1989-05-26

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday in the House of Commons during Question Period, on the basis of information that had been given to me, I made reference to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) having commented in the past on an RCMP inquiry into Mr. Sinclair Stevens.
Later, in Question Period, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) pointed out that there had been no such RCMP inquiry into Mr. Stevens' activities. The Minister of Finance is, of course, quite right. There was of course only the Parker Commission.
I accept the correction and would want the record corrected immediately because I would not want to mislead the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Landry (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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly today to the Bill tabled in the House for the purpose of forgiving the debts incurred or assumed in respect of official development assistance by a number of sub-Saharan countries in Africa.
My comments will mainly concern the three following points: First, the decision to have this Bill approved by Parliament is in line with Canada's policy on Third World debt problems; second, the Bill will make it possible for Canada to honour the commitments it made sometime ago; and finally, this measure has practically no impact on our country's Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all parliamentarians are aware of the serious problems confronting debtor countries in the Third World.
I will not provide an in-depth analysis of the causes although I will name a few: the oil crises of the past fifteen years, sagging market prices for raw materials, problems encountered in obtaining access to the markets of industrialized countries, soaring interest rates, and so forth.
It is important to understand that these are factors over which debtor countries have very little control. However, the debts are a tremendous burden for the African countries concerned, which are already faced with formidable obstacles, including vulnerable ecosystems, increasing desertification and a precarious food production system.
In absolute terms, the debts of sub-Saharan countries are not as onerous as those of Latin American countries.
However, considering the level of economic development and scarce resources of the countries concerned, the impact is far more devastating.

May 26, 1989
Sub-Saharan Africa
Canada has already taken many initiatives in favour of debt distressed countries. The steps now being proposed are therefore part of a process that our country set in motion during the previous decade.
In 1977 we forgave the Official Development Assistance debts of 12 countries on the list of the least developed countries. Since April, 1986 we have been providing all new bilateral development assistance to all countries in the form of grants only, rather than loans that would add to the debt burden of Third World countries.
In 1986 Canada announced a moratorium on Official Development Assistance debt repayment for African countries that are implementing a structural adjustment program.
In 1987 Parliament also forgave the ODA debts of Togo, Mauritania, and the now defunct East Africa Community. The international community, especially African countries, welcomed those initiatives. They viewed them as proof of our country's commitment to help distressed countries.
At the 1987 Venice Summit, Canada announced that it would provide help to the poorest countries, and at the Toronto Summit last year Canada continued to play a leadership role concerning solutions to the debt problem.
Within the relevant international fora we are encouraging a flexible approach, including the possibility of rescheduling repayments and utilizing concessional interest rates on short-term loans to low income countries.

Mr. Speaker, in March 1988 I tabled our Official Development Assistance Strategy, entitled: Sharing our Future. For the first time, this document includes an Official Development Assistance Charter, in which Canada has made helping the world's poorest countries a priority.
Clearly, the Bill before the House today is entirely in line with that objective.
Furthermore, Canada has decided to facilitate the implementation of structural adjustment programs in debtor countries. The programs will help these countries to improve their economic and financial situation, while
remaining sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable groups.
The proposed legislation also follows through on commitments we made before two international forums. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in September 1987, at the Sommet de la Francophonie held in Quebec, Canada announced its intention to forgive the debts of a certain number of sub-Saharan member countries.
We announced a similar measure for the benefit of African members of the Commonwealth, at a meeting of Commonwealth heads of State which we hosted shortly afterwards in Vancouver.
However to respond to the pressing needs of these countries, Canada must honour its commitments without delay.
The countries targeted by the proposed legislation are: Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, the Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, Swaziland, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Since we must assume that when preparing their budgets, these countries allowed for the consequences of the measures announced by Canada, they would find it very hard to understand, and with them the rest of the international community, any failure on our part to honour these commitments.

I now turn to the third point to which I referred earlier, namely that the proposed legislation has virtually no tangible impact on Canada's budgetary situation. This is without question an important element in the current context. One has to understand that our country's Official Development Assistance loans are highly concessional in nature. As a practical matter, the grant element makes up over 90 per cent of those loans. They are considered budgetary items, which means that Parliament has already appropriated the necessary resources for the loans through budgetary estimates. Therefore, the removal of those loans will not entail any new appropriations, nor will it impact on the cumulative deficit.
I would like to add-and this is another important point-that if the sums in question were repaid, Canada's Official Development Assistance disbursements would be increased by corresponding amounts. This occurs because Canada's Official Development Assistance, as a proportion of our Gross National Product, is
May 26, 1989

based on net disbursements, that is, disbursements less Official Development Assistance loan repayments.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize again that this Bill continues a policy Canada has long followed. We are convinced that the African countries concerned cannot return to the path of true development unless their debt burden is lightened. A consensus was reached on this subject very recently at a joint meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
To be sure, the debts owed to Canada are only a part of the total indebtedness of Third World countries. Nevertheless, we are convinced that in honouring its commitments, our country will encourage other creditor countries to do their share. That is what has just happened at the Francophone Summit in Dakar, when French President Francois Mitterrand announced that his country would cancel the official development assistance debts incurred by several poor African countries. We are pleased with this decision, which is similar to the initiatives that Canada announced in 1987 at the Francophone Summit in Quebec City and the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver.
We note with satisfaction that the trend to concrete action in this crucial area is growing. We again express the wish that other countries will take similar action. For its part, Canada continues to consider other ways to act and contribute to the solution of this pressing problem.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity for responding to the proposed Bill C-10, which will forgive debt in 13 sub-Saharan African countries.
I would like to say at the outset that it is indeed difficult to vote against such a Bill. If anybody has been watching, for example. The Journal program which is focusing on the plight of people in the Sudan and will continue this evening, one will recognize the dire need of so many hundreds of thousands of people in Africa; not just Africa but throughout the developing world, the Third World.
Sub-Saharan Africa
In the past years Canadians have responded very openly and generously to the plight of people in the Third World. When polls are taken, they indicate that over 70 per cent of Canadians support the generous past experience and policies of the Canadian Government in the provision of overseas Official Development Assistance to developing nations. They are scandalized by the recent cut-backs of this Government in its official overseas development assistance.
I have two problems with this Bill which I would like to address today. The first one is that I would not, standing here proposing to support Bill C-10, want to suggest that I am in any way supporting this Government in trying to recuperate its tarnished image in relationship to its non-support of Third World countries. In fact. Bill C-10 amounts to a big zero. It says nothing new. The Bill was first suggested in May, 1986 when we put a moratorium on debt in African countries. Since that time, and as per our policy from 1977 that any loans or payments made to Third World countries would only be accepted by them as grants, those countries have not had to make any payments to this country. Therefore, this Bill purporting now to forgive loans is a zero. Mr. Speaker, if you subtract zero from zero you will always have zero, and that is what this Bill represents.
The Government has been extremely irresponsible in dealing with Third World debt problems. Third World debt is one of most serious problems that the world faces today, yet the Government has no policy. It abrogates all its responsibility for dealing with the problem to the international financial institutions. That is not good enough.
The substance of Bill C-10 is meaningless. Little has been said so far about the Government's cuts to Overseas Development Assistance, but more will be said because 70 per cent of Canadians will not forget what the Minister has permitted to occur in Third World countries in terms of our caring and concern and the outward signs of that to Third World countries.
As the Minister has stated, the Bill has no impact on the budget of our country. This Bill is definitely not representing in any way any new generosity on the part of the Government. In the Government's own documents with regard to this issue it states: "The financial costs of the legislation are virtually nil. As a result of the concessional nature of ODA loans, ODA loans are considered budgetary, meaning that Parliament has ap-

May 26, 1989
Sub-Saharan Africa
propriated the necessary resources for the loans through budgetary Estimates. Removal of these loans from the accounts of Canada will therefore not entail any new appropriations nor will it impact on the cumulative deficit."
In this Bill the amount that is suggested to be forgiven is approximately $672 million. Had that been repaid, it would automatically have been added to CIDA's budget to ensure that Canada's net ODA levels did not diminish due to debt repayment. However, I reiterate that zero from zero is always zero.
In looking at the Bill and the forgiveness of debt of $672 million, it is interesting to compare that figure with the total debt in only three of the thirteen African countries listed in this Bill.
As of 1986, the debt in Nigeria alone was $16.6 billion; the debt in the Ivory Coast was $7.4 billion; and the debt in Zaire was $4.6 billion. Therefore, the supposed forgiveness of $672 million has very little significance. It is the greater debt that is the true burden of those countries,concerning which the Government refuses to confront and develop policies.
With regard to the Government and its lack of commitment to the Third World countries and also dealing with debt, it is interesting to look at the actual record of the Government with this Budget. Normally, Official Development Assistance amounts to approximately 3 per cent of Government expenditures. With this Budget, Official Development Assistance has absorbed 29 per cent of all the expenditure cuts made by the Government. Where are the cuts?
If we propose to show that we have a concern for African countries, it is interesting to look at the cuts in the Budget. For example, and I remind Members to think of the starving in Africa, bilateral and multilateral food aid cuts amount to $65 million this year. Where is the conscience of the Government?
International humanitarian assistance has been cut by $25 million. International NGOs, non-governmental organizations, those that reach out to the most in need in their own countries, have had their budget cut by $3 million. Voluntary sector support has been cut by $87 million. The budgets of Anglophone Africa and Francophone Africa have been cut by $33 million. This Bill represents zero.
What the Government has done through its Budget cuts to Official Development Assistance has indirectly and directly caused a diminishing of potential aid assistance to Africa of $203 million. The total cuts to Official Development Assistance this year amount to $360 million. That is $360 million less than last year's expenditures in ODA.
We expected that ODA would go up to $3.1 billion this year, if we had maintained our level of increasing ratios. Instead, Official Development Assistance expenditures will sit at $2.44 billion or .43per cent of our Gross National Product.
Years ago, when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister, he set the benchmark for the ratio of ODA to GNP for the developing nations. He suggested that .7 per cent ratio ODA to GNP was the target that we should all be attempting to achieve. As a result of the Budget, we are experiencing the third drawback from that target put in place by this Government. As a matter of fact, the Government no longer even talks about .7 per cent ratio as an objective we are trying to achieve. By our calculations, we might be able to achieve such a target by the year 2040. However, in committee, members of the Government have suggested that it is unrealistic for us to even think of attempting to achieve .7 per cent ODA to GNP ratio. I believe that that is simply unconscionable. It is being heard by Canadians, and they will not forget.
Canada now ranks last among middle income developed countries as to its level of ODA provided. We are last when compared to other countries such as the four Nordic countries and Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Canada now joins the United States as being the only developed country that is cutting back its ODA-GNP ratio. Perhaps that is our country's new benchmark and model for developed nations.
The debt problem exists not only for sub-Saharan African countries. It exists world-wide. The world-wide debt now stands at more than $1 trillion U.S. In the developing nations of the world we have felt that we have been assisting Third World countries, helping them to become equal, and that we were providing them with economic and social justice. We have striven for those objectives over the years.
May 26, 1989

However, at the moment we are failing because when one looks at world-wide cash flows, the direction of net cash flow is not from the developed nations to the developing nations but it is quite the reverse. Annually, the developing nations are contributing $30 billion to the developed nations of the world. As the Minister says: "debtor countries have no control over interest rates" which are the factor that contributes very much to the realignment of net cash flows in the world. The Third World countries are defenceless against increasing rises in interest rates. Developed countries have some control over interest rates.
I repeat that the federal Government is taking no responsibility for addressing these problems as they affect Third World countries.
In the 1980s, developing countries have experienced a 30 per cent decline in their real per capita incomes. This decline is equivalent to what Canadians and other developed nations might have experienced during the dirty thirties of the depression. However, when we were going through that most difficult period, we did not have those additional problems of droughts, food shortages and rising debt. We did not experience at the same rate the institutional deterioration that the Third World is experiencing now.
This year, 40,000 children are dying in this world every day from malnutrition and disease. Canada has abrogated its responsibility to deal with international debt problems. It has abrogated this responsibility to international financial institutions which receive in the order of 18 per cent of our ODA.
International financial institutions have instituted programs like structural adjustment programs, or SAPS, economic recovery programs, or ERPS. SAPS and ERPS all give us indigestion and they are doing nothing to assist Third World countries. They are most inappropriate. These programs have produced nothing but deterioration of the standard of living and have added to the inequality and injustices that exist in Third World countries.
Let us look at some of the background of Bill C-10. It was my honour and privilege in June, 1986, to be present at the United Nations Special Session which addressed the economic crisis in Africa. I was present as a member
Sub-Saharan Africa
of the non-governmental organization community in Canada. The purpose of our community being at the United Nations was to afford non-government organizations from Africa the opportunity to be present and to be heard in that forum which was discussing the crisis in their countries.
We realize that the people of Africa have very little say in what their governments do and the decisions and policies that are taken by their governments. Therefore, it was our concern as Canadians, as non-governmental organizations of a developed country, to afford these non-governmental organizations of Africa the opportunity to be heard and to speak.
It was with pride at that time that I heard our former Minister of External Relations stand up and make her statement to the program of Africa 2,000 in which she set a moratorium on debt repayments. I cannot help but believe she must have taken some of her directions in making this statement from our ambassador to the United Nations at that time.
There was a dialogue and a debate going on at the United Nations at the time, whereby leaders of large developed countries such as Britain, the United States and Germany, were suggesting that the issues of debt and financial matters, when discussing an economic crisis in Africa, had to be left within the realm of the international financial institutions and could not be discussed at the United Nations. Our Government, by presenting its statement, boldly said that yes, indeed, debt was an appropriate topic of discussion at the United Nations.
The Minister made the following statement:
Today I am announcing that Canada is offering to sub-Saharan countries a moratorium on repayment of these loans for an initial period of five years. We are prepared to extend this measure in five-year segments until the year 2000. In this way, we wish to help in providing all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa that face serious external payments difficulties and that have demonstrated a commitment to undertake necessary economic adjustment, the room to manoeuvre that they need to put their economies back on a solid foundation.
On a country-by-country basis, we are prepared to immediately begin discussing the application of this measure within the framework of World Bank Consultative Groups or in other appropriate forums.
I draw to the attention of the House the Minister's reference to putting a moratorium on repayments to

May 26, 1989
Sub-Saharan Africa
African countries that have demonstrated a commitment to undertake necessary economic adjustment.
It changes. At the Venice summit in June, 1987, comments were made again about this moratorium. The Government proposed a paper to be discussed, which dealt with debt relief. It said:
The most dramatic and helpful action would be to convert all existing ODA loans to grants-Another option would be to extend the moratorium on repayments for a given number of years or until a country achieves a certain level of development as measured by the objectives indicators outlined later in this paper-such relief would be extended to countries meeting agreed criteria and undertaking serious adjustment efforts under the IMF or World Bank.
This statement was further elaborated upon on June 30 by the present Minister when she referred to Bill C-62. She said:
The non-repayment period could also be extended by another five years if the economy of these countries showed no signs of recovery.
This is certainly a different tone from that in which the moratorium and forgiveness was originally suggested. Countries that have demonstrated a commitment to undertake necessary economic adjustment is quite different from a statement that says that the Government would provide debt relief to countries that showed no sign of recovery.
It is very important that countries that are experiencing debt and that do experience moratoriums or forgiveness of debt do exhibit some concern for changing their own internal policies. When it was originally stated that our moratorium was based on that fact, we supported it.
There are many countries in Africa that do not stand for equality and justice in their own countries. Anyone visiting those countries would have a difficult time experiencing social justice after seeing the presidents of these countries drive down crowded city streets at 90 miles an hour in stretch limousine Mercedes. Unfortunately many of these countries, not just in their economic and justice policies, but on human rights, exhibit a lack of caring for the people.
When Canada makes concessions, it should be more thoughtful and responsible. I have attempted to discover exactly what commitments Canada was imposing on the sub-Saharan African countries, on a country by country
basis, to see whose debt is being forgiven in Bill C-10.1 could find nothing. There do not appear to have been any conditions attached, despite the Minister's original statement.
I have done research and I have asked the Library of Parliament to help me in this. I have found nothing. However, I refer to a Senate report of 1987 entitled: "Canada, the International Financial Institutions and the Debt Problem of Developing Countries". This a quote from that document:
The Canadian government has taken steps to lighten the official debt load of a number of low-income countries. During the Conference on International Economic and Co-operation in 1977 Canada forgave its outstanding loans to the least-developed countries, including eight African countries, for a total forgiveness of $310 million of debt. Since that time all CIDA projects in these least-developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been on a grant basis. Further, in 1986 Canada offered a 15-year moratorium on payments of principal and interest of the ODA debt of other low-income sub-Saharan African nations where Canada had continued to make concessional loans rather than grants. Debt of this nature totalled $700 million and involved forgoing $250 million in repayments.
Initially the Government offered a five-year moratorium, but announced that it was prepared to extend the measure in five-year segments until the year 2000. The Government asked only that the African countries affected show their commitment to introducing economic reforms.
None of them, it appears, have voluntarily offered to do this. The international financial institutions have imposed structural adjustment programs on them, which have been a total failure to these countries. The Government has taken no responsibility in trying to support actions on the part of sub-Saharan African countries to introduce their own reforms to bring about greater justice and equality within their own countries.
When the African nations came to the United Nations in June of 1986, they had met prior to that meeting to put together a statement which is called: "Africa's Priority Programme for Economic Recoveiy". It outlines what they wanted to do to bring about adjustment in their own countries. At the United Nations in June of 1986, the developed nations of the world were impressed. We were supportive of these statements that came out of African countries. They state in the priority statement: "The successful implementation of the Priority Programme will lay the foundation for durable structural changes.
May 26. 1989

improve levels of productivity and ensure the rapid recovery of the African economies".
It suggested immediate measures that could be taken to combat food emergencies, such as creating and sustaining national emergency preparedness, effecting early warning systems, establishing flexible and efficient regional networks of crop protection, and establishing national food security arrangements. Their program suggested medium-term measures, raising the level of investment in agriculture, increasing food production, establishing and protecting arable land and rendering it more productive.
These nations wanted to address their own programs and problems as they saw them. They wanted to devote time and resources to human resource development. They wanted to change radically the educational system at all levels to ensure that the skills, knowledge and attitudes that are relevant to Africa's developmental needs were generated. They wanted to intensify efforts to promote mass literacy and adult learning programs. They wanted to utilize efficiently manpower resources, including measures to reverse the brain drain, et cetera. They wanted to have the people of their country participate in development. In their own program they had put an emphasis on involving women in development.
All of these programs that they wanted to institute, however, required the assistance of the developed world. The international community responded by stating:
The international community is aware that ihe process of development being initiated by the African countries, as reflected in the Priority Programme, has to be supplemented by complementary actions of the international community through intensified cooperation and substantially increased support -
The international community recognizes the magnitude of Africa's debt and the severe and restrictive burden which this has placed on many African countries. It realizes that measures have to be taken to alleviate this burden and to enable those countries to concentrate on the full implementation of priorities. In addressing problems arising from such debt, existing mechanisms should respond flexibly and be improved as appropriate.
The Government has decreased in its Budget the level of overseas Official Development Assistance to sub-Saharan African countries. It has not responded as it
Sub-Saharan Africa
originally committed itself to respond on a country-bycountry basis, helping the African countries to meet their own objectives. It has not responded to the debt problems in those countries.
The Senate of Canada in 1987 addressed the problem of debt. The Government has not responded and taken action as a result of their report. It is worthwhile to mention some of the remarks that were made in it. As I stated before, the Senate report of 1987 is entitled: "Canada, the International Financial Institutions and the Debt Problem of Developing Countries". The Senate report suggests that there must be a dialogue between creditor and debtor countries. The report states:
The Committee considers that the time may have come for creditor governments to lift their objections to direct dialogue with debtor governments.
The Committee recommends that the Canadian government publicly endorse and advocate the principle of a dialogue within the IMF's Interim Committee involving creditor and debtor Governments.
- the Committee recommends the creation of a small group of distinguished persons from North and South which might be known as the Advisoty Group on International Indebtedness -
The tasks of this Advisory Group would be: to monitor the evolution of debt problems; to relate them to other aspects of the world economy; to comment on the performance of the IMF and the World Bank and their shortcomings; to strengthen the commitment of debtor countries governments to better management and adjustment; to increase the awareness of the problems of debt particularly of the poorest countries; and to help focus the attention of creditor countries on remedial measures.
A great deal of the basic work on how this country could profitably address the debt problems internationally and world-wide are suggested in this Senate report.
Other groups in the world have looked at the problem and have come up with their own recommendations. I would like to quote from a group called CIDSE which represents 14 Catholic development organizations located in Europe and North America. They suggest:
A debtor country is considered credit worthy if it accepts the IMF's "Recommendations for Adjustment" in a Letter of Intent.
Typical IMF adjustment measures include: limitation of the national budget deficit through measures to curb the growth of public spending such as the reduction of subsidies, price increases for public services,

May 26. 1989
Sub-Saharan Africa
staff cuts, restriction of the money supply and de-regulation of interest rates; limitation of wage increases;
Experience has shown that adjustment policies based on IMF's criteria had only limited success, whilst their social costs have been very high.
I would like to spend a few moments addressing the irresponsible abrogation of this Government's responsibility to deal with debt problems to the IMF and other international financial institutions. What we do need is structural adjustment with a human face. Elowever, structural adjustment the way it is affecting Third World countries now is having very deleterious effects on the populations of these countries.
Health costs in developing nations have had to be reduced 50 per cent world-wide. Education expenditures in developing nations world-wide have had to be reduced 25 per cent. I mentioned before that the net cash flows from developing nations to developed nations now amount to $30 billion per annum. Instead of the developed nations helping the Third World countries, the Third World countries are now helping us with cash flows to us. We are all backwards and upside down. The world needs to take a new look at structural adjustment.
Environmental degradation is carrying on at a heavy pace. The population is rising. If people do not know that their children are going to live, the population will rise. When people know they have security, that they can feed their children, and that their children will live in health and prosperity and survive, population rates immediately decrease. The Third World is experiencing tremendous food scarcity. There is deprivation of food causing tremendous costs to the future of the world in the disabilities that are resulting.
The present results of the relationship between the developed and the developing nations has caused incredibly huge rises in food shortages, housing shortages, water degradation, health care degradation and education degradation. Illiteracy is increasing. The opportunities in these countries to the poor of their countries are decreasing rapidly. We have had structural adjustment but we have had no revitalization and growth. Adjustment must be reconsidered. Debt world-wide must be rationally and humanely confronted.
This Government introduces bills to forgive debt but takes no leadership in dealing with the root causes of poverty and death. Debt forgiveness will not prevent new, unmanageable debt from mounting. As the world's poor become poorer, injustices become more evident. Frustration inevitably mounts. Poverty causes tension and violence and mounting poverty and inequality become a security issue. Desperation to have access to our world's natural resources will have irreversible environmental impacts. We will all lose.
I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-10 is meaningless posturing. It highlights this Government's irresponsible attitude to a major world problem. I support this Bill but I implore the Government to address debt problems world-wide and fill a debt policy vacuum.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-10, although I think it is somewhat ironic that we are forgiving a debt that we have already acknowledged could never be repaid. It is the old saw, that you cannot get blood from a stone.
In beginning my comments, because I only have a short time, I would just like to outline the direction I want to take on my response to this Bill.
First, I want to talk about the history of how sub-Saharan Africa incurred such a debt, how it got into the place it is in now and our complicity in getting it there. I then want to talk about the complexity that the subject demands, the definitions of terms such as structural adjustment and IFI, the International Financial Institutions, the IMF. For most Canadians, these terms are so obscure that I think they require definition. I also believe that our complicity in those financial institutions should be explained.
Then I would like to go to Canada's role in the forgiveness of debt. While the Government and Canadians generally should be applauded for the forgiveness of debt, we should be able to see this not in isolation. We have to see it in the context of the recent cut-backs to foreign aid, Official Development Assistance. To forgive the debt and then not to increase foreign aid is a contradiction.
To begin, then, I will just focus on the history. I have personal knowledge of the effects of the debt problem in Africa. I have travelled to the Sudan and to Eritrea. One of the most graphic pictures of the polarization that occurs in a country under IMF supervision as to its internal policies came to me when I walked out of my hotel in Khartoum. There in the street was a crippled beggar child-we do not know whether he was delib-
May 26, 1989

erately crippled-begging. He was beside a very scrawny donkey, and next to that donkey was a huge white Mercedes Benz limousine. That is what we see when the IMF runs things in Africa. There is no understanding of what IMF policies do. There is no understanding of the humanity that is harmed by their policies.
Julius Nyere, the former President of Tanzania, said that there is a way of focusing on the real reasons why this debt has happened. The Third World is blamed for its own poverty. The Third World heavy debt burden arose through a combination of modest development ambitions and external events beyond the control of developing countries.
What happened after the first oil shock of 1973 is that many Third World countries borrowed to ease their adjustment to the new fuel prices. Credit was easy to obtain as western banks looked for profitable uses of the OPEC surpluses which were being entrusted to them. I know that kind of dynamic as well, because prior to working for a non-governmental organization I was a banker. I know how banks work. When banks have surplus cash, they want to put it out there to make money from it. That is what happened. The Third World bought into it.
Nyere said: "The resulting huge debts are a national problem, not only for the debtor countries". He said: "We undertook to repay and honour the demands that we do so, but we are increasingly unable to do so because of the changes in world conditions since the debts were incurred. The debts are therefore also a problem for the developed countries".
That is the focus of what my main argument on this Bill is going to be.
We are in this together. We cannot see a forgiveness of sub-Saharan African debt in isolation from what is occurring in our own country. It is that connection with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that we have to be cognizant of. In this interdependent world, if we do not understand those connections, we can go down the same road as they are going down.
In the moments that are allowed me before Question Period, I just want to draw the attention of the House to that interconnectiveness. Our own Budget deficit and the Government's approach to attacking the Budget deficit has parallels in the Third World. One agency, OXFAM Canada, likened our own Budget to a self-imposed IMF structural adjustment. On that note, I will draw my comments to a close and hope that at some future time I will be able to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed to statements by Members with the Hon. Member for South Shore.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Harris task force released today indicates, and I quote from page 21:
The state of the stock does not support a conclusion that anything drastic or threatening has occurred to the northern cod stock to date.
However, measures will have to be put in place including, it would seem, a reduction in next year's TAC to ensure that the stock again begins to grow.
Over the next few months I expect we will see various suggestions put forth as to measures that should be put in place to deal with the problem. One measure already suggested by some that would be absolutely, unequivocally, completely unacceptable to all Nova Scotians would be any diminution whatever in the percentage of the historic participation, a participation that dates back well over two centuries, of Nova Scotian fishing vessels and Nova Scotia fishermen in this vitally important fishery, which Nova Scotians helped develop and from which the Nova Scotian economy and Nova Scotian fish plants and fish plant workers benefit so much.

May 26. 1989



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, after 15 years of strife, Lebanon has become a scarred pained victim of aggression and destruction. This country has lost more than its status as the pearl of the Middle East. It has lost many of its precious young and its men and women. The strife is creating great stress on Lebanese Canadians and their families as a result of the devastating attacks and bombings to which Lebanon and its people have been subjected.
The unrest continues as a number of attempts to guarantee a ceasefire have failed. Lebanese families yearn for peace in their native land. We share their hopes for peace while understanding their pain and trauma.
Canadians believe their country has always shown an understanding and constructive face in situations like that facing Lebanon. As a reasoned peacekeeper in the world and to ensure that Canada's views are part of world opinion, I urge the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to be part of a successful ceasefire undertaking in this battle weary region of the world.



THE STANLEY CUP


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my riding is situated exactly half way between Calgary and Edmonton. We have an awful lot of hockey fans and you can understand that during the regular NEIL season the loyalties of my constituents are split fairly evenly.
Today, the long NHL season is over. Last night, without doubt, the two best teams in the NHL concluded an excellent series. The Montreal Canadians put forth a tremendous effort but Calgary wanted victory more. There is no true hockey fan in this country who did not have to feel a thrill when Lanny McDonald held up the Stanley Cup last night.
We want to join with all Canadians and hockey fans everywhere in the world in congratulating the best team in professional hockey, the 1989 Stanley Cup champions, the Calgary Flames.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's family violence initiatives amount to only $10 per battered woman per year. This is not enough to educate society on the seriousness of wife assault.
Recently, a man was sentenced to 90 days, his sentence to be served on weekends, for beating his wife with a baseball bat. She spent one month in a coma.
Sometimes judges may think they are preserving the family unit by handing down lenient sentences, but the family unit is already destroyed by violence. There are not enough programs for men who batter.
Sometimes judges may think lenient sentences are appropriate because the batterer is the breadwinner, but it is dangerous for women and children to be financially dependent on a batterer. Some 40 per cent of all homicides in this country involve domestic violence. Women need economic equality, not dependence on abusers.
The Government has shown itself incompetent in dealing with the problems of family abuse. How many women must lie unconscious or die before we see government action?



CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CALGARY FLAMES

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of a Quebec constituency, I am pleased to extend my hearty congratulations to the Calgary Flames, their supporters and the Hon. Members from Alberta sitting in the House of Commons, who showed unshakable confidence in their team.
May 26. 1989

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Canadiens also deserve all our admiration for the determination they displayed throughout the season, during the playoffs and in the final series.
Quebecers and Montrealers last night showed boundless confidence in their champions and also warmly congratulated the Calgary Flames.

We are saying au revoir to the Stanley Cup, and I would like to remind our Alberta and Calgary friends that we will be there next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SCHOOL SAFETY PATROLLERS


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the thirtieth anniversary of the National School Safety Patrol Jamboree and over 40 years of the School Safety Patrol in Canada. Two thousand school safety patrollers from across Canada are here to celebrate their decades of service to children in communities from coast to coast. They will be joined tomorrow by 4,000 more from eastern Ontario and western Quebec.
Three patrollers especially deserve our recognition for outstanding bravery in the performance of their duties. This morning Elizabeth Jordan, Sebastien Thibault and David Tonn were each presented with a Canadian flag and the Canadian Automobile Association's Gold Lifesaving Medal for saving the life of another person in imminent danger.
I am particularly proud to share with Elizabeth, Sebastien and David the privilege of having been one of the now millions of young children who brave the cold, heat and danger of our streets to protect lives.
I am pleased to report that the officer responsible for the first school patrol in Ottawa is alive and well and living in Ottawa West.
No crossing guard program at whatever cost has been able to match the safety record of these young volunteers. There has never been one child fatality at a crossing guarded by a school safety patroller.



THE STANLEY CUP


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, Calgary once again proved it is a city of champions by winning the Stanley Cup.
The Calgary Flames demonstrated clearly that they were not only number one in the regular season, but that they are also number one in the Stanley Cup final with a 4-2 victory over the Montreal Canadians last night. They brought the Stanley Cup to Calgary in six games, and this marks the first time in Canadian history that the Stanley Cup has been won by a visiting team at the Montreal Forum.
The Calgary Flames played a superb game and showed superior technique. Congratulations to the team for the hard work, to the owners for the contribution to the community spirit in Calgary, and to the fans for their loyalty and support to an outstanding team. Thank you Calgary Flames.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 3, there will a world-wide five-hour television broadcast on our common future. It will deal with issues of global concern such as famine, deforestation, ozone depletion, global warming, famine, flooding, and drought. The theme of the broadcast is the final report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
The Standing Committee on the Environment yesterday unanimously adopted my motion directing the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to take the necessary steps to have CBC National Television broadcast the event. Participating heads of government include the Prime Ministers of Norway, Canada, France, India, Italy and China; the Secretary General of the United Nations; the President of the World Bank; the Director General of the International Labour Organization; and the Director General for the World Health Organization, to name a few.

May 26. 1989
The meek excuse of CBC is that City TV in Toronto has broadcast rights. Canadians outside Toronto have a right to know about our common future, and this Government has a responsibility to order CBC to broadcast it. Failure to do so will reveal that this Government is a fraud. The public of Canada have a right to know what needs to be done to save our planet.
* sfc *



SCHOOL SAFETY PATROLLERS


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, as part of the National School Safety Patrol Jamboree, I had the privilege of presenting David Tonn, son of Richard and Hildy Tonn of Winnipeg, with a flag in recognition of his being one of the three school safety patrol lifesaving medal recipients.
On November 30, 1988, on a dull, snowy day David was on afternoon school patrol. Ele had crossed a four year old Kindergarten student to the spot where his mother usually picked him up. David was waiting with the boy for the arrival of his mother. As the mother was late, she did not arrive at her usual spot, but instead stopped her car across the street. The child, upon seeing his mother, stepped on to the roadway right into the path of an oncoming car. David instantly reached out and pulled the child from serious injury back on to the sidewalk.
I would like to commend David Tonn publicly in the House of Commons today for his heroic efforts in saving the life of a young child.
sk *	*



THE STANLEY CUP


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is now appropriate for us Montrealers to eat crow in public-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: -and admit that the Calgary Flames are the best team in professional hockey. Although both teams played well, we must recognize that the Flames outskated, outshot, outpassed, outbumped, outplayed, and outscored my beloved Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Outrageous.


William Warren Allmand: The Flames spirit and discipline was outstanding. To the players and management of the Calgary Flames, to the great Calgary fans, and to the Calgary Members of this House, especially the charming Member for Calgary Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow), from Montreal to Calgary my hearty congratulations for a great victory and a great season.
5k *	*



FINANCE


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this week there were rumours in the international financial community that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was about to or had resigned.
The response to those rumours was dramatic. There was a big sell-off of Canadian dollars in the international monetary market in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The Canadian dollar dropped by almost two-thirds of a cent to its lowest level in five months. The Canadian money supply was devalued by $20 billion in a single day. As a result, the Bank of Canada was forced to increase its interest rate to 12.4 per cent in order to support the dollar.
This is clear evidence of the regard the financial community holds the Minister in. Canada is fortunate to have him as its Finance Minister. When the mere rumour of the man's resignation can impact on this country in the value of $20 billion, Canada cannot afford even the slightest chance that this man will abdicate his responsibilities.
* 5k sk



FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions in this House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) have stood up and said that the Free Trade Agreement would bring tens of
May 26, 1989

thousands of jobs to the people of Canada. Yesterday was the first occasion that we had in the committee to have the Minister for International Trade appear before us. He arrived with two deputies and 12 staff members.
A government member asked the Minister a question: "Could the Minister inform this committee how many new jobs have been created by the Free Trade Agreement?" The Minister could not provide one job or could not provide one investment to his own back-bencher. Later I asked the Minister the same question: "How many jobs were provided by the Free Trade Agreement?" He could not provide one or one company investment.
I want it on the record that the Government has admitted that while tens of thousands of jobs have been lost by the agreement, they have not record of one job being created by the Free Trade Agreement.



NATIONAL CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago over 8,000 students across Canada entered a national chess competition to help raise money for projects in the Third World. Each participant donated $5 to build a sewer system in Liberia, helping children there to overcome disease.
Last weekend in Ottawa, the winners from each province played off and national champions were declared: Grade 1-Lefong Hua of St. Laurent, Quebec; Grade 2-Victor Chernoff of Montreal, Quebec; Grade 3-Laurent Gascon of Montreal, Quebec; Grade 4-Anthony Castillo of Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 5-Daniel Williams of Burlington, Ontario; Grade 6-Nicholas Soudre of Montreal, Quebec; Grade 7-Alexandre March, Longueuil, Quebec; Grade 8-Martin Glass of Montreal, Quebec; Grade 9-Adam Littke of Toronto, Ontario; Grade 10, Leonard Morrissey of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland; Grade 11-Nicolas Arsenault of Montreal, Quebec; and Grade 12-Jonathan MacDonald of Saint John, New Brunswick.

The Calgary Flames won the hockey game, but the Quebec team are chess champions.



NUCLEAR MISSILES-PROMOTION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, NATO is presently undergoing a serious internal dispute about the United States Government's desire to introduce a new generation of tactical nuclear missiles to be stationed in West Germany. Canada's membership in NATO is valued, in part, for the opportunity it affords in the promotion of arms control and disarmament.
The Conservative Government should therefore be more active in this dispute by promoting possible NATO alternatives that could include: first, tying the modernization of these nuclear missiles with talks on substantial reductions in the Soviet Union's short-range nuclear arsenal and/or reductions in Warsaw Pact conventional forces; second, adopting a build-down strategy by phasing out other tactical nuclear weapons and only retaining modernized nuclear missiles; and third, substituting the modernization of these missiles with the introduction of non-nuclear smart technology weapons.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) should present these positions during the upcoming NATO meeting and thereafter inform this House about the outcome of any Canadian initiative.



MULTICULTURALISM


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, May 28 is the seventy-first anniversary of the independence of Armenia as declared in 1918.
Armenia has suffered a history of racially motivated genocide, betrayal, persecution, and terrorism. The dream of the Armenian people, however, has not been crushed and their struggle for recognition and independence continues.
The ideals of the Armenian people-freedom, democracy, and independence-are upheld by their descendants in Canada and around the world.

May 26. 1989
Oral Questions
May 28 commemorates a nation that has suffered extreme adversity and has risen to the challenge. I would like to laud the Armenian people in Don Valley North and throughout the world on their determination to overcome their many obstacles and setbacks on their declared day of independence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the Minister about the Government's conspiracy to bury the truth from Canadians about his handling of the budget leaks, a conspiracy about which it has been found out.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that he had not been informed about the second budget leak, the Mutual Life leak, until after Question Period on April 27. On that day, the Minister was facing the worst crisis of his career. He was about to go into Question Period to be grilled on his handling of a leaked Budget.
At 1.30 or 1.40 before that Question Period, an official of his Department or his office received a call from the president of Mutual Life who informed that individual that Mutual Life had a copy of the Budget in Brief and there was therefore a second, more serious budget leak.
I want to ask the Minister this: Does he expect Canadians to believe that he was not briefed by his officials in the some 20 minutes between the call from the president of Mutual Life and two o'clock and the period of 15 minutes for Members' Statements between two o'clock and 2.15, and that he was not informed by note during the 45 minutes for questions on that day about this second budget leak? Does he expect Canadians to believe that his officials are so incompetent? Why does he not tell us what really happened?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange that the Hon. Member would say that we were involved in a conspiracy when one of the first things that we did was to turn this
information over to the RCMP. How could that possibly be a conspiracy?
The Hon. Member is asking whether I was informed prior to Question Period. I have stated quite categorically in this House that I was not. It is a very clear tradition in this House that we accept the words,the word of Hon. Members.
I have a great deal of respect for this place, as I know the House Leader for the Liberal Party also has a great deal of respect for this place.
I have never misled this House. I have always treated this House with a great deal of respect. I continue to do so. My answer to his question very clearly is: no, I was not informed.


TIMING OF RECEIPT OF INFORMATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he was not informed. I want to ask him this: Who exactly received the call from the president of Mutual Life and what did that individual and other Finance individuals do with that information during the missing 90 minutes between the receipt of the call and the period when the Minister was informed?
Did that official and other Finance officials inform the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister? Did they inform the Prime Minister himself? Did they inform the Deputy Prime Minister? Did they inform the Minister of
Justice?
I ask the Minister of Finance to come clean with Canadians and tell us exactly what happened during the 90-minute gap, during those missing 90 minutes? Canadians expect and have a right to receive a full explanation of what happened during that 90-minute gap.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: of the Privy Council and subsequent to that the Prime Minister was advised.


POSITION OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us precisely what time the Prime Minister was advised?
Does he expect Canadians to believe that he is managing the Department of Finance in such a way that he has a staff that does not carry out the highest priority for officials serving a Minister, that is, to advise the Minister prior to and during Question Period of matters that are likely to come up affecting that Minister during Question Period? If he expects Canadians to believe that then surely, I ask the Minister, doesn't this mean that he is handling his Department in such an incompetent way that he is no longer fit to continue as Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I may recall the Hon. Member to that particular date, that was not a normal day. There was a good deal of allegations early in the morning, as was repeated in a number of questions put by opposition Members, allegations of other information that could have been made available about the Budget. That was the world we were living in.
But I remind the Hon. Member that what we started the night before was a very clear process. When we received the information that Global Television had the Budget in Brief, then we started the process by contacting the RCMP, contacting the Leaders of the opposition Parties, and then doing what we thought was in the public interest, making sure that that budget information was in the public domain. We did that as quickly as we could. It was around 10-10.30 that evening.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: How about the 27th?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The next morning, on the 27th when I stood in the House at eleven o'clock, we were aware of these allegations as were the Members opposite, but we had to take into account at that time that there could be subsequent disclosures that, yes, there was information that had been made available to people.
But we started the process on the Wednesday night before that we felt we had to continue again in the public interest. The matters were public as of 10-10.30 the night
Oral Questions
before. Many decisions were taking place in financial markets that morning and throughout the day. We believed it was essential, to avoid the disruption and chaos that could come into the financial markets by withdrawing the Budget, that we should continue the process we had started on Wednesday evening.


SECOND BUDGET LEAK-GOVERNMENT POSITION.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the same topic, the second budget leak.
Canadians now know that the Government, and in particular the Minister of Finance, was hiding facts from Parliament for over one month on this issue. The Minister of Finance has just informed the House that the Prime Minister was informed of the second budget leak even before he was.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House which Minister or Ministers took the decision to hide the second leak from the House of Commons? Was it the Minister of Finance? Was it the Deputy Prime Minister, or was it the Prime Minister himself who took the decision not to inform Parliament of these facts. Who done it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday and the day before, I believe, and as he pointed out again today, it was some time after Question Period that the Government became aware of the telephone call and the implications thereto.
The budgetary process had been set on Wednesday night, April 26, and the dye was cast. For the Hon. Member to suggest that by turning all this information over to the RCMP construes a cover-up, then he has a different definition of cover-up than I have. Clearly, when it is turned over to the RCMP, sooner or later the information will be dealt with in a proper manner as a part of the investigation. Even the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of the debate in the House that followed, said: "We will wait to see what the-"


Don Boudria: Careful.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: "-RCMP investigation has to say and then we will deal with the facts".That is what they should do.

May 26, 1989
Oral Questions


REQUEST AS TO WHO DECIDED NOT TO INFORM THE HOUSE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question. The Deputy Prime Minister has again refused to answer the Elouse of Commons.
He was asked, and I repeat again, who in the Government-which Minister-decided on April 27 not to inform the House on this issue. Was it the Minister of Finance? Was it the Deputy Prime Minister? Was it the Solicitor General? Was it the Prime Minister? Or did they all "plot" together?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it was the same government decision that started the process on Wednesday, April 26. It was a government decision, and very clearly the substance of the issue is this: It was turned over to the RCMP. This whole matter was turned over to the RCMP to find out who took the documents, how they were taken, what was done, and the reason why.
This was all done so that the appropriate action can be taken. Again we say, as has been alluded to and consistent throughout the years, Solicitors General down through the years have always taken the same position- when there is an RCMP investigation ongoing, it is improper to comment on it because it would prejudice that investigation. They should recognize that.


QUESTIONING OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the RCMP is concerned with criminal accountability, but Ministers of the Crown are politically accountable in the House. That is what we are trying to get at.
The Minister of Finance has made it clear that he does not know himself what precise time in the afternoon of the 27th he was told about the second leak, but he has confirmed that his staff, including the Deputy Minister of Finance, knew well before Question Period of the second leak.
After the Question Period, at that time whatever it was when the Minister was informed of the leak, did he
ask his senior staff and/or the Deputy Minister of Finance why he the Minister had not been informed immediately? Second, did he ask precisely if the Prime Minister's office had been informed? If so, did they play any role in the decision to keep the Minister himself uninformed during the Question Period?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to political accountability. Political accountability started the night before when we first found this information out through the Global Television network. The Hon. Member is quite aware of the process that we started at that time, which we believe was in the public interest and was precisely what we should have done as Ministers of the Crown.
The questions the Hon. Member is asking now are not material. The point is that the Government took the decisions. My Deputy Minister went immediately through one of the officials in my Department to speak to the RCMP to ensure that they were aware of this new information. Subsequent to that, the Government became aware of it and, subsequent to that, decisions were taken by the Government.


TIMING OF KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Finance is trying to mislead by not telling us the whole story. He did not answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He had information during that day. When he got up in the House in the afternoon of the 27th, he did not tell us then, he has not told us in the past two days, and he has not told us this morning. When is he going to start telling the truth to the people of Canada here in the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to remind Hon. Members that in a difficult issue the public interest is not helped unless there is order in this place. That is why we have some things that are not said here, because if they are said they create disorder and then there is no free speech.
The Chair has been extraordinarily careful in the last several days to ensure that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have, as I have said in the past, not only the right to inquire, but the duty to
May 26, 1989

inquire. However, it has to be done within the bounds of decorum within the House.
I would ask the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, a distinguished parliamentarian who has great respect for this place, to indicate clearly that he is not calling the Minister of Finance a liar, and that he would pursue his further questions with great care.


John Edward Broadbent: I certainly respect the rules, Mr. Speaker. I did not call the Minister of Finance a liar-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Members on the Government side to co-operate with the Chair in a difficult situation and let the Chair deal with it.


John Edward Broadbent: I said, within the context of the rules of the House which I respect, that he has an obligation to tell the truth, and I repeat that. I hope that the Minister would agree.
I would like the Minister of Finance to answer the question I have asked. Would he inform the House when he went back after Question Period and was told then, sometime in the afternoon about a leak of a financial matter to one of the largest financial institutions, an insurance company in the country, did he demand of his staff to know why he had not been told earlier? Did he ask if the Prime Minister's office had been informed? Did the Prime Minister's office play any role in the decision not to inform the Minister of Finance during Question Period?
They are straightforward questions. If we received straightforward answers the House and the people of Canada would be very happy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the Hon. Member that my staff and my Deputy Minister received this information early in the afternoon. The times are on the record of the House. Subsequent to that, their first responsibility, they felt, was to ensure that the RCMP were aware of this information. They did that. Subsequent to that there was advice given to the Prime Minister, I believe-


John Edward Broadbent: What time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member asks: "What time?" I cannot be precise on the time. I do not know the time. However, I can say to him that that information was conveyed to me as well, and the Gov-
Ora/ Questions
ernment took certain decisions after that which are a matter of public record.
The Hon. Member states that he wants to respect the House. I want to respect this House. I have made it quite clear through the ten years that I have been here that at all times I have tried to put on the public record those matters which are the truth, and I will continue to do so.


THE SECOND BUDGET I F.AK -MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not answered my question. I asked a question about the exact time when his officials or office staff informed the Prime Minister's Office or the Prime Minister himself of the second leak. This is a very important point for the public and the Minister suggested that he did not have this information. Is that true? Can he not say today exactly when the officials informed the Prime Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear with the Hon. Member here. I think he should go back to the world that we were living in on the Thursday morning prior to 11 o'clock. It was the subject of his preamble to his first question, where he referred to the fact that it is alleged that he told some individual, at least 20 of his friends and relatives.
We on all sides of the House were aware of those allegations. But we had started a process on the Wednesday night before, following the Global Television leak, which I confirmed when I made my statement at 11 o'clock on Thursday morning.
We knew at that time that some of those allegations might prove to be true, but that did not change the process that we started on the Wednesday night. We confirmed that we were proceeding on that basis at 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning and things that happened after that were all part of the process that was started on the previous Wednesday night.


PROMPTNESS IN PROVIDING INFORMATION QUESTIONED
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to deal with the same subject that the Leader of the NDP has just touched on.

May 26, 1989
Oral Questions
Yesterday there was an event to which I want to refer. The Leader of the NDP, in his question which was put about half way through Question Period, raised the suggestion that the RCMP had been investigating the Sinclair Stevens affair, and another Member of the NDP asked a similar question.
The Minister of Finance stood up at 2.50 p.m., 20 minutes later, and stated:
Mr. Speaker, I am advised, contrary to what the Hon. Member has just said, or contrary to what his Leader said a few minutes ago, that the RCMP Commissioner says there was a public inquiry. There was no RCMP investigations launched -
Within 20 minutes the Minister of Finance was able to correct the record about a statement made here in the Flouse of Commons. That is how quickly officials were ready to support him and give him information.
Is it acceptable to him, and is it acceptable to us, that in a matter like the Mutual Life leak for 90 minutes on a matter much more important than whether the RCMP were involved in the Sinclair Stevens affair, that the Minister was given no information about the Mutual Life leak?
That is the reason why the Minister should resign. His staff is incompetent and he is condoning it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was provided with a note from my colleague about the information that I provided in response to, I believe it was the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. Someone in the lobby had heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party make that statement. He called or she called to confirm that with the RCMP and sent in a note to say it was an incorrect statement. Therefore, I stood and corrected that at that time.


REQUEST TO KNOW HOW DECISION ARRIVED AT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is not an acceptable explanation for 90 minutes of silence.
I also want to ask the Minister of Finance about the decision that he made when he got the information about Mutual Life not to come forward with that information at once.
I want to do it in the context of a quote from his colleague, the Minister of Justice, from the night of the first Budget leak, when the Minister of Justice stated: "Well, Barbara, immediately it became clear there was a Budget leak, we sat down and decided that the best course of action was to go public and to be as open and
above-board as we could". I will not ask about the options that they considered and rejected.
He also stated: "I think when you have a crisis like this, you have to say, how do we react? Are we going to be open and above-board? Our answer was an immediate yes".
On the next day when the Minister of Finance had the information about Mutual Life, how did he decide not to make that information public? Did he consult with the Minister of Justice? What other Ministers did he consult with in making his decision about an interpretation of the police investigation rule with which no one in the country agrees with the Minister on?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not expect me, as I know that if he were on this side I would not expect him, to disclose the whole decision-making process of a Cabinet body. Cabinet decisions are taken, the Government decides, and the Government proceeds on the basis of those decisions.


FURTHER LEAKS INQUIRED ABOUT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Government has hidden the truth on Budget leaks for self-serving purposes. One month before Canadians learned about the second Budget leak, the Government knew about the Mutual Life leak and chose deliberately to hide the facts. Can the Government tell Canadians today, May 26, that no other leak, alleged or otherwise, is known to it? Are there other leaks being kept secret from Canadians in the same way it kept secret the leak to the Mutual Life company?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that we deliberately withheld this information. The Hon. Member knows clearly the reasons why. Sometimes it is very frustrating for Ministers to know this information but also know that if they release this information it could obstruct the course of justice and undermine an investigation. This is precisely the reason why we have to proceed on this basis.
The Hon. Member has asked a specific question. I know of nothing more, as Minister of Finance, than what is in the public domain today.
May 26, 1989


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I asked if the Government knew, not if the Minister knew because I do not trust the Minister any more. His credibility is completely lost.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's credibility in this affair has gone-melted like snow in the sun. The Minister had two responsibilities: first, to protect budget secrecy, and second, to tell Canadians the truth. He has failed miserably in both. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to resign today!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member perhaps was not listening carefully when I spoke a little earlier.


Mr. Valcourt:: He doesn't care what you say.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked Hon. Members to let the Chair handle the matter. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


FINANCE MINISTER QUESTIONED ABOUT CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I suppose from the answers that the Finance Minister has given us today that he is expecting the House and Canadians to believe that he was treated like a mushroom.
I want to ask him specifically if, in effect, his office was informed before Question Period that the president of a very large insurance company had called his office to inform him that they had a copy of the Budget prior to its release. The Minister was not informed. Imagine that. The Finance Minister, the most powerful Minister in the nation, not being briefed by his officials. But he comes down to Question Period, then goes back to his office and finds out that that was so.


Mr. Andre:: Is anyone here familiar with Beauchesne?


John R. Rodriguez: Can the Finance Minister tell the House, because he did not answer the question by my Leader, if he asked his officials why he had not been briefed about this before he went down for Question Period? Second, did he assure himself that his officials had informed the Prime Minister, the leader of the nation? Did he phone the Prime Minister to inform him
Oral Questions
of this information? We are not dealing with allegations, we are dealing with a fact. Did the Finance Minister do those things?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss the dealings between my officials, my staff and myself on the floor of the House of Commons. That is between those individuals and me.
As far as the advice to the Privy Council Office is concerned, I made it quite clear in my answer to his leader a few minutes ago that yes, the Privy Council Office was advised later on after the RCMP were advised, and subsequent to that they advised the Prime Minister.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, our questions are not dealing with an RCMP investigation now. We are dealing with the political and ethical behaviour of a Minister of the Crown to the House of Commons.


BEHAVIOUR OF OFFICIALS QUESTIONED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is the business of the nation to know. Did the Finance Minister, when he went back to his office after Question Period, question his officials as to why he had not been briefed? He is asking Canadians to believe that he was treated like a mushroom. Did he ask why he was not informed and briefed, and why they did not inform the Prime Minister, the leader of the nation, on the Budget, the most important document in the history of Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that what my staff did was advise the RCMP. That was their first responsibility and they did so. They did that immediately they had the information from Mutual Life. Subsequent to that, they advised me.


INTERPRETATION OF REMARKS SOUGHT
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In yesterday's Hansard at page 2147, the Minister said:
- the Government was aware of this information.
He was referring to the Mutual Life leak:
The Government, in the broadest sense, was aware of this
information some time between Question Period and 5.40 that
evening.

May 26, 1989
Oral Questions
Yet the Minister of Justice says that the Finance Minister had never told him of the Mutual Life leak.
Is the Minister of Justice part of the Government, in the broadest sense? What is the Government, in the broadest sense? How did the Government, in the broadest sense, take the decision not to reveal the leak to Mutual Life?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is not material, why or what. It is what the decision was and I have made it very clear as to why we did not make that material public. We had set in train a course on Wednesday night. The information in the Budget in Brief was a matter of public record through the Global Television Network. We felt it was essential to get that information out in the public record. At that time the process had started.
We continued with that process during the course of Thursday at 11 o'clock, when I stood in the House and explained to the House at the first opportunity I had to get into the House, why we did those things. That process continued.
The decisions that were taken were consistent with that process. We felt it was in the public interest to get that information into the public domain. Many decisions took place during the course of the day. I believe it would have been irresponsible for us to change that process, cause those decisions to be taken based on information that was subsequently withdrawn. So we continued that process. That was consistent with our decision not to make the information on the Mutual Life leak known publicly, because we had also started an RCMP investigation. We did not want to undermine that investigation by making that information public.
I have made that clear and it is very consistent with long-standing practice that we quoted in the House yesterday, based on statements that have been made by members of the Government that he has supported for many years.


REQUEST TO KNOW WHO TOOK DECISION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is also a long-standing practice to be fair with the Canadian people. The Minister says it is immaterial. This is the only Government the people of Canada have, God help them. I ask the Minister again, what is the Government in the broadest sense? How did the Government take
the decision that afternoon? Who took the decision not to reveal this information to the Canadian people, or did the Minister take that on his own responsibility?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, governments take decisions. Sometimes governments take decisions including all members of Cabinet, sometimes including Priorities and Planning, sometimes including ad hoc committees.


Bill Rompkey: What was it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Sometimes including standing committees of Cabinet, sometimes including smaller groups of Ministers. The point is that it is not material how the decision is taken. The point is that the decision was taken. The Government stands behind that decision.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Andre Oueilet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who yesterday tried to change the significance of the commitment the Prime Minister made in the House on April 27 that the Solicitor General would immediately inform the House of any new developments.
Why? Why did the Deputy Prime Minister try to do that yesterday? Is he trying to cover for the Prime Minister who himself knew about this second leak then and did not consider it important enough to inform the House immediately on the 27th?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was not attempting to change the meaning of the statements that were made here. I think, with all due respect, the Hon. Member is in effect distorting and twisting the purport of the answer that the Prime Minister gave.
What he did say-and this was in reference to whether there was any profiteering or advantage taken by stock exchanges, et cetera in the market-place-as reported at page 1036 of Hansard was this:
Thus far there is no indication whatsoever of that. However, the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him he will report to the House immediately, and I know if my friend has any
May 26, 1989

accusations or any specific information he will make it known to the RCMP
That is the context in which the Prime Minister made reference to an earlier statement made by the Solicitor General. Surely, the Hon. Member has been around here long enough to understand clearly the implications of that particular answer.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS
Hon.   Andre. Ouellet@Papineau - Saint-Michel: Mr. Speaker, I can read Hansard as well as the Minister. The comments of the-


M. Valcourt:: Read it!


André Ouellet: Prime Minister are very clear.


Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont):: Understand what it says!


André Ouellet: He said: "The RCMP is conducting a full investigation. That investigation extends to the actions of presumably all those involved." A little further, he said that "-if any information comes to him, the Solicitor General will report to the House immediately."
The Deputy Prime Minister is trying to restrict the scope of the Prime Minister's commitment, and he is obviously doing so for a very specific reason.
Could he give the House the assurance today that at the time the Prime Minister spoke, he knew perfectly well there had been a second leak? Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister did or did not know? Was the Prime Minister speaking in full possession of the facts or was he too still ignorant of the second leak, as the Minister of Finance seems to claim, for some strange reason?
[English ]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at that particular time during Question Period, of course-the Prime Minister was not aware.
Just to put this whole issue in further context, and I am glad the Hon. Member is smiling because I think that really reveals something-the Solicitor General in his answer, as reported at page 1031 of Hansard, again said:
- as soon as the RCMP was informed of 1hese events early yesterday evening, a thorough investigation of the allegations was underway,
Oral Questions
and the securities commissions in the provinces concerned were contacted. I believe an investigation is now underway at the securities commissions of four provinces, because we take this very seriously. When such allegations are made. I believe either one should provide evidence, before the House or elsewhere, of the allegations, or else one goes to the securities commission or to the RCMP with the requisite proof.
This is what he ends up saying: "However, it would be irresponsible to speculate about facts that have not been corroborated. The investigation is underway, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts,"-in this particular case he used conclusions-"we will be able to disclose them", again referring to the issue of profiteering and taking advantage in terms of stock dealings and transactions of stock exchanges. That investigation was undertaken.


PRECISE ACCOUNT REQUESTED
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have heard even today the Minister refuse to tell this House the precise account of what happened on the afternoon of April 27. He has been asked a number of times when he first was informed by his officials about the second and major leak of his Budget. He took refuge behind language like: "I am not sure; it was some time shortly after". He has failed to be precise.
I believe the Minister's office would keep precise and detailed records of the time that calls were made and information was given to the Minister. I ask the Minister, how can he say that his word is credible in this House when he refuses even today to tell the House the truth about what happened that afternoon?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood.


POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL GAIN
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister is a former Vice-President of Dominion Securities. He understands financial systems. He understands the new technologies that allow financial transactions to take place in seconds anywhere in the world.

May 26, 1989
Oral Questions
Now that the Minister is aware that the budget information was in the public domain not two hours before his budget address but 72 hours before, is he now confident that no one gained?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question, I believe, on Wednesday. I said there was an investigation under way. As I understand from a statement made by the RCMP yesterday, that investigation into possible profiteering continues. I cannot answer that question.
What the RCMP has indicated to date is that there is no indication that there has been any profiteering.
The other point I would make is that other people, members of the financial community, believe that there is not a basis on which people would be able to make money based on the information that was in the Budget in Brief.
That is the answer I can give him to date. If there is any indication of this, subsequent to this investigation, the Solicitor General has indicated that such information will be made public.


SUGGESTION OF EXISTENCE OF NEW STANDARDS FOR BUDGET SECRECY
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. I have always held the Minister of Finance in high regard. I find that today we are changing the traditional principles on budget secrecy.
I would just like him to respond to the people of Canada with the new standards for budget secrecy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that we demonstrated very clearly our commitment to budget secrecy on Wednesday evening, April 26. When we found out that the Budget in Brief document was in the hands of Global Television we went immediately to the RCMP and initiated an investigation.
We also went immediately to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and said: "In the interests of our concerns for budget secrecy, and in the interests of our concern to ensure that that information is made available to all Canadian people at the earliest possible date, can we come back to the House of Commons so that the Minister of Finance can read his budget speech?''
That was our commitment to budget secrecy at that time. We believe that we acted responsibly and quickly in order to carry out our responsibilities.
That request was turned down. The first thing that we did after that was to make available that information to Canadians at large through the media by giving a press conference and making available the full package of budget information that at that time had been made available to Members of the House through the Clerk of the House.


REASSURANCE SOUGHT REGARDING POSSIBLE PROFITEERING
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the answer that we have just heard is somewhat amazing. However, I will pass it and go to the Solicitor General who stated that the RCMP were satisfied no profits were made by speculators following the budget leak. He made that statement a couple of weeks ago.


Mr. McDermid:: Today!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Now we hear that the answer has changed today because they are now investigating more and they think maybe there was. We do not know the truth yet.


Mr. Epp:: He did not say that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: In any event, in blissful reliance on this rather ridiculous assurance, the Minister of Finance maintains that his resignation is not something that is required in the circumstances.
If the Government does not even know the full extent of the budget leaks, how can it possibly rely on the statements made by the RCMP which in fact were leaked from the RCMP file by the Solicitor General?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think we
have been very consistent and very clear on that point, as we have been from the outset. I think we should go back to what was said by representatives of the Ontario Securities Commission and the commissions in Vancouver and Montreal, who, on April 27 and again on May 23, said, as was reported in the press, that there had been no movement whatsoever, and that so far, they could not imagine that anyone would have been able to benefit from the breach of Budget secrecy. The position we took was, and this was the most important point of all, that
May 26, 1989

when the Commissioner informed me that so far no one had benefited from the breach-


An Hon. Member:: There you are!


Pierre Blais: -of Budget secrecy, I felt it was my responsibility as a Minister to immediately inform the House.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance in this case has failed to maintain budget secrecy. He has failed to come clean with this House in respect of the goings-on since that date. He has failed to protect Canadians from illicit profits being made by persons who had advance knowledge. Should he not now do the honourable thing and resign?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance acted properly and acted responsibly in every case in light of the circumstances.
The Hon. Member is a distinguished parliamentarian, even though he has not served in this House very long. He is a student, a tremendous student. He knows very well that in each and every case where a finance Minister resigned, he resigned because he was directly responsible for providing information. In those cases he resigned. What the opposition Parties are trying to do is blame the whole machinery on the Minister of Finance. As soon as he got-


An Hon. Member:: Cover-up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As soon as he got information that there was a leak-


An Hon. Member:: Not the first leak. Cover-up. The second leak.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -on Wednesday night, he took immediate action-


An Hon. Member:: What about the second one?
Introduction of Bills


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and he set in place a process. Even though he did not get the support and the co-operation of the opposition Parties, he released the Budget on Wednesday, April 26. It became effective at that day. That is the day that the Budget was released. Mr. Speaker, we are going to stand by the Minister of Finance because he is the best Minister of Finance we have ever had. He is an honourable gentleman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 13 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill respecting the importation into Canada of films and related products.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

May 26, 1989
Introduction of Bills
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like the representatives of the Government to confirm that, in losing this vote, they have lost a vote of confidence and are prepared to take the consequences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Deputy Leader of the Government.


Jean J. Charest: I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on his sense of humour.
It may be of some interest to the House and to the Canadian people to know that when the Bill was introduced, the Government Members had no objection to the introduction of the Bill. It was the Members in the New Democratic Party who objected to the introduction
of the Bill and forced the vote. They then rose and voted in favour of their own Bill.
I presume that once they have cleared up the confusion on their own side, the Canadian people and the House of Commons will be able to get on with business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would still like to have consistency.
I must say that I regret this kind of motion. I have always said and I want to repeat that in the British system, a Member must always be allowed to present a bill and forcing a vote is a dangerous-


An Hon. Member:: It was not forced.


Marcel Prud'homme: Obviously-


Jean J. Charest: We know, Marcel.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member may think that I
am addressing my comments to him. I am addressing my comments to those who should listen.
It is a dangerous precedent, and I have always been on record as stating that. I learned it from great parliamentarians, one of whom was the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker. Under the British parliamentary system it is, in my opinion, a great mistake to ask permission of the House to introduce a Private Members' Bill. Why? Because some day a certain matter that we would like to at least discuss could, by a vote, be negatived by the House.
Therefore, I call on those who like to use this method-and I have no quarrel with my colleagues who perhaps have their own agenda today, and that is fine, but under the rules of the House there are other ways to call for a vote-not to do it on a Private Members' Bill because of the dangerous precedent that this could create in the House of Commons.
If my Party has done it some years ago, I will still say the same. I regret that we have to vote in favour, negative or abstain as has been done today.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: I say to my
hon. friend for whom I have a great liking that I know his regard for Parliament is as good as if not better than mine. As long as the principle of ministerial responsi-
May 26, 1989

bility and matters related thereto are at stake in this or any other Parliament, it is the obligation of the Opposition to use every proper means under the rules of the House to bring down the Ministers responsible.
We have no apologies to make for preventing the presentation of a Bill from one of our Members, not any other Member. It is proper under the rules and we have done that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not think that it was a dangerous precedent. I thought it was a good opening shot on my leadership campaign; 45 to zero is not bad.
This Bill is to deal with the problem that 97 per cent of films distributed in Canada are distributed by foreign companies, mainly American. It follows upon a special study by a Government committee and by the communications committee of the House which recommended Government action. Indeed, the Government drafted a Bill to take action and to get a share of the market for Canadians. However, because of the negotiations around the trade deal, the Government never tabled its Bill.
I was able to get a copy of the draft Bill of the Government. I tabled exactly the same Bill as a Private Members' Bill in order that the country could see what the Government was going to do, but in fact backed away from doing because of the trade deal. We all remember that the trade deal was not supposed to affect culture. Well, of course it did. At the present time we only receive 3 per cent of this market. My Bill asks that a share of this market be allocated for Canadians. I think that most Canadians favour that. It is a good Bill. Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The yeas barely have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I want to explain to the House why I did not vote. It is simply for the same reasons I mentioned earlier.

May 26. 1989
Introduction of Bills


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important to inform my colleagues who have raised a serious concern about the use of this procedure that the procedure itself is not at risk, but what is at risk is the use of this House. If the House had been used properly and the Government had told us the sequence of events, then this process-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act in the apparel industry. It is for the purpose of regulating imports, particularly so that the right to import will belong to manufacturers in proportion as they manufacture. So that if a manufacturer increases his production in Canada and probably therewith his employment, he will be able to increase his importation of the same sort of product from overseas.
The other point to be made, Mr. Speaker, is that I am not-with deference to my friend in the other corner of the House-running for the leadership of the Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is close!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.


Mr. Cooper:: I believe it is important to take a moment to talk about what we have been dealing with here this afternoon. This House is an institution where we debate the issues of the day. What has been happening here today is a total waste of time. We have Members of the New Democratic Party who are supposedly standing on a point of principle, coming into the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to say that is not a point
of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is important for people watching to realize that the reason for what we did today was to protest the way the Government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
May 26, 1989


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of creating a more stable and sustainable forestry industry taking all measures to reduce acid-rain causing emissions produced in Canada, and flowing across our borders from other countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise today to speak on this motion which, in terms of direct work in the House, is the first motion of substance that I believe we have had to deal with when it comes to the impact of acid rain on our forests.
I am pleased to see some of my colleagues from the Forestry and Fisheries Committee in the House today. I hope we will have a chance to hear their views on this matter.
I want to read the motion for the record because I believe it is important that we have the context of what our debate is about this afternoon. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of creating a more stable and sustainable forest industry taking all measures to reduce acid-rain causing emissions produced in Canada, and flowing across our borders from other countries.
That motion is important because I believe all Members, particularly those from central and eastern Canada, are acutely aware of the importance of this issue. Many of us from western Canada, including my home province of British Columbia, are now becoming aware of the impact of acid rain on our forests.
In my comments this afternoon I would like to refer to a number of documents that I believe make the point about how important it is that this House and the Government deal with acid rain and its impact on our forests.
I want to read into the record a few comments that may help us refresh our memories about acid rain, how it is generated, how it is measured, and what its impact really is, particularly on our forests.
Forestry
Acidic precipitation is the correct term for acid rain. This issue has been in the headlines in this country for the last six to ten years when I think Canadians have become generally more aware of their environment.
When acid rain was first discovered, primarily in a number of lakes around Ontario, it was thought to be a local problem. As perhaps with many environmental problems these days, we first become aware of them and it is not until later that we are aware of the national and global implications. We have seen this happen in Ontario, across eastern and central Canada and indeed in the United States.
The Library of Parliament report states that acidic precipitation is derived principally from emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides which are released to the environment during the combustion of fossil fuels in the smelting of sulphide ores.
As the pollutants are transported for hundreds or perhaps thousands of kilometres through the atmosphere, the oxides enter into a complex series of chemical reactions to form acids. Sulphuric and nitric acids are the most frequently found types.
The reference to the distances involved pertains to the coal-powered electrical generating stations in the United States and other areas. The tragedy of acid rain is its ability to be carried for great distances into Canada and throughout North America. That is one of the most difficult problems in terms of attempting to get an agreement between our country and the United States.
The global nature of the problem is an important issue with which we must deal in those discussions.
I also want to give some scientific information in terms of how we measure that acid rain. Again, the Library of Parliament report states that acidity is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in solution. As concentration of hydrogen ions increases the solution, water, becomes more acidic and conversely, as the concentration of hydrogen ions decrease the solution becomes less acidic, or more alkaline. Acids are compounds which release hydrogen ions upon dissociation, thus when they are added to water they make it acidic. I am not a scientist, but obviously the general public who are concerned about our forests are aware of what acid rain means and its impact on our lakes and forests throughout the country. I do not think it takes scientists to understand the impact of acid rain on our country. The

May 26, 1989
Forestry
general public is well aware, and often the first to be aware of these problems.
What does it mean for our forests? I want to refer to a statement from the Canadian Institute of Forestry, a most recent report from the Library of Parliament, and a recent report that was commissioned by the federal Government under the Canadian Forestry Service.
The statement by the Canadian Institute of Forestry sums it up best, as perhaps it would, being directly involved in the industry. They state that in eastern Canada, particularly in the sugar maple industry, the trees are suffering particularly from acid rain. I will make reference to a federal report on that matter in a few moments. The Canadian Institute of Forestry cite the year 1995 as when our forests will be facing some very severe problems as a result of acid rain. However, I believe the mounting evidence suggests that we undoubtedly have a problem now with acid rain in our forests.
Perhaps the most important problem we face in dealing with acid rain is the fact that the ecosystems of our forests are so complex. There are many different organisms, different plants, different kinds of trees, so that solving the problem of acid rain on some trees could cause severe problems elsewhere, undoubtedly many of which we are unaware.
The statement goes on to say that many authorities believe the primary effect of acid rain on forest vegetation is the disruption of tree nutrition. It is recognized that some positive effects have resulted because of acid rain. Since different chemicals react in different ways, there might very well be, in some sense, a positive reaction. However, the major problem with which we are faced is the result of a negative reaction. In fact, they go on to say in their statement that most of the effects are expected to be negative and include damage to the structure of the foliage, and accelerated removal of nutrients or moisture from the trees.
Some of the indirect negative effects include increased soil acidity, interference with the nitrogen cycle, accelerated leeching of nutrients from the soil and the release of toxic elements such as aluminium, which are normally
chemically bound in the soil but when released can reduce nutrient uptake by tree roots.
One of the most tragic side effects of that is that it in fact weakens the trees. A weakened tree means that pests have a greater opportunity to invade and to make homes and continue the destruction of the forest as a result of the acid rain.
The federal Government report which I mentioned, which was produced for the Canadian Forestry Service in March of 1986, actually did some sampling and tests in the eastern Quebec area, and there is a map included with this report. It in fact cited that: "Growth rates of sugar maple, white spruce and red spruce have declined sharply since 1950". They are learning that that is directly the result of acid rain and the many problems that we have there.
I would just like to refer to a more recent report, a Library of Parliament report that was released earlier this year. It states the very important damage that is happening to our forests across the country, and in particular the sugar maples in eastern Canada. The report from the Library states that some 40 million hectares of forests in eastern Canada and another seven million in western Canada are seriously affected by airborne pollution.
That is an incredible statement in terms of the impact that acid rain is having on the forests. In fact, some people have called acid rain the AIDS of the trees. That is not to make light of a very serious situation but it points out the gravity of the problem and how immense it is.
A review of the report, which appeared in the Vancouver Sun cites in fact some indications of problems showing up in western Canada.
The report is quoted as saying that: "Half of the sugar maples are affected and 15 per cent of them are already dead," because of acid rain. It further states that: "If the decline continues at the current rate, only a handful of maple stands will remain in Quebec by the end of the next decade."
I know my colleagues on the Forestry and Fisheries Committee are certainly talking about the importance of forestry, not just the impact of acid rain on the forests, but the importance of forests in general to all Canadians.
I know that in our discussions in the committee we have
May 26, 1989

talked about how it is our job, our responsibility to do what we can to draw the importance of the forests to the attention of this House and in turn to all Canadians. There are a number of people whose occupations and lives depend on the forests in many communities across our country.
I know our forestry committee will undoubtedly be dealing with this further and discussing it as we go along.
The problem is not confined just to central or eastern Canada. We now have some indications of acid rain being suspected in British Columbia. The evidence I have here is a very recent news report in the Vancouver Sun, which reports about some arbutus trees and the problems of acid rain on those trees. I gather there is some question about just whether it is in fact acid rain that is causing the problem. Nevertheless, there is evidence from the previous record and some of the problems that have been talked about certainly in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, where the provincial minister of the environment has finally recognized the fact that that is a major problem. This problem will continue to grow unless we deal with the problem of acid rain on our forests, and many of the problems in general that are related to forestry in the country.
What has been done or what is being proposed? That is the subject of my motion where I call on the Government, as I say in it, to produce a sustainable forest industry that takes action on reducing acid rain and its impact on our forests.
Members will know that in our country there are a number of joint federal-provincial forestry agreements. There has been a lot of debate in this Chamber and in our forestry committee about those agreements and their importance, as well as the importance of what those agreements can do, to the provinces, to the industry and labour and all of the people involved in the forestry industry. In fact, I make reference to one particular agreement in eastern Canada that the federal Government has in the Province of Quebec where they are going to be spending some funds for accelerated research program-and I am quoting from the Estimates- which will include the examination of fertilization as a means to treat affected areas.
Forestry
I think that directly ties in with the debate that has been in this House and in the committee as of late about the importance of the forestry agreements.
In the few minutes that are remaining to me I would like to tie in the major concerns about acid rain and its impact on our forests with some of the vehicles and chosen methods that we can use to try and solve with that problem. That is a forestry agreement that has been proposed between the federal and provincial governments, in this case Quebec.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that these agreements have proven to be effective vehicles for the different levels of Government to achieve various aims, and in this case in our forest industry. Those FRDAs, as they are called, and this is a particular FRDA, a Forest Resource Development Agreement, is a vehicle to achieve sustainable development and some planning in our forests.
In the case of Ontario, we have a forest agreement that is in limbo right now. The Minister in the committee the other day suggested to us that he would not release his criteria that he wants to use to negotiate a new agreement with Ontario and the other provinces. I would suggest that in Ontario there is a role for this committee and for the House to know exactly what criteria this level of government can use in co-operation with the province to try and resolve the problems that we have with acid rain in the Province of Ontario and other provinces.
As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has talked a lot about long-term planning in forestry. We have been pursuing that with the Minister in committee, in terms of what he mean by that. Does he have the 20-year plans in place from the provinces that the initial FRDA agreements called for.
We are looking forward to that, and we hope that the Minister deals with the six provinces that are due. We know that he has called an early meeting of the forestry ministers across the country for June. I suggest that June is time for some action so that we can deal with this. The reason I mentioned the forestry agreements is because that is one of the most important ways that this Government and our provincial governments can attempt to implement some of the policies and the research that is needed to solve and deal with acid rain's impact on our forests.

May 26, 1989
Forestry
On a broader scope, in coming to a conclusion, it is regrettable and unfortunate to have to finish on a negative note on this because we have heard time and time again from this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about his special relationship with the President of the United States and how he is going to be able to resolve and deal with acid rain.
We have not seen that, despite this special relationship. I asked one of my colleagues, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who is our noted environment critic: "What happened to Bill Davis?" What did happen to Bill Davis? What was his contribution in trying to solve the impact of acid rain on Canada and in our forests? I think that the Government itself would admit that Mr. Davis and whatever he was doing-and I was not a Member of the House at that time-was an absolute failure.
There is much that remains to be done. The importance of signing an agreement between Canada and the United States will help resolve the general over-all problem of acid rain and its impact on our environment, and in particular, its impact on our forests where so many people have their livelihoods, and so many communities depend on it, and so many people are now beginning to understand the importance of that industry to our ecosystems and to our way of life in this country.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion which the Hon. Member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner) has put before the House.
I want to emphasize that this motion states the obvious, but it comes quite a long time after policy directions were taken by the Government. The substance of the motion deals with having a more stable and sustainable forest industry and reducing acid rain causing emissions.
The Throne Speech at the beginning of this session stated some things very clearly. One, of course, was the environmental imperative in which the subject of acid rain was a very significant component. During the debates that followed it, we voiced on more than one occasion the objective of an acid rain accord with the United States.
In this session, during the budget debate and elsewhere, we have heard references to the new fullyfledged Department of Forestry which is being created by the Government and which will, I hope and trust, give significant new emphasis to the forests and all of the resources associated with them in the months and the years to come.
I have the privilege of being a member of two standing committees of this House, the Forestry and Fisheries Committee and the Environment Committee. Initiatives are now under way in both areas.
I believe that among other subjects we will be addressing in the forestry committee are terms of reference for the new Department of Forestry. In so doing, we will be addressing a stable and sustained forest economy, forest industry, forest ecology and forest environment in this country. We will give the significance to the forests of Canada that they deserve. We will help the Minister hopefully, and the other departments of Government to reconcile and resolve those many areas that overlap, and sometimes cause conflict. Multiple use forest management requires intensive co-operation and perhaps, in fact, requires some transfers of mandate from one department to another.
In terms of the environment, already in our environmental committee we have talked about the concepts of sustainable development as enunciated so well in the World Commission on the Environment and Development, the so-called Brundtland Report. I have already recommended to that committee that we use forestry as one of the subject areas to develop concepts of sustainable development in Canada's future. I think that forestry is a very apt subject in that respect.
I recognize that the Hon. Member from Prince George comes from an area where forestry is of great value in terms of employment, economics, ecology, recreation and aesthetics. I understand that because I come from New Brunswick where the forest is also extremely important. More than one-third of our entire provincial economy in New Brunswick is related to forestry. We all realize Canada's forests go far beyond their economic value. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle) has described on more than one occasion that he sees Canada's forests as an analogy to the human body. He describes them as the very lungs and kidneys of an ecosystem. Forests help to regulate the atmosphere by trapping and converting solar energy into oxygen. They also play an important role in controlling global precipitation and moisture exchange. It is therefore imperative that we direct our efforts to ensuring that Canada's
May 26, 1989

forests, as part of the global life support system, remain healthy and flourishing.
We must strive to do better than we have. That is not to say we have not done well, that we have not significantly started to manage our forests in a more comprehensive and intense way than was the case prior to the recognition of concepts such as sustainable development and the impact of the environment and the developing knowledge on subjects such as acid rain. We have much more to do. Sustainable development and other concepts will lead us to new horizons and new challenges.
I would like to say again, and I apologize for being parochial, that New Brunswick has shown the way in terms of forest management legislation in Canada. I believe that those who would address improved forest management in this country should address themselves to the Crown Lands and Forests Act in New Brunswick. They should also address themselves to the steps which have been taken over the past five years by officials, scientists and managers of the forests in New Brunswick as they have implemented the terms and conditions of the new legislation for multiple use and more intensive management addressing both Crown and private lands.

Mr. Speaker, the management of forests in Canada is a major concern of our Government. Forestry Canada managers will describe for Hon. Members the work done by the federal Government concerning the health of forests as it regards the forestry industry. We are all aware that the management problems include climate, insects, diseases, management practices and air pollution. In addition, as the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner) said, the facts point increasingly to acid rain as a killer of forests.
I would nevertheless like to emphasize that this Government recognizes that it can no longer wait to have all the scientific data in hand before proceeding. Once the trees are gone, it will no longer do much good to understand in depth the cause of this disaster-it will be too late.
Forestry

As proof of how seriously the Conservative Government takes finding a long-term solution to the problems of acid rain, I would like to review for the House the acid rain control program that has been put in place in this country to end the environmental, economic and health-related damages being caused by acid rain.
The Hon. Member has already described many of the causes, results and severe impacts of acid rain. I will not repeat those, but I will talk a bit about what the Government has done.
I am proud to remind this House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced in March, 1985 that Canada would implement a comprehensive ten year acid rain control program estimated to cost $500 million annually when fully implemented in 1994. The federal Government, in partnership with the seven eastern provincial Governments and affected industries, has established a clear, scientifically derived objective for resolving Canada's acid rain problem. Canadian scientists have established that to prevent acid rain damage, acid rain fallout must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year in all vulnerable areas. To achieve this environmental objective requires two things.
First, total Canadian emissions of sulphur dioxide from the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border eastward must be reduced to 2.3 million tonnes per year. This represents a 50 per cent cut in emissions from 1980 allowable levels.
I see I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, so I will proceed more quickly and say that Canada's acid rain control program is achieving the required results. Emissions levels are now below 2.8 million tonnes per year in eastern Canada, almost 40 per cent below the levels allowed in 1980. It is clear that we will reach our goal of a 50 per cent reduction in domestic emissions by 1994 or earlier.
I would also like to say that we do require a formal accord on acid rain between the United States and Canada. In the recent visit by President Bush, there are clear signals that an accord is achievable and that negotiations and relations are well under way between our two countries for its achievement.

May 26, 1989
Forestry
I would say that this motion, while so well intentioned and comprehensive, is well behind the leading edge of government policy and action on these two important fronts, both in forestry and environment. On acid rain, Canada is and has been on the move.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important issue.
Acid rain is a bilateral problem that must be addressed through bilateral channels. I will be talking about that. I also want to emphasize the phenomenon of the long-range transport of atmospheric pollutants and the potential accumulative affect it has on the environmental problems in my riding.
The environmental problems facing the North are extensive. The most serious include Arctic toxic pollution, ozone destruction, and the greenhouse effect. Canadians have made it clear that they want this country to take action on its many environmental problems, problems which are shared internationally. A new environmental responsibility is a political imperative, but it is also an undeniable necessity.
Our planet is diseased by man's environmental neglect. Human beings, indeed all living beings, are suffering the side effects. In Canada's North, we find that some Inuit people are ingesting unacceptable levels of PCBs.
Most environmental damage is irreversible and the accumulative effects are degrading the environment at an astounding rate. In the last 100 years, man has done infinitely more damage to the planet than since humans appeared on the scene millions of years ago.
Today, we are at an historical transition between a world inherited and one profoundly different, a global biosphere whose vital functions we have altered.
Do we want future generations to inherit an exhausted planet with which they will live at odds, or do we want to leave a heritage of health and harmony, a society with a clean house and values to keep it that way? Obviously, we want the latter.
Humans can adapt this value to live in harmony with the environment. It will require re-examination of materialism and modern development, but there is no reason to believe the challenge cannot be met.
By treating our environment right, we will be treating ourselves right. This is what will breed kinder and gentler nations.
Canada must lead the world in practising environmentally responsible statecraft. This means defining and implementing a strict concept of sustainable development, securing global co-operation to immediately eliminate critical problems, and fostering an environmentally-conscious populace through public education and involvement.
Ranging across some 30 per cent of the planet's land surface, forests have been described as "the climax ecosystems of a green and flowering world-the most exuberant expressions of nature." Forests perform protective, productive and regulative functions. They play a vital ecological role in the planetary recycling of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon. They influence temperature and rainfall. They act as enormous sponges, collecting and distributing water. They protect the soil from water and wind erosion. They maintain biological diversity. They actively contribute to economic development.
Recently, however, new problems such as acid rain and other air pollutants have emerged which may stress forests beyond their regenerative capacities.
Forest management is the keystone of a natural resource conservation strategy.
Canada is a world leader in forestry. No country trades more extensively in global forest products, the latter accounting for 15 to 20 per cent of Canada's total export earnings. Over the years, Canadians have developed a broad range of modern forestry skills and techniques, and much of this technology has proved to be adaptable to tropical forest conditions.
Acid rain potentially may affect all sectors of the environment, including human health. The most persuasive evidence has been assembled for aquatic systems. It is now well known that freshwater bodies begin to show biological damage at about a very moderate level of acidity. It is feared that forests, in particular, are being damaged by acid rain and by associated pollutants such as ozone. It is also known that man-made materials are susceptible to damage from acid rain and from associated air pollutants.
May 26, 1989

Not only is the dollar cost of acid-rain damage to buildings and other structures very high, but treasured artifacts, including sculpture and historic sites, are threatened with destruction.
When I gave my speech in response to the Budget on May 18,1 stated that Canada needs to develop a foreign policy and not just a defence policy for cruise missile tests and nuclear submarines, but that a foreign policy should be all encompassing with global environmental security as a cornerstone. We need to push for acceleration of the ozone protocol, adoption of an international law of the air, measures to ensure rapid reduction in the C02 level, and preservation of tropical rain forests.
Taken together, these measures represent a comprehensive and coherent approach to our environment covering preventive, punitive, and remedial action as well as domestic and international aspects. They demonstrate the proactive liberal approach to this crucial issue and are based on the fundamental premise that pollution is everyone's problem; that we must all work together to ensure a healthy and secure environment for future generations. Sustainable development for the forest industry needs to be defined and must be complemented by comprehensive and extensive national environmental objectives.
My constituents of Western Arctic are concerned that Alberta's massive forestry development has potential to threaten one of Canada's largest and cleanest river systems and massive tracts of northern forests. Seven pulp mills are planned for the Peace-Athabasca River system, the source of most water in the southwestern N.W.T. and northern Alberta. The concept of sustainable development must be applied to this proposal. The economic benefits need to be recognized, but the negative impacts of the project must be minimized. The Government must be held accountable to implement a strict sustainable development regime in good faith.
On May 11, the Member from Davenport asked the Government House Leader when he would introduce a motion to strike the standing committee on acid rain which was in existence until the call of the election. We have heard nothing from the Government.
As usual, this Government will not move fast enough. Regulations are a necessary part of environmental man-
Forestry
agement. As trustees of the environment, governments must act with vigour to protect it. Governments must lead with comprehensive support and promotion of sustainable economic development.
This Government has to change the way it approaches the environment and the economy. It has to integrate environmental input into decision-making at the highest level. Environment must be a priority of every federal Department.
My Party recommends an auditor general for the environment. Environmental considerations cannot be an add-on or an afterthought. They must be made integral to economic policy-making and planning and a required element of any economic development proposal.
I want to re-emphasize, in conclusion, that acid rain is a problem that wafts across borders. Acid rain, snow, and fog kill fish and other aquatic biota and damage forests in Canada, the U.S., and western and central Europe. An estimated 200,000 square miles of forests in industrial countries are damaged by acid rain or other forms of air pollution. It demands international solutions. As well, discussion of long-range transport of air pollutants can no longer be restricted to oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Hydrocarbons are interacting with these gases at low atmospheric levels, producing damaging ozone. Toxic pollutants such as pesticides, metals and PCBs are being emitted and volatilizing from aerial sprayings and open bodies of water to be deposited at great distances away. The ecological damage of acid rain is generally understood, but the associated human morbidity and potential long-term health effects are not.
Pollutants in the environment can wreak unforeseen results, among them a global warming trend that could push average temperatures higher than any in the experience of the human race. A nuclear winter caused by global war might mean the end of most life forms. Yet along with potential self-destruction, the present moment of technology's course has delivered tools of knowledge never before in hand. What is the Government waiting for? We have the tools to do something.

May 26, 1989
Forestry


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate ray colleague on an excellent presentation concerning the problem of acid rain and its damage to forests. Coming from a region where a great number of my constituents earn their living from the forests, naturally I am interested in this whole question.
In 1982, with the help of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, I organized and sponsored a seminar on the problem that faced our forests, that being acid rain. We had gathered enough evidence to show that, as most Canadians know, the pulp and paper industry in this country is of extreme importance. Its importance cannot be exaggerated. Study after study has pointed to the fact that acid rain is something that is visible, it is concrete and obviously we have got to tackle the problem.
I am sure that in this House the concern about acid rain goes above Party lines. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Our own sulphur emissions need to be under control, and I am sure that we will tackle that problem with great vigour. However, we have a problem with our neighbours to the south. Study after study does not seem to convince them that we need an absolute commitment to seriously limit the problem of sulphur emissions that create acid rain. The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has conducted extended studies. These have indicated that if the trend continues within the next quarter century, there will be no more pulp and paper industry in this country. This is incredible when we consider that this country had such tremendous forest reserves. We are surrounded literally by forests. Within 30 minutes of my home town, I can literally be lost in the wilderness. Nevertheless this danger is mounting week by week to the point where our whole forest industry is in severe danger.
Needless to say, we do not want to be portrayed as alarmists, but the fact remains that acid rain is probably the greatest threat facing the forest industry. Yet, it does not stop with our forest industry. There was a series of interesting programs on the CBC about a year and a half to two years ago that pointed out the danger to our forest industry. They also showed that if this damage continues, there will be social unrest in our country because the industry will be on the verge of being eliminated. We cannot exaggerate the importance.
Surely all Members of this House would want our Government to be insistent-and we will not accept no or maybe for an answer-and indicate to our industries, which we are doing, and indicate to our neighbour to the south that its northeastern states are affected. We in particular are being affected. I have met with the maple syrup producers in my area and they are seeing the damage year by year.
Like all Members of this House, we will appeal as forcefully as we can to our friendly neighbours to the south for an agreement. We are willing to put a tremendous amount of water in our wine if we have to, but we need a commitment and a reduction or else we will live to see the damage to our forest industry if it is not corrected. That is the issue that faces one of our major industries. It would probably be the greatest catastrophe of our lifetime.
It is imperative that we stand up and be counted and let them know, not only to the south, but everywhere, that Canada is going to solve its acid rain problem even if we have to take radical steps. We will call upon our neighbours to the south in the northeastern states to join us to make our two Governments understand that the time has come to correct the problem. We do not want to live with a catastrophe on our hands. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time that has been allotted to me.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on a motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner), a fellow member on the Forestry and Fisheries Committee. The Hon. Member represents a riding, like mine, where the forestry industry has created many jobs for a number of years, jobs that have benefited several generations. Our constituents also realize that forestry operations are extremely important to the economy of our ridings and to the economy of this coutry.
Mr. Speaker, our forests are one of our major resources. They cover nearly half of Canada's total area and, south of the sixtieth parallel, cover almost two-thirds of our territory. Logging has stimulated economic growth in Canada since the time of the huge annual log drives on Canada's rivers. Today, the forestry industry consist of about 7,000 companies, most of which are
May 26, 1989

Canadian-owned. These companies are responsible for about 4 per cent of Canada's Gross Domestic Product. Annual sales in the industry amount to $30 billion, and in 1987, our exports of forestry products were worth over $21 billion. We have here an industry that is extremely important to Canada, an industry that creates many jobs and contributes to the economic stability and prosperity of many regions in this country.
The problem we are discussing today, the deterioration of our forests, is a major one, and at this point I would like to mention that the present Government has met the problem head-on and taken steps and introduced mechanisms to respond to this challenge. The challenge we are facing is that of maintaining healthy forests so that the industry and this natural resource will continue to contribute to the well-being of Canadians.
I believe that our Government has recognized the importance of the forestry industry by appointing to the Cabinet a full Minister responsible for forestry and forestry policy in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should also remember that the Prime Minister comes from a region that grew up and developed thanks to the forestry industry which still exists in Baie-Comeau and on the North Shore, and also in my own riding where forestry operations have existed since the turn of the century.
The problem we are discussing today is an important one, but acid rain is not the only problem affecting the viability and health of our forests. There are many other causes such as insects, logging, of course, and natural causes that annually contribute to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in Canada. Forest fires also do considerable damage. We are looking at a complex problem, and as a responsible Government, we must take a comprehensive approach if we are to implement a sound and consistent policy that will both ensure that our forestry industry remains economically viable and help maintain the quality of our environment, clean up air pollution and thus make it possible for all Canadians to continue to rely on this major natural resource and also enjoy the recreational opportunities it offers.
Forestry
I can assure the Elon. Member that his contribution and mine to the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries should help provide for a fair policy, as proposed by our Government, a policy that will be maintained during the next four years, a policy that is consistent, intelligent and a sensible; a policy that will help provide jobs and ensure that our environment is both protected and profitable.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner), has raised a very important issue. I welcome the opportunity to speak on that issue. It is important to all Canadians.
The Hon. Member has chosen to direct his motion toward a single factor affecting that particular issue and that is acid rain. No one will question the fact that the Government is concerned about the problems of pollution, acid rain, and transborder emissions that affect all of us. No one would argue that the United States is equally concerned. In the Speech from the Throne earlier this session we stated that we are going to address that problem and seek agreement with the United States to bring this international problem under control.
Since 1984 the Government has continued to push forward in this area, as all Canadians are demanding, for a solution to those problems and ensuring that they are dealt with head-on. The 1987 Ozone Protocol signed in Montreal is another indication that the Government is serious about the problem, is doing something about it, and will continue to work on an international scale.
The protection of the environment will be one of the main goals of the Government in its second mandate. If we are going to have sustained economic development in this country that will go beyond our life expectancy into that of our children, we must address those very real problems. It is a concern that is being expressed by all Canadians. It was certainly expressed throughout the campaign last fall. Canadians of all ages, young and old alike-and many who were well below the voting age attending high school or university-spoke out and indicated very clearly that they wanted whatever

May 26, 1989
Forestry
Government was elected to put this issue on its agenda. We have chosen to deal with that.
The link between air pollution and the decline of our forests is easy to make for anyone who has visited such places as Trail, British Columbia or Sudbury, Ontario. One only need look out of a car window or the window of an airplane to see the effects. It is a very complex problem. I am not sure one single factor is the reason. Is acid rain the only reason our forests are dying? I contend that it is not the sole reason and that there are other factors.
If one looks at some of the highly industrialized areas of the country and the effect that they have on the surrounding environment and the volatile organic compounds, other oxidants, and heavy metals that are present in the ground, they are also having an effect. We have to consider many factors when looking at our dying forests and the problem areas throughout the country. Acid rain is a key topic and it is one that we can clearly point our finger at, but it is not the only one.
The distinction between acid rain problems and other environmental problems is very difficult to make. Some highly regarded experts are having difficulty making the distinction, is it acid rain or is it something else? It is a very broad topic. The Government is concerned about it, and we are going to work hard in that regard. We have committed ourselves to it, and we are going to follow through with it.
Canada is not alone in this regard. The U.S. is very concerned, as are the European countries. It was back in the heady days of the 1960s and the early 1970s when acid rain became a hot topic. Early in the 1970s the European countries realized the problem and they raised it at an international level. Not long after we in Canada were faced with the same problem.
In my riding of Carleton-Charlotte the forestry sector is indeed a very important sector of our economy. We have the same problem. We are living in an ecological zone that seems to be more susceptible to that problem than other parts of the country. We will continue to monitor the problem closely. We will continue to work as best we can within fiscal restraints to address this problem.
Ultimately the problem will cost Canada jobs. For example, in eastern Canada there are approximately
10,000 maple syrup producers and many small wood lot owners who are affected by this problem. If one goes into the forests of Quebec and looks at this problem, it will be seen that it is very complex. None of us want to see our national symbol, the maple leaf, turn brown. However, in areas such as eastern Quebec and in my province of New Brunswick, the problems go far beyond acid rain. There are some complex questions that scientists are scratching their heads over and to which they have no answers. Of over 100 studies done only two actually point directly to the acid rain problem. There are many other variables which cannot be accounted for. It is a serious problem, and one we are dealing with. We must consider all pollutants, not only the hydrogen sulphites and other gases that directly contribute to acid rain.
In many forests there is an insect problem, or diseases over which the scientists are scratching their heads as to how they came about and exactly what they are, how long-term they will be, and whether we can eradicate them at all. We also have management problems. That problem the Government is addressing in a serious manner. Part of the management of our forests is coming from examples set in my own province of New Brunswick.
The Hon. Member for Fredericton (Mr. Bird) was a former Minister of Forestries in our home province. He is the individual responsible for bringing in that progressive legislation. As a nation we are going to follow the example of the province of New Brunswick, because it has been successful. It has proven that a small province with limited fiscal resources has the ability to deal with the problem.
In conclusion, the problem we have is a complex one. The motion of the Hon. Member opposite is a very narrow motion. We have to go beyond the sense of narrowness that I see in his motion. We as a Government are prepared to go beyond the narrow bounds of that particular motion and recognize that it is a problem that deserves a high degree of energy and a high degree of resource on the part of all of us. I am proud to say that the Minister of State (Forestry) (Mr. Oberle) is working on the problem, that he recognizes it and in time it will be dealt with in the fashion that Canadians wish it to be dealt with.
May 26, 1989

	Forestry


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper. [Translation] It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned	until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 3 p.m.

Monday, May 29, 1989