep my remarks mercifully brief and to the point.
I would start by noting a couple of things about natural gas and Canadian supply. First, rolling in our non-conventional reserves, which is to say principally those Arctic reserves to which no pipeline has yet been built, we enjoy at current rates of export and domestic consumption about a 25.5-year supply of natural gas in this country. So, there is no question that the matter addressed by the motion is not an urgent one.
However, it should be noted that there are two overwhelming factors that we must constantly keep in mind when we address the question of domestic supply of natural gas. The first is, obviously, Canada is a northern country. We have cold winters. We need to be very careful in the husbanding of those energy resources which allow us to thrive and prosper during those long cold winters.
Second, as we move, for we must move, from excessive dependence on conventional gasoline and such fuels for the powering of our automobiles, the heating of our homes, and the running of our factories and other industry, natural gas will play a crucial transitional role. We will move to energy alternatives. We have no choice. It will happen. But in getting there we will be absolutely reliant on large supplies of natural gas as we move from old technologies to the new.
Those are the two things we should bear in mind in considering this matter. One, that we are a northern country and need energy resources and, two, that natural gas has a crucial environmental role to play in this country. It is in light of this that we should examine what is happening in the export market which currently is
June 16, 1989

most respondent to two overwhelming factors. The first factor is the willy-nilly deregulation of the oil and gas industry undertaken since 1985 and the second is the signing of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and its implementation as of January 1.
There is no question that that gas bubble in the United States which had kept Canadian exports to that market at such a low level for so long is contracting. Indeed, it can be expected to disappear completely over the next five to ten years. In fact, there are already huge volumes of natural gas under consideration for export to the American market: for example, the applications now before the National Energy Board are for permission to export Arctic gas in volumes unprecedented in Canadian trade with that country. Currently there is nothing in regulation or statute, certainly not under the FTA, to prohibit a rapidly accumulating volume of exports to the United States of Canadian gas. There is no cap or ceiling. It is technically possible that we could wind up in a short period of time exporting 80 per cent of our proved reserves to the United States. I think that is unlikely but my point is that there is nothing in regulation or statute to prevent it. I think that would be a foolish thing to do but not technically impossible.
There is a very large expansion in the capacity of the transmission pipelines to the United States under way now. There are applications for new pipelines to be built and for further expansions of existing pipelines. There is no question that the players in the market are gearing up for greatly expanded exports to the United States,and this in light of what some industry analysts call the "FTA ratchet" which, simply put, is the provision in the Free Trade Agreement that gives the United States the mandate to continue to receive the proportion of our energy resources that the Americans received in the average of the previous three years should some regime of rationing be brought in. This means that as our exports to the United States grow in volume, our ability in the future to close off those exports to some degree is diminished in that we must always be prepared to supply to the Americans the same percentage of production that was in place prior to any rationing.
Natural Gas Exports
In the absence of any regulatory or statutory provision requiring the maintenance of some kind of reserve for Canadian use, we run the risk of signing over huge quantities of our gas reserves to the American market in virtual perpetuity. We may wish to do this. The Government may decide that this is a good and prudent policy. I do not agree but the point is we should understand that if that is the policy decision there will be those consequences.
I think it is prudent, especially in light of the Free Trade Agreement, that we return to a regime whereby a guaranteed supply is retained for Canadian purposes over a prudent period. Twenty-five years was the previous surplus test. It makes sense and is a good policy for Canada to return to that regime. However, I note as well that under the current deregulation regime, the simple imposition of a surplus test only would be grievously unfair to the producers because it would put an overwhelming bargaining tool into the hands of the consumers of the product.
If there were a 25-year surplus test requirement before the producers could sell any volume above that 25-year supply to the United States, it would be a simple matter for the principally-eastem-Canadian consumers to sit back and say: "Fine, you are not selling any of that until you bring the price down to something that we like". It is an easy scenario to envisage and one that I think would ensue almost immediately were we to return to a surplus test regime in the absence of other regulation. This is why I view this motion to be in tandem with other re-regulatory initiatives. We need to re-regulate the price especially with regard to the return to a border price test but as well the return to a regime of regulated pricing generally in Canada.
Is this a proposal for a return to a regulated price that would be bearable in consumer markets and give to the producers of the resource a fair return allowing them to go out and explore further to discover new reserves which, by the way, the current market price does not do?
Is this the thin edge of the wedge in terms of complete re-regulation? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. Unqualifiedly, that is in fact what I am proposing.

Natural Gas Exports
If I may digress just briefly here, I would like to plead with those whose assigned task it is this afternoon to quarrel with this proposal, not to bring up the red herring of the National Energy Program. I realize that this request on my part is in all likelihood doomed to go unmet. But I feel compelled to make it regardless, for the simple reason that what is proposed here has nothing to do with the NEP.
The NEP in its three principal provisions imposed the PGRT, the petroleum gas revenue tax, diverted investment dollars from the western sedimentary basin to the frontier Canada Lands and provided a regime for the progressive Canadianization of the oil and gas industry.
Our government, having slain that particular jabber-wock, "O Frabjous day!", cannot now claim that the return to a regime of regulated pricing, a 25-year surplus test, and the border price test has anything to do with the NEP. All of those factors in fact predate the NEP. They were left unchanged by the NEP. They were done away with, not in consequence of the doing away with the NEP, but in the coincidental elimination of various forms of regulation in the oil and gas industry.
I would argue that de-regulation has been in place long enough for it now to be understood as a grievous error. It has created a situation in which billions of dollars of investment have been drawn out of the Province of Alberta, and to a lesser degree other provinces, in which hundreds of companies have gone out of business, especially the independent Canadian juniors, in consequence of which Canadianization of the industry has been rolled back. We have lost the accumulated skill and expertise of decades in one fell swoop. The rate of the finding of new reserves has dropped to a trickle. The Americans in consequence have been granted a control over our reserves which they could not have dreamed of 20 years ago.
The central fact of the matter is that in Canada it is imprudent and heedless of Canadian history to rely on the market. In Canada, the market must be tamed and put to the purposes of public policy democratically arrived at. We rely on the market at the peril of our nation and to the enhancement of the Americans' nation.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested that we not refer to the NEP. Frankly, I cannot help but refer to it when he speaks of regulated pricing in all forms of the oil and gas
industry. That is precisely what the National Energy Program was for, a Made in Canada oil price.
Earlier today in Question Period, he talked about the banks and how money has been taken away from Alberta. The reason the banks failed was as a direct result of the National Energy Program. Real estate prices fell. Businesses failed. People lost their jobs. At the tail end of a recession there were bank failures.
With this motion and Motion M-97, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) suggests that we have a floor price. He is advocating the return to a national energy program or a program with similar consequences. Other than to have these few brief comments about the National Energy Program, I will not return to it. I think the Member for Edmonton East will be thankful for that.
Approval of the Hon. Member's motion would not only represent a return to past practice, it would be a step into the past, to the bad old days when the Government of Canada's energy trade policies were based upon notions of hoarding and unfair treatment of trading practices. It would imperil the stable and attractive investment environment that this Government has strived to achieve. Instead of promoting energy security, it would reduce it. It would also seriously affect the prospects for investment, employment and economic growth in Canada.
Since 1984, this Government has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the health of the energy sector and to restore its vital role in achieving a sound energy and economic future in all regions of the country. Among its principal initiatives, this Government has deregulated oil and gas markets, undertaken regulatory reforms and eliminated unnecessary and onerous restrictions on trade in oil, gas and electricity. It has put in place a more balanced and profit-sensitive fiscal regime to encourage investment and development.
These initiatives were guided by one fundamental principle, that dynamic market forces are the most reliable and efficient means to guide energy production and consumption decisions.
This Government's energy policy has recognized the need to foster the development of Canadian resources and of competitive markets in order to create an environment in which, first, consumers are assured that sufficient and diverse supplies of energy will be available at fair and competitive prices, and second, producers benefit from a wide range of market opportunities and a stable and attractive investment climate. These policies do not mean that the Government has withdrawn from
June 16, 1989

the energy sector scene nor that the Government no longer has a legitimate role to play in energy matters. Quite the contrary.
While the Government's policy emphasizes the valuable role of market forces to guide energy production and consumption decisions, it also recognizes that markets are not always perfect. This Government takes seriously its responsibilities to ensure that the interests of Canadians are protected. The National Energy Board in particular performs an important monitoring and review role to ensure that markets are operating properly-
The existing market based procedure used by the NEB to review natural gas export proposals combines greater reliance on market forces with intervention if and when necessary in order to protect the interests of Canadian consumers and producers.
While the Government's regulatory framework has been streamlined, this is not an indication that it is any less effective. It is only an indication that the previous regulatory regime was terribly excessive, imposing severe costs on the producing industry while not providing any material advantage in terms of energy security for Canadians.
Canadians realize that true energy security cannot be achieved through hoarding. Policies which encourage competitive and responsive energy markets, coupled with appropriate emergency measures and international co-operation, are the most effective means of achieving energy security.
One of the best indicators of how we in Canada co-operate internationally is the Free Trade Agreement. In its simplest terms, the Free Trade Agreement calls for the freest possible bilateral trade in energy. This has been achieved through the elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers and an establishment of rules to govern energy trade in the future.
At the same time, the Free Trade Agreement acknowledges the legitimate right of governments to maintain appropriate regulatory systems and to restrict exports when circumstances warrant. This does not mean that the Free Trade Agreement will result in a surge of
Natural Gas Exports
exports above what would normally occur in a deregulated environment. The growth in the energy sector over time and the volume of energy exports to the U.S. or elsewhere will be guided not only by the availability of resources but by the economic opportunities that exist.
Can exports be restricted? Does this mean that Canada can no longer restrict exports to the U.S. or to other foreign markets even if it is in the public interest to do so? Clearly, we can restrict exports.
There are a number of reasons for which the Government might authorize export restrictions, all of which are recognized by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Free Trade Agreement. The Free Trade Agreement includes some conditions that must be observed if the Government chooses to restrict exports in certain circumstances. Two points bear emphasis in this regard. It would rarely, if ever, be in Canada's interests to restrict exports. Restrictive action usually results in reduced revenues for Canadian energy producers, thus reduced incentives to find and develop additional supplies. Restrictions often entail a beggar thy neighbour approach to export customers and provokes strong resistance on the part of the producing provinces, especially Alberta.
Second, exports nonetheless can be restricted for reasons set out in the GATT. These include the existence of a short supply situation, the need to conserve depleting resources and to effect measures taken in connection with a price stabilization program. In other words, the Free Trade Agreement has addressed the Hon. Member's concerns.
If exports are restricted to deal with situations of critical shortages, conservation and in conjunction with price stabilization schemes, the FTA further provides that three conditions must be respected. The first condition is that Governments may not interfere to restrict export customers' competitive access to the share of total supply that they have previously enjoyed. This does not mean that Canada is obligated to supply or deliver that share. It simply means that governments will not interfere with the competitive access up to the allowable limit.

June 16, 1989
Natural Gas Exports
Canadian consumers, on the other hand, will have competitive access to all available supply.
The second condition is that the governments will not discriminate against U.S. customers by imposing higher prices on exports than those charged for domestic sales. Higher export prices may, however, result from competitive market forces. This provision applies only to government action to impose higher prices than those charged to domestic customers.
Finally, governments agree not to act in a manner that will disrupt normal channels of supply or the normal mix of energy products being exported. What is noteworthy about these conditions is that they apply only to exceptional circumstances and apply only to government actions that could otherwise result in arbitrary and discriminatory actions. In other words, they entail a presumption that the competitive operation of market forces will generally produce a better and fairer result than the arbitrary actions of bureaucrats. God knows, we have too many of those.
There are many other reasons for which governments or the NEB may restrict exports legitimately under both the FTA and the GATT. For example, restrictions imposed for the regulation of monopoly, for environmental reasons, for reasons of public safety or to correct the effects of unfair trade practices in the marketplace are all legitimate reasons for which governments might intervene. In these general circumstances, the proportional access provisions which J have outlined do not apply.
It is quite clear that the Hon. Member's motion providing for a return to a surplus test based on the argument that Canada has lost its ability to restrict exports is completely unnecessary.
In summary, let me re-emphasize the main points I have made. The setting aside of 25 years of reserve would run counter to Canada's energy policy which clearly emphasizes the critical role of competitive markets to achieve not only Canada's energy security objectives but also its important economic and regional development objectives. An arbitrary 25-year reserve requirement would impose severe costs on the industry, jeopardize the attractive investment environment in the oil and gas sector, increase federal, provincial and
regional tensions and result in foregone opportunities for expanded trade and economic growth. This will mean fewer jobs for Canadians while we want more jobs, more economic opportunity and a fairer and more just society for Canadians.
Walter Van De Walle (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to express my confidence in the National Energy Board as the custodian of our Canadian natural gas supplies. The National Energy Board has the sole legislative responsibility to protect reasonably foreseeable domestic natural gas requirements. In my opinion, the board has discharged this responsibility very well in the past, and I see no reason to doubt its capability to do this in the future.
My hon. friend from Edmonton East disagrees with this. He wants a surplus test to be restored, but not just any surplus test. Rather, he wants:
That, in the opinion of this House the "surplus test" should be restored so that no exports of natural gas from Canada would be permitted unless it could be shown that volumes slated for export were surplus to Canadian needs reasonably projected over the 25 year period following the commencement of the proposed export.
What is so magic about the figure of 25 years? Why not a figure of 35 years or 15 years? The legal text which sets out the mandate and responsibilities of the National Energy Board in the area of licensing of natural gas exports does not refer to a magic number. Let me quote in part from section 118 of the National Energy Board Act which sets out the considerations applicable to the issuing of licenses:
On an application for a licence, the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Board shall
(a) satisfy itself that the quantity of-gas-to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonable foreseeable requirements for use in Canada having regard, in the case of an application to export-gas, to the trends in the discovery of-gas in Canada; -
There are three things to note about section 118. It provides a mandatory responsibility using the word "shall". It is within the sole purview of the NEB and it gives no indication or direction as to responsibility. There are no magic numbers or formulas in that text, and it provides no one way of doing things. Indeed, the National Energy Board has seen fit to modify its surplus determination procedures.
June 16, 1989

Let me review the various hoops which the surplus test, so dear to the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), has gone through since 1959. Generally speaking, the model first established by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, the National Energy Board has used a formula approach to determine volumes of gas that are surplus to reasonably foreseeable domestic requirements. The methodology has been adapted according to changes or perceived changes in market conditions; that is, the methodology has tended to be more exacting when gas markets are tight and energy prices are rising, and more flexible when markets are soft, prices falling and supplies shut-in.
In the 1960s, a decade of resource discovery, development, and market expansion marked by little or no concern for supply and pricing, the National Energy Board used a stock approach. From established reserves, that is recoverable reserves, the Board deducted total requirements, that is a lump sum for Canadian sales, usually 25 per cent of the actual or forecast demand, plus a lump sum for authorized exports. The balance, if any, was considered to be available for exports. This formula approach did not take into account the increase or decline in demand, nor in future reserve additions, thus it was always possible to overestimate or underestimate a variable.
In the 1970s, energy markets changed very abruptly. Low prices had increased the North American gas demand, but also discouraged resource developments. At the same time, oil price shocks had fuelled worldwide concerns about energy security. The National Energy Board switched its attention from the adequacy of reserve bases to the adequacy of deliverability, that is the industry's ability to produce gas over a given period of time. In 1979, the Board added to its reserves test to deliverability tests, one based on the level of deliveries, and the other based on established reserves. All three tests had to be satisfied before exports could be authorized.
In the early 1980s, the gas market again changed dramatically. There was restrained demand, mature infrastructure, underutilized capacities, and surpluses were now the major characteristics. Thus, in 1982 the National Energy Board made some changes to surplus procedures, adopting a more realistic assessment of total
Natural Gas Exports
requirements, that is, what actually would be sold versus what was licensed or contracted for sale.
In 1985, while negotiations leading to natural price deregulations were under way, and that is the time that this is taking place, the National Energy Board decided to review surplus procedures to determine their appropriateness in the light of anticipated policy and market changes.
In the spring of 1986, the Board introduced a surplus methodology based on the reserves/production ratio. The object was to maintain a ratio between reserves and production.
In September, 1987 the board announced that its current reserves to production ratio would no longer be appropriate, and it would be contrary to the free market operation if the level of gas supply to Canadians were to be determined by other than market forces. The Board moved to a market base procedure which is comprised of two elements, one of which is a public hearing component to air complaints and assess the impact of the proposed export and to determine whether the national public interest is being met as stipulated in Section 118 of the Act.
May I remind my hon. friend from Edmonton East that this new market base procedure was announced more than one year before the passage of the Free Trade Agreement? Thus, one cannot accuse the National Energy Board of bowing to the pressures of the Free Trade Agreement.
After a lengthy public hearing on the matter of surplus determination procedures-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, however, as the time has expired may I ask him to conclude?


Mr. Van  De Walle@: In conclusion, I see no reason why the House should vote to restore the 25-year surplus test as proposed by the Hon. Member. While he may take some comfort in numbers, personally I feel very confident in the good judgment of the National Energy Board.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to speak on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey).

June 16, 1989
Natural Gas Exports
Mr. Speaker, the natural gas surplus test established by the National Energy Board was based on the principle that the best way to ensure our energy security was to keep large amounts in reserve. This was an interventionist approach that substituted a bureaucrat's reasoning for the laws of the market. The Government believes that the best way to guarantee a secure natural gas supply is to ensure that markets work correctly, not to distort the rules.
It is said that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the same mistakes. The energy crises of the 1970s were an excellent lesson. The main lesson that these upheavals in the petroleum market taught us is undoubtedly that any excessive government intervention is likely to do more harm than good. The history of natural gas is proof.
In the early 1970s, the surplus test was a large obstacle to the gas trade between Canada and the United States. According to this test, the National Energy Board would only approve exports if, in its opinion, Canada had sufficient reserves to meet its own needs for 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, the application of this test had three negative effects. First, we lost major export earnings, since the Board did not authorize any new gas sales outside of Canada between 1970 and 1979. Second, one form of intervention leads to another. Since the door was closed to exports, there was so little competition on the domestic market that the Government was obliged to regulate the domestic price of natural gas. Third, the natural gas producers were encouraged to develop gas that no one needed so that it could be put in reserve and included in the calculation for the surplus test.
It is extremely difficult to calculate what this policy has cost Canadians as a result of inefficient operations and in terms of foregone income. It probably amounts to billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner has been tarnished.
Did Canada enhance its security of energy supply by creating such reserves? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the surplus test points to a basic lack of understanding of the laws of the energy market.
In the case of oil, there is the constant threat of a sudden disruption of world supplies. More than half of the world's oil reserves are located in the Middle East, a
region that suffers from political instability. Furthermore, most of the oil in Eastern Canada is imported. That is why the Government has introduced policies to deal with any disruption of supply. More specifically, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board would be able to activate a number of allocation and rationing programs should an emergency situation be declared. Canada is also a member of the International Energy Agency, whose emergency sharing system would guarantee that no member country would suffer unduly in case of a worldwide disruption of the oil market. Thanks to measures of this kind, Canadian oil consumers are protected against any interruption of supply, without adversely affecting the efficient operation of the oil market in our country.
In the case of natural gas, we do not have the same problem. Canada produces practically all the gas it uses, so that occurrences on the market outside North America do not really have an impact on our own market. In fact, we have no reason to expect a sudden disruption of the gas market.
Our major concern is therefore not that our access to natural gas might suddenly be cut off but that someday we might exhaust our supplies, so that consumers would be out in the cold, so to speak. Are we right to worry? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. If governments let the markets operate the way they should, none of this will happen.
In the early 1970s, some people predicted that we would have a shortage of natural gas before the eighties. In fact, in 1979 we had a surplus. What happened, Mr. Speaker? Despite government intervention, the market did its work. Prices rose, which caused production capacity to increase and consumption to slow down. When the same thing happened in the United States, there was a drop in demand for our exports. That is why the expected shortages never materialized. In fact, as governments changed their perspective and encouraged the substitution of gas for oil, the anticipated shortage changed into a glut.
Does that mean that we must always go from one extreme to another, from shortage to surplus? Not if we are prepared to accept the laws of the market as more efficient than rules made by bureaucrats in determining the ideal rate of depletion and in choosing the best forms of alternative energy or fuel saving! However, we do not need the "surplus test" to make sure that Canadians never run out of gas. If we let market forces operate,

prices will always adjust so that supply and demand remain in balance.
What about the long term? After all, is natural gas not an exhaustible resource? Mr. Speaker, as the price of natural gas rises, consumers will adopt other energy sources. Nothing leads us to think that this change will be rapid or disruptive. We already changed from one form of energy to another in the past, with no great economic consequences.
In the 1870s, 90 per cent of Canada's energy came from wood. In 1920, it was only 16 per cent, while coal accounted for 75 per cent. Fifty-five years later, in 1975, coal's share had fallen to 10 per cent, while oil accounted for 54 per cent and gas for 22 per cent. Everything suggests that the future transition from oil and gas to nuclear fusion and hydrogen or any other form of fuel will be just as easy. Furthermore, coal consumers started to use oil or gas long before coal ran out and we can expect that natural gas consumers will go to some other source of energy long before gas runs out.
All this does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has no role to play in the natural gas markets. Obviously, market forces can fail. The present market-based procedure serves to ensure that Canadians have fair access on normal business terms to their own natural gas supplies.
Mr. Speaker, I would be negligent if, in closing, I did not talk briefly about natural gas from an environmental point of view. Gas is the least polluting of all fossil fuels because it produces less sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions than coal or oil. Sulphur dioxide contributes to acid precipitation, while carbon dioxide adds to the greenhouse effect. Building up gas reserves therefore does nothing to safeguard the environment. On the contrary! If Canada exports less gas, the United States will probably bum more oil and coal. We should encourage the use of natural gas, not limit it!


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Private Member's Motion No. 97 of the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Natural Gas Exports
Harvey). It gives me pleasure to endorse the deregulate-denvironment of Canada-U.S. natural gas trade.
Recent regulatory and policy initiatives have created a framework that allows the industry access to market opportunities. That also provides a method of oversight to ensure that exports are in the over-all public interest.
Allow me to review the accomplishments of the natural gas industry. Canada has the most competitive natural gas market in the world. Our competitive market is working to the benefit of both producers and consumers. With the achievements to date, our industry is in an excellent position to withstand and benefit from the energy market volatility that seems to lie ahead. In short, we have a success story in which we can take pride.
It is worth noting that our natural gas deregulation policies were primarily driven by developments in and the objectives for the Canadian gas market. After all, 60 per cent of the marketable gas produced in Canada is consumed at home. Tangible evidence of the success of deregulation is the increased competitiveness and market responsiveness of the Canadian natural gas prices. The weighted average domestic price for the years 1987-88 is more than $1 per gigajoule lower than the pre-deregulated price of $2.79 at the Alberta border. In turn, this has increased the competitiveness of gas vis-a-vis alternate fuels and enhanced the ability of industrial gas users to compete internationally. A similar degree of progress has been achieved in the natural gas export industry. Volume wise, 1988 was a banner year for natural gas exports. Exports of 1.27 trillion cubic feet in 1988 surpassed the previous record established in 1972 by roughly 25 per cent. As a result of these export sales, Canadians captured roughly a 7 per cent share of the total U.S. natural gas market, the largest portion ever.
On a regional basis, imports of Canadian gas assume a greater importance. For example, about 30 per cent of total California supply comes from Canada and about 71 per cent in the Pacific northwest. Certain border accommodation markets such as Vermont and upstate New York are entirely dependent on Canadian gas.
Although the surge in export volumes has been accomplished by a decline in average export prices, gas export revenues grew 15 per cent in 1987 to reach $3 billion in

June 16, 1989
Natural Gas Exports
1988. In Canadian currency, this represents the first major increase in revenues in three years.
Notably, Canada-U.S. trade in natural gas has not been one way. One of the offshoots of Canadian gas deregulation has been the reactivation of U.S. exports into our eastern markets. To date, the volumes have been small, less than 20 billion cubic feet, and limited by capacity constraints, although still strategically important both from a price discovery point of view and ensuring greater flexibility and security in gas supply systems.
It is perhaps worth remembering why Canada-U.S. trade in natural gas began at the turn of the century and subsequently prospered. For the U.S., Canadian gas offered the proximate long-term supply security needed for market development. In several instances, U.S. markets were closer to Canadian supply than to lower 45 production.
For Canada, exports provided the economies of scale needed to finance the major pipeline systems which attached supply to market, and were also a means of generating producer cash flow.
Although we have a surplus of natural gas relative to domestic demand, Canadians have always been somewhat ambivalent about exports. Recognizing both the importance of natural gas in meeting our total energy demand of 30 per cent and the non-renewable nature of the resource, Canadians have consistently sought reassurances that exports would be in the public interest. This ambivalence has been reflected, virtually since the turn of the century, in policies and consequent legislation and regulations governing pricing and licensing of natural gas exports.
However, historically, regulatory policies on both sides of the border have tended to distort prices and limit levels of gas demanded. Both the Canadian and U.S. Governments have worked hard over the past five years to place bilateral gas trade on a competitive, market-oriented basis.
In Canada, the regulation of gas exports is carried out by a federal agency, the National Energy Board, and includes three major functions. They are to ensure that gas to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable domestic requirements; to establish tolls and tariffs, that is, conditions of access, for Canadian pipelines serving domestic and export markets; and to issue certificates of
public convenience and necessity for the construction of interprovincial and international pipelines.
We have been particularly fortunate in that our governing legislation and the regulators who implement it have been sufficiently flexible to adapt rapidly to changing policy and market circumstances.
A case in point, consistent with domestic deregulation, the NEB replaced a rigid formulaic approach in place for 25 years, with a market-based procedure to determine if gas to be exported is surplus to Canadian requirements. The procedure has three components. They are the ongoing monitoring of and reporting on specific market gas developments and over-all Canadian energy supply market trends. This is intended as an early warning system to alert industry to possible future market disruptions.
The second component is the public hearings at which applications for long-term-in excess of two years-export licences are reviewed to determine over-all public interest.
The third component is a complaints procedure to ensure that no Canadian user is unable to contract for supply under terms and conditions similar to those in a proposed export arrangement.
To date, the new procedure has been used successfully to assess several export licence applications.
The Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. is a logical extension of this earlier deregulation process. The Free Trade Agreement basically entrenches the conditions under which exporters are able to compete actively in U.S. markets and gain market share. However, a form of public review and export-import licensing does remain in place for the following reasons: to obtain statistics on trade; to ensure orderly marketing; to monitor supply and demand trends; to ensure broad public interest criteria are met; and to ensure that there is no discrimination in the access to markets or to supplies.
Given these initiatives, what is the outlook for Canadian gas exports? Clearly, long-term exports for general system supply will continue to be the backbone of our natural gas trade. However, thanks to the flexibility of our export policy, Canadians have become active players in the U.S. spot market. Some 25 per cent of the volumes flowing are under short-term orders. Indeed, the willingness of Canadian producers to sign long-term export contracts provides them a competitive advantage in the U.S. market vis-a-vis their American counterparts. U.S. producers have demonstrated a reluctance to submit to
June 16, 1989

similar terms and their contracts frequently relate to "well deliverability".
Canada has significant proven and potential gas supplies in both the western sedimentary basin and in frontier regions. For example, at year-end 1986 Canada had roughly a 25-year supply available from remaining reserves of 72 trillion cubic feet. With frontier discoveries included, the established reserves are estimated at 89 trillion cubic feet. Thus we are well placed to take advantage of new market opportunities.
However, at present levels exports are reaching the limits of capacity. Additional volumes to meet growing U.S. demand will require the construction or expansion of systems in Canada and the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honour for me to take part in this debate.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, first, let me apologize to you for my rather husky voice. Let me say that while we are talking on the subject of hydrocarbons I could use some form of hydrocarbon for my voice.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) for having been able to introduce a Private Member's Motion into the House at such an early date in his career. It surprised me a bit that somebody from Alberta would want to put a clamp on the export or use of hydrocarbons from Alberta. I would have expected someone like myself from Ontario to be one who might fall for the idea of trying to limit the use of natural gas.
This is a motion with which I perhaps would have agreed some 15 or 25 years ago. However, I think the passage of time has suggested that perhaps this thought is outdated. Indeed, the National Energy Board surplus tests for natural gas was based on the belief that hoarding our energy supplies was the best way to ensure energy self-sufficiency or security. That policy is definitely an interventionist policy. It has as its objective to substitute bureaucratic wisdom for natural market forces. I think that is where the problem lies. I know that my hon. friend from the NDP perhaps would not like to
Natural Gas Exports
talk about the natural market forces. However, history shows that they do work.
It is a belief of the Government that the best way to ensure that security of natural gas supplies is not to override market forces but to make the markets work. It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There is much to learn from the two energy crises of the 1970s. Unquestionably, the prime lesson to be derived from the ups and downs in the petroleum sector is that excessive government intervention can do a lot more harm than good. Indeed, the history of the natural gas surplus test is a case in point. By the early 1970s, the surplus test represented a major constraint on the trade of natural gas from Canada to the U.S. In accordance with this test, new exports of natural gas were permitted only if, in the view of the National Energy Board, sufficient gas reserves existed to satisfy Canadian needs for 25 years. This test had three major negative effects. First, there was a significant loss of export revenues between 1970 and 1979, which of course had a big effect on Alberta producers. There were no new exports of natural gas allowed.
Second, intervention begat intervention. With the export markets cut off, there was virtually no competition left in the Canadian market. The Government then had to regulate the domestic price of gas.
Third, natural gas producers were given an incentive to develop gas that nobody wanted so that it could then be shut in and included in the surplus test calculation. It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost to Canadians of this policy in terms of the inefficiencies that were created and the revenues that were lost, but it would likely be in the billions of dollars. In addition, there was the damage to Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner.
Did Canada enhance its security of supply by hoarding its gas supplies in this fashion? No, because the surplus test represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how energy markets work.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that I am running of time, but I would be remiss if I did not add a word about natural gas and the environment. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of the major fossil fuels. It produces fewer sulphur dioxide emissions than oil and coal and fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Sulphur dioxide contributes to acid rain and carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect. Hoarding of natural gas therefore will not help the environment. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

June 16, 1989
Natural Gas Exports
If Canada exports less natural gas, the U.S. is likely to bum more oil and more coal. We should be encouraging the use of natural gas, not prohibiting it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 22 minutes after two o'clock, pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 13, 1989, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 19, 1989