1992-02-20

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
The committee respectfully requests that an extension be granted until April 30, 1992 for its consideration of its orders of reference dated September 18, 1991 and November 20, 1991 with regard to the work place hazardous material information system.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Now that the report has been read, I understand that the hon. member will move for it to be concurred in under Motions.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, November 8, 1991, your committee has considered Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION ACT


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Epp moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed. Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

February 20,1992
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Epp moves, for the Minister of the Environment, that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND

Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contribution Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Jelinek, the Minister of Finance, moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (absence of criminal liability of child under 10 years of age and definition of child and young person).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Derek Vincent Lee: The purpose of this private member's bill is to include the 10 and 11 year old age group as young persons governed by the Young Offenders Act.
At present that act does not apply to anyone less than 12 years of age. Second, it is to lower the age of
culpability in the Criminal Code from 12 years to 10 years.
The reason for these proposed changes is that the 10 and 11 year old group are increasingly turning up as perpetrators of assaults causing bodily harm, sexual assaults, threats, extortion and drug couriers, especially in large urban areas.
Under the current law police are unable to charge or arrest young offenders in this 10 and 11 year old age group. This law would rectify this problem for the 10 and 11 year old age group.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Lee moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That four members and two staff on the Subcommittee on the Status of Women of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, be authorized to travel to Washington from Monday, March 9 to Wednesday March 11, 1992 in relation to their study of breast cancer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion as well.
That eight members and necessary staff of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, in relation to the consideration of Bill C-36, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be authorized to travel to Vancouver, B.C. and to Edmonton, Alberta, from March 8 to March 13, 1992 in order to hold public hearings and visit correctional facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Une autre fois, Madam Speaker:
That eight members and necessary staff of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs be authorized to travel to Montreal on Thursday, February 27, 1992 in relation to their study on interest rates charged on credit cards.
Motion agreed to
February 20,1992



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I wish to move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in. This report asks for an extension of the work place management hazardous materials study for two months.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of the residents of Kamloops who are aware that the Government of Canada is soon to sign an agreement with the province of British Columbia in terms of RCMP funding. They are simply asking that the government ensure that the RCMP receives adequate funding in order that it can fulfil its mandate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Madam Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners, mainly from the North Thompson Valley are asking that the Government of Canada state clearly that Canadian rivers will not be for sale to the United States.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off the debate today on Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures.
Now that the cold war is over, we are living in a period of unprecedented opportunity to enhance international peace and security. Countries are rethinking the way they have conducted international relations for the past 45 years. The international community is looking for new and effective ways to maintain international peace and security with minimal recourse to military force.
The responses of the United Nations and the Organization of American States to the gulf and Haitian crises have highlighted the new opportunities for collective measures to suppress acts of aggression and respond to internationally unacceptable behaviour.
It is in this context that the government has introduced Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures.
The purpose of Bill C-53 is to enable Canada to impose a broad range of economic sanctions against a state or part of a state whose actions pose a serious threat to international peace or security or fail to conform to commonly accepted standards of behaviour.
The act will improve Canada's ability to join other states promptly and effectively in the application of economic sanctions.

February 20,1992
Government Orders

The application of economic sanctions will remain an exceptional measure, but it is an essential foreign policy instrument. There are occasions when other peaceful means such as diplomatic representations, public condemnations, various demarches will not bring a delinquent state or a rogue regime to modify its behaviour.
In these circumstances the ability to join promptly in the application of multilateral economic sanctions is both valuable and necessary. The use of economic sanctions, of course, is not new to Canadian foreign policy. On a number of occasions over the past 25 years, Canada has joined like-minded states in resorting to economic sanctions for one reason or another.

For example, comprehensive sanctions were applied against Rhodesia in 1968 and against Iraq in 1990. The United Nations imposed an arms embargo against South Africa in 1977 and more extensive economic measures were applied in 1985 and 1986.
Limited sanctions were applied against Iran and the Soviet Union in 1980, Poland and Argentina in 1982, Libya in 1986 and Haiti in 1991.

These instances have revealed that our domestic authority to impose sanctions is not appropriate to the current situation. We have seen, for example, that disagreement among the permanent members of the UN Security Council regularly made it impossible to use the United Nations Act to apply sanctions. The Export and Import Permits Act only permits restrictions on trade and goods. Moreover, the requirement for an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment in order to control imports for foreign policy reasons has occasionally made use of that act cumbersome and difficult.
The passage of the special legislation such as the Iran Economic Sanctions Act takes time. Opportunities to effectively influence the outcome of a crisis can thus be lost. Other legislation such as the Emergencies Act was never intended for the application of international economic sanctions and is in fact of very little use.
Measures that are within the discretion of the government can be useful in some circumstances, but they would likely be neither a sufficient nor an appropriate response to the unacceptable behaviour of another state.
In the past we have been able to make do with a limited ability to impose international economic sanctions, but that is no longer the case. The world has changed. Not only has the end of the cold war created these new opportunities for concerted international action that Canada and other countries must seize, the character of international economic relations and the structure of economic transactions have also changed. In the past, relatively effective sanctions could be applied by merely controlling trade in goods.
Today, however, trade in services accounts for an ever larger part of international transactions. In addition, in an age of electronic banking huge sums of money and other assets can be moved from one country to another almost instantaneously. Bill C-53 addresses these new developments and in its provision for controlling trade and technology, for example, a very important element in today's international exchanges, it tries to anticipate others yet to come.
When I speak of these changes I am referring to situations that are very real. After the coup d'etat in Haiti, the ad hoc meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of the Organization of American States urged OAS member states to embargo trade with Haiti and to freeze Haitian state assets. Canada, however, found itself with only limited authority to block financial transactions involving Haiti and to freeze Haitian state assets in Canada. Had the special economic measures act been in force when the coup took place, Canada would have been better placed to respond quickly and effectively to the OAS request. Indeed, Canada had led the OAS in calling for strong economic measures against Haiti and it therefore is of course doubly important that we are in a position to follow through.
With the legislation in place, we will be able to respond better. Embargoes are not always easy to apply. That said, we are concerned that some OAS members, including the United States, apparently appear to be backing away from giving full effect to the OAS resolutions. That reluctance can undermine the effectiveness of sanctions, and it makes it difficult for countries like Canada to sustain the sanctions when others are not sharing the burden. We want to implement measures that will contribute to the return of constitutional government in Haiti. We urge our fellow members to do likewise, as well as other countries. This action was a breakthrough for the Organization of American States
February 20, 1992

and in our view it is very important that we act as member states in concert.
I have spoken about why Canada needs the special economic measures act. Now I want to talk about the bill itself. This is enabling legislation. It will allow but not require the government to apply international economic sanctions. Bill C-53 signals no intention to apply sanctions either more or less frequently than we have in the past. Canadian decisions to use sanctions will be guided by established policies and the need for sanctions will be dictated by developments in international relations. I can, however, assure you that Canada will continue to work hard with the objective of ensuring that sanctions will be called for only on rare occasions. When the government does decide to apply sanctions, the act will give it the flexibility to choose those measures which are best suited for the situation at hand.

The essence of the bill is found in section 4, which describes the conditions for the application of sanctions and the types of measures that may be applied. Sanctions may be applied if the Governor in Council determines that a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred and has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis. Sanctions may also be applied in response to a decision, resolution or recommendation of an international organization or association of states of which Canada is a member, calling for the application of sanctions.
Under the act the government will be able to seize or sequeseter the property held in Canada by the state that is subject to sanctions or by persons associated with it.

The government will also be able to make orders or regulations restricting or prohibiting a variety of activities such as trade in goods and services, the execution of financial and commercial transactions, the transfer of technology and the operation of air and maritime links.
Bill C-53 is fully consistent with long established Canadian foreign policy that has always treated the application of international economic sanctions as a very
Government Orders
serious and exceptional measure. In applying economic sanctions Canadian governments have been guided by three principles. Canada has sought a broad international agreement on the necessity and usefulness of sanctions. Canada has insisted that the burden of sanctions be shared among the countries imposing them and Canada has made every effort to avoid placing Canadian business and workers at a disadvantage in relation to its foreign competitors.
Nothing in this bill requires departure from these longstanding principles of Canadian foreign policy and they will indeed continue to guide us. Every situation in which sanctions will be imposed, of course, will be different.
To be effective, international economic sanctions should be used in pursuit of very precisely and clearly defined objectives. Sanctions measures must be carefully conceived because those that would be effective in one set of circumstances may be totally inappropriate, perhaps even costly in another.
Decisions to impose economic sanctions will involve a complex balancing of many considerations. The kinds of measures to be taken, their likely effectiveness and the potential cost to Canadians will need to be addressed every time a proposal is made to impose sanctions.
Consequently Bill C-53 does not dictate the policy considerations that would determine whether or not to apply sanctions in any particular situation, nor does it dictate the types of measures to be used when the government decides to apply sanctions.
The flexibility that must be granted to the government in Bill C-53 warrants parliamentary scrutiny. In applying sanctions as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait demonstrated, the government must be able to act quickly.
However, once the government has acted every order and regulation made in application for sanctions must be laid before each House of Parliament within five sitting days of its making. If 50 members or 20 senators move that any order or regulation be revoked, the motion must be debated and brought to a vote.

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
When Canada applies economic sanctions, every effort must be made to minimize the costs to Canada's business community and to Canada's workers.

For instance, where possible, restrictions should be applied prospectively, thereby permitting the execution of existing contracts. Where costs to Canadians are unavoidable, government programs might be adapted to assist those in Canada who bear the burden. This was done in 1980 when the existing grain price support programs were used to relieve farmers from depressed cereal prices that resulted from Canadian participation in the grain embargo against the Soviet Union. When Canada has applied economic sanctions, direct compensation has seldom been requested. Nonetheless, we do not exclude the possibility that in some future circumstances the government might want to consider the need for a program of compensation for Canadians and persons in Canada adversely affected by the application of economic sanctions. Section 6 of the bill provides for that eventuality.

This bill is timely legislation that responds to changes in international circumstances. It reflects changes in the character of international business.
The special economic measures act will fit within longstanding Canadian policy that seeks multilateral solutions to international problems. It will be a valuable addition to the peaceful options available to the government to respond to threats to international peace and security.
I hope that all hon. members will see the value of this important legislation and allow for quick passage so that additional options can be considered for addressing effectively the Haitian situation in particular. It is of most immediate concern, but of course there will be others in the future.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, there is some irony in that just about a year ago this House was deeply engaged in a major debate about the Gulf War.
Members of the opposition were trying to put the best case forward to the government about the utility and effectiveness of economic sanctions. They were being
treated with total indifference and sometimes arrogance saying that sanctions had no role to play.
It was said that sanctions were useless and were not being effective in that case. One year later, we are now dealing with a bill that centres on the importance and effectiveness of economic sanctions.
It certainly shows that, if nothing else is true, the government has been able to understand the weakness of its ways.
I would like to recall that at that time we said that there were choices and there were options.
We said that this Parliament should have far more responsibility for the setting of standards by which we determine our actions internationally with respect to the democratic interests of this country. Those were being spumed and those were being treated with total and complete impunity.
We are now seized of a bill that we hope will improve upon that. One can at least be thankful that a few lessons were learned as a consequence of that terrible tragedy.
Of course, not all lessons were learned because what we are still faced with is the enormous consequences of a war that spent close to 80 billion scarce dollars. It burned it up at a rate of something like $60 million an hour, and what are the results?
The results are mass starvation in Iraq, continuation of a despotic regime, environmental despoilment, the continuing arms trade in the Middle East, in fact an escalating arms trade in the Middle East. Also, close to three-quarters of a million refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East. A number of countries are impoverished.
Because of a lack of patience, because of a lack of interest or concern about the utility and effectiveness of the use of economic sanctions, we are paying a very deep, steep price even today for that imprudence and lack of caution and jingoism that so terribly seized the Government of Canada, as it did many other governments at that time.
I would say at the outset that we welcome this legislation. It may provide a more important and useful tool for the government. It may in the future be prepared to exercise that option without resorting so quickly and ferociously to the use of force as the first
February 20, 1992

Government Orders
resort, rather than the last resort, in trying to deal with the problem of international conflict and aggression.
It does not mean to say, however, that economic sanctions by themselves are sufficient or should not go unexamined. The minister mentioned in her opening address the application of sanctions to Haiti. Well, let us just stop for a moment and ask what is happening there.
Again, Canada along with other countries was quick to rush to the press conferences to announce a whole series of strictures against the dictatorship that took over in Haiti.
But now Haitian refugees are being sent back and are having to return a second time to political persecution. I have seen no statement from the Minister of External Affairs or from the Prime Minister of Canada about how we intend to help many of those refugees who are there as a direct consequence of the actions being taken.
There is no question that economic sanctions have their consequences, have their results.
It is a negligence in responsibility that we undertake in participating in a multilateral action properly designed to force an end to a dictatorship in a country like Haiti that we take no responsibility, no interest whatsoever in the victims of that action.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood will speak later about the efforts he has been making to try to get foodstuffs and humanitarian supplies into Iraq for the children there.
We now have a series of reports. Once again we find, as I discovered on my visit to the United Nations last week, that we are concentrating on enforcement and pressure.
At the same time we are ignoring and forgetting that there is always another side to the equation. That side of the equation includes the people who suffer, the people who pay the price, the individuals, the men and women and particularly the children who suffer the results of that.
The bill itself gives us an important opportunity to honestly examine what it is about-a sanctions policy.
I was disturbed to hear the minister when she said that she treats the legislation purely in mechanical terms, not in policy terms.
It is important for Canada to have policies in these areas. It is important for the Canadian people to understand what the policy of the Government of Canada will be when it becomes engaged in major international actions. It is crucial that we understand what objectives and goals and values motivate and seize this kind of action.
It is not simply a mechanical matter of turning over and responding. It is a question of making choices and judgments and engaging in a proper public debate as to what they require.
It is no wonder that Canadians are confused today about what is our position in the new world order, that we will apply sanctions to one country but not to another.
Look what happened in Yugoslavia where we watched for months upon months the escalation, suffering, damage, and terrible tragedy. Yet western countries were not prepared. Maybe we did not have the means.
It looked once again as if there was a double standard being applied, that we were beginning to say that we will apply enforcement action in one place and not in another depending on what the politics dictate.
It may be that there are realistic reasons for doing that, but they should be spelled out. There should be a much stronger effort to engage Canadians in this kind of debate and discussion.
If we are going to be called upon, as I believe we will be, for a much broader and more active role in maintaining collective peace and security, then it can only be done if there is support from the public. They must understand what is being done. They must be engaged in the debate.
It should not be a decision made behind closed doors in a cabinet room, remote and separated from what it is Canadians believe should take the place.
If we are going to be sending peacekeepers to one area and impose sanctions in another, that has to be part of a judgment made by the people. This is done through their parliamentary system where there is a serious and

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
considerate effort to share information, where there is a realistic opportunity to judge the impact of those actions.
I can recall what took place during the debates in this House during the gulf war when we constantly said to the predecessor to the present minister for external affairs: "Tfell us why sanctions are not working, why it is necessary right now to engage in military action".
There was never any mechanism, no real effort to provide that information. There was no evidence. There was no analysis. There were no judgments to say: "Here is why we think economic sanctions as an instrument will not work and therefore we are going to be forced into more serious military engagement".
I ask whether there is anything in Bill C-53 that will correct that, that will require the government to be accountable to Parliament for how the sanctions are working, who is being affected and whether the sanctions are having the desired result.
I suggest that there is nothing in the bill that will ensure the continual observation, monitoring and accountability of this very important and serious international engagement the minister is proposing that Canadians undertake.
Let us be honest. There is no real parliamentary role in this. The measures built into this bill are farcical.
There is nothing to say what happens if Parliament is in a summer recess, as we were during the time of the gulf war, and is not called back for three months. Where is the opportunity in this bill to correct that serious omission of fundamental parliamentary responsibility?
There is nothing in the bill that would require Parliament to be immediately recalled so that a proper debate could be held and members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents could raise questions and determine what the severity of the situation would be. No, this would be a decision taken on high through executive decision and Parliament would be hoeing its garden or doing whatever.
Similarly in the bill there is no capacity for Parliament, again representing the people of Canada, to determine when sanctions are working or when they should be withdrawn or when they should be changed. Sanctions are not some kind of iceberg that sits there. They have to
be constantly monitored. Businesses are being put at financial risk, there are enormous consequences in terms of the countries in which sanctions are being employed, and the only provision we have is that 50 MPs get up and say: "We do not want sanctions". Where is the flexibility in that? It is not a question of black or white, but it is a question of responsibility, accountability, information sharing, reporting and proper debate.
I can say to the House that we will be making every effort to improve this bill, to substantially improve the position of Parliament in its role of ensuring that such an important international commitment as the imposition of a sanctions program is subject to parliamentary assessment, judgment and accountability.
I hope the minister will be in agreement with those measures. We are primarily arguing about the fact that we cannot go around the world preaching democracy if we are not prepared to acknowledge it at home. How can we be lecturing other countries about the importance of building democratic institutions if we ignore our own institutions on such a crucial issue as war and peace or major international engagement?
One of the reasons we will be prepared to give quick passage to the bill is so that we can bring it to committee as quickly as possible and prepare a number of amendments that we believe will substantially improve the bill in terms of parliamentary role.
I might as well raise another set of concerns about Bill C-53, that is the triggering of its application. The minister has outlined that it would be triggered by requests from international organizations where there is a judgment about peace and security. I want to pose some questions of the minister. What happens to cases where there are severe violations of human rights?
We see cases now in East Timor and other places around the world where it may be important that the economic tool be used to live up to the principle that the minister and the Prime Minister have established of connecting human rights to economic aid. It is surprising that there is an omission in this bill, that there is not the same kind of flexibility being shown in applying some enforcement action for countries which are not prepared to listen to international standards and adhere to international standards of human rights.
February 20, 1992

Similarly it may be important to consider whether in this bill we should also consider a criterion of environmental pollution and degradation. We saw a case just a year or so ago when the U.S. Congress applied a form of economic sanctions on tuna fishing against Mexico. It had the desired result, by the way, of stopping a kind of raping of the tuna fleet.
In the last three or four days in this House we have had major debate about what is happening outside the 200-mile limit in our own Grand Banks area. It may be important that we at least keep in the arsenal-and I am not saying for it to be used in a capricious way-the possibility of using economic tools or weapons to respond to countries which take no responsibility for ravaging the ocean's environment, or other environments for that matter. It may be important to consider additional criteria under which this bill can be applied.
It is also important, just as a third area where I think improvement and additions are required, in the field of compensation. As I read the bill we talk about the right to make application for compensation. There is nothing in the bill that says the government has to respond in any tangible way. To make sanctions an effective instrument, as we have seen in past experiences there has to be a commitment by which affected individuals or businesses have a clear mechanism, by which they have some security that their own interests will not be again victimized, and by which they are not the only ones paying the penalty.
In saying all that, it is important to put this bill in perspective. It is really only one of the top most rungs of the international ladder that we have to climb if we are to try to recreate a new international regime or environment.
An important paper delivered at the UN symposium that our party sponsored in Vancouver in October was by Professor Edwin Smith, an international lawyer. It dealt specifically with the question of economic sanctions. He pointed out something which I think would be of interest to members, that under article VII there is only one reference to how economic sanctions should be applied. He pointed out in his paper, if I can quote: "After 45 years we have not had one single military operation that followed the procedures laid out by the charter, but we
Government Orders
have had many instances of the application of economic sanctions". He also said: "It would be unfortunate if these economic measures were left to ad hoc procedures that did not benefit from the preservation of institutional memory". He went on to talk about the necessity for the United Nations, if it is to become the major source of decision making in these areas, to enunciate clearly how, where and by what means these decisions will be made.
The interview the Leader of the Opposition and I had with the Secretary-General last week was interesting. It was pointed out that they are now busily preparing a paper to be tabled with the Security Council on July 1 on a whole new set of means of collective security instruments that will be required by the UN.
I find surprising that here we are in the middle of February and there does not seem at this point to be any initiative on the part of the Canadian government to make proposals as to what that paper should include. This may be one of the most important set of recommendations emerging in building the architecture for a new international peace and security system through the UN, and Canada, which is one of the countries that has been called upon in many instances to supply peacekeeping forces or other responses, does not seem to be part of the action. We are not engaging either in this Parliament or anywhere else in serious debate about what we would like the new architecture to be at the United Nations.
What should be the role of the Secretary-General? Should there be a very specific sanctions group, peacekeeping group in the apparatus of the United Nations, so that a wider range of countries than simply those on the Security Council has an opportunity to be involved in the decision making, the implementation and the accountability?
Surely, as a specific interest of Canadians, we are about to send close to 1,000 peacekeepers to Yugoslavia and we are still not clear in this day and age as to the responsibilities and accountabilities of those who decide on these issues.
I believe there will be a meeting of the peacekeeping committee beginning in the first week of April which Canada will chair. It would seem to me that is an important opportunity for us to put forward a series of proposals on peacemaking, on how the Secretary-General may have offices in different parts of the world to

February 20,1992
Government Orders
provide preventative diplomacy, on how there could be a new information sharing system at the UN, and on how we could be establishing a standby peacekeeping force that could implement sanctions or other areas. There is a wide range of initiatives that I believe Canadians are interested in.
When we held the symposium the response was incredible. People wanted to come. They wanted to discuss and debate this matter, but we have not yet given them an opportunity in the House to provide that kind of involvement. If there should be any lesson that is clear from the gulf war and since then, it is that sanctions and the military should be the last resorts and not the first resort.
It may be that it would have been a more useful initiative by the minister to present a resolution in this House prior to this bill on a peacemaking policy for Canada, the kind of things that we would like the Canadian government to be proposing at the UN and at the OAS in terms of new instruments, procedures and processes for looking at the diplomatic efforts and multilateral action for determining how we can prevent conflict, offset aggression and provide deterrence to the kind of things that happened in the gulf war as opposed to simply responding to them after they happen.
I would use this opportunity, if I might, to urge the minister to do that. I think Canadians are interested. They want to become involved in that kind of debate. I think it is a long-standing tradition of our foreign policy that Canadians become committed and feel a responsibility to multilateral action.
Surely, if the gulf war has taught us anything, it is that the mechanics and the institutions lack a great deal. They need to be modernized, improved and renovated to bring them up to the kind of conditions we now face. We are lagging behind in our capacity to make peace in this world internationally, multilaterally and domestically.
I cannot think of a more profound, serious debate that could take place in this House of Commons. Perhaps the government is prepared to come forward and present its ideas and its proposals and to have serious debate about where we should go in this area before the Secretary-General tables his report on July 1, before decisions are made, and before the security council is seized of this issue.
I would say in summation that the bill itself is a useful measure. It is a beginning but it certainly misses one of the critical criteria in this new age the minister talked about, in this new environment where peace and security may be in our grasp. It will only happen if Canadians understand what their responsibilities and obligations are. They have to feel that they are part of making these decisions. I would strongly urge all members of the House to support the amendments and measures we will be promoting to ensure that on a crucial issue such as economic sanctions Canadians have a role to play, that they have a voice that will be heard, and that they will be part of a decision that is committing themselves and their country to important initiatives overseas.
We would ask this House to support a bill that is substantially amended in the interests of a democratic foreign policy.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. In the circumstances it is very important for the government to have the authority to impose economic sanctions as an alternative to war.

We support this bill. We believe it to be a very important bill and one which should have the support of all members of this House as it goes through the parliamentary process.
The bill provides the government with the necessary ability to move very quickly in imposing economic sanctions during an appropriate international crisis. As was argued during the time of the gulf war, we see sanctions as an important alternative to the use of military force in solving international problems.
The government has introduced this bill because as it found during the gulf war it did not have an effective set of legislative authority to impose sanctions as required under UN resolutions or by other appropriate government policy.
All sides in this House during the gulf war supported the use of economic sanctions. We can do nothing else but support the government in reorganizing and making more effective the mechanisms for dealing with economic sanctions when they are required. The legislation would allow the government to freeze the assets of foreign states which offend international law, would
February 20,1992

prohibit or restrict the import and export of goods and services to an offending state and other financial and commercial transactions as well as air and sea links. It also can restrict the activities of Canadians outside Canada when an organization or association of states calls for such measures. This is an important set of powers for the government in exercising international policy in this country.
The spokesperson for the Liberal Party has outlined some of his concerns with this bill. Frankly, at this stage we do not share some of those concerns. We certainly agree that Parliament needs to be consulted on every opportunity, but we note with interest that the bill does provide for consultation with Parliament by the provision under clause 7 for tabling of orders and regulations made under the bill within five sitting days of the House after they have been made and the filing of a motion on it and an opportunity for Parliament to debate it. It may well be that these provisions should be improved. That is what the committee process will be for and we will be addressing that.
We, of course, also agree with the general proposition that Parliament should be consulted in the process of decision-making wherever possible. In the case of economic sanctions, we do concede to the government the necessary authority to move as quickly as possible. We would not want any consultative process with Parliament to inhibit a government's opportunity to move as fast as possible when the circumstances require it. We will work that one out in committee and hopefully we can improve the bill there.
We have two or three other concerns which are relatively minor when compared with the over-all importance of this bill and we will discuss them when we get to committee. Perhaps I could simply flag them at this stage. The first has to do with a concern that the authority to the government to seize property of a national of a foreign state who does not ordinarily reside in Canada may impinge upon the rights of refugees and others who are legitimately here. We want to make sure that there is a very clear commitment from the government in the legislation, as part of the legislation, to
Government Orders
ensure that appropriate rights of those who are resident in Canada are not infringed by the exercise of the government's authority here.
As well, there may be a concern and a need to have some mechanism for compensation to Canadian individuals or businesses adversely affected by economic sanctions imposed. Obviously in many cases that ought not to be required, but there may be appropriate cases where it is. We want the legislative committee to look at that.
Finally, we want to make sure that non-governmental organizations have some mechanism to continue to operate, again in appropriate circumstances, in a country which is the subject of sanctions under this legislation. There may be many in particular situations under which that is required and we want to make sure that is permitted and not inhibited by the legislation.
Having said that, let me now just turn to a brief discussion of the general bill itself and the reasons for our taking the position that we do in this particular case. International organizations and nations have a range of possible responses to breaches of international law under the United Nations charter. Governments and states can condemn, can call in ambassadors, can impose a series of steps short of actually putting serious hurtful pressure on a particular country. When those options do not work, it becomes necessary from time to time for the international community to act much more effectively. The two particular options which are often available are military sanctions-military action, military force-on the one hand or economic sanctions on the other.
As we have seen throughout history, frequently there are occasions when economic sanctions are far more effective and far more important than military sanctions and military action. There is a tendency, however, when governments have come equipped with large military forces for there often to be too quick a response by the use of military force than the more patient response that is needed in the use of economic sanctions.
When we look back on history we see that economic sanctions have frequently been very effective. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on that at a time that we are not dealing with a major and immediate crisis, although we have a number of important interna-

February 20,1992
Government Orders
tional issues on the table at this stage. I will get to those in a minute.
In a study which was published during the time of the gulf war and reported in a number of newspapers, including the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, by Garry C. Hufbauer and Kimberly A. Elliott, two American specialists in the field, it was noted that in 1935-36 sanctions were applied by the League of Nations against Mussolini for his invasion of Ethiopia. The international community was then trying to force Italy to withdraw from Ethiopia.
In subsequent years that particular case has often been held up as a failure of sanctions. Yet a closer examination shows that sanctions were within a week of forcing Mussolini to back out of Ethiopia and he so confessed to Hitler at some subsequent point. We have an early example in the thirties of sanctions coming very close to working. If the international community had stuck to its position, we might have had a significant change in history during that period.
We have had the example in the early eighties of sanctions against Poland effectively changing the political decisions of that government so as to ease repression, to make economic changes which eventually triggered the changes that we see in Poland and in eastern Europe today.
Governments and states have used economic sanctions against dictators over the years: Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Diem in Vietnam, Idi Amin in Uganda and Somoza in Nicaragua. In every case, sanctions often coupled with the threat of military action have produced the desired result. India in 1989 blockaded Nepal and forced changes there which have given at least some measure of democratic rights to the people of Nepal.
Of course we have the historic example of sanctions working against South Africa. Many countries avoided the sanctions against South Africa in a totally hypocritical and frankly illegal way. Still, with all of that, the sanctions imposed primarily through the Commonwealth and by other countries over a period of time eventually forced the government of South Africa to change its policies and to begin to bring that country back into the international community and to begin the process of change in South Africa.
We even saw the use of something as simple as a sport boycott having an enormous effect on the psychology and people of South Africa and eventually helping to create the conditions in that country so that relatively peaceful change could take place. In fact, South Africa may be an example where an invasion, the use of military force, would simply not work given the size of the minority white community. What was necessary was the long build-up of economic and psychological pressure on at least a significant portion of that minority to begin recognizing that change was absolutely vital. So we have seen that work there.
We see less effectiveness in Haiti. In fact, if the Government of the United States particularly would seize the assets of rich Haitians in the United States, we might begin to see the kind of change that is necessary in Haiti. Clearly, comprehensive, effective economic sanctions in Haiti are absolutely essential and should be fully supported and pressure kept up by the Canadian government.
This coming week or next week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be meeting the foreign minister of Indonesia, a country which has grossly violated the human rights of the people of East Timor. It will be very interesting to see how the government conveys the message there. Again, selective sanctions against Indonesia would be, in my view, absolutely essential at building the pressure on Indonesia to end its repression of the people of East Timor. The government has imposed a very, very limited boycott on certain sales and certain relations with Indonesia. It is interesting that it has not intervened against the sale of military products to Indonesia and has not done an effective job in calling for international sanctions against that country so that the people of East Timor may be restored their rights.
Let me conclude with a few comments on Iraq because it seems that the experience that the world community had last year on the issue of sanctions in Iraq is very important for studying how this bill not only is important, but the policies which should prevail when the government is considering the use of the powers provided for in this bill.
February 20, 1992

There is no doubt now that if sanctions had been allowed to work then, the Government of Iraq would have eventually had to withdraw from Kuwait. All of the information that was then available suggested that conclusion, and there is no reason to believe at this stage that anything other would have happened. It would have happened with far less human costs than the force that was occasioned upon the people of Iraq and the people of Kuwait.
It is very instructive that the underlying motive of the U.S. government for its pressing forward with the use of military force was the idea that really Saddam Hussein had to be driven out of office. We see now, over a year later, that Saddam Hussein is still the President of Iraq and it is the people of Iraq who have suffered as a result both of the actions of the Iraqi government and the precipitous use of military force instead of sanctions by the international community, including Canada and the United States.
Sanctions have continued against Iraq because it is said that Iraq has not fully complied with the United Nations resolutions, in particular the resolution requiring Iraq to pay certain war reparations and other bills.
The time has come for this and other governments to review their policy in respect of sanctions against Iraq because the people of Iraq are suffering grievously from the continued imposition of sanctions. I submit this government cannot agree to the continuation of sanctions for the simple purpose of trying to assure the re-election of George Bush as President of the United States. I may say President of the United Nations and some day it may not be such a slip as all that.
Last year the United States decided it wanted to have the UN flag to wrap around its tactics in Iraq. It was able to do so because of its strength internationally.
It is very dear that the government of the United States is still determined to drive Saddam Hussein out of office. It is prepared to use virtually any tactic it has at its disposal to do so. It has publicly boasted of the fact that it is sending the CIA in to try to organize other states in the area to achieve that policy objective.
No matter how objectionable the president of Iraq may be, it is still a breach of international law for one country
Government Orders
to seek the removal from office of a leader of another country, particularly by assassination or other methods.
The continued imposition of economic sanctions at this stage against Iraq for that purpose is doubly objectionable. The overwhelming evidence coming out of Iraq is that it is the children of Iraq who are now suffering as a result of the imposition of sanctions.
It was interesting last year at the summit on children that the Prime Minister of our country said, and I quote: "The essential needs of children and families must be protected, even in times of war". Those words were included in the declaration jointly signed by the 71 world leaders including the Prime Minister of Canada.
If that is so, how does the international community and this government justify the continued punishment of the children and people of Iraq?
Over 110,000 children in Iraq are estimated to be malnourished, either moderately or severely and are at an increased risk of dying. Most of Iraq's children and a large portion of the people in Iraq are directly exposed to disease, starvation and a series of traumatic problems as a result of the difficulties imposed on that country.
The time has come for the world community now to review its use of sanctions in this particular case and to move on to the next chapter of history. I call on the government in these circumstances to move quickly in that direction and to give us those assurances.
I will conclude with this. Members of the defence committee of this House of Commons were in Europe in the last two weeks.
In the course of our visits there, we had an opportunity to go to Maldegem in Belgium where there is a cemetery containing the graves of over 1,000 young Canadian soldiers killed in that area during World War II.
It was a very moving experience for me to walk among the graves and see the names and ages of these young soldiers who lost their lives there very prematurely and very tragically and to see the references to spouses and children on the graves.
It was very easy for me as a Canadian to visualize what pain and agony they must have gone through and the pain and agony it cost their families.

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
As I reflected on this bill before us, I thought again of those in Iraq and Kuwait who lost their lives because of the premature use of military force there and the failure of the international community and of this government to give economic sanctions a chance to do the job.
I am heartened that the government has brought forward this bill. It will give the government and this country an opportunity in future conflicts to use economic sanctions as an alternative to war. It is something which we must all pledge ourselves to do.
This bill has our support and we urge the House to pass it.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this bill.
I am actually delighted that the government has put it on the floor of the House of Commons at this time. For the last three months I have been going through a personal experience that relates directly to this bill. I want to begin by giving a little bit of background on my interest in this bill specifically.
Last November I received a call from Michael Homsi, who is a constituent of mine in Broadview-Greenwood. He said: "Dennis, I have family who live in Amman, Jordan who have friends and family who are living in Baghdad. They are suffering deep pain right now and they wondered if there was some way that Canada could organize United Nations approval to ship food from Canada to Iraq". They did not want this food donated; they wanted to pay for this food. It was a commercial transaction.
Now I had never had any experience with anything like this, and quite frankly I did not know where to begin. Fortunately, this particular day one of my colleagues, the member from Burin-St. George's, was at the United Nations in New York.
He happened to call me on another matter and I explained this situation to him. Within hours he had the secretary to the sanctions committee of the United Nations call me. He explained to me the process whereby a nation gets a certificate of approval.
I called the Department of External Affairs, spoke to a certain gentleman there by the name of Marcel Belec. I
must say I was impressed by his quick response and the support which he gave me in responding to this request for my constituent.
To make a long story short, within three days we received a certificate of approval. This certificate was from the United Nations and Canada. It is dated November 12, signed by Donald W. Campbell, deputy minister for international trade and the associate undersecretary of state for external affairs. He signed this certificate allowing us to send food from Canada to Iraq. I must tell you this is not a truckload of food; this is
40,000	tonnes of food. It is a lot of food.
It was conditional upon two things. The first condition was that the order would be monitored by the United Nations from the shipping routes, the distribution, the delivery system. It must be monitored by the United Nations.
The second condition was that the payment must be made by an irrevocable letter of credit to a Canadian chartered bank. That seemed pretty straightforward to me.
We faxed all of this information to the Embassy of Iraq in Amman, Jordan and then the process of delay began.
What happened as that process was going on was that I received requests from the Canadian Arab Federation and other people who had visited Iraq describing what was going on in that country. People were suffering.
I received letters, one from James Kafieh, president of the Canadian Arab Federation. I will just quote one passage: "It is crucial that you commit all your efforts to completing this approved transaction. Our federation also urges you to travel to the Middle East to investigate the most expeditious and efficient routes by which humanitarian relief may be brought to the innocent suffering in Iraq."
I have received letters from other people who are directly related on humanitarian missions. I received one just the other day from Harry Veldstra. He just got back from a mission with the Canadian Council of Churches. I will just give you two descriptions.
One is about a 10-year old boy with leukaemia: "The attending doctor told us that his leukaemia was easily treatable. He had only two or three days to live because the necessary medicines were not available. The best
February 20, 1992

that the doctor could do for him was to make him as comfortable as possible".
A seven-month old baby girl weighed only 2.2 kilograms. She should weigh in at about 7.5 kilograms for her age. She had marasma or acute malnutrition. Her parents were farmers just outside Baghdad. They had no income at all because seeds and fertilizers were way beyond their ability to purchase.
I have always believed that Canada was a nation that measured its strength by the mouths we fed and the environment we protected. We are not a nation that measures our strength by our armaments or by our linkage to international bankers.
It seemed to me as I was going through this process that this was not the guiding principle. I travelled to Jordan about three weeks ago because, as I mentioned earlier, the process for implementing this order was not happening. The money was not being transferred.
We have virtually no frozen assets in this country. We have close to $2 million of frozen assets. That small amount of money basically keeps the Iraqi mission functioning in this country so that we have some form of communication.
When I travelled to Jordan to meet with the Homsi family, Muntasir Homsi, and other people who were there working trying to help the Iraqis to the best of their ability, I had the opportunity to meet with the chief commercial counsellor for the republic of Iraq based in Amman.
Quite frankly, I said to him: "What is the problem? We have the food. We have a letter of certificate here from the United Nations. We cannot seem to get your process of payment organized". He said to me: "Well, Mr. Mills, all of our assets are frozen all over the world. There have been some countries that have released their frozen assets in exchange for humanitarian assistance, food and medical supplies".
In North America the largest frozen assets we have are based in the United States. Those assets are in the billions of dollars. He asked me if Canada could see if the frozen assets that are in the United States could be released against this food order. I said I was not too sure that the United States government would release assets based in their country for this. I said I would return with
Government Orders
that. But I said: "What if that fails?" He said: "We would be happy to barter oil for food". That seemed to me to be a reasonable approach. We barter many other items in several countries and we have over the years, in exchange for other services. Oil is no different from cash in many countries.
I returned with a letter from the Khaled Elmakhzou-mi. He basically said: "We will order, not only that first
40,000	tonnes of food from Canada. We will give you an additional order for another 70,000 metric tons of food.
We ask you (a) to approach the Americans, the financial institutions of the states and; (b) if that is turned down, is there some way we can work on exchanging oil for food?".
In one sentence in this letter which is near the end, he said: "Although Canada was a member of the Allied forces, this assistance will help re-establish the warm feelings we have always held toward Canada".
Throughout the Middle East I heard repeatedly warm feelings expressed toward Canada. They see us as a country that is distinct from the United States of America. They want us to have our own foreign policy. Quite frankly, I would like us to have our own foreign policy as well. Right now I am a bit concerned that our foreign policy is basically: "Let us check with President Bush".
The member of the New Democratic Party talked about it being a Freudian slip in his speech earlier today when he said "President Bush, the president of the United Nations". We have to be very careful because there are a lot of people who think the United Nations is weighted just a little too heavily in terms of its direction from the United States.
Therefore, when my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, said in his speech earlier today that as we take this bill to committee and review all of the processes and when we talk about a new world order, we had better just look at all the various aspects of the United Nations and all the various options so that the United Nations can be reviewed and returned to the basic principle it has always had.
As a nation, we should never, ever waver in any way, shape or form from our support for the United Nations or we would never want to waver from a foreign policy

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
that does not work under the umbrella within the realm of the United Nations.
I am not suggesting in any way that we stray from that umbrella, from that guideline, but it is not wrong for us as a nation to review the processes and the activities going on there now.
Getting back to this very fundamental situation here, we have an order from the government of Iraq for
140,000	metric tons of food, a commercial transaction. They are willing to have the order monitored from start to finish, including distribution. They do not have the cash, they only have oil and they want to deal directly. They do not want "to accept the United Nation's offer of putting the oil through the United Nations. The sale of that oil would create funds that would be put into an escrow account at the United Nations and the United Nations would buy the food. They do not want to do that because they say that on that sale only two-thirds of the revenues would buy humanitarian supplies and one-third would go for compensation for the invasion of Kuwait. We are mixing the reparations formula with humanitarian aid.
I personally, at this moment, have to question this because if we had the cash here in Canada to pay for this food, we would probably release it because humanitarian assistance, food and medical supplies are exempt. The only form of currency, the only instrument that they have to organize a transaction is oil, they want to mix it with the reparations formula. The people who are paying the price while this debate is going on, while this stalemate is going on, are the people of Iraq, the children of Iraq.
We have a conundrum on our hands here. I do not think that we should mix the reparations formula with humanitarian assistance. I am not saying we should not have a reparations formula and I am not saying we should exempt Saddam Hussein and his operatives in any way, shape or form. That is not what I am saying. He must develop and they must have a reparations formula, but we should not make the people of Iraq the hostage of this.
We should go back to our basic character as a nation, a nation that measures its strength by the mouths we feed and the environment we protect. We are a nation that has always been in the business of saving lives. Right now
we are letting the process stalemate us. In the stalemate those children are suffering. When we have a certificate of approval signed by this government, signed by the United Nations, we should figure out a way to get around that red tape and that reparations formula.
I have never ever faced such a difficult constituency case in my life because I do not want anyone to think that I am condoning the actions of Saddam Hussein. In no way, shape or form do I want people to think that I am not wise to the fact that the Iraqis are being political here, asking Canada to ask the U.S. to release funds. The bottom line is the humanitarian side of this and I do not know the answer to this question.
It is why I support my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, our critic for external affairs, who constantly reminds this House: "Let's go back to our basic character as a nation. Let's review Bill C-53 and analyse it in the filter so that it meets the values which all of our Canadian people want to have and want to project to the rest of the world". Hopefully, we can return to the image and prestige which Lester B. Pearson set for us so many years ago and that Pierre Trudeau carried on with and which are currently suspect.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the member who just spoke for his speech as the critic for the Liberal Party on external affairs.
I have a question for the member from Broadview. Two people have come to me about the Iraq war. One person is from Iraq. His mother is still there. He basically said: "David, Saddam Hussein is still in power. My mother has not been seen or heard of since the war started". As far as he is concerned she has been lost, she is in a wheel chair. Nothing has been accomplished by this war except for the spending of billions and billions of needed dollars, as our critic mentioned a moment ago.
A second person took two months' leave of absence from his work. He went to Iraq to help the Kurds. He came back later to Canada and, if I understand him correctly, found that external affairs in the Pearson Building had very little interest in learning what he had learned with the Kurds.
I wonder if you have any comments on either of those.
February 20, 1992


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Quite frankly, my experience with external affairs has been mysterious. Any time I ask for help they seem to always respond. They seem to write the letters. I met with the deputy the first day I got back, Deputy Minister Campbell, and he seemed to be of the spirit that he wanted to help and get involved in this issue, but quite frankly my own judgment is that he needs direction from the political will. Remember, our public servants only follow the direction of what goes on in this House.
I do not want to suggest that the officials in external affairs do not want to help. I believe that the foreign service of this country is one of the best foreign services in the world but right now I believe that our officials in external affairs are partially frustrated.
I went one step further on this case. I went to the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister of Canada. I said: "What are you going to do with this, Mr. Segal? This is serious stuff. We are losing 2,000 to 3,000 kids a day when we could be doing something about it".
There is a spin-off alongside the humanitarian aspect of this, if I could be so mercenary. There is a trading opportunity here for Canada that is in the billions of dollars in all regions of the Middle East. I do not mind getting orders from Syria or Jordan, or getting orders to fill our factories and to put people back to work.
There is another whole aspect to this debate in that good will also creates an edge on other opportunities. There is a two-pronged attack. I presented this to Mr. Segal as late as last night and he said: "I think we should be doing something about this". I can only hope my greatest hope, that Mr. Segal takes this up with his boss, the Prime Minister of Canada, and that the Prime Minister of Canada returns to the good old days when Canada had its own foreign policy: We took the lead, we dared to do things differently, and what better way to begin that new foreign policy than with the kids of Iraq.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. We will support it. The bill is an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures or, in more commonly used terms, sanctions.
Over the years our party has taken the position that sanctions are a more much effective tool for peace and
Government Orders
for effective foreign policy than anything which might lead to the use of military force. We are talking about non-violent sanctions. Those can be defined as anything that will impose a cost on opponents or may change their behaviour but do not threaten human lives or cause physical injury.
Many of the approaches we have taken over the years as a country have not fallen into that category particularly, because we have in the end used sanctions that have done a considerable amount of harm to individuals mentally and physically.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the government's ability to impose a broad range of economic sanctions during or in anticipation of an international crisis. The sanctions suggested are much broader than are generally considered. As the minister indicated, the circumstances under which sanctions are now put into effect have changed considerably over the years. That is what the bill does.
What will this bill allow the government to do a little more thoroughly? Basically the proposed legislation would allow the government to apply measures such as the freezing of the assets in Canada that are held by another state, prohibiting or restricting the import and the export of goods and services, financial conversion transactions, air and sea links, plus restricting some activities of Canadians outside Canada.
Whenever a government applies such measures it allows the cabinet to put in place sanctions very quickly, without having to wait for an international organization such as the United Nations or the Organization of American States to make the basic decision.
In the past the Government of Canada has found it difficult to put sanctions in place because that authority has not been in place in any particular act. Only by the United Nations Act could it make that move, or it could do it specifically in certain areas. That has made it particularly awkward and therefore it was unable to act on its own. This bill will attempt to make it easier for the government to do so.
Even as we support the bill, we have some concerns and we have some reason to believe that there is a need to look very closely at particular parts of the bill. I hope this will be done during the committee process. I suppose we have a half-dozen concerns. Some of them are minor,

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
but they are basically concerns which we think need to be discussed very thoroughly.
One of the suggestions or sanctions in this particular bill gives the government the authority to seize property or freeze property in the country. Apparently the intent of this is to freeze assets of someone like Marcos from the Philippines who may come to Canada or may have some assets in Canada. However, this has not always been the effect of the freezing of sanctions in the past and it may not be in the future. If a blanket suggestion like this is put in place, there is always someone who is going to be hurt.
The refugee who lives in Canada and has property in Canada or a business in Canada could be affected by such a freeze, if he still is a citizen of a foreign country on which Canada is going to impose sanctions.
There is another part of that particular sanction which I think is dangerous as well. We may wish to delete it to some extent or at least alter it to some extent in committee. I am referring to the ability of the government under these circumstances, if it puts sanctions in place, freezes property or seizes property, to sell portions of the property to pay for the cost of seizing and taking care of the property.
This is dangerous. I hesitate to draw a parallel between what happened to the Japanese in Canada in the last war, but there are some similarities. The property of almost all the Japanese who were forced to move away from the coast and into the central part of Canada was seized and sold. The reason for that was not because the people could not take care of the property but because of the greed of the people in the surrounding areas who wanted control of the property.
There was no national interest in the sale of the property. The sale of the property was done for reasons which were not of any value to Canada. That is not a particularly happy part of our history and it could be repeated in the circumstances which are in this particular bill. I do not think we would want that to happen.
The intent may be good, but I know this is not the reason it was put there. It should be looked at to make sure that it does not happen to hurt not only our people but people from all over the world.
This is not an unusual situation. We will find, without question, numbers of examples where people are returned to their homes and find that the property they once owned has been confiscated by a government, sold for costs which the government says it had, and is no longer available to those people. That is highly unfair and highly unacceptable in our kind of democracy.
There is a second section that we should look at very closely, and that is the section on compensation within this bill, subclause 6(3). This is compensation of citizens or people who are adversely affected by sanctions. Since the reason for putting sanctions in place is to affect a whole nation adversely, there are bound to be effects which are going to overlap into the areas of our citizenship or people we do not want to hurt.
The legislation in this area is very tentative. The Governor in Council may designate a minister to deal with claims. If cabinet overlooks this action, drags its feet, many of our citizens will be hurt or bear the brunt of there being nothing in this particular bill which will allow them to apply for compensation. There is no sort of automatic review of the idea that compensation may be necessary.
I can give a very specific example. When the United States put sanctions on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan, Canada under the Clark government of that particular time acquiesced and went along with it. In 1980 the Trudeau government also acquiesced to that particular request-and that is all it was-of the U.S. government to put in place the same sanction.
Canada in that particular circumstance, because of single desk selling and because we had control of the grain that was sold out of Canada, was the only country able to police the sanction in such a way that there was no grain sold. The United States, for instance, sold to other countries and then it was diverted to the Soviet Union. It was a very surprising fact during that particular period of time, for instance, that Italy became a net exporter of wheat to the Soviet Union. Most of that wheat came from the United States and was transshipped to the Soviet Union. Much of it was not even unloaded in Italy.
Under those circumstances the price of wheat went down about $1 or $1.50 per bushel. Canadian farmers were the only people who were impacted by the United States sanctions on the Soviet Union. At the time I was the spokesman for grains and oilseeds for my party.
February 20, 1992

I and other members of the opposition, at that time the Conservative opposition, spent a year and one-half badgering the Trudeau government to pay some compensation because there was no automatic method by which compensation could be requested.
It came through eventually, but the process was very painful and it put our farmers at a disadvantage for a couple of years. They still have not recovered from that entirely.
Perhaps this bill should be made more specific. Instead of saying that the Governor in Council may appoint a minister, the bill probably should say the Governor in Council shall appoint a minister whose responsibility it will be to oversee compensation for sanctions when they affect Canadian citizens or other citizens of the world.
I have a couple of other major concerns which I would like to spend a little bit of time on.
Sanctions may bring a country to realize the error of its ways, if that is what is intended, but it is a two-edged sword. When economic sanctions are used, a cost may be imposed on the opponent, but there is also a cost imposed on the user of the sanctions. There may also be considerably greater costs to innocent bystanders. If there is a full international embargo on any particular country, then there are bound to be certain bystanders affected.
I think we need to look at those innocent bystanders and who they are. As a number of previous speakers have indicated, the best examples that we have right now probably are the starving Iraqi children and the situation with the Kurds which are results of the war in Iraq.
We know that the effect of economic sanctions on Iraq has resulted in the starvation of many children. That needs to be considered when those sanctions are extended.
I agree with the previous speaker, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, who suggested that there are ways in which sanctions can be kept, but humanely.
In the particular case of Iraq, Eric Hoskins, who is a Canadian physician who participated in the Harvard study group that was formed to look at the impact on
Government Orders
Iraqi civilians, has urged the Canadian government to use some of the frozen Iraqi assets to purchase food and medicine for the Iraqi population.
The British have already done this. They have effectively released some food and medicine by using frozen assets which the Iraqi had in Britain.
It becomes very important to understand that that kind of sanction can do much more harm than we realize it will do.
So just to summarize, we will support the bill.
But we recognize a number of weaknesses that must be dealt with in committee. The weakness of compensation must be dealt with as well as the lack of a humanitarian base always being in place when sanctions are put in place.
We are not happy with the idea that only cabinet can make the decision as to when sanctions can be put in place. It must be a much broader base than it has been in the past.
We will support the bill but we hope that during committee these changes will be put into effect.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments about this bill that would impose sanctions against certain countries. I wonder why the government, at this point, brings forward such a bill.
As we know, during the debate on the gulf crisis the government was saying very forcefully that sanctions do not work. This was one of the arguments when they wanted to go to war. They said: "Sanctions are not working and if we do not act fast, the children of Iraq are going to suffer and the population of Iraq is going to suffer".
We know what happened. We went to war. More bombs were thrown on Iraq and Kuwait than during World War II. It brought about the destruction of Kuwait. It brought in ecological damage to the Persian Gulf and today the children in Iraq are starving. The Kurds have been displaced. There is tremendous human suffering because at that time the government said: "Sanctions do not work".

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
I am quite proud that I voted against that war because it did not solve the problem, it just aggravated the problem.
Suddenly, the government, in the name of a new world order as proclaimed by President Bush, now says: "We want you to give us carte blanche so we can impose sanctions when we wish."
This bill is flawed. The government does not need carte blanche. If it wants to impose sanctions against any nation, it can go back to Parliament and get a mandate to impose sanctions.
I do not see many members on the other side who are going to speak to this bill. Most of them have said that sanctions are not effective and that is why we had to go to war to bring a fast resolution to the conflict in the gulf.
I listened to a member of the Liberal Party who was indicating why it is very difficult to have sanctions and then bring humanitarian help.
If we freeze the assets of a country like Iraq and it wants to buy grain from Canada and it cannot use that money to feed the starving population, what is the use of having these types of sanctions?
Therefore, I cannot support this bill. If it is amended in an extreme form, then maybe I would, but I doubt it. The bill is flawed. At the present time the government does not need a bill like this. If there is ever a crisis it can always come back to Parliament and ask Parliament to impose sanctions against a given population.
I would also like to draw attention to what the previous speaker said about the confiscation of assets of Japane-se-Canadians during World War II and how those assets were disposed of. It certainly brought injustice to those people who were Canadians. It shows that if there is a bill that gives the government carte blanche, it is not going to be in the best interests of Canada.
I just wanted to make that comment and maybe ask a question to the previous speaker.
I know that the New Democratic Party did not support the war in the gulf. They felt that we should proceed with sanctions. He just told us that they are going to
support the bill, maybe not in its present form, but they are going to support it, whatever the end result is.
How can he square his position that gives the government carte blanche to impose sanctions against any nation by Order in Council? How does he find that acceptable?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we would all have to say that we could not support the Bush administration position during the Iraqi war that the sanctions were not going to work. Those sanctions were pre-empted after only five and one-half months, whereas we know that sanctions do take longer than that. That pre-emption of those sanctions was a mistake.
If the objective of the sanctions was the withdrawal of the Iraqis from Kuwait, it is my feeling and the feeling of many other people across the world that the reason the Bush administration withdrew or pre-empted those sanctions was not because they were afraid they would not work. They were afraid they would work.
Their aim in this particular Iraqi war was not necessarily Kuwait. It was the smashing of the Saddam Hussein government and if sanctions worked, then they would not be able to do that. In the end it did not work either way.
To answer your question specifically, we have hope that any government that will be in place will look at the need for sanctions. We hope there will be enough safeguards within the bill when we get it back to the House that we can be sure that what is done is for the best interests of Canada and not for the best interests of the Bush administration.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
February 20, 1992


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy using products and the use of alternative energy sources, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.
He said: Madam Speaker, prior to starting my comments I want to indicate to my critics opposite that if I leave and do not listen to them, it is not that I would want to leave but I have to host the President of Moldova for lunch. I hope that is understood if I slip away.
I am pleased to be leading off second reading debate on Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act. It is a major challenge facing a government in that it is to find methods of improving energy efficiency across the Canadian economy. By being energy efficient, Canadian consumers can reduce energy expenditures and businesses can become more competitive. Moreover, being energy efficient helps to improve air quality, to preserve water and land resources, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of particular concern to many countries is the concentration in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases and their potential to affect the climate. The federal government's strategy to address the global issue is outlined in the green plan. Reflecting the nature of our federation and jurisdictional responsibilities, federal, provincial and territorial governments are working co-operatively to develop a national action strategy on global warming.
I want to commend the standing committee on energy, its chairman as well as the members of that committee. I appeared before them earlier this week and we had a discussion on this issue. They have been doing a lot of work and I look forward to their findings.
Improved energy efficiency is one of the more important components of the strategy. However, governments,
Government Orders
both federal and provincial, alone cannot solve this problem. Individuals and organizations need to re-examine how we use energy and there is much room for improvement. Using energy more efficiently is an important first step. To help Canadians use energy more wisely, we have brought forward Bill C-41 for Parliament's consideration, and I use those words "Parliament's consideration" in the best of parliamentary tradition because it is in this area where we can get new ideas and where we can improve on the type of legislation that we are bringing before Parliament that I think can be improved through committee work.
I am convinced that there are many economic opportunities at all levels of Canadian society to be more efficient, especially in the manner in which we use energy. We want to seize these opportunities, opportunities which will benefit both the environment and the economy. Provincial governments, industry associations, community groups and individuals across Canada have already started putting into place promising solutions to our energy efficiency challenges.
I have been particularly struck by the way Canada's electricity supply sector has taken up demand-side management. For example, a few months ago I saw an agreement regarding my department's participation in the activities of Power-Smart Incorporated. This agency was established by B.C. Hydro to assist in the development and delivery of demand side management. Its membership, since those days when I met with them first in Vancouver, has expanded over the years. It now includes 15 Canadian utilities as well as my department. We are now working with Power-Smart and our fellow members on the details of an even further co-operative promotional plan.
Our participation in this enterprise emphasizes our commitment to energy efficiency. It also stresses our conviction to work in partnership to achieve those goals. Bill C-41 is another clear signal of the government's commitment to efficient use of energy. The principle function of the energy efficiency act is to provide the statutory authority for the new efficiency and alternative energy program which was announced in the green plan which we discussed in committee earlier this week.
This program will involve all fuel types in energy using sectors of the economy. It will provide focused support for each sector through initiatives employing targeted information programs, persuasion, regulation and re-

February 20,1992
Government Orders
search and development. These initiatives will have net environmental and net economic benefits. Environmentally they will reduce all of the major atmospheric emissions associated with energy use, including those that contribute to acid rain and urban smog. Moreover, by deferring the construction of new energy production and transportation facilities, these initiatives will also result in less degradation of land and water quality.
Additionally the federal initiatives will help strengthen the Canadian economy. This strengthening will result by encouraging investment in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies.
Canadian consumers who consider energy efficiency more carefully when making their purchasing decisions will be able to reduce their annual energy costs, thereby freeing some of their income for other uses.
Additionally Canadian industry can lower its energy costs, raise productivity and improve its international competitiveness. Furthermore, there is a growing international interest in competitive products as well as technologies and services offering energy efficiency or employing alternative energy sources.
Canadian companies responding to increased domestic demand for such products and services will also gain international opportunities to expand those markets.
Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker, because a lot of this can become very theoretical. An excellent example, I think, of how energy efficiency can benefit the economy is the recent announcement by General Electric (Canada) that it will invest $144 million in its plant at Oakville, Ontario. It is going to do that to supply two new energy efficiency lighting products.
Often we hear about obsolescence in our manufacturing base. This is a reversal, and I think a very happy synergy between the economy and the environment. This new manufacturing capacity will serve a world market, and it is expected that half the production will be exported from our country.
As a result of this investment, 190 new jobs will be created. An example of the area of energy efficiency
services, for example, that shows that we can even go beyond products or tangible items for export sales is that we now have membership from Mexico and Czechoslovakia in Power-Smart. The opportunities for job creation and world markets are there, and it is gratifying to see companies seizing these opportunities.
Our new package of initiatives is designed to be prudent. We hope it is balanced and we think it is co-operative. It is directed at overcoming the barriers obstructing the realization of economic opportunities to increase the efficiency of energy use and the utilization of alternative energy sources in Canada. It will involve all fuel types and energy using sectors in the economy.
Members, I am sure, will be interested in knowing that over the next few weeks I will be making announcements again relating to efficiency and alternative energy program initiatives that came from the green plan.
Many hon. members will know as well that I announced in October the three initiatives directly related to the energy efficiency act. They are energy efficiency standards for equipment, Energuide labelling and the national energy use data base.
In November I announced five initiatives aimed at encouraging a more energy efficient building industry in Canada. I have had a lot of meetings with the Canadian Home Builders' Association as well as some provincial organizations. For example, the building energy code initiative will update and rename the federal government's measures for energy conservation in new buildings. When this is complete, we will look to provincial and municipal governments to incorporate these measures in their building codes.
The building information transfer initiative will support increased public and housing industry awareness of the value of energy efficiency. One of the most successful programs, the R-2000 program, is a R-2000 partnership initiative which will upgrade the current R-2000 standard, give greater recognition of environmental consideration and increase market penetration through regional partnerships with governments and utilities.
February 20, 1992

I will just spend a moment on this, Madam Speaker. The R-2000 licensing program has now been arranged with Japan for building products in Japan. Generally we as Canadians think that we do not have the same technology levels as the Japanese. On R-2000, it is the opposite. We have brought the R-2000 program to Japan.
I can say, and I do not want to be too parochial, but manufacturers of windows and doors in my own area, in my riding and in my own province are using the R-2000 factor and are now starting to penetrate the Japanese market. It is slow work, it is expensive to get into the market, but the R-2000 seems to have helped, almost like a seal of Good Housekeeping for those markets.
Additionally our enhanced buildings research, development and technology transfers activities, such as the advanced houses programs, will focus on lab testing, field trials and the transfer of technology to the building sector. I have announced that there are nine winners of innovative housing across the country in which we are going to bring additional technology and hopefully use in it a demonstration in different technologies, different climates, different regions and that they will be transferred to the housing sector as well.
All of this is being done co-operatively with the housing industry and not independently by government alone. As well, through the federal buildings initiative, EMR will assist the federal government departments to improve the energy efficiency of their facilities without compromising the work environment of employees.
I want to thank my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who is here today. I am sure he came just to hear me say this. So often in government we are frustrated by the fact that we can get a practical idea and it seems that the system just does not allow us to implement a practical idea. We went to Treasury Board and to Ontario Hydro and we said: "Here is a deal that you cannot refuse".
In my experience that generally does not get you very far. They find a reason to refuse you. The deal was this to Treasury Board. We will do an energy audit, and we have done an energy audit, of some 1,600 federal government buildings. I am not trying to be partisan about this. When there was a change of government in the province of Ontario, it mandated Ontario Hydro to do it for the Ontario government buildings because of the success we are having here.
Government Orders
Then what we did was this. We said to Treasury Board: "You are giving us x number of dollars per year for energy in these buildings. Keep us at this level of expenditure. We will bring in energy efficiency and the saving. We will work with a consulting company and with that saving we will pay back the costs of the new installations".
Coming from a very practical world, in which I live, I thought that made a lot of sense. I want to thank the President of the Treasury Board today. Since we presented the idea, they have only been co-operative. Despite rumours to the contrary, they can work with great alacrity and speed and I want to thank them.
Madam Speaker, I will speak about your throne in a minute because that is also part of this program. That will come a little later in my notes.
That is in the buildings area. I think it is innovative and it is working. We can transfer that also into industry.
As well, in December I announced two new alternative transportation fuel measures. The technology and market department component will expand the use of gaseous and alcohol fuel through incentives, market demonstrations, technology transfers and information assistance. The second measure will support research and development to increase progress in the fields of liquid and gaseous fuels and electrically based technologies.
I cannot make these announcements on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport, but I direct my colleagues in the House to the press today. As you will see, there has been further advancement made in this field by the ministry of transport. They will want to announce it in a more formal way than simply through the press.
The principal function of Bill C-41 is to provide the statutory authority for the federal energy efficiency initiatives related to energy labelling, minimum energy efficiency standards and collection of statistics and information.
With regard to labelling and energy efficiency standards, the bill will facilitate enhancement of the existing Energuide, a labelling program which applies to refrigerators, ranges, ovens, freezers, dishwashers, clothes dryers and washers. The program requires that new appliances bear a specified label providing information on a product's energy efficiency which consumers can

February 20,1992
Government Orders
use to make the most energy-wise purchasing decision. Bill C-41 will transfer statutory authority for the Ener-guide program and its regulations from Consumer and Corporate Affairs to EMR Canada, thereby bringing the program under the umbrella of the efficiency and alternate energy program. This will simplify the regulatory and consultative process through which we will update, expand and enhance the Energuide program.
One enhancement will be the redesigning of the label to one that will be easier to read and comprehend. In addition, stronger promotional campaigns will encourage consumers to buy the most energy efficient equipment on the market.
Research and development initiatives under our program will result in more energy efficient products coming on to the market. Minimum efficiency standards will reinforce this improvement by removing inefficient items from the marketplace. In fact, in the right circumstances new products and processes have significant export value. We discussed that as well in the committee recently this week.
While minimum energy efficiency standards will be new at the federal level, in recent years B.C., Ontario along with federal and some state governments in the U.S., have established energy efficiency regulations on several products. Quebec and Nova Scotia have passed enabling legislation in this area and other provinces are considering taking similar actions.
What was developing was a patchwork of energy efficiency standards. Inconsistent standards could prove to be very detrimental. For example, we were seeing that some provinces were becoming dumping grounds for the continent's most inefficient products. In other words, you cannot sell an inefficient product in a jurisdiction that now has passed regulations or legislation, and so it was being made available in other provinces. As well, interprovincial trade could be impaired. It is for these reasons that we are coming in with a national bill.
Consequently there have been requests from both the provinces, the territories, not to mention industry-industry has been very much a part of this-that the federal government exercise its constitutional authority over interprovincial and international commerce in order to help establish a consistent national energy efficiency regulatory regime. This need to avoid interprovincial trade barriers was another point underlined as well in the Porter study on Canadian competitiveness.
Such regulatory action will only be taken following even more consultation with affected parties. Such regulations will be developed so as to avoid unnecessary costs to manufacturers and to facilitate co-ordination with provincial authorities. They will be developed with due regard to Canada's international trade obligations as well as industry's concern that it not be placed in an uncompetitive position.
We will be seeking consistency with standards in provincial and American jurisdictions, and the federal regulatory process ensures that Canadians have the opportunity to comment on these draft regulations.
Part II of Bill C-41 concerns the collection and use of statistics pertaining to the efficiency of energy use and the adoption of alternative energy sources. In the formulation of energy efficiency and alternate energy policy, we have been conscious of our responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of measures included in that policy and to measure the contribution of energy users to the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.
We also wanted to create a solid foundation for possible further measures, not only in terms of facilitating their implementation, but with regard to optimizing their design as well. Furthermore, we knew that in order for Canadians to respond effectively to the threat of global warming we would need to know more about how we use energy in this country.
Both Statistics Canada and EMR have been collecting statistics on the energy industry for some years. My Alberta friends will know this better than most. The focus of these efforts has been at the aggregate level or the financial information. There has been some modest collection of information on energy at the end use level and on alternative sources of energy. This has been done mainly outside of government and the available data are sparse.
In discussing the need for satisfactory data in this area, both departments felt it would be more efficient and expeditious for EMR to pursue the matter as long as
February 20, 1992

every effort was made to avoid duplication and obviously this information was to be made public. Consequently, our new efficiency and alternative energy program provides for the creation of a national energy use data base which will integrate existing sources of data on energy use and develop and organize new data sources.
We will also seek a clearer understanding of the factors that influence the level of energy usage and what influences companies and householders in their decisions to adopt or ignore certain types of energy using technologies. Again, this will be carried out with Statistics Canada.
We hope that most of the data and information we require can be obtained from existing data bases held by StatsCanada and others from voluntary surveys. If this approach proves inadequate, the Energy Efficiency Act will provide the authority to ensure that necessary information is obtained.
In undertaking any of our regulatory activities we will be conscious of the fact that regulation is a policy tool which, I believe, must be used in moderation. So often it is so easy to say that we will pass another regulation. We will control people by doing this.
I feel comfortable about this bill because in looking at the regulatory side we had a lot of consultations. I wanted to have consultations with consumers and industry because if it is simply another barrier to competitiveness then we have to look at that as well. We have taken full account of these considerations and our regulator initiatives, we believe, are effective and efficient in advancing those objectives we have, because to intervene in the marketplace is a decision which I believe should not be taken lightly. It should be taken very seriously.
Wherever possible, we have sought to reduce the amount of regulation in the country in order to eliminate unnecessary burdens, in order to eliminate those on industry, small business and the public. I can say very definitely that if industry and consumers alike had not wanted to move in this direction, I would have had some serious reservations. Therefore, we have been painstaking in considering their advice. We have been doing this
Government Orders
also with utilities and we have structured these authorities which we are now creating under Bill C-41.
By reconsidering how we use energy and by making more informed and responsible choices, we can save money, help the environment and at the same time demonstrate leadership to the international community in its efforts to come to grips with the issue of global climate change.
Like any organization, the federal government is an energy consumer, subject to the same energy efficiency challenges as other Canadians. Within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as I have pointed out, we now have a program known as the Federal Buildings Initiative. In fact, Madam Speaker, I know you will remember from the Speaker's office that we demonstrated to you and to the press, the economic, low cost energy options that have been adopted here in this House.
Together with my colleague the Minister of Public Works, we toured the ceremonial walk which is taken by the Sergeant-at-Arms, pointing out the energy efficiency lighting, the retrofit possibilities. In concert with Public Works and Ontario Hydro, we will follow up these possibilities as well as look at the energy efficiency options for Parliament Hill's long-term energy management needs.
When we were in this Chamber the Speaker sat down in the Speaker's chair and pointed out that the lighting is now changed. I know, Madam Speaker, that this would never apply to you, but he thought that while it might not help in the ability for him to again find the hair he lost-I know you do not have that problem-he thought the lighting was an improvement.
We are trying to be very practical in this place and show very clearly and demonstrate very clearly what we are doing.
In all of these issues there is an overriding consideration. Often Canadians will use the argument or hear the argument made that Canada uses more energy than any other country and, therefore, by extension we are profligate.


An hon. member:: Because it is colder.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My hon. friend calls from across the House, because it is cold here.
I want to relate a small incident I had when I attended my first-

February 20, 1992
Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Because it's cold. You spend a lot of time in Florida.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You might, but I can't.
At the first meeting of the International Energy Agency the minister from Sweden happened to be the minister of the environment and of energy. She took Canada on fairly strongly about our profligate ways. As you know, we all defend our country when we are abroad, and I asked officials for the statistics from her country. When I had the chance to intervene I said: "Madam Speaker, I see that your unit use is not much less than Canada's, and might I suggest it has more to do with latitude than attitude".
I think sometimes we as Canadians want to put ourselves almost in sackcloth and ashes. The fact of the matter is that we have a large country. We have a northern climate. We have a sparse population. And so it is in that context that I have to look at these bills as well.
Additionally we also have abundant energy and as a result we have moved into industries which utilize that abundance of energy. It creates jobs; it creates quality of life.
I fully accept as minister of energy that we have to be more energy efficient but we should not fall into the trap, or hear the siren call that I hear so often that all you have to do is regulate people and force change and behavioural change upon them and all these things will change. The fact of the matter is that if you look today at the press, the first half of Question Period often drives the opposition by "why are you losing these industries, why are these jobs lost, why are these towns closing?"


Mr. Edmonston:: Because of the GST, because of the GST.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The second half is exactly the argument. I hear my colleague from Quebec. I know he knows a lot about lemons and I guess that is why he keeps repeating what he says. As a result, I say to him that the issue has to be balanced, it has to be balanced between the objectives of the environment and the economy.
That is the job of the Minister of Energy. I have said that that will be my objective. I believe this bill is balanced, balanced between those two objectives, helping Canadian industry, helping Canadian consumers, and
moving us in a direction which will help our competitiveness.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I only wish things were as simple as we have just heard from the minister of energy. As he has indicated, and I would appreciate him doing so earlier when he leaves for his lunch, but perhaps he would prefer to leave now rather than when I get going because I do not think he is going to like what I say very much and I suspect he is not going to like very much what the critic for the New Democratic Party has to say about this bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I'd rather stay.


David Kilgour: The bill opts for a regulatory rather than a common sense approach, presumably to foster an impression among Canadians, of whom I note that 11 per cent today indicate they would be prepared to support the re-election of this government. My question is, who are these 11 per cent of Canadians? I would like to talk to them.
The intention is to foster the impression that the government wants to achieve substantial energy savings. Federal officials are to be given the right to inspect any electric appliance shipped across our border. If they find something, for example, a furnace or a toaster that is deemed to waste energy, they will under the bill have the right to confiscate and destroy it at the former owner's expense.
It is the Income Tax Act model which, in many respects, still implies that the citizen and his or her property belong to the government, instead of vice versa. It rather reminds you of a visit to the former East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down.
Instead of a law which mirrors existing American ones, which years ago prompted the manufacture of energy-efficient appliances, thus of course causing the dumping of electricity guzzling ones in Canada, our minister of energy is only now attempting to close the barn door.
It might look quite good if one is unaware of our energy waste realities. In fairness to the bill, regulations would phase out some inefficient equipment from the Canadian market, but as Friends of the Earth put it in a letter recently to my office: "According to the Ontario ministry of energy the federal act as proposed has an import loophole. The focus on dealer means that an individual importing an energy using product for his or
February 20, 1992

her own use, that is not for resale, is exempt from the act".
If that view of Friends of the Earth is correct, the bill is even more toothless than one might have supposed. The regulatory approach invariably will create other problems including predictable side effects.
For example, in a fairly recent brief to the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, the Canadian Electrical Association gave the example of the recently amended requirement for Ontario building contractors to submit bids for non-profit housing contracts on the basis of lowest first cost. This encouraged the use of electric baseboard heating, the least efficient and economical choice from available heating systems. Is that not official madness from an energy efficiency standpoint?
In the same brief the Electrical Association provided some striking examples of regulatory barriers that discourage innovative approaches to developing new environmentally benign technologies.
Public utilities across Canada today are still barred by government regulations from permitting a joint govem-ment-industry-utility technology demonstration developed in one jurisdiction to be brought into the rate base of utilities outside that jurisdiction. Short lead time projects are favoured over longer lead time projects which may be more energy efficient.
The bill we are discussing aims at achieving energy savings in the residential sector. However, I quote from the government's 1990 discussion paper entitled Energy Use and Atmospheric Change: "The equipment initiatives (and these include commercial, institutional and industrial equipment, not only household appliances) are expected to account for about 25 per cent of total energy savings in the year 2000". The same study estimates that about 28 per cent of total energy savings by the year 2000 could be achieved through transportation initiatives and 27 per cent through industry initiatives.
Moreover, within the equipment initiatives, and I quote from the same source, "the largest simple impact on energy use is projected to result from the increase in the energy efficiency of residential and commercial lighting".
The bill before us is entirely silent on this issue. Yet it has become common knowledge that compact fluores-
Govemment Orders
cent lamps consume 75 per cent to 85 per cent less electricity than do incandescent ones and last nine to thirteen times longer than ordinary bulbs.
Why the deafening silence? According to Rocky Mountain Institute calculations, efficient lighting hardware now available for almost any application would reduce in the U.S. the need for about 70 billion to 120 billion watts of power plants. Those plants would cost from $85 billion to $200 billion to build and from $18 billion to $30 billion a year to operate.
Road transport accounts for 30 per cent of Canada's energy use currently and almost 70 per cent of our total petroleum requirements. In all industrialized countries the energy gobbled up by transport exceeds that going to the residential and service sectors together. Instead of targeting the residential sector, any responsible energy efficiency act, which this one in my view clearly is not, should target the users who consume and pollute the most.
Besides, as pointed out by Friends of the Earth, the federal act as proposed only applies to "energy using products". That means that products which do not use energy but affect energy efficiency such as doors, windows and so on are not covered by the act.
The need and obligation to collect data and improve knowledge on the activities of every sector of our economy by appropriate federal institutions cannot really be questioned today. Therefore, the inclusion of the national energy use data base section in the proposed act surprises one, to say the least. Is the government telling Canadians that it intends to find out in the foreseeable future what is actually going on in our country's energy sector, or does it really want to equip its energy department offices with a brand new computer system with more borrowed tax dollars?
Isn't the collection of statistics on energy use a fundamental duty and routine procedure of the federal department responsible for the energy policy of this country? Its inclusion in the energy efficiency act tends to demolish any notion of competence of this government on energy matters.
At the heart of the debate on energy efficiency conservation and alternative energy sources is the widespread public concern about our natural environment. The effects of intensive energy consumption take the

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
form of acid rain, smog, global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, toxic waste disposal, and so on. The burning of carbon based fossil fuel still accounts for most of Canada's energy production.
Our energy consumption is expected to double by the year 2020 which raises the question as to whether such growth can continue unchecked.
Improved energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to better our energy consumption patterns. Efficiency improvements are estimated to be about seven times more effective in reducing CO2 emissions per dollar invested than other methods. A policy of active conservation based on the deliberate development of new technologies is a viable alternative to supply side policies aimed at increasing our output of energy. Conservation is by the way also more labour intensive.
Making houses in our constituencies more energy efficient, upgrading lighting equipment in offices, installing more efficient motors all provide new employment for skilled Canadians and create demand for equipment and supplies.
Despite all its Reaganomics rhetoric and extensive deregulation of energy prices in trade since 1985, this federal government continues to intervene in our energy market most notably through subsidies to energy megaprojects and oil and gas exploration.
The government is also a friend of our nuclear industry through regulations, tax policies and very generous yearly subsidies. Meanwhile, programs in conservation and alternative energy sources have been eliminated or cut down since 1984. Subsidizing some types of energy supply production while cutting back subsidies to energy conservation distorts the competitiveness of energy options and increases the negative environmental impact of federal energy policy.
Conservation and alternative energy sources came into sharp focus during the 1970s when unstable political conditions in the Middle East resulted in oil price shocks felt around the world. Oil supply disruptions and price hikes were again experienced in 1979 as a result of the Iranian revolution. The problem reappeared with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers on August 2, 1990.
Consequently one of the major concerns among Canadian energy conservers in our alternative energy industry as a whole has been the "disgraceful" neglect and declining levels of support for Canada's alternative energy program since the unloved Mulroney government came into office in 1984.
The development of significant new energy sources normally takes decades to accomplish. Research cannot be turned on and off from one fiscal year to the next without doing great harm to research efforts. Because of the long lead times for introducing innovations and the long response time of the energy system, decisions taken today will have their full effect only in decades afterwards.
The Tory funding of energy conservation and renewable energy activities has shrunk from about $500 million in 1984 to $30 million in 1990-91. The modest expenditure contrasts sharply with the huge assistance to our nuclear industry, for example. In other words this government spends much more promoting expensive energy supply options than cheaper conservation options, which is economically and environmentally irrational. They call this Tory economics.
In 1984 the government initiated its cutbacks with the elimination of the energy division of the National Research Council that was conducting research into solar, wind and fusion energy, hydrogen, and other forms of renewable energy. In the budget cuts announced in April 1989, only six months after being re-elected, the government shut down its branch offices in the provinces that provided information and grants for energy conservation and renewable initiatives. This was a pretty clear signal that the federal government was no longer committed to the prudent use of energy or interested in searching for new and innovative ways of keeping energy costs down.
The Conservation and Renewable Energy Office helped get funding for the Flair Homes Energy Demo that has helped give Winnipeg, which is close to the riding of the Minister of Energy, a reputation for being a centre of excellence in housing technology throughout North America. This has attracted the attention of building scientists from around the entire world.
February 20, 1992

The closure of the regional offices reinforced the trend away from conservation that has been present in other policy measures by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources since 1984.
Valuable programs to advise industries on how to reduce energy consumption, to inform consumers about the energy efficiency of home appliances, to assist people to insulate their homes were all discarded. Our lack of improvement in recent years in energy use per capita can probably be attributed directly to the abandonment of energy efficiency programs in the mid to late 1980s.
A recent study done jointly by Friends of the Earth, Pollution Probe and the World Wildlife Fund entitled The Summit Environmental Accountability Project concluded that our progress has not only been poor in energy efficiency but also in CO2 emissions over the past five years. In 1990 the Government of Canada made a commitment to stabilize its emissions of CO2 at 1990 levels by the year 2000, and I am pleased that the minister reconfirmed that the other day before the energy committee.
The government's specific plan of action in the green plan very much appears to be still unclear months after it was announced and the proposed programs are inadequate to stabilize emissions. The green plan's original $5 billion budget has been slashed to $3 billion, and it would very much appear that it will be slashed even further. Absent from it is a comprehensive set of regulations and measures necessary for a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
We Canadians could partially meet the stabilization targets through energy efficiency and conservation measures alone, but the government has simply not taken any substantive steps in that direction, nor has it estimated the cost of its CO2 emission abatement strategy. In fact CO2 emissions dropped by 27 per cent in the early 1980s but over the past eight years have increased by approximately 8 per cent. This is once again, partly at least, the result of federal government cuts to programs which would help Canadians generally to loosen the iron bond of oil.
The move away from energy conservation and efficiency is typical of Tory policy. In October 1989 the transport minister announced VIA Rail cuts that additionally hurt efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Rail transport is more
Government Orders
environmentally benign than cars, but government made severe cuts to the service before considering the environmental implications. An environmental assessment document released after the decision had been announced was simply shelved.
Moving away somewhat from fossil fuels means that Canadians will have to choose between nuclear and renewable sources of power. In spite of all of the tax moneys directed over the years at nuclear power, we have not yet solved the problem of radioactive pollution generated at each stage of the nuclear fuel chain from uranium mining, milling, refining, fuel fabrication and transportation to reactor operation, to waste disposal. Disposal includes the reactors themselves at the end of their 30-year life-span.
If the government were involved in assisting the supply of "soft" energy to the same extent as nuclear technology, the economics of the renewable energy technologies would simply cease to be a problem. The technology is here today. It is commercially available despite an uneven playing field. Some are familiar with the Solar-wall system from Downsview, Ontario which proved to be an international success. Both Americans and Europeans are showing great interest in that product, which suggests that the Canadian renewable technologies are world class.
Photovoltaic technology has enormous potential in the far north. It is being used to provide electrical power to remote homes, for remote lighting, communications systems where installation of commercial power lines is prohibitively expensive and the price of diesel fuel is very high.
The federal government ought to increase R and D funding for renewable energy technologies. Some analyses show that it takes about 50 years for any new energy technology to become established as a significant producer of electricity. It is going to take many years for new construction techniques or new high efficiency motors, appliances and heating installations to make a substantial reduction in our energy consumption.
Canada for the time being has a yearly R and D budget for wind energy of around $700,000. The U.S. department of energy has an annual budget of $21 million for wind energy. The European community R and D budget

February 20,1992
Government Orders
hovers around $150 million annually for that type of research.
The government ought to initiate programs demonstrating the applications of renewable energy and energy management technologies.
Demonstration programs are an excellent way to introduce new technologies to the marketplace. They also assist the industry to market their products abroad, since the programs help to provide high profile evidence of domestic use of new technologies. This should be a very critical point in our foreign aid policies to the developing world.
As reported in Scientific American, economic projections show that if nothing is done to hasten energy technology development and to introduce existing efficiency technologies into developing countries, global climate change and other major environmental problems will escalate beyond acceptable levels.
Even if the so-called developed countries manage to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50 per cent, population growth and economic development in the so-called developing countries would most likely increase their CO2 emissions from 450 to about 900 kilograms per person annually by the year 2030. World-wide emissions of CO2 will then be 2.5 times of what they are per year now.
With the co-operation of the industrialized democracies, the developing countries could apply technical solutions that would promote economic growth while keeping energy demand growth relatively low. CIDA, our aid agency, should support the use of renewable energy forms in all energy-related foreign assistance.
Fossil resources will continue to be indispensable to our economy until we have a sustainable system built around renewable energy sources. This is beyond doubt.
Thus, from now on there will be a slow but continuous change from the heavy reliance on relatively cheap and easy oil and natural gas to an extended period of using fossil fuels that have potentially larger environmental impacts.
Eventually, Canadians will choose not to use fossil fuels because of the availability of cheaper and easier
alternatives. That the transition from the use of fossil fuels is inevitable is indisputable.
In the meantime, however, we must increase the efficiency of fossil fuel use by extracting the maximum energy from it while minimizing harm to the environment.
Tory energy policy appears to rest ultimately on the optimistic assumption of short-term price stability in the oil market followed by price increases in the mid-1990s and of growing American energy supply requirements, particularly in natural gas.
In 1986, however, that optimism was severely tested by the spectacular drop in world oil prices and by the chaos in the natural gas markets.
As one historian put it: "Within weeks of the fall of international prices companies were cutting back their exploration budgets, laying off personnel and asking for more and more government aid in an attempt to ride out this down side of the energy crisis. Alberta and Saskatchewan responded nervously with further cuts in royalties and taxes, while simultaneously demanding more help from Ottawa in the form of assistance in keeping the oilsands and other projects going when oil prices were rendering them temporarily uneconomic".
Those words by an historian aptly characterize the present condition of our vital oil and gas industry as well. In the first quarter of 1991 numerous companies have reported sizeable losses and the net oil and gas industry income for that period was the lowest in five years.
This poor performance is attributed to a set of complex and intertwined circumstances, including a wider gap between light and heavy crude oil prices, declining conventional production, outdated regulatory requirements, growing environmental demands and a several-year long decline in natural gas prices.
Unfortunately, according to many industry observers these trends are likely to continue, increasing the industry's operating loss and hurting profits. Inevitably one of the most tangible consequences of this will be even more jobs lost in a battered and vitally important Canadian industry.
February 20,1992

There is, as members from the west will know, virtually no major oil company that has not been forced to reduce its work force in recent years.
In Calgary, Gulf Canada Resources eliminated 250 jobs last May in an attempt to save between $30 million and $35 million by next year.
Imperial Oil has slashed 4,000 positions since 1989. Recently, more than 1,700 employees were laid off in a single swing of the axe, the same time it shut down 1,000 service stations, or at least announced the shutting down of them and reduced its refining capacity.
Since 1989 Petro-Canada has laid off about 1,500 employees nation-wide, only partly due to its drive to privatization. Last month it announced plans to close about 1,200 service stations across Canada.
Other major oil companies that have or will make major lay-offs include Amoco Canada, BP Canada, Husky Oil and Canada Northwest Energy.
Job losses tragically are now measured in the thousands and the western Canada oil patch could lose as many as 10,000 more livelihoods by 1995. That is careers, mortgages, children's education, demoralization, and it is social problems of all kinds.
The industry's work force peaked in 1985 at 140,000 and has declined steadily since then to 80,000. Last year more than 3,200 employees were laid off by major oil and gas companies alone. Mergers and downsizings are expected to increase-creating serious disturbances in the oil industry labour market.
In fact, I mentioned this the other day, I have a neighbour who goes to work each month, not in western Canada. He goes to work in North Yemen. He gets on an airplane, leaves his wife and two children, flies to North Yemen and works there for a month and then comes back to visit his family for a month, getting each alternative month off.
The question that many of us have is as to why can we not find work for him to do in Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C., the Northwest Territories or somewhere in Canada, of course Hibernia included.
With bleak forecasts for the foreseeable future, temporarily laid-off professionals and others are not being rehired and many young people are not even considering careers in the oil and gas fields.
Government Orders
A shrinking, highly specialized work force puts an additional stress on the oil industry's efforts to maintain the technological edge which has kept our Canadian oil patch competitive internationally.
All that could backfire when oil and natural gas prices eventually improve and the crisis is hopefully over.
Recent bitter battles between the Alberta natural gas producers and the state of California are yet another reason for concern.
The notorious California Public Utilities Commission which is concerned only with the short-term interests of consumers and not with the long-term survival of producers, is unilaterally demanding radical changes to marketing arrangements with Alberta producers. It claims that the San Francisco based Pacific Gas and Electric Company has no obligation to honour long-term contracts with its suppliers.
Every day more than a billion cubic feet of western natural gas goes down the pipeline to California. For 30 years it has been a peaceful and mutually advantageous business. But political relations between Canada and the U.S. have changed to the point that what was formerly security of supply has become less of a concern for California consumers and the arguments are focusing now on price alone.
To no one's surprise, the Canadian Petroleum Association is outraged, saying that the California Public Utilities Commission-we call it CPUC in Alberta-"refute the sanctity of contracts" and that they "effectively violate the principle that buyers and sellers can negotiate market responsive contracts free of regulatory interference".
The bargaining that is being accompanied by a series of demands, threats and political manoeuvres may result in heavy cuts in the $1 billion western Canadians now earn annually in gas sales to California.
Moreover, should California's pricing policies emerge a winner, purchasers in Ontario might well be prompted to arrange the same deal for their gas consumers.
In fact, some institutional gas buyers in central Canada have reportedly refused to enter into long-term contracts with western Canada gas producers. That is also causing major problems for people who earn their living from oil and gas in my province.

February 20,1992
Government Orders
These are just some examples of how Tory policy has turned out to be wrong, threatening to undermine not only the economies of the government's so-called energy policy but also Canada's long term energy interests.
There has been no leadership in the areas of environmental protection and energy conservation. The Canadian public has been continuously misled by misleading promises by a government that nonsensically maintains that it is serious about taking action on changing our energy consumption patterns.
Probably the closest the government has come to supporting energy conservation, ironically was during the Persian Gulf crisis when its energy department began to promote conservation and efficiency in some ads.
In the Mulroney government constitutional proposals, the government wants to recognize, seemingly, the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces in sectors that are now treated in many cases as concurrent areas. These include tourism, forestry, mining and recreation.
I think many Canadians are likely to query whether the government will by implication simply opt out of a meaningful environmental role in, say, mining and forestry.
The notion that this government is now prepared to discuss transferring to the provinces exclusive authority over wildlife conservation and protection, soil and water conservation and so on is distressing.
Many Canadians are concerned that if that passes, all provinces will be pressured into an environmental bidding war with each other to attract new industry.
Allowing the provincial governments greater control over environmental regulations could well undermine any efforts at implementing nation-wide environmental standards. This might apply as well to the development and adoption of energy efficiency performance requirements for energy using equipment.
The housing industry and office factory buildings provide the government with an excellent opportunity to introduce effective conservation measures. Federally imposed standards could be incorporated into all plans
for insulation, low energy lighting, night storage water heating and so on.
Relegating to the provinces some exclusive areas of authority and competence in the area of environmental protection will probably only exacerbate interprovincial discrepancies and further reduce the regulatory coherence of the present federal government.
Many Canadians are painfully ignorant, unfortunately, about energy and environmental issues still. According to the Out of Balance report by the Standing Committee on the Environment: "Three in 10 Canadians actually believe that global warming is going to be positive for Canada".
Our increasingly electrical society has never before been asked to unplug computers, video games, fax machines, to turn down thermostats and to wear sweaters. Wearing more sweaters might help the textile industry in your province, Madam Speaker, and in Cornwall and elsewhere.
Even if energy saving technology is available now, how do we get people to buy it? The public must make a conscious decision to reduce its demand for fossil fuels, realizing that improved efficiency will not necessarily lead to a decline in living standards or in the work environment.
The introduction of energy efficient housing technologies, for example, is slower than it could be because many builders and architects are still unfamiliar with energy saving technologies.
Even more important, Canadians do not yet demand them. I understand that in comparison with the average home built in the United States, some super insulated homes in the state of Minnesota require 68 per cent less heat. For some residences in Sweden, the saving is 89 per cent.
Research done at the Lawrence Berkeley Centre for Building Science in California indicates that an $8 million investment in manufacturing and installing low emission windows would eliminate the need for 36 million barrels of oil which would cost $300 million to produce. The next federal government will have to take the responsibility to provide important kinds of information and education to our public.
February 20, 1992

Madam Speaker, you are probably thinking I have been going on for a long time. There is much more I could say. My party agrees with much scepticism to let this bill go to a legislative committee. Hopefully a host of changes can be made in committee.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, might I, at the risk of violating the rules at the outset, express my regret that, due to his absence, I am unable personally to inform the minister that the New Democratic caucus supports this bill. I am unable to inform him through his parliamentary secretary as that good gentleman is as well absent. Let me ask the hon. member for Calgary Southwest if she would be so kind as to convey to the minister the fact that, in this matter at least, he will enjoy the support of the New Democrat caucus and we will work to facilitate the quick passage of this bill. We generally welcome any move, however small, to increase energy efficiency in the Canadian economy.
We recognize that this bill is only a shell. It is merely a mechanism, a nicety with which Parliament will give to the government the authority to pass regulations to effect the stated aims of the bill. In other words, we are not actually debating energy efficiency standards when we debate this bill. We are debating whether or not to give the government the authority to set energy efficiency standards.
I would note that this bill having passed, as I assume it will, the government thereafter should present to this House or, at the very least to the energy standing committee, the regulations it proposes to promulgate under the authority of the bill so that the meat of the matter can be debated and approved or rejected, as the case may be.
Unfortunately, even with those regulations, and although this bill is a positive development, it really amounts to little more than a drop in the bucket. In terms of fostering energy efficiency in our economy and in our personal lives, what Canadians required was a Great Dane. What this bill gives them is a Chihuahua. What Canadians required was a Mad Dog Vachon and what this bill gives them is a Green Gabled Anne. What Canadians required was a mighty oak. Alas, this bill far more properly could be deemed a bonsai rubber tree.
Government Orders
This is of a piece with the government's record in terms of energy efficiency. We cannot forget nor should we forget that this is the same government that has slashed its annual expenditures on energy conservation and alternatives by over 90 per cent since it was first elected in 1984. The Conservatives have reduced the budget for energy efficiency and conservation every year that they have been the government; in 1984-85 it was $410 million, in 1985-86 it was $207 million, in 1986-87 it was $100 million, in 1987-88 it was $89 million, in 1988-89 it was $74 million, in 1989-90 it was $49 million, in 1990-91 it will have been $40 million, and this year it will come in at something between $35 million and $39 million.
These are not just numbers that have been cut. These are not just tally sheet ledger entries. These are programs and activities that were intended to, and in many respects did, foster the wiser use of energy by Canadians. There were programs like the Canadian Home Insulation Program which provided contributions of up to $500 per household to save energy, by upgrading the thermal efficiency of existing homes and by encouraging good workmanship and practices in refitted houses.
The Canadian Energy Audit Program, the so-called CEAP, which provided free on-site audits of energy consumption patterns and suggested low cost maintenance adjustments to conserve energy is gone. There was the Atlantic Energy Conservation Investment Program which encouraged energy conservation in an area with high energy prices and few substitutes for imported oil and which resulted in improved buildings, industrial processes and manufacturing operations. It was cut.
I have more. The Solar Energy Demonstration Program, which developed cost effective applications for active solar energy technology and encouraged its use, resulted in over 12,000 domestic hot water systems and over 200 industrial solar systems being supported. That is gone out of the remote community development demonstration program. Pardon?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Slow down.


Ross Harvey: Is that tone down or slow down?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was trying to express to the hon. member what I have done before. I ask him to slow

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
down. To say "tone down", I would never do that, but slow down and try to give a hand to the poor people who are keeping up and translating to French.


Ross Harvey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do apologize to the translators. It is, alas, my enthusiasm both for proper energy efficiency encouragement in this country on the one hand and for, in a sort of Calvinist sense, bringing to the attention of this government its sins on the other.
To continue, I hope at a slower pace, the Remote Community Demonstration Program which provided advice and financial support to 370 remote communities adopting energy alternative systems and conservation methods is gone.
Under the Forestry Industry Renewable Energy program, which provided financial assistance for biomass energy facilities, 180 projects were initiated on wood, municipal waste, agricultural waste and peat energy facilities. That is gone.
The Industrial Conversion Assistance Program, which provided one half of most capital costs to commercial, industrial and private institutions where they converted their boilers and heaters from heavy fuel oil to natural gas, is gone.
All of these programs which were in place, which were effecting the transition in Canadian industry and in Canadian homes from the less energy efficient to the more energy efficient use of energy are gone. They are gone with the wind. In the case of wind energy, gone without the wind.
On top of these program cuts, the Conservatives have also eliminated the Conservation and Renewable Energy Offices, the so-called CREOs. These were the major means that we had devised in Canada for taking what the experts and the bureaucrats know about energy efficiency and how to effect it, taking that information and distributing it to the people where the information can be used. Those, too, are gone.
It is a sad record of cuts. The government is only now beginning to turn its attention to reversing some of these horrendous program cuts. Even so, it is hard to get very enthusiastic about this minor turnaround. Funding for these efforts is pathetically small.
On Monday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines
and Resources that he expects the government will spend an additional $175 million on top of the $37 million already budgeted on energy efficiency and alternative energy. It sounds good. Keep in mind that that is actually less than the government budgeted for AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for just this year. Unfortunately, the minister admitted that $175 million was not to be spent each year, but would be spread over six years, the life of the green plan.
Moreover, the minister said that that spending would not even necessarily be spread evenly over those six years, but let us be generous and say that it will be spread evenly over those six years. That means that government spending on energy efficiency and alternatives this year would amount to about $66 million in total. That is still less than the government spent for this purpose in fiscal 1988-89.
It is 84 per cent less than was spent the first year the Conservatives took office in 1984-85. Remember, it is not that the government does not have the money. The Mulroney Conservatives have consistently diverted money away from energy conservation, efficiency and alternatives to other less environmentally benign energy sources.
I have some examples.
When the government privatized Petro-Canada, thereby throwing away our valuable public energy company, a company that could have been used to encourage the use of more environmentally sound fuels like ethanol or to take the lead in recycling used engine oil and reclaiming air conditioning chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, the $520 million raised by the sale of the first 20 per cent of the company did not even go into government coffers. It went back to the company. So the government paid the investors for buying shares in a company that belonged to the taxpayer $520 million. I will not say it is madness, I will not say it is insanity, I will not say it is lunacy of the first rank, but I will say it is difficult to say it makes a lot of sense. Still, that is what they did. That is what they continue to do. The government slashed funding for VIA Rail, one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation, while supporting one of the most energy inefficient ones, air travel, by expanding the Toronto airport.
The Conservative government has seriously skewed what financing it does provide toward nuclear energy.
February 20, 1992

For example, the April 1991 corporate plan and budget summary for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited shows that the federal government has invested $4.5 billion in nuclear energy research and development over the last 40 years. That is $110 million every year for 40 years. In 1995-96 alone, Canadian taxpayers are expected to fork over another $197 million to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
It does not have to be this way. For example, Ontario Hydro recently diverted funds previously earmarked for nuclear energy into energy efficiency and conservation, an example that this government would do very well to follow.
So what can be done? How can we better use the public resources that are available to effect a goal that we all claim to desire, which is far greater efficiency in the use of energy in Canada and far more integration of the energy alternatives that are available into our civil society?
There are literally countless ways in which the federal government could spur energy efficiency in Canada, but judging from the thin gruel of legislative activity in this area, this bill included, increasing energy efficiency is clearly not a top priority with the current government. Still, in a spirit of non-partisan accommodation, let me give to the government, which has become virtually invisible, a series of suggestions.
First, implement compulsory fuel efficiency standards for new cars, vans and trucks by at long last proclaiming the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act which was passed by this House in 1982 but to this day has not yet been proclaimed. Voluntary standards are not working. The over-all fuel efficiency of Canada's new motor vehicle fleet increased rapidly during the 1970s, but it slowed in the 1980s and has declined since 1988. We have not only stopped making headway, we are falling back. Adopting progressively more stringent fuel efficiency standards should be one element of a comprehensive Canadian strategy to develop a more energy efficient and environmentally friendly economy.
Environment Canada's inventory of C02 emissions, published in May 1990, estimates that Canadian road vehicles emitted nearly 27 million tonnes of C02 in 1987. The entire transportation sector emitted 39 million tonnes, roughly 30 per cent of Canada's total of 128 million tonnes. The National Energy Board projects the transportation sector will emit nearly 150 million tonnes of C02 by the year 2010.
Government Orders
The August 1989 report by federal, provincial and territorial energy ministers concluded that, and I quote:
Transportation energy use offers the greatest potential for emissions reductions at point of use.
"The greatest potential", Madam Speaker. What do we do knowing this? This is not a secret, this is not a surprise. Governments and their bureaucracies know this. What do we do? We continue to refuse to proclaim that act, already passed by this House, which would allow us to put in place the progressively more stringent new vehicle standards that would cause massive cuts in emissions.
It is inexplicable but it is a simple, easy place to start. I urge the government in the spirit of the bill it has placed before us today to proclaim that act as well.
Second, we can encourage the design and construction of energy efficient buildings. This is not hard to achieve. The government should start by strengthening the provisions of the 1983 measures for energy conservation in new buildings under the National Building Code. It should incorporate the strengthened measures into the code by extending those measures to include apartments and other commercial buildings not covered by provincial jurisdiction for which energy efficient guidelines do not now exist. At the same time, it can work with the provinces to effect similar improvements in the provincial building codes.
A third step is to restore funding of energy efficiency, conservation and energy alternatives to 1984 levels, especially for research, development and commercialization of new alternatives, for example, the Ballard hydrogen cell being developed in Vancouver. Mr. Ballard himself told the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources that he was in danger of losing control of his company that has developed this cell which is at least six months ahead of anything else on the planet, to a foreign owner because he cannot in Canada raise the measly $50 million he needs to pursue its commercialization.
If ever there was a place for government to involve itself in the aid both of a cleaner, healthier environment and in the aid of a developing Canadian industry on the

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
cutting edge of international technology, this is it. Or the development in Alberta of the solar pumps that can be used on farms to pump water out of the ground, strictly working on the basis of the sun that shines down out of the sky. This too represents tremendous potential both for domestic development and for international sales. Or, and this is so obvious, the massive extension of fuel ethanol availability throughout Canada.
There is at present one oil company in Canada, the independent Mohawk Oil Company in western Canada, that supplies ethanol blended fuels. There is no reason on God's good green earth why we could not make that a requirement for every gasoline vending corporation in this country. It would be good for the environment and Lord knows it would be good for the farmers who grow the grain and other crops from which the ethanol could be derived.
As well, a fourth step is to restore the conservation and renewable energy offices, the CREOs, across the country, so that Canadians have easy access to the information on the basis of which to make environmentally wise choices about energy and energy use.
In short, what is required is that the government abandon its so-called market based approach to energy policy. Instead let the government develop policies and programs emphasizing a strategic combination of energy efficiency standards, improved information programs, direct financial incentives and research, development, demonstration and commercialization so that Canada may begin to achieve the major economic and environmental benefits that energy efficiency, conservation and alternatives have to offer.
This bill is a step in the right direction. It is a baby step. It is a teensy little step, but it is a step. Even allowing that, we will have some significant questions in committee. We will be interested in expanding the scope of this bill to the extent that it is deemed to be in order. We will be interested in learning if there is any justification for the fact that the bill applies merely to energy using products, thereby apparently excluding significant products such as doors and windows. We will be asking why the bill applies only to manufacturers and bulk importers, thereby apparently allowing the import into Canada of energy inefficient appliances by individuals. These detailed matters will be pursued in committee.
Let me note in conclusion that while we support this bill and acknowledge that it is a teensy step in the right direction, we are also hoping the government will come forward soon with much more significant bills in this vein.
There is a great deal to be done. We in the New Democrat caucus applaud lightly this first step, but we urge the government to seize this matter and take those giant steps that are required. Let green gabled Anna with her chihuahua in her lap ponder her Bonsai rubber tree. Let the Canadian government on behalf of the Canadian people get to work on the job that needs to be done.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to my colleague speaking on the government bill.
Of course, we in the New Democratic Party support the concept of energy conservation. I would like my colleague to comment on this. Every time we see the government rely upon voluntary standards, particularly in the automobile industry, or every time the automobile industry comes up with their own standards, it seems that the average motorist gets it in the neck.


An hon. member:: Or in the lungs.


Philip Edmonston: Or in the lungs, or the pocketbook. I want to bring two points to the attention of my colleague that I would like him to comment on.
When we were looking at energy savings and at the same time reducing pollutants, particularly in 1976 as a result of the American efforts and the Canadian efforts just to be in conformity with the American efforts, there was a device called a catalytic converter that was attached to the internal combustion engine or the exhaust system. As consumer advocates we have always called it "the infernal combustion engine" because it is most inefficient.
This catalytic converter was supposed to clean up the pollutants as well as make for a cleaner running, smoother engine. I have to say that this has not occurred. We were told that we would only need a tune-up maybe once every year because the engines would run much cleaner. We were told that we would save on fuel. For the first five years, of course, we did not save.
February 20, 1992

Finally, if I may just conclude, motorists felt that they were being had by the industry in the name of protecting the environment.
I would appreciate my colleague's comments on this.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I must say that in matters involving automobiles and the automotive industry I bow to the expertise of my colleague from Chambly. Lord knows he is probably the best known consumer advocate, vis-a-vis the automobile industry in the country, perhaps on the continent. When he tells me that catalytic converters have been a bad thing, I am not going to argue. In fact, this had been my suspicion, but I must confess that what the hon. member has said now greatly reinforces that suspicion.
I would just repeat something I said in the body of my remarks earlier, which is that the record of government regulation of automobile emissions is clear. When those regulations were brought in and effected in the mid-1970s, emissions from automobiles dropped. In some regard, they plummeted. However, when those standards became voluntary in the early 1980s, progress virtually ceased.
People were spending time worrying even about those voluntary emissions. The people in the industry do not any more. Since 1988 we have fallen back. Emissions from automobiles have grown worse.
I can think of no clearer example of the efficacy of government regulation. It may be distasteful for those who believe in the market red in tooth and claw to contemplate the prospect of the public sector telling market players what they can or cannot do. As unpleasant as that prospect may be, it is absolutely essential if as a society we are to progress. That clearly is the record of the history of this country and indeed of all countries, and to argue against it is mere cavilling of the most captious sort.
I thank the hon. member for his comment. I thank the hon. member for his instruction. I wish him all the best in continuing to defend Canadian motorists.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-41, the energy efficiency and alternative energy act. I
Government Orders
have more than a passing interest in this piece of legislation since I have had a private member's bill on the books for over two years that has practically the same things in it, almost word for word. At the outset I want to offer my hearty congratulations to the government for following the strong, progressive and capable lead of the Liberal Party of Canada.
My Bill C-347, the energy conservation standards act, has the same provisions about setting minimum energy efficiency standards on equipment and requiring special labelling to show consumers the most efficient products. My bill also called for national standards that are consistent across the country. So does Bill C-41.
I must say again that I am glad the Tory government is finally taking this initiative. It is a long time in coming, and this is from a government that had slashed alternative energy programs by over 90 per cent since 1984.
The current government is also following the lead of many provinces including Ontario where the Liberal government of the day introduced its own energy efficiency act in December 1987.1 guess it is better late than never for the members across the floor.
Saving energy by regulation is a tool of the government. We know that economies around the world operate at below the optimum level of energy efficiency. Ontario and the rest of Canada are no exception. Energy efficiency provides a stream of economic and environmental benefits.
We all realize the barriers that prevent these sorts of energy savings from being captured. These barriers include a lack of consumer information and rate structures that may act as disincentives to conservation.
These barriers must be broken down. Governments have powerful tools to remove them, such as their fiscal policy to favour conservation, leadership by example- that is a good one for this government-incentive programs, consumer education, support for research and development, and actual regulation of minimum energy efficiency levels.
While on the one hand I applaud the government for coming through with this bill, I must also point out that one of the major concerns of people is the disgraceful neglect and declining level of support for Canada's alternative energy programs since 1984.

February 20, 1992
Government Orders
The development of new energy sources normally takes decades to accomplish. Research cannot be turned on and off from one fiscal year to the next without doing great harm to research efforts.
A recent study shows federal funding has been horribly slashed from about $500 million in 1984 to merely $30 million in 1990-91.1 certainly hope the finance minister will be more environmentally conscious in next Tuesday's budget.
It is worthy of note that during the period from 1980 to 1984 an average of $400 million was spent on alternative and energy conservation programs. Then in 1984 the Conservatives out and out eliminated the energy division of the National Research Council. There have been cuts at Energy, Mines and Resources for staff and branch offices, and programs to help people insulate their homes, to inform consumers about home appliances, and to advise industries on how to reduce energy consumption were all discarded. Perhaps Bill C-41 is a deathbed repentance for the Tories. Improving energy efficiency means reducing energy waste. Better building designs, more efficient equipment, improved furnaces, transportation and electric motors can lead to further significant gains. Energy efficiency is the leanest, cheapest and fastest way to improve the energy balance.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment has made great progress on getting the four rs implemented on Parliament Hill. The hon. Speaker of the House has spearheaded these actions and he should be congratulated for the extremely successful greening of the Hill plans.
It cannot be overstated that energy efficiency is needed in Canada. A November 1990 study stated that among the industrialized countries Canada ranks first in energy use per capita, first in energy unit per Gross Domestic Product unit, and second in per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
In the early 1980s there was a tremendous improvement of about 10 per cent in CO2 emissions, but over the last five years there has been no reduction in energy intensity. This is mainly due to the current government's cutbacks in programs since 1984.
Performance on energy efficiency and carbon emissions since then has not only been a disgrace, but many-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member.
It being 1.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 19, 1992, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bills now before the House.
The first question is on the motion of Mr. Epp for second reading of Bill C-41.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee D.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Danis (for the Minister of National Health and
Welfare) moved that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 19, 1992, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went in committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-57, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Health and Welfare I would like to thank all members of this House for their co-operation in getting this bill through all stages in very exceptionally quick time.
Also on behalf of the minister I would like to thank the hon. member for Don Valley East who is in the House today. The bill the government is introducing, as members know, was originally introduced by the member for Don Valley East. I am sure that all members will join with the government in recognizing the outstanding
February 20, 1992

work that he has been doing for the disabled people of this country.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Chairman, I would just like to indicate on behalf of the Liberal caucus that we support this bill. It is a partial victory for all disabled people. There is still work to be done, but we welcome this bill.
It proves that an initiative by a member of Parliament can really triumph in a democracy.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Chairman, on behalf of the NDP we would also like to express our support for the hon. member's work for the disabled. We owe this legislation to a member of this House who, like most other members, is not a minister and has no impressive titles after his name. I think this proves that if a private member decides that he wants to do something for people in society in general, we can do something right here in the House of Commons.
It is very gratifying to see that we achieved this today on a strictly non-partisan basis. We are delighted to support this bill.


Andrée  Champagne: I will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley East, but I should tell the committee that according to the order passed on Wednesday there should have been no debate whatsoever.
As everyone has kept his remarks very short and knowing the work that the hon. member did, I know he will also keep his remarks very short.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Chairman, on behalf of the disabled of Canada I would like to thank all members of this House including the government for the outstanding co-operation in putting through this bill to amend the disability provisions of the Canada Pension Plan.
I would like to thank the minister and his staff, particularly Melody Tomka. I would also like to recognize the tremendous contribution and tremendous hard work done by Robert Lea of my own staff on this. All Canadians can be thankful to all of them and to all of the members of this House for this outstanding piece of legislation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Chairman, as members know, I share a boundary with the hon. member for Don Valley East. I too would like to congratulate him on his fine work. He serves me as a constant reminder of dedication to not only his own constituents but the people of Canada. I salute him.


Andrée  Champagne: I guess all of the preceding can be considered a very long point of order.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 3 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 19,1992, the sitting of the House is suspended until two o'clock.
At 1.54 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, northern Ontario's forestry sector employs
37,000	people. Over 30 communities largely depend on this industry for their survival.
The pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario has been hard hit by the recession, by the high transportation costs in accessing and exporting its resources and by its high production costs due to antiquated equipment. In Ontario, 60 per cent of newsprint machines were installed before 1930.

February 20, 1992
If the pulp and paper industry is to survive it is absolutely essential for it to invest in new equipment and technology in order for it to become competitive in the global marketplace.
The Liberal Party made recommendations to the government last year asking it to consider implementing a proposal which would require industries to re invest 20 per cent of their annual profits into modernization and pollution control to ensure that they remain competitive.
We also suggested that the government look at implementing an industrial investment fund system of corporate RRSPs similar to the one being used in Sweden.
It is incumbent upon this government to take the leading role in ensuring that the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario and across Canada becomes competitive through technological change.



PENSIONS

Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, this government has again demonstrated that we are listening to the concerns of Canadian women by introducing new legislation that will make major improvements to public pensions.
Part-time employees may now join pension plans.
In the future, plans must offer survivor benefits and these must continue after re-marriage.
Pensions and pension credits will be divided upon marriage break-down.
Men and women retiring under similar circumstances will be entitled to equal pensions.
This will greatly help those who need retirement protection the most. It will help Canadian women.



MACMILLAN BLOEDEL LIMITED

Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia's largest forest company, MacMillan Bloedel, lost $90 million in 1991.
During the same year MacMillan Bloedel blamed continuing losses for the closure of a plywood mill and a
sawmill operation in Port Alberni. These closures permanently disrupted the lives of 600 families in my riding.
Within the last few weeks MacMillan Bloedel issued indefinite lay-off notices to over 450 loggers in three coastal logging divisions. Corporate losses were blamed for these lay-offs as well.
Yet a few weeks ago, in spite of its 1991 losses and in spite of lay-off notices given to over 1,000 of its workers, MacMillan Bloedel declared a quarterly dividend of 15 cents per share on its 100 million outstanding common share.
There should be a law in this country that prevents well-heeled corporate boards from plundering a company's assets to pay themselves dividends while putting workers out on the streets and blaming corporate losses for the lay-offs.



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, since the GATT negotiations began, the Canadian government has always had only one position: to clarify and strengthen article XI.
I would like to assure the farmers in my riding that the government will continue to work hard towards that goal, witness its latest initiative, sending to Brussels a Canadian delegation headed by our ministers and with representatives of the farming community.
Nor could we overlook the work done by the Prime Minister, who is striving to resolve the issue in our favour.
Certain recent statements and accusations made against the government by the president of the UPA, Jacques Proulx, and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, were an attempt to distort the situation in the interests of another quite different cause.
I would ask people to refer to the editorial by Alain Dubuc in today's La Presse. It shows very clearly what those two are up to. Obviously they are not serving the cause of Quebec farmers.
February 20, 1992

Again I want to assure the farmers in my riding of Joliette that the federal government will continue to defend their interests, as it has always done in the past.



GASOLINE ADDITIVES

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance presents his budget to Canadians next TUesday, I urge him to remove the excise tax on ethanol used in transportation fuel.
We also call on the government to adopt a comprehensive policy to promote the use of ethanol blended gasolines. If all our transportation fuel in Canada had a 10 per cent ethanol blend, we would create new markets for Canadian grain farmers of 8 million tonnes a year, larger than any one of our international markets today.
If all gasoline in Canada had a 10 per cent blend of ethanol we would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles by 10 per cent. That is why ethanol blended gasoline is often called green gas.
The use of ethanol blended gasoline would conserve our non-renewable resources.
By 1995 we will be importing over 550,000 barrels of crude oil a day from abroad. Ethanol is a winner for farmers, for conservation and the environment, for industrial development and for all of Canada.
We call on the Minister of Finance to remove the excise tax on ethanol blended gasolines next TUesday.



TAXATION

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, although we must admit the obvious fact that everyone has to help the economic recovery along, some people are unfairly treated by the tax system on the basis of their marital status. Among them, Mr. Speaker, are married people with children, whose situation compared to unmarried people with children is particularly remarkable.
Indeed, under our present tax system a married couple with three children is at a clear disadvantage compared to an unmarried couple in the same situation and with the same number of children. This discrimination, on the
basis of marital status alone, costs married individuals up to $3,000.
That is totally unacceptable and I think it is ridiculous that couples are penalized just for being married. The Progressive Conservative caucus and I have made many representations about this to the Minister of Finance.
Hopefully next Tuesday's budget will bring concrete measures to improve this situation, for the greater good of Canadian families.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, six children were buried yesterday in the frozen ground of the Innu community of Davis Inlet, a small Indian village on the north coast of Labrador.
They died tragically in a fire while their parents were out drinking. This is not the first alcohol related death in Davis Inlet. But alcohol is simply a symptom of a more profound malaise that has at its roots a sense of powerlessness and lack of control over one's own life.
The Innu live in substandard housing with no insulation, no water and sewers, and at a distance from the caribou on which their way of life depends.
The Innu nation believes a full inquiry is needed to determine the underlying causes of the recurrence of tragedy at Davis Inlet.
At the same time, they have asked the minister of Indian affairs to act immediately to provide an adequate water supply, proper housing and necessary services for the community.
I strongly support these requests on behalf of the Innu nation. I call upon the minister of Indian affairs to act quickly so as to prevent further tragedy such as that experienced this week in Davis Inlet.



THE CONSTITUTION

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, no one, either here in the House of Commons or elsewhere in Canada if they have been concerning themselves with the future of our great country will deny that we are facing a serious crisis.

February 20,1992
The Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs was asked by the Prime Minister to lead and co-ordinate our efforts to unite Canada.
I believe that Canadians everywhere, including those of us living in Quebec, are growing in our appreciation for his tireless efforts.
In an extensive interview for, but not used by the CBC on The Journal last night, the minister reported on the efforts being made.
The part of the interview with the minister that was broadcast raised the "what if" question: What would happen to Canadian citizens in Quebec if Quebec voted in a referendum to become a sovereign state?
I have talked with the minister and I am assured that the Government of Canada will preserve and protect the interests of all Canadians living in Quebec, primarily by bringing Canada together in a new Constitution including Quebec, even if we cannot persuade Quebecers that Canada belongs to all of us and is stronger when it is united and shared.
It is unfortunate that the full interview with the minister was not broadcast by The Journal.



CHALLENGE PROGRAM

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is now February 20 and there has still been no announcement of this year's Challenge program for our student summer jobs.
But there have been plenty of other announcements: at least $350 million cut from the Canadian Jobs Strategy, increased tuitions resulting from the government's $11 billion cut in transfers for post-secondary education to the provinces, and continued stonewalling on revisions to the Canada Student Loans program.
Last summer young people were battered by the recession suffering unemployment rates 68 per cent higher than the year before and 65 per cent higher than the rest of the population.
Students have to wonder why has the Challenge program funding not been announced. Is the news so bad
that this government hopes to sneak it past us in a budget full of even worse news, in a budget that misses the point, that the competitive economy must really be the opportunity economy?



MYRIAM BEDARD

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I draw the attention of this House to another medal winning performance by a Canadian athlete in Albertville.
Our congratulations go to Myriam Bedard of Neufcha-tel, Quebec, who won a bronze medal in the women's 15 kilometre biathlon event.
This biathlon became a medal event for the first time in this Olympics. It is a sport which requires a combination of skills. Speed, stamina and endurance are needed on the 15 kilometre cross-country ski course and accuracy and skill with a rifle are needed on the target range.
Myriam demonstrated both the brilliant technical skill and the endurance demanded by this incredibly challenging sport.
I know that all Canadians will take pride and joy in her Olympic achievement which serves as an inspiration to all Canadian athletes.



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, at least 100,000 jobs in Canada are at stake. Canadian farmers are in serious danger of losing their livelihood, because of the Dunkel report's proposal to eliminate GATT article XI and introduce, instead, a tariffication system that would be subject to annual reductions of 6 per cent.
These proposals would sound the death knell of Canada's agricultural quota system. On behalf of 40,000 farm producers who work under this system, I want to ask the government, and especially the Prime Minister, to protect and reinforce GATT article XI.

February 20, 1992



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as I said on February 10 in the House, we must step up our efforts to ensure that our farmers win the battle at GATT. We must not accept a compromise that would threaten the four pillars of agriculture in this country. The Canadian government must maintain our supply management system and defend it to the very end, even after March 2,
1992.	Tomorrow, the regional president of the Abitibi- Temiscamingue UPA, Mr. Denis Jutras, will be here with Gilles Berube, from Vassan; Frangois Lemieux, from Landrienne; Rosaire Mongrain, from Saint-Felix d'Al-quier and many other farmers from Abitibi.
I will be here right along with them, in order to maintain a dialogue and ensure that the Canadian government maintains our supply management system past March 2, until the year 2000.



IMMIGRATION

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, disgusting, appalling, shameful and sad, these are the words I have heard repeatedly in over 500 calls since yesterday morning objecting to the deportation of a Polish couple and their child.
Those words also describe the minister's reply today saying no to their claim on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.
Instead of turning his mind and heart to the merits of this case, to what is fair and just, the minister spends four pages implying that this family circumvented the process, did not follow the rules, are seeking special exemption and are abusing the system. These statements are cruel and they are contemptible.
If there is any abuse of the system it is in the minister's office and in the minister's department: delays of three years in holding hearings, no reply to a member of Parliament on behalf of her constituents, no reply even today to what are the criteria and how were they judged.
I have written to the minister on an urgent basis today pointing out issues that he did not address in his letter. I
pray to God he will stop this deportation hearing this afternoon and will have the courtesy of giving me a reply to those concerns.



HEART MONTH

Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that February is Heart Month.
Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of disability and death in Canada. Seventy thousand people die from the disease each year.
In collaboration with provincial ministries of health, the Department of National Health and Welfare has established the Canadian Heart Health Initiative consisting of cardiovascular risk factor surveys and demonstration projects carried out in all provinces.
In addition, an international Heart Health Conference will be held in Victoria, British Columbia on May 24 to 28, 1992. The theme of the conference is "Bridging the Gap-Science and Policy in Action". I would like to applaud the efforts of all of those who are collaborating with the Department of National Health and Welfare toward reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease on Canadians. Let us work together to ensure the health of all Canadians. Let us work together for a better Canada.



AIR CANADA

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am confused.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Iain Francis Angus: On February 6, Air Canada called for a made-in-Canada solution to Canada's airline woes. It did not want American involvement with its competitor, Canadian Airlines.
It pointed to a public opinion poll which showed that 85 per cent of Canadians wanted a Canadian solution, not an American one. Yet today Air Canada announced that Mr. Hollis L. Harris, ex-chairman of the now bankrupt American Continental Airlines, has been appointed to act as its new president, vice-chairman and chief executive officer. What a slap at Canada's airline executives.

February 20, 1992
Oral Questions
We can only draw one conclusion from today's appointment: Canadian expertise is apparently not good enough and Mr. Harris is also apparently perfect for Air Canada and failure in America means success in Canada. So much for Air Canada's made-in-Canada solution and so much for the laughter in this House.



SIR WILLIAM OSLER

Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1992 marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of the Principles and Practise of Medicine by a great Canadian, Sir William Osier. This medical text book, first published in 1892, remained in print with revisions every three years until the 16th edition in 1947.
Sir William Osier, bom in Bondhead, Ontario in 1849, remains the ideal of every physician in the English speaking world and beyond. He taught in Canada, the U.S. and Britain that education is a lifetime occupation and that hard work is essential.
Dr. Osier was one of the original four professors invited to begin the John Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore. He combined intelligence, knowledge and a love for study and teaching that continues to set a standard for all physicians. The Government of Canada issued a stamp in his honour in 1969.
Protecting and preserving Canada's heritage means recognizing the contributions our citizens have made, both within and outside this country. Let us not forget Sir William Osier.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who, I believe, might agree that there are some contradictions in the government's utterances on the subject of foreign overfishing.
The government tells us that the Europeans are arrogant, that they are stubborn, that they have ignored the pleadings of him and his government over the last
two years. Yet the government tells us that it intends to do more of the same. I ask him why? More to the point, I ask him when is he going to get involved as Prime Minister and turn the heat up on this file?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada as if the government had been completely doing nothing about it.
The hon. member knows that when we introduced the fisheries adjustment package there were components to that package which addressed many issues, one being conservation. I trust that we all know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dedicated to trying to find solutions that are long-term for the situation affecting fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and we should give him a chance to do his job.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the question, by the way, was about foreign overfishing.
I direct my question to the same minister, if he wants to respond for the absent Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, I understand, is in Newfoundland on some business. The minister of fisheries said this in the House yesterday, and I want to quote to him what his colleague said:
We also allow them (the foreigners) to catch fish that we cannot
catch and land them at Canadian plants. That is all that is keeping
Burgeo going.
Is the government not aware that the Burgeo fish plant has never ever processed a single foreign fish? Why is the minister jumping up here and parading halftruths? When will the government get off half-truths and sometimes no truth at all and get on with the job of saving the jobs of those people at Burgeo and elsewhere?


Bernard Valcourt: I would think the hon. member, being from Newfoundland and Labrador himself, would be so concerned with the situation affecting fishermen in that region that he would not use Question Period as a place to play politics. There is not much positive and constructive in talking half truths. The point the minister made yesterday was that for species of fish that Canadians do not wish to catch, foreign nations, supporters of Canada at NAFO, may be allowed quotas in those waters. Simply put, so that he may understand, Canadians have the right of first refusal on that fish.
February 20, 1992

Oral Questions
Translation]


THE ENVIRONMENT
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment a question.
The plundering of fish stocks by unscrupulous fishermen from Europe is among the most senseless environmental crimes, like the destruction of the tropical rain forests in Brazil and the depletion of the ozone layer.
I ask the minister what representations he has made to mobilize the international community in the struggle to end the criminal actions of Spain and Portugal.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am glad that the hon. member raised the issue of overfishing in the North Atlantic from an environmental point of view. It is perhaps high time that the whole international community raised this issue precisely from that standpoint since a whole ecosystem is involved in this overfishing.
Too often it has been dealt with as a commercial matter. For this reason, the minister of fisheries, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I met last week on this specific subject, even before the announcements that were made a few days ago. The minister of fisheries, who is from Newfoundland, insisted, as he is wont to do from time to time that we should absolutely raise this issue at the earth summit in Rio.
I must also say that the Prime Minister himself undertook to raise it at the international level. The minister of fisheries will do so, the Government of Canada will do so, because overfishing, is of course an environmental issue and an ecological one. I can assure you that the Minister of the Environment intends to do his part for Newfoundland fishermen, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the northern cod stock has been dealt another deathly blow today by this government.
I have just been informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Fisheries that the Canadian Embassy in Paris has been told to notify the French foreign ministry today that the French metropolitan fleet from St. Malo, France is to be given an additional quota from April 1 to June 30, additional cod quotas for northern cod and gulf cod.
I ask the minister of external affairs why this government is giving more northern cod quotas to France. The northern cod quota and the gulf cod quota were supposed to end on March 30 under the agreement of the boundary dispute between Canada and France.
Will the minister of external affairs now stand up and explain why France is being given this extra three months of northern cod?


Bernard Valcourt: Again, Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a fair person. He should not make statements that will give the impression in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Atlantic Canada, that Canada will do anything but abide by the conditions of the interim agreement it has signed with France.
He knows that the decision is about to be made by the tribunal that is seized of the issue, which decision we await this spring. If the quota levels have to be reduced in Atlantic Canada, the quotas for France will be reduced in accordance with the interim agreement.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Department of External Affairs just informed me that it was [DOT]notified last Friday that the president of the court had received the judgments of the four other judges.
However, the registrar of the court notified this government that because of a request by the Govern-

February 20, 1992
Oral Questions
ment of Canada, his decision has to be translated into English before it can be given. The translation will take until the first week in April.
Does this government not realize that it is just plain crazy to today give France three extra months of northern cod quota and gulf quota because it will take an extra week, into April, to translate the document? That is just plain crazy.

France accepts the decision in French only. Why not Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, some people may find this funny on the other side, but the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador do not.
Again, omitted from the comments of the hon. member-I do not take it to be a question-was the 1989 agreement with France that sent the boundary dispute to arbitration.
We signed this. We happen to be a government that signs a document and honours our signature. That decision was to be rendered in French, and it is a matter for the court to deal with.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the bank rate has increased again for the fourth week in a row. It is now above the prime rate at 7.56 per cent. This means that it is going to be very difficult for the commercial banks not to raise their consumer interest rates.
I have to say to the Prime Minister that this is another torpedo to consumer confidence in this country. My question is this.
Informetrica has shown that a 2 per cent drop in Canadian interest rates would get us 52,000 extra jobs and over $4 billion in savings on the deficit. Will the government change policy, reduce interest rates and thereby expand jobs here in this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend perhaps forget to mention that interest rates have come down some seven and a half points since their high in April 1990.
Interest rates are down to lows that have not been seen in almost 20 years in Canada. The inflation rate is in the process of annualizing very substantially at under 3 per cent, which compares, for example, to a high of 12.9 per cent that went on for some time in the early 1980s.
I think my hon. friend would recognize and acknowledge that this means very substantial progress. There has been a slight upward move of 10 basis points today, but there has been no reflection yet in terms of the prime. We will have to see what happens.
In any event, my hon. friend will surely agree that the only way there can be solid job creation is by keeping inflation low, keeping interest rates down and by inviting investment, both national and foreign, to join in Canada for the creation of the kinds of stimulating jobs that Canadians need.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact, if we go back two months ago, the gap between Canada's interest rate for treasury bills and those in the United States was just over 2 percentage points.
If we look at the situation now, the gap is 3.5 percentage points. Canada's interest rates for treasury bills are almost double those of the United States. That cannot make sense with our most close and toughest competitor. It shows up in the export figures that have come out today showing yet another collapse in export figures to the United States. In fact, for the past year exports to the United States have been down 2 per cent.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this: With all of his strong support for the free trade deal in the past, how can he say that the free trade deal is helping us when we are seeing our exports to the United States this past year down by 2 percentage points? Is it not time to raise the question of reducing our dollar so as to get the competitiveness that we need?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must have asked about a half dozen questions in that very lengthy statement.


An hon. member:: Take your time.
February 20, 1992


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, I will take my time.
With regard to his opening comments about a relative decline in exports, he is only half right. There was a relative decline in imports as well from the United States because of the recession. We continue to have a very favourable and impressive balance of some $6 billion or $7 billion in terms of trade, so that part of it is readily disposed of.
With regard to the question of the Canadian dollar, my hon. friend surely must know that that is a determination made by the international marketplace in regard to fundamental criteria like low inflation rates, low unit costs, enhanced productivity. This all finds a reflection in the value of the Canadian dollar. In point of fact, it has come down by some 4.5 or 5 cents over the last two or two and a half months maximum. I think that probably finds favour with my hon. friend as well.
With regard to his final point where he invoked the free trade agreement, I would just point out to him that recently one of Canada's most distinguished economists, Ed Neufeld, the executive vice-president at the Royal Bank, and I think generally highly regarded, was asked the question: "Now they feel if you open up your borders in terms of trade, trading borders into Mexico, all it will mean for Canada is location of plants into Mexico and out of Canada". His response was: "Of course, that was the theory in Europe when they said, well, if you do this French plants will go to Greece or to Portugal. The point is it is not happening. It is not happening because free trade provides new opportunities in all countries that are party to that free trade". Mr. Neufeld concludes that: "In regard to understanding of the impacts and the liberalizing instincts of international trade, the only problem with Canada is that we were about 10 or 15 years behind and we are now catching up".


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact this government has defended the free trade deal on the basis of export increases to the United States. The figures are now out for last year. They show a decrease in those exports to the United States.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: What will his government do to reverse this situation? What will his government do to increase our exports by reducing the value of the dollar so Canadians can be competitive and give us jobs right across this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's statement is quite wrong.
Oral Questions
Since the free trade agreement and irrespective of the fact that this country and the United States have fallen into a very difficult recession from which we are now in the process of recovering, the fact of the matter is that for the first time since I believe 1976 there is a net positive inflow of investment capital into Canada to the extent of some $8 billion or $9 billion over that same period.
Trade with the United States, which accounts for some 2 million jobs in Canada and 80 per cent of our exports, has increased since the free trade agreement has come in. More jobs have been created. In point of fact, fewer jobs have been lost in this recession with the free trade agreement than in 1981 and 1982 when there was no free trade agreement with the United States. So the free trade agreement, like the auto pact, will be viewed by Canadians as a most important instrument for a durable economic recovery.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday when my colleague from Gatineau asked him what he was doing to save Canadian farms, the Prime Minister said that he was leaving the House immediately to talk to the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of the European community. I want to say that we are glad the Prime Minister took this action which we have been urging him to do for years. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Did the Prime Minister get the support of Europe's leaders for our Canadian farmers as he was promising to do yesterday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had not spoken to any of them in years, but as soon as my hon. friend recommended I speak to them, I rushed right out and placed the first calls in years that I have had with any of them. My hon. friend asks if I placed the calls and before I can respond, I am being interrupted by the Liberals. It must be the enthusiasm of their convention. Is that a leadership convention that is going on?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No. I was not sure, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

February 20, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when you are at my position with the troops behind you, if you can keep the troops with you, you are here forever.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we should go to the next question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This was why I was unable to accommodate another of the opposition members with regard to another problem yesterday, a member who had an immigration problem and who asked me to see people out here from Ottawa West, because indeed I had scheduled a call coming in at 3 p.m. from Prime Minister Major of the United Kingdom. I then immediately after that spoke with President Delors in regard to the problems of the farmers and the farm delegation arriving in Brussels this morning. This morning I had a lengthy conversation with Chancellor Kohl in regard precisely to the mission which will be arriving in Bonn later on this afternoon or early tomorrow morning.
I made calls to the three leaders and I will be speaking to others regarding the importance of article XI and the importance of supply management to the Canadian economy and to the fabric of Canadian farm life, and how it is vital for them as friends and allies of Canada to understand that we need their support and their assistance in helping Canadian farmers protect this vital instrument. While we did not receive obviously any firm undertakings, I think they are much more acquainted with the needs of Canadian farmers and I hope that eventually Europe will be able to support Canada.


Robert (Bob) Speller: We will wait to see that, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister also refused yesterday to say whether he would be attending the farm rally on Parliament Hill tomorrow with tens of thousands of angry and frustrated farmers. Surely these good Canadians have a right to hear directly from the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister if he will address the farm rally tomorrow to defend his actions before Canadian farmers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has this backward. The Canadian farmers who have been protesting have been
protesting as well in support of the Canadian position which they helped fashion. The position we are defending internationally is one that we have arrived at in co-operation with the farmers of Canada. They are here to express their support for the Canadian position and that is why we have been giving, of course, such strong support and receiving such strong support in return.


Mr. Peterson:: We will find out tomorrow.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the Liberals plan to politicize something, as the Bloc Quebecois has been trying to do, all I can do is tell my hon. friend we are here to defend the interests of Canadian farmers. That is what we have been doing and that is what we will continue to do.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Any GATT agreement that dismantles supply management will wipe out millions of dollars from the balance sheets of Canadian dairy, poultry and egg producers. Does the Prime Minister realize the implications that this could have for the income, the network and the ultimate future of many Canadian farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Atlantic Canadians are hurting, unemployment is high, bankruptcies are soaring, many rural communities are fighting for their very survival. Should supply management be eliminated, the job losses would be staggering. Does the Prime Minister realize that the dismantling of supply management will seriously hurt our rural communities in Atlantic Canada and across this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well acquainted with the points my hon. friend raises.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Do something.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend from South West Nova says: "Do something".


Coline M. Campbell: Why do you think the farmers will be here tomorrow?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
February 20, 1992


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just talked about milking cows. I would not touch that one with a 10 foot pole and I urge him not to either. I urge him not to.
My hon. friend has raised a very serious question, asking if we are acquainted with the difficulties. Indeed, we are. All members of the House are acquainted with the importance of this matter for the farmers.
I raised this question beginning at the Tokyo summit in 1986, right up until again in November in Paris at a three and half hour meeting with President Delors of the commission, yesterday in conversations with Prime Minister Major and again with Chancellor Kohl this morning, trying to cause them to understand the article XI implications which, for example, they have in respect of sugar in the common market and the impact this has upon Canadians in an entirely different way-a large country with a small population trying to maintain supply managed industries-because these do not involve international trade distorting subsidies.
The dairy farm in Canada, as it is elsewhere, but particularly in Canada is part of the national fibre of the nation.
I met with farm leaders privately on Tuesday. I met with farm leaders Tbesday afternoon publicly. I met earlier today with farm leaders from Manitoba here in the House of Commons. I have been speaking to world leaders about their problems.
At the moment we have the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Agriculture in Brussels en route to Bonn, after a very successful day in Brussels, advancing the cause of Canadian farmers.
These are perhaps not miracles, but I can tell my hon. friend that we are doing what she would want us to do, deploying every effort we humanly can, and to work day and night to protect the interests of Canadian farmers.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a document signed by the Minister for International Trade and sent to government MPs in early January. The text is a veritable song sheet on how to sell the GATT proposals, particularly with respect to tariffication of agricultural goods.
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister explain how he expects Canadian farmers to believe this government's overtures of support for marketing boards when one of his senior ministers is willing to cave in on the future of supply management? Does he not recognize that acceptance of the GATT Dunkel proposals signs the death warrant for Canadian dairy farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that the proposals brought together by Arthur Dunkel on December 20 in respect of tariffication are unacceptable to Canada. This is the position we have defended unswervingly from the very beginning. It is the position we defend today.
Farmers know full well that we are in their comer. We are fighting this battle together on behalf of Canada. My hon. friend seems to be the only person who is out of step with this national initiative to protect Canadian interests abroad.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not what this document indicates. This is a song sheet. It was presented to the Prime Minister the other day by representatives of the dairy industry who demanded an explanation. His response, as I understand it, was to suggest that the Minister for International Trade does not speak for Canada. If the Minister for International Trade does not represent Canada's position at GATT then maybe he should resign and he should be replaced by a minister who will speak on behalf of Canadian dairy farmers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, even for my hon. friend from the NDP this is a new height of speciousness. He makes a false statement. He attributes to me a statement that I never made and then he proceeds to denounce it. Pretty good going, except the premise was false, your statement is false, and the position you have been adopting today is very unhelpful to Canadian farmers.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It is not just our fishermen and our farmers who are in trouble. In the three years since free trade Canadian automobile workers have lost 27,213 jobs.

February 20, 1992
Oral Questions
In this government's negotiations with Mexico and the United States, will it give us a guarantee that in the future Canadian auto workers will have their fair share of North American automotive jobs?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, this House would do well to remind itself, especially the member opposite, that when his party was the government in 1981-82 the Canadian share of automobile production for North America was 14 per cent. Today, the Canadian share of automobile production for North America is 24 per cent.
We as a government have put in place a strong and healthy economy which has helped to bring those results, and we will continue to fight for those results.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if this government is going to continue fighting for the same results we are doomed.
The United States, since free trade, has lost only 9 per cent of its automotive jobs but Canada has lost 21 per cent.
In these ongoing negotiations with Mexico and the United States, because Canada is losing automotive jobs today at almost two and a half times the U.S. rate, will this government guarantee in any future agreement both Canadian content and Canadian jobs? Yes or no.


Thomas Hockin: What this government will do, Mr. Speaker, is what it has done in the past.
What we have today in automobile production on the Canadian side is a labour force 33 per cent higher than it was in 1983. We have pursued policies that have helped that to be put in place. Our labour costs are lower and our interest rates are at record lows. We are coming to terms with our deficit in a way that the Americans cannot. We are putting in place a framework that will make us very competitive.
With that particular record we are very confident that we can continue to increase Canada's proportion of automobile production on this continent.


IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday this House was assured by the minister
responsible for citizenship that refugee board hearings were conducted with fairness and with natural justice.
The statement made by the minister was:
Certainly I am very comfortable and confident that the
independence and impartiality of that board is giving everyone the
fairest and most generous hearing possible.
Does the Minister of Employment and Immigration agree with those statements made by his colleague and does he stand by them today?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me whether the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is responsible for making independent refugee determination decisions, is a perfect body that should never be improved then my answer is no. We do not live in a perfect world.
I know Gordon Fairweather, and members on both sides of this House know this gentleman. He is committed to ensuring a fair determination system. He is taking action.
If the hon. member is talking about a problem that arose last week, I called the chairman, Mr. Fairweather. He is taking action on the matter and we should give him a chance to do his job.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question I asked. My supplementary question is for the same minister.
We have in our possession the negative fill-in-the-blanks judgments written for the judges prior to the hearings. Those are the hearings that the minister just referred to. We know the department has hired advisers to assist judges in their decisions and these advisers do not attend the hearings.
Critical information was withheld from the refugees and their lawyers. This is trial by ambush. Evidence is given to the judges in secret outside the hearing process. Judges are told not to listen to refugees' evidence. They are reaching biased decisions.
Will the minister table those written decisions for the Polish, the Chinese and the other refugee cases? Will the minister cancel all hearings today until we can ensure that every refugee is guaranteed his or her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada?
February 20, 1992


Bernard Valcourt: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not do that because I will not deprive genuine refugees from claiming that status in Canada and I will not prevent Canada from granting protection to persons in need.
I will not follow the advice of the Liberal Party. No, I will not.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Oral Question Period, the Prime Minister said that he was going to call a number of European leaders to discuss the GATT talks. Considering a question that was put previously, I believe it is clear the Prime Minister is very proactive and very positive in his efforts to defend the interests of farmers in Quebec and in Canada. We are lucky Jacques Proulx isn't prime minister because I can guarantee there would be some very unhappy farm producers in Quebec.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us whether the tone of the discussions and what transpired in his conversations with the various European leaders could be considered positive and encouraging, and if he intends to pursue and initiate further action along these lines.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and also for his sustained interest in an issue that is so important to Quebec farmers.
Yesterday, at the end of the day, I had conversations with Prime Minister Major of the United Kingdom, President Jacques Delors of the European commission, and this morning with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany.
The Canadian mission, which has just finished a good day's work in Brussels, among other things, was able to meet Commissioner McSharry, the European commission's vice-president, Mr. Andriessen, and Mr. Delors' executive assistant, Pascal Lamy, in order to further the interests of Canadian and Quebec farm producers.
Oral Questions
Just before Question Period, the Minister for International Trade called me to say it had been a constructive day's work for the Canadian mission in Europe. Telephone calls had been received and signals exchanged. The minister remains hopeful that eventually, with the support of all members of this House, we will have an opportunity to make an effective and successful case for Canadian demands.


UNITED NATIONS
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday and today the Government of Israel has been in blatant violation of UN lines in Lebanon. Two UN soldiers were killed or at least injured. There has been a killing of innocent civilians in refugee camps in Lebanon. As well there has been the assassination of a family of a Palestinian leader, clearly an excessive response to the killing of the three Israeli soldiers on Friday.
Will the Prime Minister personally intervene and make it absolutely clear to the Government of Israel that it can no longer blatantly disregard the authority of the UN in the conduct of its affairs if it expects any further support from Canada and if it expects lasting and just peace in the region?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is no question the events that have gone on in the region in the last week have been personally tragic for the people involved. That is our first concern.
Our second concern-as we have expressed it publicly and we will be expressing it through demarches on both sides-is our concern for destabilization and what could easily destroy what is a very fragile peace negotiation which is going on now and which will continue.
We condemn violence in the region on all sides and we will continue to do so.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, surely the situation has got to the point where the government's response has to go beyond mere condemnation of the situation. It has just gone on and on. The current Government of Israel has simply turned its nose up at the authority of the United Nations.

February 20, 1992
Oral Questions
Will the government, which has today started a debate on second reading of a bill to give it the capacity to bring in economic sanctions in the case of a breach of international law, not begin at least considering, in conjunction with other governments requiring the Government of Israel to comply with international law?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with the violence in the region of the Middle East is that it is very difficult to lay it at the door of one particular party.
We deplore the violence on all sides. There has been violence on every side. We have made strong statements about the violence both through the United Nations and its agencies and publicly in Canada. We have frequently made demarches to the governments involved, if they are governments, and to the people involved in the region.
We will continue to do that, but we do not intend to do anything that will add further instability to a region that desperately needs stability.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put my question to the Minister for International Trade, but since he is away on government business, I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
The Lactel group, Canada's biggest milk exporter located in Sainte-Claire de Dorchester, has been exporting 50 per cent of its Grand Pre milk to Puerto Rico for a number of years. Unfortunately, there has been a dispute in connection with these exports for the past 14 months, and a few weeks from now the company will not be able to export to the United States. Obviously this goes against the free trade agreement.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: Could the responsible minister immediately start proceedings before an arbitration tribunal, as provided by the FTA mechanism in chapter eighteen?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the problem described by the hon.
member. I believe that the people at Lactel are currently negotiating with the government in Puerto Rico.
Of course, if these people need help-in fact they got in touch with me because, for the hon. member's information, the company happens to be in the same building as my riding office in Boucherville-so they got in touch with me, and I said that if they needed assistance, I was sure the Minister for International Trade would intervene.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has been in touch with Lactel, but they are desperate, and they say that you could have gone before the arbitration tribunal a year or at least several months ago.
My question is this: Why didn't the minister submit this question to the arbitration tribunal? That is all the company wants. Otherwise, they will have to close their business.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the company is still negotiating. As I said earlier, they got in touch with my office, and I told them that if they wanted a decision or some kind of intervention by the Minister for International Trade, we would of course do for the company what we would in fact do for all Canadians.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Government of Canada gave the French foreign fleet in the Sydney Bight 1,300 metric tons of cod in 1990. It increased it in 1991 to 1,600 metric tons, and now the Canadian embassy in Paris has said that for 1992, the French foreign fleet will get 100 per cent of last year's quota.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to Canadians why such preferential treatment is given to foreign nations such as France when in fact our own fishermen are driven from the sea?
February 20,1992


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that these are established under an international treaty. There is the rule of law that deals with international treaties, and Canada is abiding by that. There is an arbitration agreement of which the results should be known in April. In the meantime, there is an international rule of law having to do with treaties with which we must abide.
This treaty was signed by the former government. We are finding some of these issues very frustrating to deal with because we understand the difficulties for our fishermen.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the minister that I am very well aware of the rule of law. I am also well aware of international abuse of Canadian fisheries.
I want to ask the minister of external affairs, who has the duty both moral and legal to come clean with Canadians, to tell them why foreign nations such as France, Spain, Portugal and others get preferential treatment to fish in our waters while our fishermen are unemployed. Tell us the fairness.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all what the hon. member is saying is absolutely false. The Spanish and the Portuguese who are fishing on the nose and the tail are fishing outside our waters. We have made the strongest possible representations within the European Community and to those countries directly.
I have done it, the minister of fisheries has done it, the Minister for International Trade is doing it, even now while he is in Europe this week. The Prime Minister has done it. We will continue to do that.
If the hon. member wants a straightforward honest explanation, I gave it to him in my first answer. He clearly does not want that.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Given the importance of the GATT negotiations, can the Prime Minister report to this House on the progress of the delegation of ministers and industry leaders who are now in Europe?
Business of the House


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for her question because it is a very important national matter. The delegation that is over there reported to me prior to Question Period through the Minister for International Trade. He says that they had meetings today with Commissioner McSharry, who is in charge of agriculture for the EC, with the vice-president of the EC, Frans Andriessen, and with a number of farming groups along with Pascal Lamy, who is Mr. Delors' representative at the commission.
Apparently the farming representatives and the politicians who are there are pleased with the day they have had. Nothing has been resolved yet, but they have put forward the Canadian case on behalf of Canadian agriculture with a great deal of effectiveness.
They will be moving to Bonn and then on to Geneva. Hopefully these will be building blocks that will provide a durable solution for these important problems confronting Canadian agriculture, wherein the Canadian government joins with agriculture in looking for solutions that will benefit Canadian farmers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mircea Snegur, President of the Republic of Moldova.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: And also in the gallery, Mr. Rein Loik, Minister of Education from Estonia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before the House closes, I am wondering if the government House leader could indicate the business of the House for Friday, Monday and Thesday. The budget will be given on Thesday. Could he give us a specific time and state whether or not the remaining days for next week will be allotted toward the budget debate or whether he will be calling other pieces of legislation.

February 20, 1992
Business of the House


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a special order passed on Wednesday, the House will adjourn after these proceedings, complete second reading of Bill C-26 tomorrow morning and adjourn after Routine Proceedings.
On Monday it is our intention to call Bill C-55 for second reading and, if completed, the House will continue second reading on Bill C-54, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies.
Discussions among parties are continuing for the rest of the week. We do intend to call the budget in all
likelihood on Tiesday, probably at 4.30 in the afternoon. It would be my intention to call at this time two days of budget debate on Wednesday and Thursday and probably the borrowing authority bill on Friday of next week, but I would like to confirm all of that at the start of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 19, 1992, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 21,1992