1989-10-06

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (for the Minister for External Relations) moved: 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, as reported (without ammendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Benoît Bouchard: moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: It is a pleasure to speak on this very important topic and to address this issue of assistance to developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. As we all know, one of the most important issues of our time has been the growing burden of debt in the Third World. You are probably familiar with the old adage, Mr. Speaker, which states that "if I owe $1 million I have a problem. If I owe $100 million, the bank has a problem. But if I owe $1 billion, everybody has a problem". The situation with respect to world debt is just that. It is a problem not only for the countries involved, but a problem for all of us here in Canada and around the world.
While we support the general thrust of this legislation, we believe the government could go further in showing compassion and leadership in resolving this situation affecting the poorest of our developing nations. It is time for the government to demonstrate that Canada has a role to play in relieving the problems of the developing world, particularly those in Africa where we have had such a history of assistance under previous Liberal governments.
The recent cuts in CIDA funding which were announced in the budget do not augur well for the status that Canada has in the developing world. If we are to demonstrate that leadership role then we must continue to extend ourselves beyond what is reasonable to show our generosity to the Third World.
I must say it is more than just being generous, it is also good economics. Let us face it, many of these countries will never be able to pay their debts, and our forgiveness of the debts of these countries is really an accommodation to reality. Now, as the 20th century closes, we have entirely new challenges on the horizon on a world scale, in particular the dramatic problems of the environment, the question of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of our forests and our natural resources particularly in the Third World.
In North America and developed countries we have belatedly realized, after a century or two of profligacy, that we have depleted the forests. Suddenly we are asking the developing world to recognize that the destruction of their forests and the deforestation of their lands and their agricultural practices in the past are slowly strangling this planet. How can we now impose upon them these additional requirements, along with the debt that they have acquired in simply trying to feed their peoples, and to keep their economies going in relationship to the demands which the industrial society places on all the world? How can we expect these countries to pay off these accumulated debts and also meet these new challenges which will require major structural changes in their economies and will require attitudes that they have not had the chance to develop.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
It is a simple case of not only reasonable charity but it is a case of accepting the facts in a situation where these countries have enormous debts which they cannot conceivably pay off.
We have to face facts. This government has to face facts. We have to find ways of accommodating the reality that these countries face. I think Bill C-10 is a small step in the right direction. It will alleviate the debts to us that have been acquired by a number of African countries. Let me list some of them for the record. There is the Republic of Cameroon with which Canada has enjoyed good relationships over the years. By virtue of the its bilingual character and its federation form of government, we have forged many links with Cameroon. It is only fair that we should begin to extend the hand of friendship to this country.
Others are the Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Ivory Coast, the Gabonese Republic, the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Madagascar and the Republic of Nigeria, the Republic of Senegal, the Kingdom of Swaziland, the Republic of Zaire, the Republic of Zambia, the Republic of Zimbabwe. All these countries in Africa will need assistance from Canada in the future in order to bring their economies into some kind of order and to begin the long process of creating the foundations for prosperity that can be generated through these people.
We should not expect this to occur overnight. The societies in those countries are very different from our own. I can remember as a young student travelling to Africa, spending three months in Zambia and seeing that particular country struggle with trying to meet the demands of its people when it was dependent on one commodity, namely, copper. It had no links with the sea for all of its exports. It depended on rail links to the east and to the west, through Mozambique which was a colony of the Portuguese, and Angola to the west which was also a colony of the Portuguese at the time, or through what was then Rhodesia to South Africa. Zambia is entirely surrounded. It participated in the struggle, which we supported, in order to bring independence to what is now Zimbabwe.
It paid a heavy price for that long struggle which is not over yet. Of course, it accumulated debt, because as the price of copper fluctuated over the last 20 years in response to changes in world demand, which were not of Zambia's making, Zambia's economy had to absorb the
shock and acquire the debt. Changes in demands in countries like Canada, the United States and Europe resulted in changes in the demand for this particular commodity. In order for Zambia to rely less on one commodity and to broaden the structure of its economy, it will require a long and difficult process of industrialization. This is a struggle which all African countries, not only Zambia, have to deal with.
At the same time there are pressures for democratization. There are pressures through contacts with countries like Canada for expanding human rights in those countries. We must take a leadership role in those areas as well. We must also realize that the societies are very different, that the pressures which they face are very different from the pressures that we faced when we were proceeding with our own industrialization many years ago.
My experience in Zambia gave me a concrete example of what those African countries, whose problems will be partially alleviated by this bill, have faced and will continue to face in the years ahead. The United Nations has been focusing on the particular problems of Africa. The problem of hunger is nowhere more severe than in the economies of Africa where the climate and where the political turmoil over the last 35 years through the process of decolonization. It has left the whole continent in a state of upheaval and has created wars, famines, droughts and numerous other problems which are far beyond the capacity of the people of those countries to meet.
I notice that the member for Rosedale is here today. He is well aware, through his experience in Ethiopia, of the situation with the famine that occurred there. I want to compliment him on the role that he played when he was Ambassador to Ethiopia. I am sure he can speak with rich personal experience of the obligation which we have as Canadians in meeting the unfortunate situation which continues to exist in Africa and in supporting the people of these countries in their struggle to improve their lot.
We must not think of this modest piece of debt relief which the government is providing to several countries in Africa as the end. It really is only a small beginning toward extending a hand and participating in the rehabilitation of these countries and allowing them to be full partners with us as we enter into the 21st century.
October 6, 1989


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of this House some very important principles and some very important economic directions that this government should be following.
It has been, as he has noted, the tradition of governments of this country to assist those nations which are less developed than our own to achieve an economic development that will be self-sustaining, competitive and, as the hon. member has pointed out, to the advantage of all those industrialized and economically advanced nations.
He did mention one point that I think should be drawn to the attention to this House. That is, in the forgiving of these debts to sub-Saharan nations, we are not so much engaging in a charitable action, but doing something that is economically sound and also very good for our own nation and for western economies as well.
Will the hon. member direct his attention to the concern that some others have raised in other committees that many of these debts, while it appears that we are being generous, are really figments of an imagination inasmuch as they can no longer be paid off and inasmuch as the nations that have these debts are not in a position to satisfy the initial obligation?
By forgiving these debts and the payments thereof, we are not only helping their economy we, at least, are not raising the expectations of our own. Are we not directing our energies in a way that might be a little bit more productive thereby satisfying both a human need as well as an industrial and economic one.


Francis G. LeBlanc: would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments and question. It is true that forgiving the debt is not an act of charity that goes against economic reasoning, but really a recognition of reality. We should not forget that the debts which many of these countries accumulated over the years is partly due to the expectations which were created in industrial countries like our own. We were quite free to lend money to these countries in order that they could buy our products and create a demand for our goods, of what to them are the luxuries of western society, the lure of western society which we, as industrial countries, have encouraged them over the years to pursue. We are just as much part of the situation as they are. Our forgiveness of their debt is really a
Government Orders
recognition of our own involvement in the affair. Another aspect is that it is pretty hard for an individual to operate under the burden of a debt which he or she cannot conceivably begin to repay.
In a developing country, such as those in Africa, before its citizens can begin to deal with their daily and current requirements they must meet the imposed burden, this obligation, which has been imposed upon them from a previous generation or from outside.
The forgiveness of the debt merely allows these countries to start clearing the slate, to focus on current realities, and if we assist these countries in economic management which is realistic and which enables them to develop consistently and appropriately to their own circumstances, we will not restart this problem to which we, in part, have contributed.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I can only echo the words of the member who just spoke.
This bill, which is the forgiveness of debt for the sub-Saharan countries in Africa, is only a small step in the right direction as far as the alleviation of the debt burden on Third World countries is concerned. This action on the part of Canada is not going to cost the Government of Canada a penny. It has no real impact upon the tax collection. Much of the debt has been in place for a considerable length of time and was considered a soft debt when it was loaned in the first place. It has been gathering interest on our books and has been a controversial subject in the public accounts of Canada because it shows there as an asset which we never have expected to collect. It will not entail any appropriation on the part of the Canadian Parliament. It is a small step, with very little impact as far as Canada is concerned. It is money we loaned that we really never expected to get back.
Third World development and the survival of people in the Third World is a continuing problem. Servicing the debt, which I am almost tempted to say was imposed on many Third World countries, is the most debilitating of all on the development action of the Third World countries. It is very difficult, in fact in many cases impossible, for the Third World country to attempt to service the debt and move in the direction of a sustainable economy.

Government Orders
This bill forgives some of those debts, but the government has not continued in the direction of official development assistance. Instead of increasing the assistance it is giving to Third World countries, this government has reduced that assistance. This is what we all call talking out of both sides of our mouths.
The government, in its rhetoric, has been saying that it will do all these great things to help development in Third World countries of the world, but in actual fact it is cutting development funds.
The cuts in official development assistance mean that we are giving less aid to the debt strapped countries of Central Africa. We are giving less aid even as we suggest that we will no longer try to collect the debt. The forgiveness of these debts does not come anywhere near making up for the effect of cuts in assistance to these countries.
These cuts impact, as usual, on the people who can least afford them. The cut in ODA impacts on the people who have no political clout in most cases. They have no voice in the affairs of the world and are the most vulnerable to reductions in assistance. This runs almost directly counter to the Prime Minister's statement to the United Nations in September 1988, when he stated that Canada has reviewed its official development and the government would increase the quality and quantity of the help we will give.
Almost immediately after that the government proceeded with cuts in ODA. In front of the whole world the Prime Minister recommitted Canada to achieving an ODA of .7 per cent of the GNP by the year 2000, and then he immediately reversed his decision and reduced the amount of assistance we give. Obviously the government's rhetoric is just window dressing.
Our commitment of .7 per cent of the GNP by the year 2000 was pushed back by this government when it first came to power. It is unlikely, unless there is a real turnaround in the policy of the government, that we will even reach that goal. If the indications of the last five years of the Conservative government in Canada are correct, we may be lucky to reach this goal by the year 2040 instead of the year 2000. This means we are not trying to assist a large portion of the population of the world. We should be doing more about it.
Canada is in a unique situation. We are a member of the Commonwealth; we are a member of La Francopho-nie. We are well respected in the United States. We are part of the Group of 7 of industrialized nations of the world and a member now of the Security Council of the United Nations. These roles afford Canada an opportunity to make real differences on the international stage, but if we just speak and do not act, if our rhetoric is not followed up by action, we will quickly be recognized as being all mouth and no action.
The lofty statements made by the Prime Minister have not been followed by the action of the government in the last few years. It is not as if this were good for us because cutting aid jeopardizes Canada's long-term interests. It jeopardizes our interests in trade with the developing world. It jeopardizes our standing and our impact on the developing world in many ways other than economic.
For a short-term gain we are giving away a considerable amount of the impact that we could have had. This is a serious miscalculation on the part of Canada. We claim to be a generous nation, but we stand behind the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Belgium and France, and we are gradually working our way downward in the list of those countries that have been the most generous to the developing world. We are part of the western industrialized countries that seem to spend our time and efforts making sure that instead of allowing these countries to develop, by imposing and insisting on payment of debt-and this is why I say this bill is going in the right direction-we are moving toward making it impossible for Third World countries to grow, develop and become more self-sufficient.
Loans with the kind of interest that is being charged- and again we are working in the direction of reducing the interest on many of the loans-are very detrimental to the survival and the development of Third World countries. We do not have to go far to see the impact of loans that are impossible to pay.
Right now in western Canada in the farm communities there are thousands of farmers who have loans higher than they can possibly service and consequently are in exactly the same position as these Third World countries. If they continue to try to service them, they get further into debt. If they do not continue to service them, they lose their land. Luckily the Third World countries are not likely to be foreclosed on, but the impact of these foreign debts is so long term and so debilitating that it can have the same kind of effect that it does in the local situation of a farmer.
October 6, 1989

We in Canada are supporting the IMF World Bank position on all of these debts. The IMF has been suggesting to countries such as Venezuela, Mexico and the Philippines, you can name dozens of them, and the Third World countries about which we are talking about today, that they must do something about how their economies work. They must restructure their economies so that they can pay this debt, restructure the economies in such a way that the payment of the debt goes before services to the population, the health of the population, even the feeding of the population.
The people in the Philippines tell us that they cannot possibly pay the debt and grow economically. In fact, the imposed structure which requires higher taxes is keeping out investment in the Philippines because there is no way that people will invest in the Philippines as long as the taxes are high in order to pay these debts.
I am going to spend the last few moments on exactly what we should be doing regarding world debt. The only just resolution for the debt crisis in the world is the cancellation of the debt and the allowing of economies to become self-reliant. That way all countries of the world will benefit, the countries that are presently in debt and those countries that trade with them and work with them, because as so go these countries, so goes the world.
Partial debt relief is just not going to work. Even if you forgive half the debt today and leave the other half in place, under the world financial structure, within a few years the debt will be back up to the same size again and be just as debilitating as it was before. In the mean time all of the development funds in that countiy will have gone to alleviate the debt. Every one of these debts has been paid for at least once and some of them twice in interest paid to the countries that have lent the money in some cases. Some of them are not interest bearing for 50 years, but in those cases we did not expect to get the money back anyway.
Government Orders
In 1988 the IMF World Bank made a statement. Again, the World Bank and the IMF are great on declarations but very small on follow-up. They suggested back in 1988 that they recognized the need for the elimination of debt as quickly as possible. Then they turned around and immediately imposed restructuring, which made sure that there would be no development, on a number of countries that are so wallowing in debt that they are almost at the point of not surviving.
The World Council of Churches also made some comments about the direction that the world should go in alleviating the debt problem. It said:
The only way a country can both avoid being restructured from the outside and achieve a responsible-in the sense of first and participatory-development dynamic-Self-reliance-is based on effective control by the people over their country's natural resources and production. Its central productive focus is not response to the external demand, but identifying and acting on internal potentialities to fulfil the peoples' most urgent needs.
That is a very direct quotation which says that what we need to do is to allow these countries to use all of their potential on development. The only way they can do that is if we cancel the debts, all the debts, against Third World countries and give them a chance to become full participants in the economy of the world.
Bill C-10 is a small step toward a solution that could, if it were carried on and if it became the policy of all of the industrial countries of the west, solve the problem. If we do not do it, all that is happening is an action, a little bit of show, which will not change the situation for the struggling people of the world and their attempts to survive.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, this bill does give Canadians and Parliament an opportunity to address what in many ways is perhaps one of the two most important issues on the globe's agenda today. The other is of course the issue of the environment.
Both issues are connected; that is, the issue of the imbalance in economic opportunities and economic development between the rich nations and the poor nations of the world. This bill does confirm a particular step that Canada is taking, but it opens up an opportunity for us to consider in a broader way what Canada is doing in the area of international development.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
We can no longer afford to see the globe divided into nations and to look at our society as isolated from the world abroad. What is happening in sub-Sahara Africa is happening in our own neighbourhood and we must see that section of the globe as part of our own neighbourhood. A child who dies from hunger in the refugee camps in Malawi must be seen as much as our neighbour as a child who dies from an automobile accident on the Malahat on Vancouver Island. We have to be prepared to devote our community resources to make radical changes in how the world distributes its wealth and in how we look after the people who are part of our human family.
What is the record of the government? It proposes a bill of this kind, but let us look behind the bill at some of the actual program steps taken by the government. This government has cut official development assistance. It has cut by $56.5 million assistance to international financial institutions. The voluntary sector, NGOs, have been cut by $9.6 million; multilateral food aid, cut by $32 million; multilateral technical assistance, cut by $12.8 million; bilateral food aid, cut by $24.4 million; international humanitarian assistance, cut by $4.5 million; and geographic programs, cut by $130 million.
It is a disgrace to this Parliament; it is a disgrace to the people of this country that the government has chosen to tax the poorest in the world in an effort to deal with its own mismanagement of our financial affairs. At the same time that it is making these cuts, the government is cutting taxes to the corporate sector, cutting out a series of moves which make easier for the rich to have more and imposes these penalties on the poor in the world.
We have to change our priorities. We must see that the first on our national agenda must be those in the world who are most in need. We have opportunities in this country to provide leadership on an international scale, and it is important that we do so.
I would like to take the opportunity to refer to one particular program that this government and its predecessor has given some support to, and that is Canada World Youth. It seems to me that the government has failed to grasp in the approach that it has taken to Official Development Assistance that, by and large, the Canadian people are supportive of programs to redistribute the world's wealth and to have Canada provide leadership in international development. This is demonstrated, not only in surveys, but in the kind of commitment that Canadians have given to international development organizations; the active role that Canadians have played, for example, in organizations such as Oxfam Canada, the work that Canadians have done overseas through CUSO and CIDA.
One program in particular, I think, has provided a great base of support for a clearer understanding by Canadians of what is going on in the world. Canada World Youth was a program formed approximately 15 to 18 years ago. The inspiration for it came from Senator Jacques Hebert who used his considerable persuasive capacities to talk the Government of Canada into launching a program which has enabled thousands of young people from Canada and thousands of young people from Third World countries to work together and live together in communities both in Canada and the Third World.
Out of the experience these thousands of young people have had has come a far more realistic understanding of the reality of the world, great progress in terms of self-development for those who have participated in the program and a clearer understanding of Canada for thousands of young people in Third World countries, many of whom are already moving into positions of leadership in those countries.
Canada World Youth is a program which is funded primarily by CIDA. It is beginning to receive organizational financial assistance from other provincial governments and of course gets some funding from the private. Canada World Youth has a board of directors which is voluntary and has now an effective and experienced infrastructure to provide effective leadership in the development of the program in Canada and abroad. Each year, the program works by developing a particular protocol with a series of Third World countries and under the program young Canadians can apply to participate in a six-month program.
An equal number of young people from Third World countries are selected to participate in the program by their home countries. The young people are divided into groups, a fundamental unit of seven Canadians and seven from the exchange country. They are brought together under the standard program first to spend three months living and working in a Canadian community and that is followed by three months in a Third World community. It is for young people, generally those in the post high school age group ranging in age from 19 to 21 or 22 years, as I understand it. It has offered to young Canadians and young people from Third World countries a very distinctive experience.
October 6, 1989

I was very fortunate myself to be able to participate for a few years on the board of directors of Canada World Youth. I was actually encouraged to do that by the fact that our daughter was in the program in 1979 and spent three months in Indonesia. As a result of that, she found an interest in southeast Asia and in the Pacific which has had a major beneficial effect on her life. I know from my direct connection with other young people who participated in Canada World Youth that it is an outstanding program and one which deserves the full support of Canadians.
We live in a time when we are under great pressures, but we also live in a time when in a unique way the world is close to us. The power and impact of television brings to our homes every night the reality of what is going on in South Africa, the situation in Mozambique, the difficulties that Namibia is having as it struggles toward self-government, the tremendous problems being experienced in sub-Sahara Africa, these issues are brought daily into our lives. As a result of that, this bill has the support of the Canadian people even at a time when the government is trying to persuade the country that it is obliged to make cuts in social programs and in programs such as this one.
These issues present dramatic opportunities for Canadians to participate in terms of service and with great hope for the future. I commend this bill to the House and I urge its adoption.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria on some of his remarks. I think his presence here is a reminder of the distinguished service his father gave for many years when he represented the Greenwood riding in Toronto.
Specifically I would like the member to acknowledge, if he would, that while he said many good things about Canada World Youth, surely the substance of this bill is an important step for this government to take, not only in its own right but with respect to dealing with the essential issue of the debt.
Government Orders
I have listened to a number of speakers this morning expressing concern about recent reductions in our ODA, not cuts as referred to but reductions from the targets that were originally set. Like many members I regret that those reductions have taken place. However, it is important to acknowledge that for some years now this government and its predecessors have led the way internationally in trying to take a more positive approach to the self-development that must take place in many of the countries referred to.
In particular the initiatives taken in 1986 which are now being acknowledged in this legislation with respect to the removal of some of the debt held by Canada for these sub-Saharan African countries are critically important. There is no issue that affects the developing countries of Africa more than the enormous burden of debt accumulated in the late seventies and early eighties.
By coincidence, next Friday, I will be sitting in Ethiopia having discussions on this matter with the leadership of the Economic Commission for Africa. In two weeks time we will be receiving a visit from the executive secretary of the economic commission for Africa who will meet with our Minister of Finance, with the Standing Committee on External Affairs, with the committee of finance, with voluntary groups, with African ambassadors and with those taking an active interest in Africa in order that we can have a full understanding of the important and destructive economic pressures which this massive debt has put on the people and the countries of Africa.
I think the leadership taken in this legislation is one that we should be willing to acknowledge while recognizing some of the other problems that have already been indicated.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words and the reference to my father. I know he and my father shared many perilous journeys together flying into Biafra in the dark of night with shells flying around them and even joining together to write a book which came out a few weeks late, as I recall, but still has a place on our family shelf if not the shelves of anyone else.

I am prepared to acknowledge that this bill does a little something. However, this is not even half a loaf; this is probably one slice off the far end of the loaf.
After this bill is adopted the fundamental problems still remain and remain largely untouched by the government. It has barely maintained the programs which it inherited and in fact has not provided the leadership which this area so desperately needs.
Even after this bill is passed Nigeria will have an external debt of $28 billion. This bill merely forgives loans that were interest free for a term of up to 50 years. Just think of the refugee camps in Malawi as a result of the war going on in Mozambique, over which the member and others on his side of the House including the member from Waterloo have provided leadership and assistance.
The fact remains that there is a tremendous job to do. The international financial institutions need complete restructuring so those who live in the Third World and particularly in the sub-Sahara have a real voice in the decisions made at the international economic level. We need a radical restructuring of the world's economic institutions not only for the benefit of the people in sub-Sahara Africa who are our neighbours but for our own long-term economic benefit and as a key step in the move to save the planet's environment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35 the House will now proceed to Statements by Members under Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Premier Clyde Wells released a report on the difficulties of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, an emerging crisis which has already been recognized by this government with the establishment of the Harris task force and a special cabinet committee.
Mr. Wells is right to be concerned about the situation. However, to propose solutions which would simply compound the burden and pass the problem to a Nova Scotian economy already facing difficulties is simply un-Canadian. What makes Canada work is our ability to achieve consensus and to share. This is how our Prime Minister was able to bring together ten premiers and the Government of Canada at Meech Lake.
If Mr. Wells wants all the fish off Newfoundland shores to remain in Newfoundland, does he also want all Ontario tax dollars to remain in Ontario and not be transferred to Newfoundlanders through equalization, regional development or UI payments?


RCMP DRESS CODE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has a long tradition of tolerance and understanding for the many cultures and racial groups that make up Canada. The uniform of this proud police force has evolved and changed over the years in response to new conditions. It is now appropriate that the RCMP accommodate religious groups such as Sikhs by allowing them to wear turbans as required by their faith. People of the Sikh faith should be fully represented on our national police force.
I regret greatly that members of this House are not only supporters but leaders in the attempt to prevent the modification of the RCMP dress code that would permit the entry of Sikh officers. The RCMP cannot be frozen in time. Canada is an evolving multi-ethnic community and the RCMP should fully represent this.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, dairy farmers across Canada are extremely concerned about their future. The recent GATT ruling on ice cream and yogurt threatens the very heart of the supply-management system in Canada.
In Prince Edward Island the dairy industry makes up approximately 15 per cent of the agricultural sector. There, 524 milk producers and 147 cream producers are asking questions about their future.
October 6, 1989

Across this country our farmers are wondering what is next on the chopping block as a result of this trade agreement with the United States. I urge this government to take immediate action in this crucial matter. It is essential that the dairy industry in Canada be protected.


HON. JOHN WISE
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, on September 16, over 1200 people gathered to pay tribute to the Hon. John Wise, our former minister of agriculture, for his dedication to his constituents and to the agricultural industry of Canada. John spent 16 years in this House, both as an opposition member and a minister of the Cabinet. As a member of Parliament for Elgin he ably represented the interests and concerns of his riding. As the minister of agriculture he worked to ensure that the farmers' concerns were recognized by the greater society.
I have known the former member for Elgin all my life and I can attest to his commitment to the current government's policies. It has been inferred in this House that the former member did not seek re-election because he was afraid of what might happen to supply marketing systems. This simply is not so. John Wise knew he could retire with a peaceful mind. He knew that supply-management would not be threatened by the free trade agreement. He knew Canadian farmers could and would take advantage of the challenges and opportunities afforded by this historic treaty.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous that the Soviet police would attack and kill innocent civilians who had gathered peacefully simply to celebrate the founding of their city of Lviv.
On October 1, citizens of that western Ukrainian city were suddenly harassed by the Soviet police. When they protested their harassment, the police viciously attacked them at the the militia headquarters leaving three dead and at least 20 people badly injured. Clearly the citizens were denied their basic human rights. As Canadians we are naturally appalled by these actions. I therefore urge the Canadian government to protest this brutal violence
against unarmed and peaceful citizens. I also ask the Canadian government to take steps to ensure that such police brutality is not repeated.
I ask the Prime Minister to take up the legitimate cause of Ukrainians in Ukraine with Mr. Gorbachev during the Prime Minister's visit scheduled to take place in the Soviet Union next month.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 4, I attended the official opening of the Cliffwood Child Care Centre in my riding, yet another non-profit co-operative centre set up through the joint efforts of parents and the North York Board of Education.
The Hon. Elinor Caplan, MLA for Oriole; Joan King, metro councillor; principal Madam Andree Notage and vice-principal Madam Dorothy Mauror were in attendance. We assisted trustee Dan Hicks and the president of the child care centre, Allan Tweyman, in officially opening the centre.
This community is composed of Canadians of primarily Jewish, Chinese and East Indian heritage. The community then sang a song in French and English. Congratulations to Cliffwood community, a truly equal opportunity, a multicultural and bilingual Canadian community that looks after its children.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Committee on Unemployment Insurance held hearings in 13 cities across Canada. It was given two hours with the minister, a day with the deputy and his staff, and one day for clause-by-clause examination of amendments to one of the most complex pieces of legislation that this House is responsible for. Yesterday we were only able to thoroughly and seriously discuss three clauses out of 57 amending clauses.
We have a situation where this government is opting out of unemployment insurance financially and increasing the premium rates, and while the money rolls in, the government is paying absolutely no attention to the employers and the workers, those who are forced to pay. Yet the government still pulls the string.

October 6, 1989
It appears that we are trading one railroad in this country for the Tory railroading of the UI committee.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, recently in Fort Saskatchewan, the Government of Canada, along with the Government of Alberta and Sherritt Gordon, announced plans to establish the first major advanced industrial materials initiative for western Canada. The new organization, WESTAIM,is structured to assure widespread participation from universities, industries and other research organizations.
WESTAIM will be an international leader in advanced industrial materials research and development. The over-all objective of WESTAIM is to commercialize the results of applied research and development undertaken on a market-driven industry.
Advanced industrial materials are recognized as an integral part of long-term growth and diversification. The project provides the opportunity to put western Canada at the cutting edge of new technology.
Sherritt Gordon has finalized plans to move its head office from Toronto to Edmonton. The participation of the federal government in this innovative project demonstrates its strong commitment not only to research and technology but also to building a stronger economy in western Canada.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, this irresponsible and shameful government has just committed another one of its worst decisions that will hurt all regions of Canada by cutting passenger rail service by over 50 per cent.
In Ottawa alone, weekday service to Toronto has been butchered by 25 per cent while the Montreal route will be cut by 20 per cent. The breathtaking panoramic route of the Canadian from Ottawa to Vancouver will be eliminated for a more expensive one going through the ridings of Conservative MPs.
f Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is completely off track. It is clear the Tories could not care less about senior citizens, the disabled and young people who travel by train from coast to coast. What is going to happen to small rural municipalities for whom trains are a vital link with urban areas?
The Minister of Transport will go down in history as one of Confederation's executioners because of a decision that proves that to the Tbries, cutbacks are more important than common sense.
The next cuts will be made by Canadians themselves, when they get rid of the Conservative Government and invest in their future with a Liberal government.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the people of Atlantic Canada of a recent announcement by the Minister of Health and Welfare to provide funding over a period of 31 months to the Froebel Institute for Early Childhood Education.
This project is designed to permit the Froebel Institute to organize a circulating portable library which will enable them to provide a comprehensive collection of reference materials to assist in the presentation of childhood development services throughout the Atlantic provinces.
We appreciate this indication of continued commitment by the government to child care funding and I would personally like to commend the minister for his far-sighted approach in approving this application. I certainly congratulate Dr. Jane Norman for her tremendous enthusiasm and initiative which has resulted in her many contributions in the field of childhood education.


SPACE AGENCY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, while Canadians largely support this government's venture into space science research through the development of a Canadian space agency, there is legitimate concern that such a venture be used for non-military and peaceful purposes only.
October 6, 1989

The Minister of State has recently acknowledged that the bill to establish the space agency, Bill C-16, does not preclude its involvement in military pursuits. The term "peaceful purposes" may well be interpreted as non-aggressive military use such as satellite surveillance or the development and testing of space-based weapons systems.
The minister must assure this House and the Canadian people that the proposed space agency will not become a tool for military pursuits. Canada must not be drawn into the conquest of space as a military frontier, a concept that has captured the imagination of our neighbour to the south.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: In reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Erie on October 3 about the effects of free trade on the Niagara Corridor, I would like to remind him and the House that hundreds of grape growers have had to tear up thousands of acres of prime farm land because of the Mulroney free trade deal.
The auto workers' plight in and around my riding is going to get worse in the next little while because of the Mexican free enterprise zone along the U.S. border, the Maquiladora zone, which provides big business with non-unionized workers to labour in factories. These workers are paid $8 a day Canadian to work in an environment which has limited safety factors.
I would like to remind the hon. member and the House that as late as last week I received a substantial number of letters from our local merchants who reported a decrease in their sales because Canadians do their shopping across the river in the United States.
I would also like to remind him of a recent article that appeared in a Buffalo, New York newspaper which refers to their ever-booming business due to the free trade agreement and the fact that they have prospered with the Canadian businesses which have settled across the border.
The tremendous opportunities to which the hon. member has referred are for the Americans, not the Canadians.


THANKSGIVING
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: r. Mr. Speaker, next Monday Canadians will be celebrating the traditional Thanksgiving holiday. Families and friends will be getting together to feast from this year's abundant harvest. They can give thanks that in Canada we do not suffer from production shortages and long line-ups to obtain the basic necessities of life.
Events around the world that have occurred since last Thanksgiving should cause Canadians to give extra thanks this year. A freedom rally in Tiananmen Square saw young protesters slaughtered. Even today thousands of East Germans flee their nation for a new freedom which we sometimes take for granted. Starvation and civil war in some African countries continues at an alarming rate.
Yes, Canadians have much to be grateful for and Canadians should assist those less fortunate so they can some day enjoy the same prosperity as we have. Have a happy Thanksgiving!



Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend most of us will have an opportunity to share with our families and friends a very important day, a day to acknowledge and be thankful for the riches we enjoy each and every day. These riches include the comfort of our families and our friends, our health, our livelihoods and this great nation we call home.
Our families are the cornerstone of our lives. They are there during the good times and the bad. They provide our strength and our vitality. We must never forget the contribution they make. It is appropriate, therefore, that Thanksgiving weekend should coincide with National Family Week.
Nor must we take for granted our country. Canada is a great nation filled with abundant resources and unlimited opportunities, a nation envied and respected by other countries of the world.

October 6, 1989
Governor General
We have a great deal to be grateful for. I want to take this opportunity to wish you, my colleagues, our staff and our families a very special Thanksgiving Day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR GENERAL
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the appointment, upon my recommendation, of the Hon. Raymon Hnatyshyn as the next Governor General of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The installation will take place early in the new year and those who joined in the standing ovation will be invited. There will be a special levee for the rest of you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Hon. members need no introduction to Mr. Hnatyshyn who served in this House for over 14 years and as a Minister of the Crown for over five. Born in Saskatoon, Mr. Hnatyshyn is the son of a distinguished senator who himself was a symbol of the courage that developed the great heartland of western Canada. Both Mr. Hnatyshyn and his wife Gerda are representative of the cultural strength and diversity of Canada; he, born of proud Ukrainian stock and she, the daughter of Danish immigrants.
Mr. Hnatyshyn is known to all Canadians as a man of great warmth, civility and personal integrity.

Mr. Hnatyshyn, who was first elected as a member of this House in 1974, studied at the University of Saskatchewan and, after becoming a lawyer, was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1973.
This House will also recall his distinguished career as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1979, then later as Government House Leader and Chairman of the Privy Council before becoming Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

As leader of the government in the House of Commons, Mr. Hnatyshyn clearly earned the respect and
trust of all members of this House. He has, I think, truly been one of the effective parliamentarians of his time and one known to all members of this House as a gentleman who conducted himself with genuine courtesy toward others and good humour in his dealings with us all.

During the debate on official languages, our former colleague, the architect of the bill, reaffirmed his personnel commitment to both official languages, and I quote:
"This Bill reflects the open-mindedness and tolerance of
Canadians in matters of language and culture. This generosity of
Canadians toward each is one of the most endearing features of our
national identity."
In recommending passage of the bill, he added:
This Bill is about fairness. This Bill is about equity of treatment of
our fellow Canadians. This Bill is about the way in which we treat. ..
Of course, as Minister of Justice, Mr. Hnatyshyn played a key role in the Meech Lake Accord negotiations which seeks to bring back the province of Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family.
Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to remind members of both the constitutional and symbolic importance of the position of Governor General.
In recommending this appointment to Her Majesty, I was conscious of the personal dignity, the vast experience and the profound understanding of this nation and its institutions that is required of all those chosen to hold this high office. I know members from all comers of this chamber and all political parties will agree that Mr. Hnatyshyn will more than meet the expectations of Canadians in this regard.
He will bring to this vital institution, I think, a generous vision and an impressive dedication that will complement that of his distinguished predecessors, all of whom have served Canada so well.

I also take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of all Canadians, to Jeanne Sauve and her husband Maurice who performed their role with great distinction and dignity and whom we shall always remember very warmly-
October 6, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish to extend our congratulations and best wishes to Ray Hnatyshyn on his appointment to the position of Governor General of Canada.

Ray Hnatyshyn is a respected scholar, lawyer and parliamentarian. He is a man who has worked his way to the top in all of his callings. To a lawyer, what greater honour can come than to be Attorney General of Canada; to a parliamentarian, what greater task is there than that of the leader of the government in the House of Commons; to a Canadian patriot and statesman, what greater distinction could come than to be called upon to serve as Governor General?
Canadians of Ukrainian origin, and all Canadians in fact, will be especially pleased with Mr. Hnatyshyn's appointment. He grew up steeped in his cultural heritage and he has always been a proud and effective example of what that community has contributed to Canada. But above all, Ray Hnatyshyn has been a proud Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who worked with Mr. Hnatyshyn know him as a warm and generous man who is very committed to the cause of human dignity.
We believe that he and his family will be worthy successors to Mrs. Sauve and her family, whom we also wish, at this opportunity, to congratulate and thank for their excellent work.

Once again, our congratulations and best wishes to Ray Hnatyshyn.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I rise to compliment the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister on an extremely wise selection and recommendation of the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn as our next Governor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Broadbent I say to the Prime Minister, Your Honour, in passing, he observed that those who were
Governor General
standing at the time of his announcement would be invited to the inaugural dinner, and I want to assure him that those of us who were not standing at that time in my section of the House were not in any way doing so out of the slightest disagreement. We were discussing Question Period strategy at the time as the Prime Minister, I think, will well understand. We look forward, therefore, to being invited to that dinner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The man who is about to assume this extremely important position in our parliamentary democracy has served his country well in his home province of Saskatchewan and beyond. He has been a minister of the Crown holding a number of important responsibilities; Minister of Energy, Minister of State for Science and Technology, government House leader, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Justice.
His government House leader experience ought to have normally been sufficient to annoy all members on this side of the House but, quite to the contrary, he handled that in a tough-minded way, as he is supposed to, but with a congeniality and affability of manner that earned warm respect, if at times partisan antagonism, from this side of the House.
He has, as has already been indicated, Your Honour, always had a broad view of this country. He grew up on the prairies but, like politicians of all parties who in one sense, if I can put it this way, rise to the occasion, he developed a broad sense of what Canada is all about without losing in the slightest his own deep commitment to the region in which he grew up.

Mr. Speaker, Ray Hnatyshyn is a western Canadian whose ancestors are neither French nor English; that is, he represents an important dimension of our people. Mr. Hnatyshyn has a warm personality, a desirable quality for a Governor General.

His openness and his warmth will bring a human touch to a dignified position. We wish him well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the minister was booed in Quebec. His proposal to invite young Canadians to Canada's parks to discuss the environment is utterly hypocritical. Young people know very well that the Conservative policy on the environment is a fraud. Why does the minister claim that the environment is his priority when the cuts to VIA Rail were made without regard to environmental considerations?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East should go to Quebec from time to time to realize that Quebecers are very polite, very courteous and very eager to talk about the environment. Yesterday I had the opportunity in one of Quebec's largest junior colleges, a CEGEP with 7,000 students, to meet a group of students interested in the environment. I wanted to tell them about the policies we are preparing for the whole country over the next five years. The reception was extremely courteous. I ask the Hon. Member to check with those who were there to see that we had an extremely interesting discussion which is veiy promising for the future. Young Canadians and young Quebecers want to take an interest in the environment and will not allow partisanship to interfere with a noble cause so fundamental to the country's future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is very good at making promises, but he does not deliver the goods; he did not deliver on VIA Rail.


Mr. Gauthier:: Which will cost dearly, besides.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.

During the election the Prime Minister stated in Hamilton, and I quote:
In considering any development, any project and any program, we will make its environmental consequences as fundamental a test as we now apply to its economic feasibility.
Why did he say that when the VIA cuts show clearly he did not mean it? Why did the Prime Minister say yes to VIA cuts and no to the environment?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I told the Hon. Member for Hamilton East several times that we have environmental legislation, that in general the Conservative Government respects the law, and that as part of the process to set up a new VIA Rail network, we conducted the necessary preliminary studies to determine the environmental impact of the new route network. Transport Department officials, in cooperation with those from the Environment Department, came to the conclusion that the environmental impact of the new network would be negligible and for that reason, it was not necessary to pursue environmental studies further. I even said that we would produce a document confirming these statements in the coming days.
So I ask the hon. member, instead of playing politics with the environment, to respect the law and look at the relevant documents which will prove to her that we did what we had to do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I expect an answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -because it was the Prime Minister who made all the promises about the environment.
The government's own cabinet document, which I assume the Prime Minister has read, states quite clearly that the decision to cut VIA will result in an increase in car travel, and an increase in the burning of fossil fuels. That cut in VIA will mean more acid rain and greater greenhouse effects.
On the eve of the American decision to cut acid rain, why is the Prime Minister approving the cut in VIA Rail which will actually result in an increase in acid rain in Canada and an increase in greenhouse gases? How can he do that with a straight face?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are quite clear. The environmental impact of this decision will be negligible.
October 6, 1989

The study conducted in Transport Canada has been reviewed by my officials. They completely and strongly agree with the conclusions drawn by the Transport Canada authorities.
There is no way that Canadians will believe that this decision is bad for the environment. Actually, it is very good for the environment because it will provide Canada with a way to devote more money to environment and to wipe out the deficit.
There is no way that Canadians will believe that it is better for the environment to go around the country with empty trains instead of putting people in buses. Experiments on buses have demonstrated that they are much more environmentally sound than trains.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. First of all, I want to tell the Minister of the Environment that there are no empty trains in the west.
One hundred and ten years ago Canadians built the train service from Toronto to Calgary so they could travel through Canada. They were tired of taking ox carts from the states. We have right now taken a giant step backward. If you want to take a train from Toronto to Calgary, you have to go through Chicago, Minneapolis, Minot, Grand Forks, and to Montana and then three days later you get on a bus and go to Calgary.
Given that we are actually financing the Amtrak expansion, does the Minister think we have to provide them with the passengers too?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend is from Manitoba in western Canada. I would like to give the member some ridership occupancy rates in Manitoba. For Wabowden-Churchill it is 7 per cent. We have Winnipeg-Capreol at 22 per cent.


Mr. Boudria:: Capreol is in Ontario, not western Canada.


Benoît Bouchard: I would be delighted to say that there is no occupancy rate over 60 per cent except one, which is the Transcontinental, and we consider everybody who stops at every station.
The decision is very sound. It corresponds with what Canadians want. They want a national network. We have a national network.
Oral Questions
Canadians know that this country has to live with affordable expenditures. Increasingly, Canadians are accepting that we manage the country with a network that, once again, is national, sustainable, and affordable. You will increasingly be seeing this government use good management of money for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, Winnipeg is in Manitoba but Capreol is a thousand miles away in northern Ontario.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. When a deal was struck between Canada and British Columbia in 1871 the federal government agreed in the Constitution to provide and maintain rail services to and within British Columbia. The people of British Columbia want to know if there is no constitutional guarantee for rail passenger services exactly what this guarantee means in the Constitution.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, that matter was raised in the House yesterday. I am advised that the Government has been served today. Under those circumstances, it is not appropriate for us to fight the case in the House of Commons. We will have to deal with that matter in court.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who had the nerve to get up and say that this decision about VIA would have a net positive impact on the environment.
The Minister of Transport, at least in the page he put out on Wednesday, acknowledged that there are going to be a million additional car trips as a result of this decision. I leave it to the Minister of Environment to understand the impact of that on the environment, and then for him to say it will be positive.
The minister said to me in the House on Thesday, when I asked him about an environmental study, the following: "The guidelines provide the government with the obligation to conduct an initial study and then for the responsible minister from the initiating department to make a decision". Then he went on to say to me on Tuesday that when the decision was announced, i.e. on Wednesday, the responsible minister would then produce the study on the environmental impact.

Oral Questions
We have waited for 48 hours. Where is the study?
October 6, 1989


Benoît Bouchard: I said Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat today that this document will be available in the coming days. The coming days could be today, Monday or Tuesday. But the member has nothing to be worried about. He will get the study and then he will see that we were right.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the minister and his officials are going to have a busy weekend.
We checked with VIA this morning. It may be of interest for the minister to know that VIA officials said this morning that they know nothing about such a study. They did not participate in such a study. In fact, they said that the only thing they know about is what the minister said in the House.
I want to ask the minister how the people of Canada can take seriously a claim that environmental considerations were seriously undertaken when the people directly involved, namely, VIA Rail, said they weren't even consulted on it.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP should know that VIA Rail is a corporation, it is not a person. In the government it is a person-the Minister of Transport-who is responsible for the preliminary study. I am the Minister of Transport. I did the study. I concluded that we do not need any other studies.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing that the minister did the study locked away in his closet and did not consult VIA Rail, the people presumably who know something about laying down tracks, cars, and so on. They were not consulted, and the minister says that he did the study. God protect us! That's all I can say if he did it on his own.

But if the Minister did that wonderful study, where is it? He said that he did the study. Why is it not here for Hon. Members to look at before the weekend? The study is done. Where is it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just said, and I repeat, that the study will be produced in the coming days and that it will prove we were right. That being said,
I also stated just now that the Minister is responsible for
making the decision. That is what we did. I did not say that we did not consult or that officials of any level within VIA Rail were not given an opportunity to give their opinions-that is very obvious-in cooperation with the officials of my colleague in the Environment Department. The decision was made by the Minister of Transport. The documents will be produced and, again, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will rest easy because he will realize that the studies were well done and obviously came to the conclusion that I told him before.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Transport, who just last week said she would not comment on leaked documents concerning VIA Rail, my question is to the Minister of Transport.
According to a government document-and we are speaking of studies here-"Canadians already are confronted with airport and highway congestion, particularly at Pearson International Airport and on the highways around Toronto and in southwestern Ontario. Population and travel growth will result in even greater congestion".
How can the Minister of Transport support cuts to VIA Rail-in the Hamilton-Toronto-Niagara route alone of one-third, not to mention the rest of southwestern Ontario-which will result in even further congestion on already clogged highways in southern and southwestern Ontario? How can he support these cuts?


Benoît Bouchard: Very simply, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will understand if I tell you, first, I do not know about the document because it has not been tabled. But the occupancy rate between Toronto and Niagara Falls is 46 per cent. We did not stop the train between Niagara Falls and Toronto. We maintained the train. But if the occupancy rate is at 70 to 75 per cent, we will serve the same number of people. It is mathematically understandable.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Travellers to the nation's capital, both business and tourist, are faced with dreadful road networks and poor air service. They often have chosen to come to the nation's capital by rail.
October 6, 1989

Ottawa will be severely disadvantaged through the axing of The Canadian and the reduction of the Mon-treal-Ottawa route from five to two runs. There will be no rail service in Ottawa after 5 p.m.
Why would the Prime Minister of Canada again savage the capital of this nation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised because Ottawa is probably one of the best served cities in Canada in terms of rail. I am sure that many people who hear what you are saying today will be very surprised.
Once again, the same argument as for my friend from Hamilton applies. For example, the occupancy rate between Toronto and Ottawa is about 50 per cent. If we increase the occupancy rate I believe we will do two very important things. We will serve Canadians from Ottawa to Toronto, and we will save money. It is important on this side of the House to save money.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, Cornwall has suffered two serious blows in two days. My first question is for the Minister of Transport.
I previously asked the Minister of State for Transport in the House if she would guarantee that the two overnight trains between Toronto and Montreal which stop in Cornwall would not be rerouted. The minister later wrote to me stating, "There will be no diminution of the service to Cornwall".
How are my constituents to be served now that these very same overnight trains have been cut? This minister's words are not worth the paper they are written on. Why have my constituents been misled?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said before. The decision was made in a national perspective. We had to consider our capacity to pay for the services we have.
I think Canadians increasingly will understand that we have this national network, which you said so many times that we should keep. It is there. But, once again, I think my friend understands in the bottom of his heart that we have to protect the finances of this country, too. He knows very well that he lives in a region where there are many other modes of transportation for citizens.
To permit all Canadians from Halifax to Vancouver to have different modes of transportation, but particularly
Oral Questions
the train where people do not have any other mode of transportation, is the basis of the decision that we made. Canadians want a transportation system that is the best, affordable, but also the most accessible for all Canadians.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, the people of Stormont- Dundas, like all Canadians, want, above all, one thing- consistency. If you say one thing, do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNEMPLOYMENT
Robert (Bob) Kilger: There is a great deal of humour to the second part of this question also.
The closing of the Courtaulds film plant puts 240 employees out of work. Many of these are older workers for whom finding new jobs will be difficult. Some have young families to support.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his government, the very government which is slashing UI benefits, is going to do to help these workers. The people of Cornwall have little to be thankful for on this holiday weekend.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that the unemployment rate in this country today is 7.3 per cent. Of course, this government has worked hard for five years. I understand, Mr. Speaker, it was a dream five years ago. It is a reality today.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkey Valley):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport made his announcement on Wednesday to continue VIA service on eight remote routes he only delayed the executioner's axe. The government has said that it will be reviewing the transportation needs of these remote communities.
I want to ask the minister for details on this review. Who specifically will be conducting the review? When will it be done? I ask him to assure this House that he will hold full public meetings with city councils, chambers of commerce and workers on those routes so that these remote runs also do not get slashed.

October 6, 1989
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I said Wednesday about the remote routes is that we will examine the cost and the service we provide on these routes because they represent $50 million for Canada, which is very expensive.
At the same time we said that along parts of those routes there are people who do not have any other mode of transportation. Transport Canada, on the day of the announcement, started an examination of all these routes.
I did not say at that time that we will abandon those routes. I said we will look at the possibility of providing other modes of transportation which will permit a decrease of the high level of costs of those routes. This is the process that will be followed. I can guarantee that people who do not have any other mode of transportation will be served, if not by rail, then by another mode of transportation which will satisfy them.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West -Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, using the Minister of Transport's own definition, the remote and truly isolated Canadian VIA line communities of Revelstoke, Golden and Field, with no airports for hundreds of kilometres and whose roads are regularly cut during long winter months by the heaviest snowfalls and avalanche closures in Canada, have now been truly abandoned by the minister's announcement. This is in spite of the fact that his own statistics show that this VIA line compares favourably in ridership, per passenger subsidy, cost recovery and occupancy with every other major western route.
How can the minister justify this blatant discrimination? If he cannot, will he now agree to postpone and review his total abandonment of these communities along the Kamloops-Calgary corridor?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have no other reliable means of transportation in winter. Is he going to supply us all with snowshoes or with cross-country skis so we can go first-class, because that is the only way out that we will have?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I already said concerning the transcontinental route for western Canada that the decision has been made in light of the fact that the capacity of population base was 12 per cent more on the northern route. On the southern route there are other modes of transportation available. Otherwise, it would be considered a remote area and we would provide the service. If there is anything which does not correspond to the definition I
gave my friend, he should get in touch with the department. We will consider what he is talking about. If there is anything which does not correspond to the criteria that we considered when we made the decision, it will be a pleasure for us to discuss it with the member of Parliament.


FISHERIES
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as chairman of the special committee on the Atlantic fishery.
Yesterday, displaying a remarkable degree of insularity, an abysmal knowledge of history and an utter disregard for the rights and interests of Atlantic Canadians, other than Newfoundlanders, Premier Clyde Wells called for all fish caught off Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed in Newfoundland, thereby ignoring 400 years of history.
Can the minister assure the House and the fishermen and plant workers of Nova Scotia who are dependent upon that fishery for their livelihood that one option that will not be considered by the special committee, or by the Government of Canada, is any diminution of the historic participation of Nova Scotians in the harvesting and processing of Canada's northern fish resources?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and members of the House that the Government of Canada is not considering any move away from the traditional shares of the stock between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
As the hon. member knows, the problems that we are facing have an impact upon both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. As we consider solutions to this problem, we will take into full account the interests of each province and the traditions that are in play.
I should take the opportunity to say that we have noted the report published by Premier Wells of Newfoundland. We think it would have been helpful for him to wait for the publication of the Harris report and the completion of the task forces that were put in place by both the federal and the provincial governments. We think that there is a misleading implication given in the very name of his report in which he talks about a resource crisis.

In addition to the problem of the resource, there are also problems relating to the structural policy and economic policy that have to be considered in coming to any long-term solution.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wanted to put it to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but in his absence I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would respond.
On Monday, the Minister of Fisheries told us that fishermen in Atlantic Canada were having quite a prosperous year, thank you very much. I wonder now whether the Prime Minister would admit that at the very time that his Minister of Fisheries was making that statement he, the Prime Minister and the government, were sitting on a report and had been sitting on it for a full two months from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador which documents very graphically the frightful dimensions of the unfolding disaster-catastrophe-in the Newfoundland fishery.
Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the Newfoundland fishery is indeed on the verge of collapse? Will he now maybe bare his soul a bit and admit that he must assume the lion's share of the blame for this full-blown crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. friend's question, there is no minister in this government that is more concerned and who cares more about the Atlantic fishermen than the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out, in many parts of Atlantic Canada there has been a good fishery. But he has also acknowledged in exactly the same statement that it is not as abundant as perhaps it has been in the past.
This government has proceeded through a series of measures including the appointment of the Harris panel, the task force of officials and, obviously, by the very
Oral Questions
senior committee of cabinet minister to deal with the problem that the premier has rightly laid out.
The premier's report, and the premier acknowledged this many times, is based on a series of assumptions and a series of numbers that may prove not to be correct.


Roger Simmons: I thought better of the gentleman from St. John's East. If that was not so sad I would laugh at him. If that is an attempt, it must be an attempt at wit, in which case, he is about half way there.
The jurisdiction in the matter of fish quotas and landings is, of course, entirely federal. Yet the Newfoundland Premier yesterday made a generous offer to cost share an emergency comprehensive response program to deal with this issue.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, despite his abysmal ignorance of this subject as he displayed here Monday, now prepared to admit that a special comprehensive response program is necessary to address this situation, particularly in relation to Newfoundland?
Is he willing to co-operate with the Government of Newfoundland which has made this offer to cost share so that unnecessary hardship can be headed off?
If the gentleman from St. John's East is going to answer this, let him remember that his constituents are watching. Don't make a fool of yourself like you did the first time.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I may quote verbatim from the Premier's press conference yesterday: "I am pleased to note that the federal government has also seized of the seriousness of this problem as evidenced by the appointment of the Harris panel in the first instance and the creation of a special federal cabinet committee chaired by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, and the appointment of task force officials."
There is no question that this government through its cabinet committee and through its task force of officials has and will continue to work not only with the provincial government, fishermen, fishermen's unions, companies, business associations and community groups to deal with this problem in a realistic, serious way.

October 6, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Unlike what is being said here in the House, there is a genuine crisis in the Atlantic fisheries industry, and the situation is steadily deteriorating. There is no more ground fish, there are no more markets for our herring, and price levels for lobsters are declining. And as if that were not enough, now the Americans are getting involved. Because they threaten to pass with a bill that would restrict lobster sales on the U.S. market, we may lose more than one-third of a market that is worth $130 million.
I have the following question for the Prime Minister. What representations has he made to the Americans to make them understand that this bill is a threat to the entire Atlantic lobster industry and that it is totally unacceptable?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, another initiative was announced this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, with her usual sense of style, is shouting across the floor.
Yes, I did raise this important matter of our Eastern fisheries directly with President Bush in Kennebunkport. I stressed the concerns of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia fishermen with respect to this problem.
Furthermore, a series of representations were authorized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some were made by Ambassador Burney in Washington, whom we met this week. The full weight and influence of the Canadian Government, provincial governments and Members of Parliament, like my honourable friend who just raised this important question, will be brought to bear on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration, in an attempt to settle this very serious problem, in the interests of our fishermen in eastern Canada.

Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): My question is for the Prime Minister.
There is a sense of impending doom in the Atlantic fishery. The U.S. Senate is harassing our lobstermen. Inshore fishermen in Canso and Cheticamp, for example, never know until the last minute where and how they will be able to fish. Yesterday National Sea Products
had to lay up five trawlers. Why? Because mismanagement by this government has led to depleted groundfish stocks for Canadians. Yet the fisheries minister talks about how good things are in the fishery. What planet is he on?
When is the Prime Minister going to appoint a fisheries minister who has some feeling and understanding for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada and their families?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has shown that he has care and interest in the fishery. This government, through not only the department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the cabinet collectively and through a series of departments including employment and immigration and others, has come together to look at the problem that we face, and that individuals in the communities face. We will respond with programs that suit the need when we fully understand the problem and have fully researched and dealt with the appropriate solution in consultations with a myriad of people who have an interest and a concern in the Atlantic fishery and the Atlantic economy.


VANCOUVER PORT CORPORATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and it concerns another Crown corporation. The Vancouver Port Corporation has arrogantly overruled decisions of Vancouver City Council, an elected body, and is determined to impose a eight-storey grain elevator on a residential community.
Is it government policy that federal Crown corporations can overrule duly elected municipal governments?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the problems between the city of Vancouver and the ports corporation. My colleague for Vancouver East knows very well that there is an arm's length relationship between a Crown corporation and the Minister of Transport, however we have been informed. I have been in touch with the corporation. I have been told that the port of Vancouver has met the city of Vancouver and we hope that those discussions will continue in order to find an answer that would satisfy both parties.
October 6, 1989


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Obviously this week the Crown corporation deliberately over-rode not just city council but a Board of Variance appeal as well into this situation. This is just the culmination of many hostile acts on behalf of that port corporation.
Will the minister intervene, and will he conduct an investigation, including an environmental assessment on this matter, because it has tremendous impact on the neighbourhoods?


Benoît Bouchard: I agree with my colleague. I have been and will continue to be in touch with the port corporation. I will see if this request would be acceptable. We will see what may be possible. Once again, I will make my own personal inquiries about what has taken place in Vancouver.


BILL C-36
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds. Farmers in Canada, particularly western Canada, want the advance payment. Why has farmers not passed. Farmers need it now. What is the hold-up? Why has this bill not passed?


Roger Simmons: Where have you been?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Bill C-36 that provides amendments to both the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act as well as the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
We on this side of the House are fully prepared to pass the bill and have said so in debate in this House on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week.
If you are looking for reasons as to why the bill has not passed, and why farmers are not going to have their advance payments, you have to look to the members opposite. We would be very happy to pass the bill quickly and we should have some discussions between House leaders to get the bill passed so the farmers can have their cash advances.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Recently two retired 413 Squadron officers published a report which proves that this government has made a dangerous decision in transferring 413 Squadron to Greenwood. Lieutenant Colonel Denny Hopping and Major Gary Naylor have shown that CFB Summerside is closer to some 90 per cent of all search and rescue incidents in the Atlantic area, that the topography and climate at Summerside is superior, and that the transfer of 413 reduces the squadron's capability and endangers lives. The minister has a report and he knows the qualifications of these officers. Why does he continue to persist in closing CFB Summerside in the face of such expert military advice?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is not accurate. What I have interpreted from statements in the press by two former members of the Canadian forces is not accurate.
Surveys done have shown that the majority of incidents in search and rescue occur closer to Greenwood and Halifax than to Summerside.
Therefore, the establishment for efficiency reasons and for operational capabilities will be at Greenwood, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that it will be established in Greenwood.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, the minister persists in saying that Greenwood is the most optimal base to have search and rescue, but in his own answers to the written question from the member from Labrador he says: "No specific specific study was undertaken on the impact of reductions or closures". He also says: "No specific study was conducted to determine the impact the closures or reductions would have on military effectiveness".
If he did not do any studies, I do not know how he can say that Greenwood is a superior location to Summer-side, while these two officers have based their study on the Cross report of 1982.
My supplementary question is the following. Not only is the minister endangering lives in his determination to close CFB Summerside, all Canada knows he has issued a gag order on Lieutenant Colonel Denny Hopping, who has told the truth in support of his squadron and his community.

Oral Questions
Why is the minister being deliberately derelict in his duty as minister to the people of Canada by killing the tracker squadron and transferring 413 Squadron, while threatening to punish those who tell the truth about the shortcomings of his decision?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange the hon. member says there is a gag order when he has been quoting the former officer of the Canadian forces here in the House and I have read quotes in the paper. There is a discipline that is required in Canadian forces and that discipline is enforced by the Canadian forces.
But I want to refer to the Journal Pioneer, Summerside, Prince Edward Island, September 26, 1989, page 4, for the hon. member's information: "Sad as it is for Summerside, we agree with the move. If there are to be cuts in the defence budget, which we do not accept as wise, then the fewer dollars must be spent more realistically. The rearrangement of search and rescue and patrol efforts at one base makes economic sense in practical terms. In practical terms, Greenwood is centrally located, virtually fog free and easier and cheaper to supply and service."


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Toronto-Dominion Bank agrees that this government's fiscal and monetary policies are driving Canada towards recession. In spite of dramatically lower interest rates among all our major competing countries, this government stubbornly refuses to lower interest rates here in Canada.
When is this government going to wake up?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not been paying attention. Rates were up one percentage point in most European countries yesterday. In Canada, they did not move at all.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, our short-term interest rates in Canada are 4.47 percentage points higher than in the United States. If the Minister of Finance is trying to stand here and defend these high interest rates, this government must realize that it is a major cause of inflation in Canada. It is this government that has driven
up sales and excise taxes in its last budget by more than $3 billion. It is a government that is now going to saddle us with a goods and services tax. These are the things that cause inflation.
When is this government going to accept its responsibility and wake up to the new world realities? Our interest rates are dramatically out of line and they themselves are a major cause of inflation and government expense. Every percentage point rise in the interest rate increases our deficit by $1.6 billion. This is not strong fiscal management.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear with hon. members. What is causing inflation is a range of things, including the fact that the economy has been growing more quickly than the capacity of the country to handle that growth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is loud cackling from the front benches of the Liberal party who clearly do not understand the nature of inflation in this country.


Roger Simmons: And so there should be at you. You are a joke in finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What we are doing is keeping interest rates high to stop inflation from getting out of hand. We are also, through our fiscal policy, getting our deficit down as well, in order to stop the inflationary pressures in this country. What we are determined to do is avoid the problems that we had in the 1970s and early 1980s.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It's self-induced inflation.


Roger Simmons: All across the country you are a joke.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member from Newfoundland is making funny signs again. He clearly does not understand that in the 1970s, the Liberal government of the day swept the problem of inflation under the carpet. What happened? In 1976, we had a 5.5 per cent inflation rate. In 1981, we had a 13 per cent inflation rate. That led to 20 per cent plus interest rates and that in turn led to unemployment of 13.5 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to avoid and we will avoid.
October 6, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will complete Question Period with questions from the member for Kamloops.


COMMENTS OF FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have to raise this issue with the Acting Prime Minister, but he will be well aware that following yesterday, and still today Albertans are seething from the comments made by the chairman of the finance committee. I know he will take this, as an Albertan, very seriously.
The chairman of the finance committee said again today that he stands by his comments. "I think that's my job", he says. "I have to call them as I see them. You have got to be frank with people". Well, be frank with people. He was calling Albertans and all the members here who represent Albertans, ignorant, stupid, out of touch, out to lunch, because he did not happen to agree with the Conservative tax policy being discussed at the hearings.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is simply this, Mr. Speaker. The chairperson represents all of us-this is an all-party committee made up of representatives from the three political parties. When he speaks, he speaks for the committee. When he calls Albertans, or westerners generally, ignorant and stupid, what does the Acting Prime Minister now plan to do about these remarks and, more particularly, about the chairman of the finance committee?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be speaking as the leader of the government party in the House of Commons to the chairman of the finance committee. He has had an opportunity to look at the transcript of the remarks and will be speaking directly to the chairman of the committee.
I think that the hon. member in his excitement to try to exploit an issue is creating some unusual precedents when he suggests that the chairman of the standing committee in his every utterance speaks for all members of the committee. During an earlier incarnation, I learned not to extend that kind of latitude to the hon. member in question.
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It is a most serious matter when a serious financial spokesperson for the House, but particularly for the government, and a chairperson of the finance committee, calls Newfoundlanders "nobodys"; makes fun and ridicules senior citizens. Most recently, he called those of us who live in and represent western Canadians "stupid and ignorant" requiring grade V teachers from Toronto to come out west to educate us.
It would seem to me that the Acting Prime Minister should take this matter a little more seriously. When he said today that he stands by those comments, that in fact we are ignorant, that those of us who live in western Canada are stupid, surely as a representative of the government, and, in the absence of the Prime Minister who unfortunately had to leave, he would ask the hon. member to apologize to the people of western Canada in this instant and indicate that the government is quite prepared to ask for the resignation of the chairman of the finance committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member understands the rules of the House better than that. Certainly, I would hope that someone bom in High River Hospital has a better understanding of the rules and the institutions of the House than he is now displaying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: If an apology is to be forthcoming, the apology would have to be forthcoming from the individual member. The member understands that, and I think the House understands that. They also understand that the Prime Minister has indicated he will be speaking to the chairman of the finance committee and the House will be meeting next week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988.

October 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to Petition Nos. 342-0723 and 342-0875.
[[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the striking committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the Clerk at the Table, as that report concerns only membership changes to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to dispense with the reading?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN FOURTEENTH REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fourteenth report of the striking committee presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to use this occasion to make a few short remarks about the intention of this report. One of the critical points in this report is that the elections of the chairs of the various committees be automatic and we do not necessarily have to go through this process on a regular basis.
I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that on balance we have no concerns that the chairs of the committees act in good faith. There are some exceptions and we are concerned that with this particular report and this particular motion before us, the committees would lose the opportunity to reaffirm the leadership of the various committees.
I want to say something specifically about the chair of the finance committee. Over the last two days, I have drawn the House's attention to comments made by the chair. He referred to Albertans being stupid and ignorant, Newfoundlanders as being nobodys with no need to be heard on the important issue of the new GST tax, and suggested that senior citizens do not go anywhere so why would they be concerned with tax increases. He inferred they do not wear out their clothes, they do not travel, and they do not do much. This is ridiculing the seniors of the country. Obviously these are concerns shared by all members of the House.
In some cases, he does speak for the government, obviously when he indicated that universality was not a sacred trust, that the city of Ottawa and the people of Prince Edward Island would suffer for not voting Conservative. During the election campaign, he said that the GST would add a $10 billion windfall for the federal government which, of course is true, as we have seen from recent papers. So one assumes that he is speaking, not only for the finance committee, but also speaking for the government in terms of its intentions.
I want to simply say that we are concerned with the way in which the chairman of the finance committee has been conducting himself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The deputy leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.
October 6, 1989

Routine Proceedings


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]

Hon. Jean J. 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, first of all, I want to say that I am not surprised by the point made by the House leader for the New Democratic Party. He has, over the last two days, shown some interest in this question. I know there are other issues and questions in which he holds some interest. Some of them may be more procedural or technical, and I think they have to do with the fact that he is arguing his case at the wrong point in time. If an opportunity was offered to us to put before the House the draft consent order, then maybe his comments would be appropriate in that context.
I see him nodding his head. We have dealt with the motion presented by the whip of our party. If there was unanimous consent for that, and I believe there is, maybe I can put this motion before the House now and we can discuss it. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House or its Standing or Standing Joint Committees, the incumbent chairmen of the Standing and Standing Joint Committees shall continue in office until the committee concerned shall otherwise order, provided that House Standing and/or Standing Joint Committees whose chairmen cease to be members of the committee shall proceed to the election of a new chairman as their first order of business.
So I now understand that the motion presented by my colleague has been dealt with and we are now on this motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker The first motion moved by the Member for Calgary West is adopted by the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by my hon. friend.
I will continue with my remarks, the first part of my remarks being out of place in terms of order. In a sense I think that I have made the point that, on balance, we have no concern with the role and the effectiveness of the chairs of standing committees. They do an excellent job under difficult circumstances.
However, there are some where we have difficulties. There have been some committees that have refused to meet. The energy committee was one of those committees. At a time when a number of energy crises were before the country, the chair refused to call the committee together. We have had difficulties from time to time.
I am focusing on one individual. I must say I personally find it difficult to do that, because in terms of his knowledge of financial matters, and the leadership that he has given the finance committee, and the status to which he has elevated the finance committee to deal with complicated matters he has been exemplary. But, unfortunately, I cannot, as a parliamentarian, simply stand by when a chair of a committee who I believe represents the members of that committee, makes such inappropriate and unacceptable statements regarding Canadian citizens. It is for that reason I have intervened in this process where normally an intervention would never be necessary.
Having registered concerns on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we will pass this motion on division. The intention, of course, is to register our concerns with the words uttered by the chair as a reflection against upstanding Canadian citizens from all parts of the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on behalf of what I hope is the entire striking committee which has representation from all three parties in the House.
The job of recommending to the House the members of committees is not the easiest job in the world and from time to time there is some discord in the House. But I believe members of the striking committee are rather consistently guided in their attempts to choose members to be on our standing committees and from time to time on our legislative committees who will work hard, do the job, and who bring to that job some considerable background and expertise. Members of the striking committee are concerned about the quality of the research, the quality of the advice, and the quality of the reports that come back for consideration by all members of the House.
From time to time it is unfortunate when members of the House use an inadvertent set of words or a deliberate set of words that are perhaps inflammatory. Those of us who have been around for ten years or longer have sometimes seen an awakening of public understanding of something that comes from those attempts. Sometimes we should not be as hasty as we might be to condemn a particular set of words, because there is a message in them. Sometimes in this House the words we use are so flowery and so complex that they defy understanding by most Canadians. Sometimes, I wonder if even those who utter the words really comprehend what they have just said.

October 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Any quarrel that the House leader of the New Democratic Party has with the member is appropriately taken up when the member is present. It is perhaps unfortunate that the debate arose at this time. We have had through the process of parliamentary reform in the last five years a great deal of co-operation in evolving and developing the methods that help parliamentarians to participate in a much fuller way in the development of public policy. The particular exercise that took place in Edmonton this week with the finance committee travelling was not the kind of common exercise that existed in this place when I first came 10 years ago.
What is before the finance committee at this point is a proposal, a technical paper. Members of that committee, members from all sides of the House have been asked to go out, hear the Canadian people, come back to the House with advice as to whether the content of that technical paper will help Canadians.
Members of committees who travel experience a sense of frustration from time to time because people come with complaints without having done the background work that would indicate to the members of the committee that they have read the document and therefore are speaking to the document. It is my understanding that that has happened more than once in the finance committee's hearings in different places. It certainly was happening with the committee on unemployment insurance as it travelled the country.
When members are travelling and moving from community to community, day to day and working from early in the morning until late at night on our behalf, they get a little short tempered sometimes; they may become a little less prudent than they might be. All of us can take comfort in the reality that the finance committee, including its chairman, is one of the hardest working committees in this House. This has been true for several years now. It is one of the best informed committees of this House. When you look back at the end of the year they will have held more meetings than perhaps any other committee of this House. The quality of the work that they do is not always accepted by everybody, but
there is nobody who can make the statement that the finance committee does not do a lot of homework and produce a sensible set of ideas as a consequence of understanding what it is that they are about. When that happens with a committee I think the chairman must receive some of the credit at least.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to bring the motion into context, the purpose of the motion and the reason why we gave our consent to it was to simplify matters. Members will know that Standing Order 106 states:
Within ten sitting days following the adoption by the House of a report of the Striking Committee, the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee whose membership is contained in that report for the purpose of electing a Chairman, provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of any such meeting.
The reason why we put this motion is in the interest of all committees so they can keep operating without having to go through the rigmarole of elections again. It is quite clear that the second part of the motion states: "Provided that those Standing and/or Standing Join Committees whose chairmen cease to be members of the committee shall proceed to the election of a new chairman as their first order of business." The purpose is to help committees continue with their work, and personally I think they are doing an awful lot of good work without having to go through the election in every committee of a chair and a vice-chair. Basically, we gave our support to that. We will enter into any debate as to whether members of certain committees are not holding meetings regularly or whether there are chairmen of committee or chairpersons of committees making remarks that we do not agree with, we will use committees to do that, not the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the deputy government House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 6, 1989

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadian men and women who are opposed to the GST, and my petition has been properly certified.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from my constituents concerning the proposed goods and services tax. The people feel that this tax is regressive because it asks low and middle income Canadians who are already overburdened with tax to foot the bill for government excesses.
The people have expressed their opposition to this tax and I can only hope that these cries of anguish are loud enough to restore the hearing of this government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions: one of them deals with a subject of some importance to 143 Ottawa-Vanier constituents.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, these people take exception to the proposed goods and services tax and its applicability to music lessons. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider music studies as an educational process and therefore exempt music education from the proposed sales tax.
The other petition that I have, signed by constituents in my riding, also refers to the GST and considers that the present government in proposing this tax is possibly doing the wrong thing for Canadians.
It says: whereas the Liberals on behalf of Canadians strongly oppose this goods and services tax, which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners,
Routine Proceedings
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of constituents from Saskatoon-Humboldt and the surrounding area, I present a petition which calls upon the government to reject the current proposal of a goods and services tax and points out that the goods and services tax amounts to a tax grab and is one of the unfairest approaches to taxation in the country.
The petitioners call upon the government to reject the proposal and shift the burden of taxation to those people who can pay it most.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from western Canada who are calling upon the government to reconsider the decision to curtail VIA services in certain parts of Canada and to dismantle it in others.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by more than 800 residents in the riding of Carleton-Gloucester, in which they object to the GST, the tax proposed by the Conservative Government. They are very much concerned about the negative impact this tax will have on the community.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of concerned Canadian citizens who will be negatively impacted by the goods and services tax. I would specifically like to refer to the constituents of Western Arctic, who will be grievously impacted in the area of transportation and communications, which they rely on so heavily.

October 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many concerned Canadians.
They feel that the proposed goods and services tax would cause hardship to low and middle income Canadians and that it will create a tremendous burden on small business. The petitioners call upon this Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition concerning Bill C-21, which will soon be reported back to the House.
This petition has been circulated by a person in my riding of Ottawa West who has spent her entire life working with, being a volunteer, and is now spending her retirement working for the dignity and worth of those who do not fully share in the wealth of our prosperous society.
She and her friends object to being told by the Prime Minister in October that unemployment insurance would not be cut when that is exactly what is being done.
She calls upon Parliament to reject the cuts in the unemployment insurance system, to propose more meaningful reforms and to concentrate on a labour force development strategy combined with a full employment policy and an effective regional development policy.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have a petition with 36 signatures to present.
These petitioners are retired persons and are concerned with the government's proposed goods and services tax. They feel this tax will cause severe hardship, not only to themselves as seniors, but also to low income persons.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I too rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned with this government's attitude toward VTA Rail. They are mostly in the Windsor corridor area, but I know they will support our call for remote VTA Rail services to be studied in a fair and public manner by this government.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of residents of my riding, Scarborough-Rouge River and the surrounding area.
The petition is certified as correct. The petitioners have executed the document to express their opposition to the government's proposed goods and services tax. [Translation]


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent - Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Saint-Laurent Associa-tioon of the Disabled, it is my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of people who object to the new universal goods and services tax proposed by the Government because it would cause severe and undue hardship for low-and middle-income Canadians.

Also, on behalf of the Senior Citizens Council of Saint Laurent and pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to produce this petition to the House asking that the government reject the proposed goods and services tax because of the hardship that will be incurred by low and middle income families.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 also to present a petition signed by residents of Toronto and Scarborough.
These persons are very concerned that the government is about to impose on Canadians an unfair, regressive, vicious tax in the form of the goods and services tax. They call on Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax for the reasons I have indicated.
I may say that the petition was collected by my hon. friend, the member for Eglington-Lawrence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the member for Kamloops run out of petitions?
October 6, 1989

Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: For today I have, but on Tuesday I will have other ones.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the remaining questions stand?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, since it is Friday I did not want to put the hon. member in an embarrassing position but I do want to raise a point.
There are 17 questions on the Order Paper that have been there since June 27. One of them has been there since April 26. I realize that that is not a huge number but, nevertheless, it is significant given that the time limit for answering these questions is 45 days. These questions have been there for ages. It is now well over 90 days since the last one was set down in that group that I mentioned. It seems to me that the government might move with a little alacrity.
To help my hon. friend I should tell him that I recognize he is in a difficult position and I am not blaming him. It is perhaps a question of general malaise in the government.
There is a motion on the Order Paper, Motion M-460, which I have set down as a private member's motion. If my hon. friend would like to help himself a bit and help the government out of a really embarrassing situation, because it has a duty to answer these questions in Parliament, he could perhaps refer it today to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business for study. Perhaps that committee would come up with some rules that would deal with these questions in a way that would enable my friend to get his answers more quickly.
I think the motion that I proposed would be helpful. It is sort of salvation sitting ready at hand to help the hon. parliamentary secretary. I would like to assist him in that way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just to make matters clear, the member for Kingston and the Islands is in fact correct. Notice was given on June 27. However they were printed only on September 25.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you mentioned that because of course I did want to remind the hon. member that this was in fact the case.
I also want to say to him that far from being embarrassed by his intervention this morning, he is giving me an opportunity to discuss a couple of problems that we have. Mr. Speaker has very kindly covered one of the problems that has created some dilemma for us. We are trying very hard to meet those deadlines.
He should know that to date we are sitting at about 80.4 per cent success rate on our questions; on regular questions in some cases it is at 77.7 per cent; on priority questions, 87.5 per cent. This government has not only been establishing but continuing a very clear and solid record of answering those questions. Occasionally when there is a day or two, or in the odd case a week of delay, there are usually very legitimate reasons.
Quite often, as is the case right now with some of the items that my friend has referred to, we are waiting for those documents to be translated. Due to their length those questions have been a little slow at translation. We should have them back in good time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 third time and passed.
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to stand here in the House and speak very briefly to 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.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
The government certainly should be commended for forgiving these debts. However, I think that we are overlooking something that has a much greater implication for the people of the sub-Saharan Africa than the forgiveness of debts. It is the human need, the human suffering, and the economic need that is present in the Third World countries today.
Canada has a decade of achievement on humanitarian grounds, on the approach that we have taken to people in need, but this accomplishment is being threatened for almost 900 million people; in other words one-sixth of mankind is sliding backward into poverty. That is a dreadful situation. We are all very concerned about our own debt here in Canada today. Some people applaud this government and the fact that it has cut back in foreign aid to the Third World countries.
I do not know how we can consider the steps the government has taken as brave when we look at the poverty and the children who are dying around the world. Of course we are concerned about our own, but we cannot be so narrow as to look only at our own nation. We have to look beyond our boundaries.
This government has reduced its commitment to Third World development and to the world poor. We know the bill has no impact on the budget of our country. Although the bill forgives debt, the government has not taken the leadership that has consistently been shown by Canada for a great number of years. Canada now ranks last among middle income developed countries as to its level of ODA. I do not think that is something we should all be very proud of as a nation.
It is a tragic situation when 40,000 children are dying every day in this world from malnutrition. The State of the World's Children 1989 states that it is the young child whose growing mind and body are susceptible to permanent damage from even temporary deprivation. It is the young child whose individual development today and whose social contribution tomorrow are being shaped by the economics of 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 fall in family incomes, the run down of health services, and the narrowing of educational opportunities.
It is simply no longer necessary for approximately
40,000	young children to die every day in developing worlds and for so many millions more to live on with ill health and poor growth. Today the world is both aware that this tragedy is happening and capable of preventing it and ethics must march with awareness, morality with capacity. It is the poor and the vulnerable who are suffering the most and for two main reasons: the first is that the poor have the least economic fat with which to absorb the blow of recession. The second reason is that the poor also have the least political muscle to ward off that blow. The Government of Canada is not responding as it originally promised. It is an irresponsible attitude to a major world problem. I support the bill but I beseech the government to address the serious problems of the world's hunger and economic ills. Of course we must relate to our own debt as well as to the world debt. We cannot work in the isolation of what is happening in our own country. We all must become self-reliant. The government has taken the right step to introduce a bill to forgive the debt but takes no leadership in dealing with the root causes of poverty and debt.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very short comment on debate.
I believe this is an important albeit rather insignificant piece of legislation. We applaud this initiative called Bill C-10, which is really a bill to write off debts that the Government of Canada has made with a number of governments of African countries, namely the Republic of the Cameroon, the People's Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Ivory Coast, the Gabonese Republic, the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Republic of Senegal, Republic of Swaziland, Republic of Zaire, Republic of Zambia, and Republic of Zimbabwe.
This bill is a small step in the right direction and for that we are thankful, but it will go no way toward eliminating the horrendous debts faced by these countries. I draw to the House's attention that after this bill is passed Nigeria will still find itself with a debt in excess of $28 billion, Kenya with a debt in excess of $6 billion, and so on. These are countries where the situation is almost impossible under these oppressive debt loads, but the Government of Canada has taken this small step and for that I applaud it.
October 6, 1989

I want to make two short points. We do not want to leave the impression that the government is actually serious about foreign assistance. Not long ago the Prime Minister made a commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada when he spoke before the United Nations that it was Canada's intention to achieve a Overseas Development Assistance package relative to GNP with a ratio of 0.7 per cent by the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, 0.7 per cent of GNP going into Overseas Development Assistance would be an acceptable level and has been agreed for many years to be an acceptable level. Recently the government announced we will not reach that level of 0.7 per cent of GNP until at least the year 2040, so we have seen a reneging on that kind of commitment.
We only have to look at the last budget to be reminded of the cuts that have taken place: for international financial institutions, a cut of $56.5 million; for the voluntary sector, the non-governmental organizations, their budget was cut by $9.6 million. Multilateral food aid was cut by $32 million; multilateral technical assistance, cut by $12.8 million; bilateral food aid, cut by $24.4 million; international humanitarian assistance aid, cut by $4.5 million; geographic programs, cut by $130 million.
Mr. Speaker, here is the actual evidence. The proof, if you like, is in the eating of the pudding and when you eat it you find out that the government has substantially reduced in all areas its commitment to assisting those in need in the developing nations. Finally I am concerned with the comments made recently by the Minister of Finance when he was speaking at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting in Kingston, Jamaica, on September 20, 1989, when he said: "Without the implementation of sustainable adjustment policies that lead to the re-establishment of self-sustaining growth, debt reduction and debt relief-" and I stress this point-"that debt reduction and debt relief do little more than buy time. Better domestic policies, not debt relief, are the key to sustained growth".
I become very concerned with those kinds of comments. Is this an indication that in terms of programs and action of debt relief the government is not interested in
Government Orders
pursuing those options. By the fact that we have these overwhelming debt albatrosses around the necks of the developing countries, particularly the very poorest, is this government indicating that really what it needs is better domestic policies?
Let us be reminded that the prosperity that those of us in the first world countries and second world countries have was built originally by the exploitation of those third and fourth world countries. Therein lie the problems that they have today. The fundamental problem that they face in developing their domestic economic policies is the fact that we, as developed countries, exploited them so ruthlessly for so many years. They are really starting far back in the development process as a result of that exploitation.
We have an obligation as a country along with other western nations particularly to do what we can. While we applaud this small step in this minute debt forgiveness in terms of government to government loans, this only is the beginning and we will be pressing for a host of other initiatives that we hopefully will see taken soon.


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 third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an agreement between Canada and Papua, New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
Hon. Alan Redway (for the Minister of State for Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Redway: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make two points that I think must be said. This bill is very straightforward and is meant to implement the agreement between Canada and the three countries that you have named, Mr. Speaker, to make life simpler for taxpayers who are doing business essentially in Canada and these three countries. We have done these with most countries now and we are catching up.
I did want to point out what I believe is an oddity. This is a very special initiative to remove a double taxation and to work in harmony with Poland and New Guinea and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, yet we cannot get agreement among the Government of Canada and the provinces to work co-operatively in terms of taxation methods. I refer of course to the GST. Perhaps we will see this as a forerunner of co-operation in the future, not necessarily on this issue.
I do want to take this opportunity to say that with the changes we have all appreciated taking place in Poland, of course referring to the new non-communist Solidarity led government, and with the enhanced human rights and the new openness that we find in Poland, we are reminded I think regularly by members of the Polish-Ca-nadian community that Canada wants to do whatever it can to facilitate economic development and the enhancement of human rights in Poland and to assist in a variety of other areas.
This means that Canadians, by definition, ought to be actively involved in Poland, particularly in economic development projects. There are a number of initiatives that are under way now and that are being planned in the months ahead.
This legislation will facilitate and encourage Canadians to participate economically in Canada and in Poland. Not that it will not be beneficial to the other countries named, but I think the timing is very appropriate and hopefully will give the incentive and encouragement to Canadians to do what we can to assist the Government of Poland and the people of Poland in the development of their country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Kamloops. We in the opposition of course support this legislation. I simply want at this stage, since it is about to be passed by this Chamber, to acknowledge the excellent work done on this bill by the members of the other place, particularly with its beneficent Liberal majority in the other place who studied this bill extensively. We are satisfied that their studies indicate the bill is in proper and satisfactory form, and we are happy to assist in its passage here today.


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 third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments about this bill. Although these are mainly housekeeping provisions in the bill, of a technical nature, I think we have to be very concerned about the general direction that the government is going with energy policy as a result of the free trade deal with the United States.
Clearly that agreement gives access by the United States to our energy sources. It guarantees the Americans supply and guarantees them access to our resources. It emasculates the National Energy Board which was set up back in 1958 after the pipeline debate, because John Diefenbaker was very concerned about the future of our energy supply and the control that the United States would exercise over it. I think that there is a lot of concern by Canadians that we are guaranteeing supplies to the U.S. regardless of what shortages may occur.
October 6, 1989

At the present time they are moving up toward 40 per cent supply of our natural gas. That means if we have shortages of natural gas in the future, we will have to guarantee out of whatever source of supply there is from Canada that 40 per cent will go to the United States. The percentage may even go higher than that. I think we have to be very concerned about what is happening with this government in its head-long rush to a total integration of the North American economy, not only in manufacturing and other programs, but especially in energy programs.
I note that in the bill, the government proposes to reduce the number of members on the National Energy Board from 11 to 9. That just means there will be fewer members of the board who will have a lesser scope of knowledge about the number of issues which come before them. The weakening of the board is a veiy serious mistake because we cannot guarantee that supply for the future.
Many Canadians express horror at the fact that we are shipping something like 700,000 or 800,000 barrels of oil a day to the United States, essentially pumping out the western sedimentary basin, looking toward the future supply of very high-priced oil from the Arctic regions, from the Beaufort Sea, from non-conventional oil in the tar sands, from the east coast off-shore regions of our country.
This is oil that probably cannot be brought on stream for something less than the $30 to $40 a barrel range, while at the present time our oil from the western sedimentary basin at $18 or $20 is being exported in unsurpassed amounts to the U.S.
Weakening the National Energy Board is a mistake. Guaranteeing the United Stated that it will be able to have our electricity from Ontario at the same price as our own domestic producers is a mistake in the free trade deal. After all, Ontario Hydro and the people of the province of Ontario will commit in the next few years some $40 billion of the credit of this province to produce energy essentially at cost. Why should we be selling electricity at our cost price if the price in New York City is double that or higher? Yet in the free trade deal we have given that away.
Government Orders
The other part of the bill which I find of some concern is the part with regard to cost recovery. I know that the government is moving to do this in the energy field under the Atomic Energy Control Board Act as well. At a time when uranium producers are facing the most difficult time in their history-when uranium that can be produced in communities like Elliott Lake and mining camps like the Elliott Lake camp probably requires something in the range of $25 to $30 a pound to produce while the world price is around $10 a pound-the government is planning to impose charges for inspection by the Atomic Energy Control Board. Surely if there is a time not to hit an industry, it is when it is down. When the price of the commodity is $10 a pound and the cost of production is in the $25 to $30 per pound range, surely that is not the time to impose new charges. Yet essentially what we have is the analogy of the person who is being charged for speeding having to pay the salary of the policeman.
Surely the protection of the environment and the protection of the public is a general responsibility of the Government of Canada not of the individual who is being inspected by the regulatory agency. I think that is the same thing that we are facing here.
Often the energy industry faces a downturn. In the past couple of years, we have seen prices as low as $10 a barrel for crude oil. Imposing new costs often threatens the viability of small producers. I am not familiar with the exact details with regard to the oil and gas industry, but clearly that is the case in the uranium mining industry because of those new cost recovery programs. Therefore, I hope the government will back off with regard to uranium mining because uranium is an important energy fuel as well.
This is a technical bill and because of that it is difficult to know all the implications. I know that when it goes before the Energy, Mines and Resources Committee that members from our caucus will want to look more closely at these arrangements to ensure that we are not giving away the store because of these amendments with regard to electricity exports to the United States.
Clearly groups like the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro thought that the decisions which were made were apparently injected into the free trade negotiations in the last moments of the negotiations in early October, 1987, with no prior notice. These, at least to Ontario, were terribly irresponsible giveaways. I hope that this legislation is not simply implementing those decisions which are harmful to that important industry.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate perhaps with some uncharacteristic diffidence because energy and certainly the production of electrical energy is not a matter of direct significance to my constituents. I might say that I have not had an opportunity to work directly in this field.
However, electrical energy is an important and vital industry to all Canadians and it has played an historic role in the development of our country. This bill is of concern, not just to those on the producing side, but to consumers and to all Canadians for what it says about the future not only of this particular industry but as well of those who are concerned with the environment.
Electricity is going to become even more important in the future than it has in the past. Electricity is an issue that goes to the whole question of increasing concern over global warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide. It is the least damaging form of energy to the environment and thus offers us in the long run a significant potential to avoid the terrible destruction to the environment and to the ozone layer that is now beginning to be recognized, and to which the government says it is committed.
The questions of how we produce electricity and how we conserve it are becoming increasingly important. Because electricity is becoming increasingly important to Canadians, it stands to reason that this bill and how we regulate electricity in the years to come must receive very careful consideration in the House.
In the few moments allowed to me today, let me first highlight the history of electricity regulation in Canada and particularly the reasons for federal regulation. I would like then to set out our concerns from this part of the House on the bill itself. It is our view that this bill does not adequately protect the interest of Canadians in the future and must be opposed by the House.
For historical reasons, there has been a considerable overlap between provincial and federal jurisdictions in the electricity industry.
The industry began, of course, as a collection of very small plants serving isolated communities. As a result, when the British North America Act was adopted, the provinces moved quickly to claim jurisdiction over the regulation of the industry. The Act itself, of course, gave to the provinces jurisdiction for the development, conservation and production of electrical energy.
The same document, the British North America Act, granted authority over international trade and commerce to the federal government and to the federal Parliament. As a result, as the efficiency of Canadians to produce electrical energy increased and the possibility began emerging of electrical exports, the federal Parliament and the federal government undertook increasingly the regulation of international power lines and of exports across our borders. It is in this area that the federal regulatory system has been developed. It is this that is being tampered with by this proposed legislation.
From the outset, the federal government, on behalf of all Canadians in the public interest, held firm to one principle. The principle was that all quantities of electricity to be exported must be surplus to the present and reasonably foreseeable future requirements of Canadians. Even when the National Energy Board Act of 1959 was extended and permitted, the maximum export licence period to go from one year to 25 years, there was a clear expectation that the long term-licences would be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
It was only in 1962, under a Conservative government, I may add, that the then Minister of Trade and Commerce departed from this past policy at least to some extent. In his statement of national power policy, the minister said that long-term exports of power could be justified to permit the development of large-scale power projects which depended upon long-term export contracts for their financial viability.
We saw in 1962 the beginning of a breach of the fundamental policy that had covered exports since Confederation, a policy which put the primacy of securing Canadian supply both in present and in the future, at the heart of Canadian public policy. We began seeing a Conservative government inject into the debate the needs and requirements of private interests in the area of electrical production and of provincial interests on the production side.
October 6, 1989

We on our side of the House have never argued against the need to balance the production requirements and possibilities and potential with the larger issue of secure Canadian supply present and future. The legislation until now has protected the Canadian public interest by ensuring that there will invariably be a public open hearing whenever there is to be a new set of exports outside our borders and thus a further detraction from Canadian supply. It is these public hearings which have ensured Canadians that the public interest will be taken into account.
There are very important roles for regulation in the area of electricity export. It is important that Canadian consumers have a secure supply. It is important that Canadians have reasonably equal access, regardless of what region they live in. It is impossible to argue with the proposition that this industry must be regulated to ensure an equitable development in all regions of Canada. It is important to balance the interests of investors in a way that makes it consistent with the over-all public interest. If the industry is not adequately regulated, then it is possible that electrical monopolies which are shielded from competition can sell off electricity supplies to the detriment of the Canadian interest as a whole in maintaining a secure supply of these vital resources.
Under the system that we have, before these amendments come into effect, the National Energy Board issues electricity licences and orders for a period not exceeding 25 years. The NEB authorizes the construction and operation of international power lines and regulates inter-provincial power lines when designated by the Governor in Council. Finally, the board regulates the detailed routing of international and designated inter-provincial power lines.
Under the present system the NEB focuses on two criteria; one, whether the export is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian requirements and, two, whether the export price is just and reasonable. It is important to note that except in very minor cases, the board conducts a public hearing. It conducts a public hearing and uses evidence presented in that open public hearing to determine whether the proposal is in the public interest. The thrust of this bill is to make exporting electricity from Canada easier, to streamline the process as it is put. Obviously streamlining the process is in itself a worth-
Govemment Orders
while objective. No one is in favour of unnecessary regulation or duplication of effort.
The United States, importers of electricity, has complained about our means of protecting our own national interest. The Americans find our public hearing process cumbersome and inconvenient. But minor inconvenience is not in itself a good reason for loosening up our rules.
It has been suggested that there is a duplication of effort. In our view, there is no substitute for national as opposed to provincial process, a national process independent of political machinations to determine what is in the national interest.
We are completely unconvinced that the current process needs to be changed. More important, we are persuaded that the changes proposed in this bill could undermine the protection that existing legislation provides the Canadian public. We are concerned that the bill gives in to consumers in the United States who already enjoy substantial benefits at our expense.
Let me be specific. Under this bill, the National Energy Board will routinely grant export licences and permits in most cases. In only a few cases will public hearings be required. As long as the sponsoring province has apparently complied with relevant federal environmental processes and as long as the provincial regulation is deemed to be sufficient, exporters need only obtain a permit. They can thereby usually avoid a federal public hearing. The second significant effect of this legislation is to increase the duration of export licences from 25 to 30 years. Finally, the NEB will be required to recover its costs.
Our concern about the bill, first and foremost, is that most export applications will not require a public hearing because of what will be the usually routine granting of permits. We say that no compelling reason has been advanced for making public hearings less frequent, especially given the importance of electricity to our national energy future. No evidence has been produced that will indicate that the existing process is unnecessarily burdensome.
A closed process seldom serves the public purpose well. An open system may not be convenient in every case, but it does serve the public interest. The case that the current process is too vexatious simply does not hold up.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
While the NEB has forced alterations to export proposals, it has never refused an export application for electricity. The large utilities that wheel and deal in electricity generally seem to manage pretty well for themselves.
Second, the bill could politicize the decisions regarding whether simply to grant a permit or to hold public hearings to consider export proposals, because under the present system if the NEB is determined on the basis of its analysis that a given export application is not in the public interest, it would recommend to cabinet that a proposal be examined in greater detail by a public hearing. Under this bill, the final decision as to whether or not a public hearing is to be held is to be made by cabinet. This means that the decision under this system is much more likely to be made on narrow political grounds.
We have some examples. If a particular region in Canada has extra clout in cabinet, that region's political interest invariably will be considered by cabinet. Cabinet is a political body. The whole idea of setting up something like the National Energy Board is to establish an independent tribunal with a clear and separate independent mandate to look out for the public interest. That interest cannot be served if decisions can be made in secret by cabinet.
The authority of the National Energy Board could be seriously undermined if cabinet decided, again for political advantage, to reject recommendations of the NEB. This perhaps need only happen once, but if it does happen, the whole authority and credibility of the NEB is compromised. In that event, the NEB, even in anticipation of being overruled by cabinet, is going to have to become more political in its decision-making than it is mandated to be now.
The current arm's-length relationship between the NEB and the government serves the interests of Canadians and should not be changed. We must avoid the politicization of the process that depends on calm, impartial deliberations to protect the Canadian interest.
Let me address the change from 25 to 30 years. The Government House Leader made some reference in his remarks when this bill was being discussed in June to suggest that this was just a casual, narrow matter, that it was just a trivial change. If it is such a narrow, trivial change, why make it at all? If the thing works, don't fix it, a good Conservative philosophy, I would have thought, that would have commended itself to this government.
The only justification for extending from 25 to 30 years the maximum duration of export licences is to serve the industry and not the Canadian public interest. Given the recent upsurge in expression of concern about the greenhouse effect, it seems to me entirely likely that electricity and particularly electricity generated by hydroelectric facilities will become an increasingly important asset to this country. If that is the case, then why does the Canadian government allow even longer periods for export contracts to be signed?
The government's focus on making electricity exports easier is all the more worrisome in view of the proportionality provisions in the free trade agreement. Further, making exports easier now runs the risk of Canadians paying higher, not lower, prices for electricity in the future. Let me quote from a representative of The Consumers' Association of Canada, Tanis Mathers, as reported in the September 8 edition of the Montreal Gazette:
The fear is that-new projects needed to fill the demand at that time may be more expensive and increase electricity rates for domestic consumers.
It should not escape the public's attention that many of the costs associated with the nuclear industry will not be covered by the current consumers of electricity but by future generations. Even the National Energy Board has expressed concern that Canadians will soon be paying more for their electricity. The following paragraph appears in the 1987 report on the regulation of electricity exports:
Unlike many manufactured products, most Canadian electricity production may be subject to increasing costs. Utilities generally develop their more favourable hydro sites first. Thus, if any but the costliest sites were developed to service the export market, the selling utility would have to develop a more expensive hydro site to service Canadian demand earlier than without exports. This means that, because of exports Canadians would pay more sooner for their electricity. Similarly nuclear safety and siting is expected to become increasingly costly over time-
October 6, 1989

If in fact this country continues to develop in the area of nuclear safety, I may add. There is another recent development that will mean Canadians will pay more sooner rather than later and that is the goods and services tax. Under that tax, the sales of energy within Canada will be covered but not sales to U.S. consumers. As a result of the tax, the GST will penalize Canadian consumers for living in Canada.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the words of then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. He stated in the House of Commons on May 26, 1959, as reported in Hansard at page 4025:
As to the price to be charged for gas and power, it must be just and reasonable in relation to the public interest. With the implementation of this legislation no longer will there be any suspicion that the Canadian consumer is being forced to subsidize the foreign markets or that Canadian industries will -
Let me just say in conclusion that electricity is a strategic commodity. It must be carefully and jealously husbanded. We must ensure that the decision on whether or not to export it is made on rational grounds in open public hearings. We must ensure that the decisions are not politicized. We must protect the independence of the process of the National Energy Board. We must not increase the duration of export licences by 20 per cent. We must ensure that Canadians not Americans, gain the most from this most valuable Canadian resource.
In summary, this bill must be reworked and it must be defeated.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest comparative advantages that Canada has had over the years has been the relative abundance of and easy access to energy, be it gas, oil or electricity. The actions of this government over the last few years has put that comparative advantage in jeopardy. The jeopardy I am speaking of is the fact that now, under the free trade agreement, we have promised that we will charge our own people the same price as we charge when selling that energy to the United States. In other words, the comparative advantage of abundance is gone because of the free trade agreement.
Besides that, we have, as the member indicated, put on a GST or are going to put a tax on energy used in Canada. That tax suggests that anything exported will not be taxed. What kind of an impact does the hon. member think this loss of comparative advantage will
Government Orders
have on Canada, particularly on his own region on the coast of British Columbia?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is very clear that to the extent to which a negative two-price policy develops, the interest of consumers and the long-term economic health of the country will suffer.
The GST, as applied to the sales of energy within Canada will in fact add to the price of electrical energy to Canadians and put this country, therefore the users of electrical energy, at a competitive disadvantage to those in the United States, assuming that the same price is approved in energy sales and the policy continues.
We have had a long debate over the last two decades in this country about the appropriate pricing strategies vis-a-vis exports. We in the New Democratic Party have consistently argued-and one the most eloquent spokes-people on this was our late leader, Tommy Douglas, who had a substantial impact on the thinking of Canadians by his effectiveness as a spokesperson for the proposition- that we must use our assets in energy, and in particular electrical energy, as a significant asset for Canadians to overcome some of the disadvantages that geography has given us in developing a manufacturing sector to our economy. This government has thrown that policy out the window by bending too much to large private production interests. We say there must be a balance in public interest.
Obviously, this country is a producer of energy. We have to use that as an asset and we must recognize the needs of the industry to develop, but those interests must be kept in balance with our social and economic interests of having a strong industrial sector, of having beneficial and effective prices for our consumers and, in the final analysis, of conserving a resource such as electrical energy which will help us in defeating the problems that inflict our environment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act. I commend my colleague from Victoria for the contribution he has made to the debate. It was a most enlightening contribution. I would like particularly to expand on the points that he just made in response to a question.

Government Orders
A country always tries to take advantage of its assets in terms of becoming competitive in the international market. One of the things that Canada has that puts us ahead of so many other countries is in fact a widespread energy base. We have abundant energy resources and we should be taking advantage of this in terms of developing our economic infrastructure. That is why some of us are very concerned about the implications in this bill. Are we simply giving away this trump card we have in terms of dealing in the international market-place.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that electricity is of vital importance to our country and it is this importance that encourages me to participate in this debate today.
However, I must say that I rise for another reason. It is my firm belief that electricity will become even more important in the future, indeed strategic in the future when we will finally begin to take some initial steps toward addressing the serious problem of global warming caused, in large part, by the emissions of carbon dioxide.
In the last few days we have discussed the cuts to VIA Rail and the environmental insensitivity of that decision. I think we are all hoping for the day when we see electrical driven high speed trains in the major corridors of the country. That would be a major advancement in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and a major move toward cleaning up environmental pollution. Obviously in the future electricity is going to be playing an even more important role than it has played in the past.
Because of this importance, how we regulate electricity in the years to come should receive very serious consideration. This bill before us leads us, quite frankly, to a host of concerns. I think it is fair to say that the reasons for regulation of electricity exports include that it is important for Canadian consumers to have a secure supply. In the past government departments said: "We have an ample supply of oil for decades in the future", and we found ourselves in an oil shortage not long after. Therefore, there is a concern among Canadian citizens that we take steps to ensure that we have a secure supply long into the future for our own consumption purposes.
It is also important to Canadians to have reasonably equal access, regardless of where they happen to live in the country. We are fortunate to be blessed with hydroelectric resources throughout the country. However, there are some areas that are more advantaged than others. We have to recognize that we, as a national institution, have an obligation to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they happen to live, have equal and fair access to our hydroelectric resources.
As well, it is important to regulate the industry to assist development in the regions. A number of countries, particularly western European countries that are led by social democratic parties, use electricity to encourage economic development in more remote areas, to encourage manufacturing and so on in areas where probably it would not normally take place but where it provides job opportunities and so on in the hinterland, so to speak. We must do that as well as being opposed to concentrating all of our economic activity in the growth areas of southern Ontario and other specific locations throughout the country.
Another reason for regulation of our electricity exports is that it is important to balance the interests of investors with the over-all public interest. If the industry is not properly and adequately regulated, it is conceivable that electrical monopolies which are shielded from competition could gouge their customers-and we know of those examples-or that a group of investors or, indeed, even a province could push through a profitable electrical enterprise that would pollute the surrounding area, for example, and would not be in the national interest. Or we can foresee short-sighted decisions taken today that could cause future generations to pay more for their power than would have been the case if the plight of future generations had been considered by a well-established and independent regulatory authority.
Obviously, there are a number of reasons why regulation is necessary. I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the current regulatory system. It is well understood. However, perhaps one aspect of our present system bears repeating, and that is that the National Energy Board conducts a public hearing and uses the evidence presented in that open public forum to judge whether the proposal is in the public interest or not. That public hearing process is critical.

A public hearing process, where Canadians can speak out on major initiatives being proposed so that in the end the best decision is made, is a critical component of the process that we have not seen recently with the VIA Rail decision. There have been no public fora, no hearings held on whether or not a certain line should be abandoned or a certain service should be curtailed or eliminated in part. We are hearing from across the country an outcry that the government has really erred in judgment on VIA because of its lack of serious input that experts and others could have provided through a public hearing process.
The main thrust of this bill before us is to make the export of electricity from Canada easier, to streamline the process. In itself that is obviously not bad. No one is in favour of unnecessary regulation, duplication of effort, red tape and frustration. No one wants to trip up exporters with unnecessary complications just for the sake of it.
However, we are all aware that the United States importers of electricity have complained about our means of protecting our national interest. I suppose we could say that is just too bloody bad. This is our national interest and if the Americans do not like our public hearing process and find it burdensome and inconvenient, well, that is too bad. It is our electricity, it is our future we are concerned with, it is our country we are concerned with, it is the people of Canada we are concerned with, and if the Americans do not like our so-called cumbersome process, I say that is too bad. We are not in the business of providing easy access by Americans to our natural resources, although this bill, unfortunately, does just that.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party remain totally unconvinced that the current process needs to be changed. Perhaps more important, I am concerned that the changes proposed in this bill would undermine what protection the existing legislation provides for the Canadian public in the future. I am deeply concerned that this bill would mean that consumers in the United States would enjoy substantial benefit at our expense.
What are the main changes proposed in this bill that concern us? The most important change is that the National Energy Board will routinely grant export per-
Government Orders
mits in most cases. As opposed to calling for a natural public hearing as part of any process, the National Energy Board can grant an export permit without necessarily calling a public hearing. They want to expand the maximum duration of export licences from 25 years to 30 years. I think it is important that most export applications now will not require a public hearing because of what will be the usual routine granting of permits. There is no compelling reason for making public hearings less frequent, especially given the importance of electricity to our national energy future. That is one of the assumptions built in.
The National Energy Board public hearings address issues of national importance. I believe that when a company wants to export electricity it is not necessarily thinking in the national interest. I suspect and would submit it is seldom thinking in the national interest, it is thinking in the interest of it's shareholders which is, of course, the business they are in. In some cases a certain province might be applying for an export application. It too might not necessarily be making judgments in the national interest but in the interest of the province.
We believe it is important that the national interest be taken into any consideration of exporting electricity to the United States. I would submit that a closed process seldom serves the public well. We always have to wonder why things are not being done in the open, why we would not have a public hearing, even if it is a streamlined public hearing. I think it is fair to say that it does serve the public interest well to be doing the business of the public in the open.
As my hon. friend from Victoria made so amply clear in his presentation, this bill would politicize the decisions regarding whether to simply grant a permit or to hold public hearings to consider an export proposal. We have seen too many decisions made not in the public interest but in the political interest of the government in office.
By the legislation, the final decision on whether a public hearing is held or not is made by cabinet, not the National Energy Board. This means that the decision under this system is much more likely to be made on narrow political grounds. I do not have to remind us of the F-18 decision on which every single expert who made his or her views known said that this particular proposal should go to western Canada; every single witness, every expert, and the government did exactly the opposite.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
We have seen ample evidence that decisions that are very important to certain regions and certain provinces are made on political grounds I can see under this process under which no public hearing would be called where the members of a large province might say that it is in our interest as a province, or the area of Canada from which we come, to export substantially increased amounts of electricity to the United States when, in fact, it would be quite contrary to the national good. Again, this shows the political clout of large provinces, at least when it comes to population.
Let me simply conclude by repeating the idea that electricity will soon be seen as a strategic resource in the future of our country, not simply another commodity for export. I suggest that because it will be a strategic resource of the future it should be carefully and jealously husbanded and that means carefully regulated. We should ensure that there is always an opportunity for public hearings so the public's interest can be presented and the decision can be made in the interest of the public. We should ensure that decisions for electricity export are not politicized and are made as independent from the political process as possible. We should protect the independence of the chief regulatory body, in this case the National Energy Board, and we should certainly not increase the duration of export licences by 20 per cent. Twenty-five years is more than ample.
Always over our shoulder is the haunting spectre of the free trade deal. Many of us felt that this was simply a major step so the United States could get more control and more access to our natural resources which are of strategic importance; oil, gas and electricity. Now we see bills and legislation moving through the House to facilitate that opportunity, not for Canadians but for the United States and for Americans.
We should ensure that Canadians, not Americans, gain the most from our Canadian resources. This bill obviously needs to be seriously reworked. For that reason the New Democratic Party will vote against it at this stage. It is ill-conceived; it is wrong-headed; it is not acting in our best interests. We hope, Mr. Speaker, since the government majority will likely pass this bill at second reading, that at least during committee hearings and report stage sufficient amendments can be included to make this bill advantageous for Canada as opposed to advantageous for the United States of America.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, in leading off the debate for our side, has said essentially what we need to say on this in so far as the provisions of the bill are concerned. I rise though because there is an aspect of the bill, certainly an implication in the bill, which has some particular specific import for the province that I have the honour to represent here together with a number of other people.
First, as has been said by a number of people, this bill seeks to facilitate the export of electricity to the United States. I could spend some time on that issue if I did not want to save my time for the other issue that I will identify in a moment. Just in passing, it seems that the garage sale of Canada continues. Come May, the month everybody decides to have a fire sale of sorts, they have what has come to be known in Canada as the backyard sale or the garage sale. Often you sell things you do not need, but that is not the analogy I am drawing here. You often sell them at fire sale prices and that is the analogy I am drawing here.
The garage sale of Canada continues. Everything is for sale at bargain-basement prices, but there is only one customer, the United States. I guess the garage sale analogy is not a particularly good one because even as a garage sale it is very restricted.
I want to come to another issue that is of concern to me, and I believe to many in this chamber, and that relates to the inconsistency here, the incongruity between, on the one hand, facilitating the export of electricity to the United States while at the same time preventing one province of Canada, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, from moving its electricity across provincial barriers. This issue has a long and bitter history. It is not yet resolved and it is far from resolved. We who live in the province suffer because of the present situation.
I want to draw a parallel for you, Mr. Speaker, that you will be familiar with. We have our pipelines bringing gas from western Canada to Ontario and Quebec. There was never ever any question at the time it was proposed about the right to put the pipeline through the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba so that the gas could be transported into Ontario. It was understood and facilitated by the federal government of the day that if there was a product, in this case gas, in western Canada that needed to be moved to the central and eastern Canada market that it ought to move. If that required a physical trespass of the provinces in between, in this case Saskatchewan and Manitoba, so be it.
October 6, 1989

Of course, members will be aware that for many years we have moved gas through a pipeline built across those provinces into Ontario and Quebec. Compare that circumstance with the following one: The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has at Churchill Falls in Labrador a magnificent hydro generation facility put there in the mid 1960s with the collaboration of the two provincial governments, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador on the one hand and the government of Quebec on the other, and in particular the collaboration of their respective hydro agencies; Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as it is now known, in the one case, and Quebec Hydro in the other case.
I will not go into the details of the funding for that particular capital project because these details would be extraneous to the point that I want to make here. I ask you again to reflect on my example given a moment ago about the movement of gas from western Canada into Ontario via a pipeline across the provinces affected.
I ask you to compare that with the situation in which you have hydroelectricity generated in Churchill Falls, Labrador, in the province of Newfoundland for consumption elsewhere, for the most part in the United States. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, electricity from that source in Churchill Falls, Labrador, has for many years been consumed in the United States, particularly in the state of New York.
How does it get from Churchill Falls, Labrador, in the province of Newfoundland to the state of New York? A quick look at your map will show you that the most expeditious route is for it to go across the province of Quebec, and that indeed is the way it does go, but that is not the full story. It goes that way only because of a middleman arrangement where in effect Hydro Quebec is the man in the middle. Hydro buys from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and market sells to the customer in the United States.
Government Orders
That sounds like a fairly sensible transaction until you look at the dollars involved. I do not have them all in front of me but members will be aware of one of the two basic issues here, both of which I want to identify.
One issue, of course, is the pittance that Newfoundland receives for its resource compared to the many hundreds of millions of dollars which Hydro Quebec receives, first, for being the marketer, but also, we acknowledge, for having been an investor in the project at the time it was constructed back in the mid 1960s. I do not want to mislead the House but the figures are of the order of a few million dollars in the case of Newfoundland's annual receipts-I am talking $20 million, $30 million-and $800 million in the case of the annual receipts that accrue to the Quebec treasury through Hydro Quebec.
We have all agreed, irrespective of where we sit in this chamber, that that is an unconscionable deal. We are also aware of the nature of contractual obligations and we in Newfoundland and Labrador have done what we think is the decent thing, although it is hard to swallow at times. We have done what people in institutions do everywhere, we have honoured the contract, as unconscionable as it is.
For some time there has been another way to resolve a related issue. Why a related issue? Well, why would we in Newfoundland and Labrador ever get into another deal like that? We have the resources to do so. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have the headwaters of those five rivers which flow to the sea in southern Quebec.
For many years there have been proposals that the two provinces ought to collaborate in developing and marketing that power.
There is also the Muskrat Falls development in Newfoundland and Labrador which would be developed, but why should we repeat the Upper Churchill Falls fiasco? Why should we again get ourselves in a situation where we are the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, where we are the people receiving the welfare rates, the minimum wage as it were, when another province is getting the real benefit from our resource?

Government Orders
I ask you, is that what happened in the case of the western provinces when they wanted to move their gas to Ontario? No. They continue to receive full market value for their resource which moves across other provinces. We want to move our resource across a province, in this case the province of Quebec, but we have not been permitted to do so. The solution has been there for some time but it has not been acted upon.
If we go back to 1981-82, the then Government of Canada brought in amendments to the National Energy Board which would have given Newfoundland wheeling rights, that is to say it would have given it the prerogative, the authority, to build a transmission line across the province of Quebec. We all know that proposal, beyond being amended in terms of the act, never got to the implementation stage, and I think we all know why. At the same time, I think that if we are going to stand here in this chamber and talk about the desirability of facilitating freer movement of Canadian electricity into the United States market, we ought to put all our cards on the table. What we are talking about, in effect, is the free movement of some Canadian electricity and this bill does absolutely nothing except add to the insult. It does absolutely nothing to facilitate the movement of that rich resource called Labrador hydro power from Labrador to its markets in the populous northeastern United States. What would that do for the economic well-being of the province of Newfoundland? It would change over night from the so-called, have-not status to a have status.
I believe it was Joey Smallwood in his heyday who used to talk about the last remaining storehouse of wealth in North America in reference to Labrador. He was right. The irony is that we who own the storehouse do not really have the keys to it. We own the resource but we cannot unlock it to the benefit of our people in Newfoundland and Labrador. So it is difficult for me as a Newfoundlander to sit in this House when this bill is being discussed and not rise at least for a few moments to flag that terrible circumstance.
I would make one appeal again, the appeal that has been made many times, the appeal to fairness, the same principle that ensured that western gas would move to Ontario. I would appeal to consistency, the principle that surely dictates that if you do it in the case of gas from western Canada, you ought to do the parallel thing in relation to the movement of hydroelectricity in the case of Newfoundland.
I alluded to the reason. Let me be more specific. The reason is summed up in the little cliche "Might is right". It is summed up in the unspoken understanding that there are more votes in Quebec than there are in Newfoundland. That we understand. We only have to watch what is happening to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Canada Post, railway abandonment, to the decision on the CF-18, taking it from Manitoba and putting it into Quebec, to understand the reality of how decisions get made these days by this particular government.
I am not sure why I take the trouble on this one. I am not sure because I know full well that Newfoundland's circumstance in this important matter must be of no consequence at all to the purveyors of what must be the most right-wing Tory agenda ever inflicted on any country anywhere. Why would this crowd, including the member for St. John's West and the member for St. John's East, be bothered with details such as whether Newfoundland becomes a have province or continues to languish as a have-not province. Why should they be concerned with that kind of detail when they are so busy being the attendants at the garage sale of Canada to the Americans, be it in electricity or any other of our resources?
Why do I take the time, Mr. Speaker? Because, at the very least, those of us who are sent here to represent the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorans have an obligation to flag this issue at every opportunity. We have the obligation to call attention to the despicably punitive treatment which Newfoundland is receiving because of this deal-not only the Upper Churchill, I talk of that too-but I talk also about the continuing refusal to allow Newfoundland to market its resource by moving it across another province, even though that same thing has been done in so far as gas is concerned for western Canada.
Now, speaking cliches, it has been said many times that none is so deaf as he who will not hear and so blind as he who will not see. That is really what we are dealing with here. Last weekend the Prime Minister allowed that Canadians had bent over backwards to bring Newfoundland into Confederation back in 1949. We get that kind of disdainful, condescending attitude towards Newfoundland. We have a Prime Minister who has dispatched his minions to Newfoundland, as he has done today in the person of the Minister for International Trade, the member for St. John's West, to tell Newfoundlanders who are scarcely finding enough money to put bread and butter on the table-those who depend on the fishery either as plant workers or fishermen-
October 6, 1989

when and who are having trouble making ends meet that there is no problem in the fishery, that everything is hunky-dory, coming up roses. It is not difficult to understand why that same Prime Minister stands by and allows the present unconscionable situation as it affects Churchill Falls power and Labrador Power generally to continue.
I realize that my time has just about run out. I believe I have made the essential point that this bill, while it may well facilitate the export of electricity to the United States-and there are pros and cons there which we will be getting into byway of amendments in committee-has for Newfoundlanders another ominous implication. The insult will now become more graphic, more technical. It is the insult that says that if you live anywhere else in Canada, yes, you can move your products to the United States or wherever you want, but if you live in Newfoundland you are going to have to ask permission. Then, once you ask it, you are not going to get it, particularly if it relates to your richest resource, hydro power from Labrador. That is the shame of it. We will keep fighting that until somebody over there hears.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, if those of us who are here cared to look outside they would confirm that it is a rather dreary and slow moving Friday afternoon with the House virtually empty as members get ready to go to their constituencies and handle constituency duties over the weekend as well as spend time with their families for Thanksgiving.
I say that with recognition of the fact that those duties themselves are very important. I think it is does bring to light the interesting consequence or coincidence that this Bill is brought to the floor at this particular time of the day and this particular time of the week. It appears almost insignificant as it is brought up for debate. It is an insignificant appearing bill, and yet one that is extremely vital in defining and determining Canada's future and the future of Canada's resources. I would venture to say that the presentation of this bill to the House marks a turning point in the control of Canada's resource industry.
Government Orders
I think what we see in this bill is a clear and yet insidious attempt of this government to harmonize our energy policies with that of our neighbour to the south. Clearly, we are undoing some of the regulatory control that we have traditionally had over our resource industries, such as electricity in this case.
The purpose of this bill is very succinct. It is to facilitate the export of electrical power to the United States. Let's call a spade a spade. That is what it is here for.
I want to say that I agree with my colleagues who have spoken on this issue before, electricity is important as an energy commodity in Canada. It will become increasingly important within the next few years as we struggle to extract ourselves from an economy, a society that has relied on fossil fuels as a major energy source. Everyone here in the chamber and every person across Canada certainly knows the problems that not only Canada but the world is having in terms of emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming.
Electricity is a clean energy source, and because of that will become extremely important in the immediate future. Because it will become increasingly important to Canada as a major energy resource, it stands to reason that the subject of this Bill, that is, how we regulate that energy in the years to come, should also receive some very careful consideration.
For historical reasons there has been a considerable overlap between the provinces and the federal government in terms of the regulation of the electrical industry in Canada. From the outset, when our national energy program was established, the federal government held firmly to the very basic principle that all quantities of electricity to be exported must be surplus to our needs, both to the present needs and to the needs in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Even when the National Energy Board Act in 1959 extended the maximum export licence period for exports from one to 25 years in duration there was still the very clear expectation that our long-term energy export licences would be granted only in the exceptional circumstances that we did in fact have energy supplies surplus to our needs.

October 6, 1989
Government Orders
In light of the growing importance of electrical energy and the entry of Canada into the free trade agreement with the United States, there continues to be a very important role for regulation. It is important that Canadian consumers have a secure energy supply, not only in electrical power but in all sources of energy. It is important that Canadians have reasonable and equal access on a regional basis to those energy supplies.
It is important to regulate the industry to assist in the development of the regions of this country that are not so well off. We can use it as a regional development tool. I might add that in light of the free trade agreement the ability of Canada to utilize its energy resources for regional economic development incentives has been sadly diminished.
It is important to balance the interest of investors with over-all public interest. If the industry is not adequately regulated, then it is conceivable that electrical monopolies which are shielded from competition could in fact gouge their customers. It is conceivable that a group of investors or, indeed, even a province, could push through a profitable electrical enterprise that in fact would harm environmentally surrounding areas such as coal-generated electrical power.
It is conceivable that short-sighted decisions taken today could cause future generations to pay more for their power than would have been the case if proper regulatory controls were implemented and adhered to. I think that regulation of these exports is clearly essential if the interests of Canadians are to be protected adequately.
I want to go back to the main thrust of the bill, because this bill is very clear in its intent. It is to make the export of electrical energy from Canada easier. We all know where our major customer for that export lies. This bill is to streamline the process. This bill is to harmonize with our U.S. neighbour the process of free trade in electrical energy.
I firmly believe this bill is a pay-off of the Prime Minister to the premier for his support in the election on that free trade agreement. It is a political pay-off.
I know that our U.S. customers have for some time complained about the means that we have of protecting our national interests. They have been trying to get hold of our energy resources for some time. The free trade agreement has finally given them that handle. They have found in the past with the National Energy Board our process of public hearings, of ensuring that there is full debate on whether exports are granted, is burdensome. They do not want to deal with all those details. It is too inconvenient.
Some people have even suggested that the existing process is, in fact, a duplication of efforts. We are not convinced of that on this side of the House. I believe that my colleagues and I are unconvinced that the current process needs to be changed as radically as this legislation intends.
I am concerned also that the changes that are proposed in this bill could undermine the protection that the existing legislation provides the Canadian public in the future, particularly in light of the fact that we are now in a post free trade environment.
I am concerned that this bill could mean that the consumers in the United States could enjoy a substantial benefit at our expense.
When the Reagan administration was negotiating the free trade deal with Canada, its officials, after securing the provisions in the chapter concerning energy, were bold enough to declare that the energy section in the free trade agreement was a major prize in the bilateral trade agreement. The continental market established by the free trade agreement in energy covers almost every kind of energy product: oil, natural gas, coal, as well as electricity.
The accord has now been ratified. That reality came down upon us at the beginning of the year. As a result of that agreement we have now lost the right to use minimum export prices. We have lost the right to tax on exports or to influence export quotas as instruments of national energy policy.
I want to add that the interpreters for the government, when they were involved in the free trade negotiations, said that Canada has no obligation to supply energy to the United States, no obligation whatsoever. But, in fact, when we look at it, the claim is a shoddy play on words.
When we investigate it in detail we see that the deal concedes to the private energy corporations operating in Canada-and I must add including U.S. subsidiaries
October 6, 1989

operating in Canada-the right to sell in the United States as much or as little of our non-renewable resources, including electricity, as they choose. Canadian governments, both federal and provincial, are going to have little or no control over this process.
I want to refer directly to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and specifically to the chapter on energy, Chapter 9. The articles within that chapter give to our U.S. counterparts access to our resources and proportional sharing of our resources. That is to say, once we have established an export market in electricity, for example, and if we were to undergo a shortage in Canada, we could not cut back on that commodity export to the United States unless we cut back the equivalent amount to our own domestic customers. It gives them equal access to a resource that is going to be critically important in Canada's future.
It goes on to say in Article 907 that neither party, neither the U.S. nor Canada, shall maintain or introduce a measure restricting imports of energy goods from or any exports of an energy good to the other party. We cannot restrict access once that access is granted. In times of shortage, in times of crisis, we cannot cut back on those export supplies unless we in fact cut back even to our own customers.
I maintain and reiterate that this piece of legislation, as innocent as it looks, is the legislative process by which we are moving in to free trade in our energy resources with the United States. As innocent as this piece of legislation is, I maintain it is extremely vital to Canada's future and in the ability of we as a nation to maintain some degree of control over these resource commodities in the future. Once we lose control of our energy resources, we lose control of our economy. That is why this bill is so critically important.
Electricity is a strategic commodity. The United States knows that. The free trade agreement had nothing to do with reduction of tariff barriers, although that is included in it. What the United States wanted out of the free trade agreement and got was clear access to Canada's non-renewable resources. We all know darn well that south of the border the Americans are running short on their resources, their energy supplies, their water. They now have to import oil supplies. They have an energy wasteful economy. Now they have an energy short economy. They are turning to Canada, to our waters, to our subterranean fossil fuels. They are turning to Cana-
Government Orders
da as a resource haven to continue their mindless process of industrial and economic expansion.
That is why this piece of legislation is so vital to debate. If we let it go through we will in fact be relinquishing control of a very vital resource, and that is our energy supplies.
Based upon that argument I think it is no surprise that my colleagues and I will certainly not be supporting this legislation.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, who in a previous incarnation was a member of the British Columbia legislature for an area which is now within my federal riding of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, particularly representing the communities of Burton, Fauquier and Edgewood, and what used to be the community of Arrow Park. He has shown by his remarks that he fully understands the apprehension, even the fear, of many people in the West Kootenay Basin and the Columbia River Valley of any measure such is now before us which tends to weaken the potential power of the public to have some say in what happens to our electrical energy resources and the water resources that are connected to them.
He will also be fully aware of the massive rejection of the free trade agreement that took place in his area and in ours, where in elections from 1974 through 1979, through 1980 and 1984, margins were some 700 votes no matter whether they were in favour of myself of the New Democratic Party or of Mr. Brisco of the Conservative Party.
In this last election it was up around the 4,000 figure. The reason for that was that in many parts of his constituency, as in mine, we were once before in Canadian history the guinea pigs for a continental energy policy when the Columbia River Treaty was shoved down our throats even with public hearings. We lost our communities. We lost some of the best farm land and some of the best forest land in the province of British Columbia.
It is because of that experience and that fear that we so massively rejected what we thought was at the heart of the free trade agreement espoused by the government.

October 6, 1989
My colleague said that we in the New Democratic Party would be voting against Bill C-23 because it weakens the potential power of the public to have a say as to what happens to them, their communities, their water, and their power. Even if we did not see that clearly ourselves, it would be impossible for us not to listen to the ghosts of the people who are buried under the waters of the Arrow Lakes and the Columbia River and in the communities of Burton and Arrow Park.
They paid the price, even in their burial places, of having that continental energy policy thrust down their throats. We are suspicious, and we have good reason. The government can only say: "Well, trust us, trust the bureaucracies, trust the power utilities, trust B.C. Hydro, trust all the other power corporations, be they public or private across the country, and trust the governments, our provincial governments and our federal government. We do not need to have public hearings. We will leave that up to the politicians and the bureaucrats to decide".
On the basis of our experience, our predecessors' experience and his own experience can he have that kind of trust in any government, especially considering that it was a Conservative government that negotiated and a Liberal government that implemented the treaty which hurt our communities and our people in the past?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: To answer the question specifically with regard to trust, I think that to a large measure I speak for my constituents in general when I say that there is a great distrust of the actions of this government with regard to entering into the free trade agreement and the sell-out of our energy and non-renewable resources.
My colleague's recollection of the arguments presented during the election on the free trade agreement as it applies to energy is very accurate. People are very concerned about it, and are still so. The fact is that we have seen the ravages of the effects of damming and the erasing of thousands of hectares of viable agricultural land, and changing the entire lifestyle of communities throughout a whole valley. I speak specifically of the damming of the Columbia River when the Columbia River Power Treaty was initiated. We have seen what can happen to the economies. We have seen what can happen to the lifestyle in a valley when that happens. We
Government Orders
are concerned about it. There is a great deal of distrust of both federal and provincial actions.
We know, for example, that the Columbia River Power Treaty is coming up for renegotiation in 1992. It is very likely to expect that our American friends to the south will not want less water over the spillways. They probably will want more. For an area such as the Okanagan-Shu-swap that is traditionally semi-arid because it is water-short, that poses some very serious problems for us. People are very much afraid that once you turn the taps on, you never turn them off. This brings to mind another plan that was dreamed up by our friends in the United States. I do not know what they think of us up here but they had the gall to dream up the NAWAPA plan, the North America Water and Power Alliance.
It is a simple little idea. You take British Columbia, you damn the south end of the Rocky Mountain trench, you flood the whole rest of the Rocky Mountain trench right up into the Yukon and use it as a massive reservoir to feed the Coke machines down in Los Angeles and San Diego. "It is a massive water and energy reservoir". It is arrogance to suggest that British Columbians or Canadians would allow that kind of thing to happen, flooding thousands and thousands of acres of British Columbia to serve as a reservoir for the southwestern U.S. power grid. That plan is still being talked about within the lobby groups that have the ear of the minister of energy.
Look at who negotiated our free trade agreement. Mr. Reisman was the grand designer of the grand canal scheme. It was a simple little plan to take James Bay and dump it into the Mississippi system.
We know what Mr. Reisman said about the water resources in Canada. He said this would be the carrot with which to negotiate the free trade agreement with the United States, and he used it as the carrot. The United States, as is a reasonable response, rubbed its hands in glee. It snatched the carrot, signed the deal, and now we are getting prepared for it to walk away with our energy supplies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean on a question or comment.


Beryl Gaffney: First I would like to compliment my colleague from the NDP party on a powerful, emotional speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 6, 1989

Government Orders


Beryl Gaffney: This is a very quick question because I know people are anxious to get home, but if a province decides it wants to export electricity into the U.S., what means or what mechanism will be in place that will allow Canadians to receive full disclosure of the actual export? Do you think that that is going to be covered in this bill?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I think the member brings up a very perceptive question. What kind of access, what kind of process of disclosure is allowable under this particular piece of legislation? In looking at the details of this legislation, I would say that we have a considerable lessening of the ability of common taxpayers to investigate what the ramifications of an energy export provision are because through this bill they want to eliminate a lot of the process of public discussion and public disclosure. In response to a very important question that that process for public discussion with regard to the irrevocable sale of an energy resource has, in fact, been shut off. The people will have less chance to debate those issues.
That is precisely why the people in British Columbia and the people across Canada do not trust this type of legislation.


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:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that I call it 3 o'clock? The honourable parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: May I, on behalf of the government, say that we have no intention of introducing any further legislation. We are quite happy to call it 3 o'clock.
We would like to wish all our colleagues in the House a very happy and good Thanksgiving.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Kamloops on the same point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we appreciate the generous comments offered by the parliamentary secretary.
Was it recorded in terms of the actual vote that it was passing on division?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 28(1), the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1989 at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 10, 1989