1981-03-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Commonwealth, a unique association of 44 countries of different racial, cultural, and economic backgrounds. At a time when the international community is engulfed in a crisis of mistrust and inaction, the Commonwealth has the facility to bring diverse nations together in harmony and good will. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That Canada renew its support of the aims and objectives of the Commonwealth, particularly the dedication of the Commonwealth to upholding human rights, opposing racial discrimination, and resolving the world economic crisis through measures to close the rich-poor gap in the world.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House want to manifest its appreciation for Commonwealth Day?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the lack of a Canada-United States fishing treaty will lead to overfishing and disorder, 1 move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House views with regret and grave concern the decision of the President of the United States to withdraw from the United States Senate that part of the east coast fisheries and boundaries treaty dealing with fisheries management and quotas, a decision which poses a serious threat to the scallop and groundfish resources off Georges Bank.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, news reports today confirm that the minister responsible for the status of women has been unable to influence cabinet to initiate an independent review of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. He is reportedly getting pretty tired of dealing with women lobbying for changes in the Constitution and for changes to restore integrity to the advisory council. In dismissing these representations, the minister has also cynically observed that the women's movement, for which he is supposed to be responsible, is easily manipulated. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to relieve the present minister responsible for the status of women from his tiresome duties and replace him with a person who will have the confidence and respect of women and of cabinet.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Since, on the eve of his visit to Canada, United States President Ronald Reagan has unilaterally scuttled the east coast fisheries treaty, on top of his approval of $4 million in new financing for the Garrison diversion project, his backing off on commitments given regarding the Alaska natural gas pipeline and his total indifference to the problems of acid rain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House condemn these hostile and negative actions by the United States government and, furthermore, that this House send a telegram to President Reagan telling him that if this is an indication of his goal of a "close

March 9, 198 !
and co-operative relationship with Canada", he might as well turn his plane around and stay in Washington.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. During the constitutional debate the need for labour mobility between provinces was a goal of the government. Nonetheless, the federal Department of Transport, as reported in the March issue of COPA newsletter, is refusing to allow French-speaking bilingual persons from either New Brunswick or Ontario even to apply for work in air traffic control in the province of Quebec. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That all departments of the federal government be instructed to refrain from using geography as a basis of hiring practices.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the grain transportation authority was created by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) when he was minister of transport, and served as a catalyst to help Canada achieve record grain exports in the previous crop year. The grain transportation authority has been without a co-ordinator since Dr. Elugh Horner resigned in October, 1980. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Transport show support for the Grain Transportation Authority by immediately announcing an immediate replacement for Dr. Horner.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, this country is in a mess. We have a series of problems confronting the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: We have an oil company rip-off, an interest rate rip-off, unemployment is at an all-time high, house prices are beyond the reach of the majority of people, and we have a government afraid or unwilling to take any action in one area in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Ian Deans: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government take action immediately to ensure that the pending agreement which will limit the importation of cars and trucks from Japan into the United States does not result in an increase of exports of automobiles from Japan into Canada and, further, that agreements be sought to reduce the number of exports of automobiles to this country for a period of time necessary to allow our domestic auto industry to complete its restructuring programs.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recognizing that U.S. President Reagan will visit this capital tomorrow, and noting that the people of Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, Roumania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine, among others, are currently denied by Moscow the right to choose their own governmental and socioeconomic systems through force of Russian arms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House requests the Prime Minister to discuss this matter with President Reagan this week, including ways in which Canada and the U.S.A. can work effectively toward achieving self-determination for all people now behind the iron curtain.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 9, 1981


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not met since December 3, 1980, and whereas there are many serious problems of extreme urgency affecting native people across Canada, i move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or the Prime Minister, immediately instruct the chairman of this committee to seek a reference from the Flouse to convene regular meetings forthwith.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, because it has been over two years since Canada and the United States signed a protocol to amend the Canada-United States Migratory Birds Convention in a way which would recognize native hunting rights, and since this protocol has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Senate, and since the Canadian government has shown little initiative in this area over the last two years, either by pressuring the U.S. Senate to follow up on this promise or in introducing amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act in Canada so that Indians may hunt without being prosecuted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Minister of the Environment immediately propose amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act which would recognize native hunting rights, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs strongly remind the United States of its 1979 commitment to change that convention, and also that the Solicitor General announce immediately a moratorium on the arrest of native people under this act.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the federal government originally encouraged and enticed provincial governments and municipalities to sign contracts for RCMP policing, and now that the suggested increases are way out of proportion, some being near the 100 per cent mark, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the House requests the government to review the scale of increases in order to keep faith with the original bargaining made with the provinces and municipalities, and also to help combat inflation.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question will be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he has the opportunity to return to his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am just welcoming him to his seat.
I should like to ask the minister when was the government first informed of President Reagan's decision to abandon unilaterally the east coast fisheries treaty and, further, what immediate steps the government took, either publicly or privately, to convey to the Americans Canada's profound opposition to this move.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I was telephoned by Secretary Haig-I believe it was on Tuesday evening of last week-to inform me that he would be recommending to the President that the administration not proceed with the east coast fisheries treaty but that it do proceed with the east coast boundaries agreement. I think we did not receive notification of the President's decision in advance or, if we did, it was so close to the time of his decision that in effect the two came at the same time. I believe that was on Friday. We did not receive any effective advance notice of the President's decision, as I under-

March 9, i 98 i
Oral Questions
stand it, but we did receive advance warning from Secretary Haig that that would be his recommendation.
At the time Secretary Haig called me 1 expressed our profound regret and disappointment at this move, and said that it was not what we had hoped and expected. He informed me that that was true with his side as well, that he had been very optimistic when we had met that he would be able to get it through the Senate, and that it was with great regret that his special negotiator had informed him, after twice discussing it with all the relevant senators, that it was simply impossible to get it through the U.S. Senate. It was on that ground that the American government decided not proceed.
We did not accept the American action. We told the Americans specifically that we were not accepting it in the sense that we did not agree with it, that we protested against it, and that we were profoundly saddened by it.


POSITION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I find it appalling that the minister did not make some public outcry, the moment he was informed of this news, as to how the Canadian public felt and would react to this very distressing move on the part of the American government. However, given the fact that his comments to Secretary Haig were not successful earlier on, can the minister say what steps the government is now proposing to take in the next two days at the very highest levels to persuade President Reagan not to proceed with the announced course he has stated with respect to the east coast fisheries agreement, or will the government simply resign itself to accepting the way in which the American government is proceeding unilaterally?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this was a unilateral decision by the United States without consultation with us. It has been formally announced by the President, and I am not sure there is now any margin for the United States to change that position, especially given the fact that they are only reflecting their belief that they cannot get this through the U.S. Senate and that they cannot get the implementing legislation through either the Senate or the House. We certainly intend to discuss this very fully with the President and to stress especially the importance of conservation of the fish stock, because likely the greatest possible loss in this whole matter is the loss to conservation interests.
It seems that American fisheries officials have not shown themselves capable of adequately protecting fish stocks. This is what troubles us more than any other single thing about the American decision.
We also have their assurance that they will not proceed to enforce U.S. law in the disputed zone against Canadian fishing ships. They will have what is called flag state enforcement, which means we will enforce the law against our ships, they will enforce it against their ships, and either of us can enforce it against ships from third countries. This will avoid the
possibility of a so-called fish war in which each side would be arresting the ships of the other country.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO TREATY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, given the situation the minister has now described, what concerns me is whether enough has been done by the government in the past number of weeks to convince the new administration in Washington of the unanimous and intense feeling in Canada against the course it has taken. I cite as an example the fact that on January 17 of this year the Canadian press reported that U.S. foreign relations committee chairman Percy said, after discussions with the Canadian Ambassador, Peter Towe, that he, Senator Percy, felt that treaty changes "can be accepted with reluctance" by Ottawa. He was given to understand that treaty changes can be accepted with reluctance by Ottawa.
I should like to ask the minister what it was in his discussions with Ambassador Towe that led Senator Percy to believe that any changes to the fisheries treaty would be accepted by Ottawa, reluctantly or otherwise, and under what orders was Ambassador Towe acting at the time Senator Percy reached that conclusion?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do not know the state of Senator Percy's mind at the time he made that statement. In fact our position to the United States all along has been that while we would consider a reduction in the duration of the treaty from one of perpetual duration to one of a limited period of years, say 12, which would probably be long enough to return the capital investment of the fishermen, we would not accept any other changes. In his conversations with me Secretary Haig said that he well understood that the Canadian government would not accept any modifications to the treaty and that that was one of the factors the United States was taking into account in deciding to proceed this way.
The hon. member knows better than most that this treaty was negotiated and signed by the previous U.S. administration, the one with which she was dealing as secretary of state for external affairs. She also had a singular lack of success in convincing the U.S. government to put this treaty through the U.S. Senate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well. He states that what has happened is a unilateral decision, but in effect that unilateral decision was
March 9, 1981

based on a joint decision taken by representatives of the two countries. In fact the East Coast Fishery Resource Agreement signed on March 29, 1979, following negotiations that began in the fall of 1976, which is a long period of time, was designed to establish a Canada-U.S. fisheries commission to provide for co-operative management, and for access and entitlements to specific stocks of mutual concern. At the same time the treaty to submit the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area to binding dispute settlement, provides for the submission of the case to a five-judge chamber of the International Court of Justice for a final decision on the placement of the boundary.
With that background I should like to ask the minister if, in his estimation, the United States is taking the boundary issue to the International Court in order to settle definitively that aspect of negotiations between our two countries before endeavouring to establish the fisheries quotas for conservation methods, or what is his interpretation of these actions?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the United States government is prepared to proceed with the boundaries treaty, I understand, which in effect underlies the fisheries treaty. When international arbitration is completed, to a large extent that will effectively settle the fisheries question because it will determine the boundary on either side of which enforcement by the relevant country may take place. The U.S. government believes that there will be no difficulty getting that through the Senate, with its reference to international arbitration.
In the meantime, the U.S. administration is undertaking to try some conservation measures through the New England Fisheries Council. We are told that will not be on the basis of percentages of the catch, as we would prefer, but the U.S. Secretary of State says that it will indicate some interest on the part of the United States government in the preservation of the fisheries. That aspect concerns us a great deal. We would like to see extremely effective conservative measures taken so that the result of this flag state enforcement will not be that fishermen from both sides will be allowed to plunder the stock.
Of course, if the United States is not going to be concerned about conservation, we can hardly say to our fishermen that we are going to restrain them. Then it is the fishing resource that will suffer.


REVIEW OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In January, 1977, Canada extended its jurisdiction to 200 miles seaward, and in March of the same year the United States established similar limits. When doing this the United States stated that the principal purpose behind its action was to phase foreign fishermen out of U.S. waters so that the U.S. fishing industry could expand.
Oral Questions
My question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is this: since the United States claims that the March 29, 1979, agreement is inconsistent with its 200-mile legislation, as it guarantees Canadian scallop, herring and groundfish fishermen permanent access to large parts of the United States zone, which is not in a disputed area, is the minister now planning to review all of the bilateral agreements covering fishing operations of foreigners within Canada's 200-mile zone in keeping with the promise made on February 25, 1975, by the then minister of state for external affairs, who is now the Minister of Finance, that the federal government would have the right to reserve for Canadian fishermen that portion of the total resource which they have the capacity to catch in any given year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I completely fail to see how the hon. member's last question affects the previous statement made. In fact, we took the approach that where the line was drawn in fisheries terms was not overly important as long as there was a management of stocks which responded to biology and movement of fish. As long as that possibility existed, obviously our preference was for the treaty as it was negotiated, with great difficulty, because there had to be concessions on both sides. We felt, from the fisheries point of view, that the treaty went a long way to protect the traditional fishing patterns of both Canadian and American fishermen, that it disrupted them as little as possible, and it would produce a management of stocks which would ensure good conservation. I must say the decision which has been announced by the United States worries us from a fisheries point of view in terms of conservation. Certainly I agree with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that if American fishermen are going to have unbridled access to Georges Bank, then we cannot ask our fishermen to restrain themselves.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It also concerns the east coast fisheries treaty. On several occasions in this House, through motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43, we have announced our disapproval of the attitude of the United States toward not ratifying this treaty. I might remind the Prime Minister that the scallop allocation to United States fishermen has increased from about 10 per cent in 1974 to over 40 per cent right now, which is taking away much of the income of the Nova Scotia fishermen.
In view of the visit of the President of the United States tomorrow and on Wednesday, would the Prime Minister give assurances to this House and to the fishermen in Nova Scotia that he will ask the President of the United States to impose a
8020

March 9, 1981
Oral Questions
management plan on the American fishermen fishing scallops and other stocks on the east coast in the area under dispute? Will the Prime Minister ask the President to impose on those American fishermen a quota which will conserve stocks for which Canadian fishermen, in an attempt to do the same thing, are willing to accept regulations imposed by this government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it would seem that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have dealt with this matter in their previous answers when they indicated that conservation was one of the main preoccupations of this government, and when they indicated the United States administration had undertaken to negotiate, I believe it is with the New England regional council, to ensure that that council would adopt conservation measures compatible with the maintenance of the fish stocks.


Edward Allan Miller: With all due respect, Mr. Prime Minister, I will address this question to you.
It has been quite obvious that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this government, in the previous Tory government and in the Liberal government before that, were unable to get those kinds of assurances from the United States. We were not getting any co-operation on that treaty through normal channels, namely, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of External Affairs. I think it is incumbent upon you now, recognizing the failure-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Edward Allan Miller: -of normal channels, that you ask the President of the United States to impose a management plan which will protect those stocks on the east coast. That is not being done now. Will you ask the President of the United States to do something.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you asking the Speaker a question?


Edward Allan Miller: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he, as the Prime Minister of Canada, will request that a management plan be implemented to protect the stocks and income of Canadian fishermen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must say the hon. member is misstating the facts when he says that this government and indeed the United States administration had not endeavoured to ensure that the negotiated treaty would be implemented. On the contrary, we had the assurance from the Carter administration that it would do its best, repeatedly, over a period of two years, to make sure that the treaty was ratified. Therefore, there was on the part of the preceding U.S. administration, our government, and the government of the Leader of the Opposition, an endeavour to obtain ratification of the treaty. What happened in fact is that the U.S. Senate has not ratified the treaty. This government is putting forward the importance of
maintaining friendship with the United States as the basis of the meeting which will take place tomorrow and the next day.
We are presuming that the United States President adopted this course, not because he wants to see an end to the profitable fishing for fishermen of both countries but because he is seeking in some other way to achieve results that are profitable for both countries. In that sense the House must recognize that it is not the U.S. administration that failed to ratify the treaty for the past two years, but the United States Congress. In that sense this government is once again putting the best possible light on the United States action and we are seeking, in a spirit of friendship, with the visit of the United States President to find a solution to this problem.


Edward Allan Miller: I would once again request that the Prime Minister raise this with the President.


WEST COAST SALMON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I wish to address my supplementary question on a related matter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is with regard to the west coast salmon treaty which is now in the process of being negotiated. It will require a great deal of co-operation, trust and good will on the part of both governments in order to become an equitable and fair treaty for both sides. In recognition of the difficulty in getting equitable treatment with regard to the treaty on the east coast, will the minister reconsider the position of the government which guarantees in perpetuity something like 4.5 million Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon to the United States? Will he reconsider the Canadian position on the west coast salmon treaty, which is based on good will?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, in order to help the hon. member understand the previous question, under American legislation the United States Secretary of Commerce can intervene to limit the powers of the regional councils. That is the very question I expect to discuss with Secretary of Commerce Baldridge tomorrow afternoon. If this can be done and if the scallop stocks can be protected through this approach, we might avoid very serious overfishing, which is a threat that now hangs over us.
1 hesitate to link the future of the west coast treaty to the problem on the east coast. We have always resisted playing one against the other. This we will continue to resist. 1 suspect that on the west coast the negotiations are taking place with ongoing and frequent consultation with the regional councils and interested groups on both sides of the negotiations, Canadian and American. In that sense, there may be more hope. The hon. member knows that one of the aims of Canada in the west coast salmon treaty negotiations is to restore the Fraser River to full Canadian control. That remains our aim.


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the treaty has been before the U.S. Senate for ratification over the past two years, American fishing activity has stepped up considerably on Georges Bank. Indications are that this is continuing to happen. Given that stepped up fisheries activity by the Americans, and the fact that there seems to be an agreement with the Americans not to interfere with each other in the disputed area, apart from the New England regional council being asked by the President to manage the fishery, which is like asking a chicken hawk to manage egg production, does the minister intend to hold bilateral discussions with the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who does have the authority to enforce fisheries management? We have much more to lose if there is not some management of that resource. It is our fishermen who stand to suffer the most.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will be meeting the Secretary of Commerce at 4.45 tomorrow afternoon. I will make one slight adjustment to what the hon. member stated. We all stand to lose if we do not have a decent fisheries management regime on Georges Bank.


QUERY RESPECTING NOTE FROM UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to a Canadian Press dispatch, a note was sent to the Canadian government by the U.S. State Department last Friday. The note outlined U.S. government objections to the treaty. It is interesting to note it came from the State Department. We thought we had successfully negotiated a treaty with the U.S. government. Will the minister tell this House and the country what was contained in that note which he received on Friday?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am not aware of any such note, Madam Speaker. I will check and advise the hon. member. There were rumours of another note on Friday, but not that I am aware of in that area.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I agree with the importance of the subject matter of the questions asked. However, I would direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the plight of potato farmers, particularly those in eastern Canada. Can the minister inform the House as to his recommendations and the government's decision with regard to the recommendations of
Oral Questions
the stabilization board on the amount that will be made available to help in the 1979-80 crop year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Agricultural Stabilization Board announced a payment that would amount to about 70 cents per hundredweight. The maximum a single producer can claim will be
10,000	hundredweight. A family organization of two or three members could claim a maximum of 30,000 hundredweight. Payments will be made when the farmers apply for them. That covers the eastern region of Canada, the three Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario. Applications must be submitted before the payment can be made to them.


FISHERIES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In reply to a question a few moments ago, the minister indicated that he hesitates to link the question of the east coast fisheries treaty with the circumstance on the west coast. In view of the devastating state of the scallop stocks on Georges Bank, and the tremendously precarious stituation with respect to Fraser River salmon, in particularly the chinook salmon runs which have been subjected to heavy overfishing, especially by U.S. fishermen and U.S. native fishermen, is the minister prepared at this point to couple these two situations and realize that we can no longer continue to put the west coast on the back burner until the question of the east coast treaty is resolved? Is the minister prepared to deal with both of these issues and address them, square on, with his counterparts who will be visiting here over the next few days?


Roméo LeBlanc: As a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries, the hon. member knows better than his question indicates. He knows that negotiations regarding the salmon interception problem preceded by many years the situation which has arisen on the east coast as a result of the extension of jurisdiction. He knows the problems are very different. He also knows that, much as it might be tempting, it would not be accurate to put all the blame for the overfishing of chinook salmon on U.S. seiners of Point Roberts.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The minister recognizes the problem. He has admitted in this House that negotiations with respect to the west coast salmon stocks have been going on for a very long time, without any serious intent, I might add. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure this House that the subject of the west coast treaty will be discussed during the upcoming discussions with his counterpart, Secretary Haig and, in particular, will he reveal to this House the extent to which he has been briefed on this very important question and the extent to which he is prepared to put positive options on

March 9, ! 981
Oral Questions
management before the Secretary, regarding both the west coast and east coast treaty, in order that we can prevent overfishing and ensure that we do not destroy both of these valuable resources?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, that is certainly one of the issues we will discuss with officials of the U.S. government if we have time. Those who are involved in negotiations with the United States on west coast problems feel that these negotiations are going fairly well at the present time.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and it concerns shelter allowances and rental controls.
The minister announced outside the housing conference held this past weekend that he intends to introduce a shelter allowance program which will cost close to $400 million. We know the minister advocates the abolition of rent controls, and I should like to ask him whether he intends to plan to use shelter allowances as a means of doing away with rent controls and, in addition, who will benefit from these shelter allowances? How does he intend to prevent rent gouging by landlords if there are no rent controls?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, part of the question by the hon. member dealing with rent controls was directed to the wrong minister. It should be directed, so far as my province is concerned, for example, to the minister for housing for the province of Ontario. I realize there is some controversy. This was an item on the agenda of the all-sector conference and there are a variety of opinions on the matter of rent controls. I appreciate from a Globe and Mail report of Friday last that there is some question about what is the position of the Conservative Party in this regard, but I would submit that the hon. lady should address her question to the minister with jurisdiction.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister who was very vocal, according to my copy of the Toronto Star of March 2, about ending rent controls.
We know that in some instances shelter allowances are certainly needed by low-income people provided rents are controlled. However, shelter allowances will not build affordable housing and we need many more housing units. Therefore, will the minister tell us where the $400 million will come from in his budget? I hope this will be additional money. Will he assure the many concerned housing groups represented at this conference and across Canada that this money will not be
taken from the budget, particularly that portion which is so desperately needed to build non-profit housing and also for community service grants?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity of making reference to the all-sector conference on housing held here over the weekend. She gives me the opportunity of pointing out in response to a specific question that there were approximately 20 items on the agenda of what was an all-sector conference. Many people had the opportunity of commenting on many of the suggestions made, including one of the suggestions in my remarks to the effect that shelter allowances could be an additional and useful instrument in the response of governments generally to housing problems in Canada. The idea or proposal was introduced in my remarks in that framework, that is, to elicit response from the provinces and from all the sectors involved, including the non-profit sector to which she has referred.


BILINGUALISM
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
The principle of mobility has been a long held goal of the government. However, the Department of Transport has now restricted applicants for the position of air traffic controller in Montreal to the "geographical boundaries of the province of Quebec". Will the minister tell the House how he can possibly rule out candidates from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Ontario who are bilingual, and particularly those whose first language is French? Is this not the worst form of discrimination and contrary to all federal guidelines?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I was also quite shocked when I was made aware of that situation and I want to agree with my hon. friend on that matter. I am told, however, that this is not uncommon. I have asked my officials to look into it further and to suggest ways in which it could be changed. I will report to my hon. friend as soon as I have a decision on that.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Solicitor General. Last Friday I asked the Acting Solicitor General about the government's plans to move the headquarters of "E" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police out of the city of Victoria. I understand the Solicitor General has informed the media that this projected move is by no means certain. However, RCMP
March 9, 1981

senior officers have said the move is on. Would the Solicitor General clarify this matter, please?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would tell me which members of the RCMP were saying that, I will get in touch with them and tell them the move is not on, not finally settled, and will not be until 1 have had an opportunity to discuss this with the provincial attorney general.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Certainly, Madam Speaker, the minister's request is about the last one I would answer. Will he get in touch with the mayors of the various municipalities affected? He will find a letter on his desk today or tomorrow from the mayor of Victoria requesting that the decision be deferred until there has been discussion with municipal officials. It also points out that "we have not had the benefit of any consultation with your local officials aside from a simple announcement that such a move is to take place". Will the minister assure the House that there will be impact studies done on this move before it takes place or is rejected completely?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will not undertake that there will be specific impact studies undertaken, but I will tell the hon. member that a policing analysis was done of the situation, and from the point of view of cost and efficiency the RCMP is satisfied it would be preferable to operate its B.C. headquarters in Vancouver. That is not a decision which will be made until I have consulted on the matter with the attorney general of British Columbia.


RIGHT OF PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO PARLIAMENTARIANS DURING STATE VISIT OF U.S. PRESIDENT REAGAN
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 am more aware than some of the very real security problems that will be encountered round Parliament Hill tomorrow and Wednesday with the impending visit of President Reagan. I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for directing it to him but, as the House will appreciate, the Chair cannot be questioned in this House.
In view of the instructions issued that no one, but no one, is to be allowed access, not only to these buildings, but to the grounds, tomorrow and Wednesday, unless they have a parliamentary identification card, who is to preserve the right of the Canadian citizen and taxpayer to have easy access to members of Parliament and their offices over the next two days?


An hon. Member:: How about members without identification cards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the question.
Oral Questions


ROLE OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Solicitor General will tell us if he or the RCMP has issued any instructions actually to keep people out of the parliamentary grounds tomorrow and Wednesday?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not aware of any such instruction, Madam Speaker. I can assure the House that the RCMP does have a mandate to be responsible for the security of visiting heads of state and their suites. They are aware of that responsibility and they will be exercising it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister or the Solicitor General. On February 23 the Prime Minister agreed to look into and report to the House regarding statements made by Mr. Paul Croft, who was a spokesman for the correctional service, and who, when asked how many natives worked for his service, said he would not be able to give that information as it would be violating human rights, but when asked how many natives were serving time in prisons said 840 were inmates, or almost 9 per cent of the federal prison population were natives. Is the Prime Minister now ready to report on that very hypocritical and blatant statement?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, we do not know how many natives are working for the correctional services of Canada because under our human rights policy we are not allowed to ask applicants for employment with the correctional services of Canada their ethnic or racial background. So, we have no way of knowing from our records exactly what number are working for the correctional services. Obviously there are a number, but we have no statistical data which would show the precise number.
As far as inmates are concerned, human rights employment legislation is irrelevant. We have programs directed toward native people who are inmates in correctional centres, and to their needs. We have very full statistics on that. When we are asked about statistics on inmate populations we can produce it, but we do not have statistics about the racial background of employees of the correctional services of Canada.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have never been in prison, so I did not know information as to racial origin had to be put on an application to get into prison.

March 9, 1981
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


TERMINATION OF SPORT AND RECREATION PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. He will know that over 100 people will lose their jobs and that many native communities will be deprived of much-needed sports programs as a result of the government decision to cut off funding for the native sport and recreation program. Could the minister advise the House as to which department the money allocated for this program has now been directed, for what other programs will this money be spent, or will it now be spent to beef up the import compensation program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, as the House has previously been informed, the program to which the hon. member referred was an experimental program rather than a permanent one. The difficulty encountered in relation to my department was due to the small nature of the department and the fact that we do not have people in most centres across the country. It was impossible to have the program monitored and constantly followed. Consequently, there was a decision that the money could be better spent to the advantage of our native people through some other program. The determination of that program and what department would undertake it would be one which would not fall under my department.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that acid rain emissions in Canada have been considerably reduced-in the Sudbury region they have actually declined by over 80 per cent since 1970-but in the United States emissions have climbed alarmingly, and all forecasts strongly indicate there will be much higher S02 emissions this year and in subsequent years, will the Prime Minister assure the House he will tell, not ask. President Reagan of the United States to reduce drastically acid precipitation now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the subject matter will certainly be discussed with the President of the United States.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I strongly suspect that we may lose out in that discussion. What sanctions does the Prime Minister have in mind to use against the United States in the event that the United States under President Reagan refuses to go along with the clean air memorandum of intent of August 5, 1980? For example, would he threaten to reduce or cut off hydroelectric power to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, contrary to the hon. member's party, we are going into these meetings with the President of the United States with the presumption that many of these problems can be settled, as they should be, between neighbours; not by threat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, returning to the important matter of the fisheries treaty between our two countries. I should like to ask him about the effect on marketing if this impasse continues. Unless there is some solution, is it his view that present conditions could lead to overproduction and a consequent weakening in Canadian markets as far as our fishermen are concerned? Is this a likely consequence?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I wish the situation were such that scallop stocks would continue to be as healthy as they once were. The reality is that there has already been overfishing by the American industry, and we have responsibly held back our fishermen.
As I said, if we have to unbridle our fishermen, I am afraid that scallop prices on the contrary will keep going up as stocks become scarcer. In the long run no one will really benefit from this situation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister another brief question. In his opinion, where does he feel the leverage is in this respect? Since the Americans take so much of the production of our fishing industry, particularly on the east coast, is the leverage with us or with them if the conditions as far as the treaty is concerned cannot be resolved?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the answer would be too long for question period. The reality is that there is almost a philosophical difference between the Canadian fishing industry-fishermen, the processors and government- and the American ones. We believe in rather tight regulation of stocks and tight conservation measures. This does not appear to be the philosophy on the other side. Hopefully it will become that, otherwise the stocks will be ruined.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
March 9, 1981

Defence. On December 19, 1980, the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence tabled the committee report on NORAD. Does the minister concur with its recommendations? Has he briefed the Prime Minister prior to his discussions with President Reagan?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will have discussions with the President or the U.S. Secretary of State. We agree entirely with the SCEAND recommendations and they will be brought forward for signature when the President is here.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The last three recommendations in the report indicate the change in nature of the NORAD relationship as technology moves from land-based radar to space-based radar. Recommendation No. 11 suggests that Canada should participate in this new technology. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to discuss the changing nature of NORAD and, in particular, to place a new emphasis upon Canada's participation in the development of space based surveillance systems?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member just mentioned, it is true that research and development are part of this agreement and that the name has been changed to that effect, changing the wording to "aerospace".


TRANSPORT
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the grain transportation authority which was set up by his predecessor. The minister will know that the Grain Transportation Authority has been without a director since the previous one resigned on October 15. Has he had a chance to consider a replacement? Is he in a position either to announce who will be replacing Dr. Horner, or to give us some kind of a timetable as to when we might look for a replacement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the institution is continuing; Treasury Board has approved the necessary money to continue it. Mr. Radke is acting co-ordinator on an interim basis, and I am looking for the pearl who should be placed in that job.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, if the minister's predecessor could not only negotiate guidelines for the transportation authority but name a director in five months, it would seem reasonable that the minister could find a replacement for him in five months.
I thank the minister for his reassurance that he is supporting the Grain Transportation Authority. Is he in a position to announce what type of goals the entire transportation system
Order Paper Questions
can be looking at in terms of increased exports? Very early on in his ministry, the previous minister announced that he would be looking at a 20 per cent increase, and I have not heard any announcement of any increases by this minister. Could he give us an idea as to what kind of increases we should be anticipating?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I look at the figures every day. Unloading in Thunder Bay and Vancouver on the west coast is up 4 per cent or 5 per cent over the previous year. This gives an indication of the success of the grain industry at this time.
I am not aware that the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board has indicated any percentage, but I will discuss it with him and I will bring that to the attention of the House.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, in answer to a question from one of the Conservative members, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) made reference to diplomatic notes. This was in the context of fisheries notes. What was omitted from his answer was that there may have been another diplomatic note.
While there are rumours about there being a diplomatic note from the government of the United States protesting the national energy policy, I wonder if the minister, in answer to my question of privilege, could clear up for members of the House whether he was referring to that other diplomatic note?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid this is not a question of privilege which can be raised at this time. If the hon. member has queries with respect to answers which have been given in the House, he can ask questions during subsequent question periods.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,844 and 1,981.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

March 9, 198!
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Will a post office be constructed at Haines Junction, Yukon and, if so, on what date will the project commence?
2.	Are there plans to construct a mail processing plant at the city of Whitehorse, Yukon and, if so, what is the status of such plans?
3.	Has the project to instal an energy retrofit system to the federal building at Whitehorse, Yukon been completed and, if not, on what date will the project be completed?
4.	(a) What is the rent paid for the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development situated at 307 Jarvis Street in the city of Whitehorse, Yukon (b) who is the landlord of the building (c) what is the salary being paid to the so-called ministerial assistant (d) what other staff is being hired and at what salary (e) what is the purpose in establishing such an office?
5.	Are other similar offices being set up in other constituencies where there is no Liberal Member of Parliament?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned: 1. No planning action is under way at this time for a post office to be constructed at Haines Junction, Yukon.
2.	No planning action is under way at this time for a mail processing plant at the city of Whitehorse, Yukon.
3.	Energy retrofit of the federal building in Whitehorse is an ongoing retrofit item which consists of a number of projects. Several of these projects were initiated and completed in 1979-80 and 1980-81 fiscal years under Public Works Canada minor works program and have resulted in a reduction in total energy consumption of approximately 9 per cent since 1977/ 78 and further reductions are anticipated in the present fiscal year.
4.	(a) $7,560 per year.
(b) Davos Holdings Limited.
In so far as the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is concerned:
(c)	Salary range $17,549-$20,321.
(d)	None.
(e)	The purpose of the office in Yukon is to provide a direct communication link to the minister's office in Ottawa, to allow Yukoners the same access to the Minister of IAND as is provided to other Canadians, to facilitate more consultation with Yukoners on matters that affect them and to expedite the early resolution of concerns that may develop in respect of DIAND responsibilities in the north.
5.	Yes, Yellowknife, N.W.T. and Calgary, Alberta.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g)
$80.00 to $89.99 per month (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (i) $100.00 to $ 124.99 per month (j) $ 125.00 to $ 149.99 per month (k) $ 150.00 to $ 199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $299.99 per month (m) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (n) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (o) $500.00 to $599.99 per month (p) $600.00 to $699.99 per month (q) $700.00 to $799.99 per month (r) $800.00 to $899.99 per month (s) $900.00 to $999.99 per month (t) $1,000.00 to $1,499.99 per month (u) $1,500.00 per month and over?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	250.
2.	747.
3. (a)	166	(k) 2,782	(b)	123	(1)	4,733(c)	256	(m)	633(d)	353	(n)	3,064(e)	280	(o)	2,429(0	329	(P)	1,907(g)	233	(q)	1,453(h)	281	(r)	1,141(i) 1	,239	(s)	817a)	866	(t) and (u)	1,828
In a number of cases, the amount of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by CN to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities respecting eligibility for which CN has made contributions payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under $25 a month, in 1980 there are 28 former international employees who receive U.S. railroad retirement or social security annuities in respect of CN service rendered in the United States. In addition, there are various pension agreements between CN and other companies, such as Canadian Pacific Limited and the Ontario Northland Railway, where each company issued separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CN is in this statement. Also, since the passing of the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the federal government on October 1, 1967, there are 120 employees who have terminated service with CN and are receiving rather small compulsory deferred pensions for service performed only from October 1, 1967. The balance of those receiving small pensions are employees who elected for early retirement-before age 65-with reduced basic pensions-$25-and employees who had very short service and very small contributions.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 9, 1981



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to protest publicly the American military intervention in support of the junta in El Salvador, and calls on the Prime Minister in his talks with the President of the United States to urge an end to this military involvement on the side of a regressive regime which denies civil rights and is fighting those who wish to establish a democratic government.
He said: Madam Speaker, today, just ahead of the visit of the President of the United States, we are involved in what could become one of the most significant political events of the new administration in the United States. The El Salvadorean situation has all the elements of intensifying not only the crisis within that country but, indeed, could go well beyond that and raise very serious difficulties in the modern world, not only in this hemisphere but everywhere on the planet.
In opening my comments, I want to say that I intend to spend a good part of my time talking about the actual situation in El Salvador, its recent history and its modern reality. For quite plausible reasons I think the people of Canada are not well informed about what is actually taking place in that unfortunate land to the south of us. In so doing, I would like to make it clear that my sources of information on what I am about to say are not, in the main, from Canadian sources, but rather are from American sources. They are from publications like Harpers magazine and The New York Times, from American church leaders as well as from Canadian and El Salvadorean church leaders, from Canadian trade unionists, and finally from a report prepared by the president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
What is a common characteristic of these groups or individuals? First, all of them have been known historically to oppose authoritarian regimes, whether they are regimes on the left or on the right. They are the people who, in the past, have not hesitated to condemn the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and, in the present circumstance, they are united in condemning American involvement in El Salvador. Just as they were right in the former case, they are certainly right, as I will argue, in the case of the Americans. What 1 want to stress is that all of these groups, whether church leaders or editors of important American publications, have on their side a distinguished commitment not only to liberty but to the pursuit of truth. Both characteristics are very important, as we will see in this debate on this important situation.
First, I want to say something about the nation of El Salvador. It is important for us to know that it is not only a small country geographically but that it is small in population, somewhere in the neighbourhood of five million people. It is also important for us to know that in that land some 2 per cent of the people own 60 per cent of the arable land. The peasants who make up the vast majority of the population own almost
El Salvador
none of the arable land. In terms of income distribution, 8 per cent of the population receives more than 50 per cent of the national income. In terms of employment opportunities, work, which gives dignity to the daily existence of most men and women, is almost unavailable on a continuing basis for most of the population. In fact, only some 16 per cent of the economically active population is employed throughout the year. For 1979 unemployment averaged 25 per cent. These are some of the crude statistics which describe the present reality of El Salvador.
The history of El Salvador which has led to the present political circumstance which we are debating today is that for nearly 100 years El Salvador has been economically and politically controlled by a handful of families which compose the oligarchy. These families are the owners of the best quality land, which in its production is dedicated not to meeting the needs of the people, in the main, but to serving export markets for coffee, cotton and sugar. This handful of land owners employs a peasant class which is subjected to what can only be described as highly exploitative conditions in terms of modern industrial, northern European and North American experience. Anyone who describes their circumstances in any other terms is misleading.
The traditional oligarchy held direct political power up until the early 1930s. In 1932, as a result of a peasant rebellion which resulted in some 30,000 deaths, the military dictatorship which has oppressed the people up until today was installed in power. Over the past 50 years military government has been followed by military government, serving the interests of the oligarchy, keeping the majority of people out of the political process and systematically blocking all moves in a democratic direction. I will have something more to say about that in light of the observations made by the present American ambassador to the United Nations.
After the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua just a few years ago it was clear that this experience would have far-reaching implications in the region, particularly for those struggling for democracy against tyrannical regimes. Nowhere was this more immediate or apparent than in El Salvador where, on October 15, 1979, a group of young military officers ousted the military dictator, General Carlos Romero. The formation of a civilian military government was announced, and hopes were immediately raised everywhere that the attainment of genuine democracy would not encounter the bitter and bloody resistance which had occurred in Nicaragua. This was particularly the case when a leading social democrat, Manuel Ungo, was nominated by 14 popular organizations to join the five-man ruling junta. Another social democrat, Hector Oqeli, was appointed deputy minister of foreign affairs.
Hopes that the promised, much needed reforms could be implemented were soon dashed. The security forces began new acts of terrorism. The stated objective of the new government had been the democratization of the country, including serious political and economic reforms. However, it soon became

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
evident to the people and the democratic civilian sectors of the government that powerful forces long established in El Salvador would remain opposed to these democratic goals. The rightist sectors of the army grew stronger and eventually displaced the democratically-oriented elements of the army which were in the junta. Once again, repression against the people and violation of human rights became commonplace in El Salvador. At the same time the oligarchy and its allies within and outside the government opposed and blocked, as 1 have said, all attempts at democratic reform. This included assassination of leaders of other political parties.
Then in January, 1980, almost all the civilian members of the government resigned. The hopes that the regime which came into existence just a year and a half earlier had awakened in the land were completely crushed. During the past year the junta, now consisting of only the most reactionary civilians and the military, has continued to exist only by means of military force. The junta has pretended that serious economic reform has taken place. In fact, the so-called reforms have been no more than cosmetic. Instead of genuine human reform, since its beginning in January of last year the current government has provided what has been characterized as "reform by death". That is to say, the fundamental objective of the regime has been the extermination of all opposition through indiscriminate repression and violence on an almost incredible scale.
Robert White, the former United States ambassador, said in an article which I read yesterday in The New York Times the following: "They have killed at a minimum 5,000 or 6,000 kids just on mere suspicion". This inhuman objective of eliminating in a vicious way all opposition was covered up by the so-called reformist agrarian proposals which have been, according to OXFAM and many other groups, a sham. This totally insubstantial land reform policy was matched by another alleged reform of the banking system which, in reality, has left the credit structure of the nation completely unchanged.
What have been the results of such action? They are pretty obvious. They are what one can expect at this point in the twentieth century with a regime of this character. With all peaceful means of change blocked by the military, the opposition parties and other organizations, including church groups, reached the conclusion that popular insurrection was the only means of obtaining freedom, genuine human rights and democracy for the people of El Salvador.
The United States once had a distinguished president by the name of Thomas Jefferson, and of all people in the world the people in the United States should understand that if an oligarchy controls a nation and tyrannical forces are in charge, the only alternative to such violence and tyranny organized by the state is violence in the hands of the people themselves. That is a regrettable truth, but a truth nonetheless.
The systematic and indiscriminate violence of the junta has continued, but to face this the Democratic Revolutionary Front was created. I want to say something about the front. The front was organized to co-ordinate the efforts of more than 40 organizations ranging from moderate priests and
professionals to social democrats, dissident Christian democrats and, yes, some Marxists. The leader of this movement is Manuel Ungo, now in exile in Mexico. Its program is not to set up an extremist, leftist state of an authoritarian kind; quite the contrary, its stated objective, reflecting its heterogeneous composition, is the creation of a political democracy with a mixed economy internationally non-aligned with any of the great powers. That surely is a commendable objective for an oppressed people.
At last count in El Salvador, at least 15,000 people have been killed, the majority victims of the armed forces and their semi-official death squads. There have been humane killings, although, of course, that is totally objectionable; but there have been indiscriminate killings on the part of the other side as well. That happens in a civil war. But there is no doubt at all as to what is the principal source and the principal agent of this conflict: it is the junta on the right. Mutilated corpses of the victims of the military regime remain in the streets of the capital. The most peaceful of people in the nation have been murdered. Monsignor Oscar Romero, archbishop of San Salvador, was gunned down right at the altar of his church last March because of his support for the legitimate aspirations of El Salvador's poor.
More recently, on October 4 the mutilated body of the spokeswoman for human rights, Maria Magdalena Henrigues, was found on the outskirts of San Salvador. One of the most gruesome incidents was the murder last May of more than 600 peasants by Salvadorean national guardsmen as the peasants attempted to flee across the border into Honduras.
The reality is that El Salvador is in a state of bloody civil war produced by a right-wing regime. This fact is obscured by the present United States government, which keeps portraying the present junta as representing moderation between the violent extremes of the left and right. The reality is quite different. The junta is part of the extreme right and is bereft of any popular support in the country. It lacks any shred of moral legitimacy and is thus inherently unstable. As William LeGrande and Carla Anne Robbins remarked in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs:
What Washington appears to be incapable of grasping is that in El Salvador, as in Nicaragua before it, the centrist forces which the United States perceives as its allies have joined with the very forces which the United States regards as its natural enemy-the radical left. The centrists are no longer in the centre .. . The recently unified left and centre left opposition includes everyone but the government and the far right.
That is the reality in El Salvador, whatever the current American state department would like everyone to believe. I regret to say that the people most zealously deploying the carefully contrived "moderate and reformist" image of the junta are supporters and advisers of the newly elected President of the United States, who announced in the presidential transition period that the Carter administration had been sponsoring social reform in El Salvador instead of "sticking to basics". As Alexander Cockburn in the current issue of Harpers magazine says, under these circumstances "-the basics are familiar enough: first find your dictator"-which is defined as firm leadership-"and then stick to him"-define
March 9, 1981

that as constancy to our allies-"however many people he kills."
Since President Reagan's election, military aid to the Salvadorean junta has been increasing on a regular basis. On March 3 it was reported that a total of 54 American military advisers had been sent to El Salvador and that $50 million in military aid has been pledged to the junta by the U.S. government. As a result of this military aid, including lethal weapons, the junta has been able to increase its capacity to kill peasants, dynamite organs of the Catholic church, and murder trade unionists. The military operations that the junta launches against the population, especially the rural population, have resulted in thousands of Salvadoreans abandoning their homes and becoming refugees. The churches have established seven refugee camps in the principal cities which house more than
3,000	displaced persons. In neighbouring countries, the number of refugees grows every day. In Honduras alone it is estimated there are more than 10,000 refugees. In Costa Rica there are 3,000. It has not been possible to calculate how many refugees are in Guatemala.
Instead of supporting such a regime, all democrats and certainly all democratic governments, including the Government of Canada, should join in their condemnation and mount pressure in the international community to bring peace and democracy to this troubled land.
Regrettably, and I mean that, because there has been a shift in U.S. policy, President Reagan's new policies extend well beyond El Salvador. The new American ambassador to the United Nations, Jean Kirkpatrick, recently explored a line of reasoning that has to disturb all of us. In the article entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards", she presents arguments of the following kind in support of right-wing authoritarianism. First, she wrote:
Traditional autocrats... do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people-
She also writes, justifying a preference for right-wing authoritarianism over left-wing authoritarianism, that:
Although there is no instance of a revolutionary 'socialist' or communist society being democratized, right-wing autocracies do sometimes evolve into democracies-given time-
Regrettably, history does not accord with the ambassador's academic simplifications. In reality, the opposite has been the history of right-wing regimes throughout Latin America, as she should well know. Somoza firmly ruled for more than 45 years. El Salvador has had more than 50 years of military rule, as 1 have just sketched in.
What characterized these regimes and similar ones throughout Latin America is not a movement, as she suggests, toward democracy, but the systematic repression of all the ordinary people and civil libertarian forces in those countries that wanted to create democracy. That has been the real history, whatever the ambassador might say. The only equivalent to the new American apologetics for right-wing regimes in Latin
El Salvador
America is the kind of double-think attacks one finds now in Pravda on the solidarity movement in Poland. They are fully equivalent.
Those of us who believe in democracy must not get into the shallow game of "preferring" left-wing or right-wing repression. Repression is repression is repression, and I am disturbed that the new administration in the United States is about to wage a propagandistic battle in support of foreign policy steps designed to prop up, in a material way, right-wing regimes. The United States moves in support of the junta in El Salvador seem to me to be illustrations of a new, over-all foreign policy which completely abandons President Carter's commendable, if at times flawed, commitment to human rights.
A report in yesterday's New York Times is illustrative of this new direction in American foreign policy. The lead paragraph, not of an editorial but of a news item on about page 6, reads as follows:
The Reagan administration is moving rapidly to improve relations with South America's right-wing military regimes through invitations to military leaders from Chile, Brazil, and, in a few days, Argentina, for talks here.
What has Robert E. White, former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, said about military support for such right-wing regimes? He said this:
To the extent that you emphasize a military solution in El Salvador, you are going to be buttressing one of the most out-of-control, violent, bloodthirsty groups of men in the world.
He warns that this kind of action is precisely the kind which will foster left-wing authoritarianism. He describes this new direction of the Reagan administration as a "disaster". Mr. White, the former U.S. ambassador in El Salvador, is right. We must do everything we can and so must the free world, to help the people of El Salvador; not prop up those who tyrannize them.
I want to turn immediately to the position of the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief. I could quote at considerable length the vacillating positions taken by the Government of Canada on this very important moral and practical issue of foreign policy. All I will say, however, is that the government has moved from acquiescence, on the one hand, to mild disapproval, on the other.
I should like to say on behalf of my colleagues that surely it is time for the Government of Canada to send a clear public message to the new administration in the United States which would consist of the following points. First, there should be no outside military intervention on the part of anyone in the terrible civil war that is going on in El Salvador. It should be left to the people in that troubled land to settle their own fate. Second, particularly the United States, as the world's first mass democracy, must not militarily prop up vicious regimes like that which operates in El Salvador. Finally, in a constructive mood, instead of acquiescing or being mildly critical, Canada should offer its services to join with other non-major powers like Mexico to play a mediating role in helping to bring both peace and democracy to El Salvador.
It is time to get off the fence. It is time to take some initiative to bring peace to this troubled land.

March 9, 1981
El Salvador


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, indeed for months, our nightly newscasts and our newspapers have been filled with reports of the fighting, the brutality and the fear that characterizes El Salvador. A year ago, outsiders paid but little heed to this tiny Central American country. There were few who discussed it but many do so today, for today the world knows that El Salvador is a country in distress. It is a country whose people are locked into a class war, the great majority of whom are struggling for that kind of life which will offer them the opportunity for dignity and for hope. It is a country where fewer than 2 per cent of the population own more than half of the arable land, a country where the great bulk of the population live in abject poverty, their annual income a mere $600. It is a country which, as we know from history, has time and again expressed its desire for a democratic government, only to have those desires frustrated when elections were either disregarded or aborted.
These factors ought to remind us that El Salvador is not simply a pawn in the context of the United States and the Soviet Union. It reflects the problems of Third World countries, where people are seeking the twin objectives of economic development and political stability. As such, El Salvador should remind us that we are looking not just at a small country, but at an entire region of potential instability which could encompass not only Central America but the whole of the Caribbean.
All this makes more extraordinary the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). In response to a question I posed to him last Tuesday, as recorded at page 7767 of Hansard, he said:
-I am not aware that we have any serious obligations in that part of the world, in Central America, which is not an area of traditional Canadian interest.
I would say to you, sir, that of course we have in that part of the world interests which are historic, geographic, economic and indeed moral. It is typical of this government to take such a narrow view of foreign policy. It leads to a failure to distinguish and analyse the consequences for Canada of situations like that in El Salvador. We ought to know by now that there are direct consequences for us. We need only recollect the human tragedy and the great difficulty caused by the flow of refugees from southeast Asia and the need for collective action to provide humanitarian relief to them.
Was southeast Asia also an area in which Canada had no interest? We have all the elements in El Salvador of a situation which could well produce a stream of refugees. It is estimated that already 60,000 people have fled that country to seek refuge in neighbouring states. I will be interested to see how the Secretary of State for External Affairs responds in the eventuality that an increasing number of El Salvadoreans become political refugees looking to countries such as Canada for assistance.
Then there is a broader sense in which Canada cannot remain indifferent to conflict in the western hemisphere. It has the potential to widen the rift between the United States and our European allies. It is clear, for example, that in the present situation West Germany is strongly opposed to the United States policy of injecting more arms into the conflict. I ask the minister, does the Canadian government have no interest in the potential that exists, as Vietnam did, to divide the alliance? It is obvious that we have both an interest and an obligation to explore any and all ways in which we can exercise a restraining influence, contrary to what the minister says.
I am already well on record as being opposed to military intervention by the United States in El Salvador or by any other power. The people of El Salvador are looking for a political solution to their problems, not a military one. Even members of the government of that country have said that there is already enough military equipment at the disposal of the junta. It is wrong for the United States to treat the problem as if it were solely in the context of East-West relations or to overdramatize the Soviet threat in El Salvador. There can be no doubt that some of its citizens are terrorists and insurgents and communist sympathizers, but their numbers are relatively few and their military might weak. We have only to look at the results of their recent military campaigns to see their very weakness.
We should also remember that there are extremists on the right who bear the responsibility for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths and for human rights abuses. The present government, which lacks a popular basis of support and is becoming increasingly the captive of the right, had initially put into effect some social and economic reforms, but tragically all of these are now being held in abeyance. What is important for us to realize is that the great majority of the people in El Salvador lie between the extremes of right and left. Motivated to improve their conditions, they have found a response to their efforts in the support and encouragement they have received from church groups of all denominations, particularly Catholic bishops, and from non-governmental organizations from many countries.
The majority of the population in El Salvador is not looking for arms but for aid to reach its objectives. The great fear I have is that if additional military equipment and force of arms are used against them by a government which lacks credibility, they could be pushed further and further to extremes. The civil war could escalate rapidly if the right and the left factions were further armed one against the other. In that case, the strength of the large majority of people would be lost and that, above all, is what we must seek to avoid.
The government should make it plain that it believes the United States should do nothing to aggravate the situation, and neither should any other country. Until a short time ago, I would have thought the Liberal government more or less shared these views, even though the Secretary of State for External Affairs had indicated his unwillingness, as he put it, "to lead a public crusade" against United States military involvement in El Salvador.
March 9, 1981

Earlier statements and actions had indicated, so I thought, Canada's strong backing for non-interference. For example, a joint communique of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Brazilian foreign minister on October 1, 1980, stated:
The two ministers exchanged views about the current situation in Latin America and the Caribbean . . . They expressed the hope that the countries concerned would be able to overcome their difficulties without foreign interference and in accordance with the wishes of their peoples.
Again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will recall meeting with the Mexican foreign minister. They issued a communique on January 9, 1981 which stated:
The two foreign ministers ... expressed the hope that the existing conflicts in Central America will be resolved by means of the free expression of the will of the respective peoples and without foreign interference.
I would draw the minister's attention once more to the vote taken on the resolution at the United Nations on December 15, 1980, a resolution for which Canada voted. That resolution reads:
Considering that the supply of arms and other military assistance will serve to aggravate the situation in that country, the General Assembly calls upon governments to refrain from the supply of arms and other military assistance in the current circumstances.
What we voted for at the United Nations was "to refrain from the supply of arms and other military assistance in the current circumstances". What, then, are we to make of the comment by the minister, after consultation with officials of the Reagan administration-a comment he has refused to deny-that:
I would certainly not condemn any decision the United States takes to send offensive arms ... the United States can count on our quiet acquiescence-
Or quiescence, as he later corrected. His previous so-called commitment to non-intervention makes all the more appalling the minister's declaration on February 4. I find it very difficult to understand, in light of the previous statements by the minister when he met with foreign ministers from Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico and when he instructed the delegation at the United Nations to vote for non-interference, that he would make the statement he did on February 4, that he would not condemn any decision the United States takes to send weapons to El Salvador. I believe that is wrong, as I believe it is wrong for any nation to send arms to El Salvador.
Not only does it repudiate Canada's approach at the United Nations, not only does it repudiate the expressed views of the Canadian government taken jointly with the governments of Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs' attitude of quiet acquiescence demonstrates that he is incapable of making independent judgments, based on Canada's interest, when faced by American foreign policy-makers.
A foreign minister must be able to distinguish between requests for solidarity that are inevitable and those that are unnecessary. As Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time, 1 sought to lend full support to the Carter administration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I was
El Salvador
convinced that we ought to condemn that invasion. In fact, although the government of which 1 was a part was much criticized by the official opposition in Ottawa at that time, we sought positive ways in which to communicate to the Soviets our determined opposition to their behaviour. That behaviour threatened detente and made a general conflict more likely, and I would say that in the case of Poland we have a similar need to impress on the Soviets our unshakeable opposition to any military intervention. 1 wish the minister would be stronger in his statements to this effect.
But a foreign minister must be able to distinguish between Afghanistan and El Salvador. Nothing that has been said here this afternoon removes the minister's statement of February 4 from the record, or explains his failure to address the underlying issues.
What can Canada do? I ask that because 1 think it is important that we not merely raise criticisms but that we try to offer constructive suggestions to help resolve the increasing conflict in El Salvador. In the short term, it may be possible for this country to contribute to the improvement of the situation by engaging in extensive consultation with El Salvador's neighbouring states to obtain their views on the present situation, and to determine whether there is the possibility of an international role to insulate El Salvador from external interference.
Second, the Canadian government should explore the possibility of international action through the United Nations or another appropriate international body. The purpose would be to establish the degree of outside intervention in El Salvador and to monitor the situation while the conflict continues. Such an international body could have a stabilizing effect and be the start of a process leading to a political settlement not only in that troubled country, but in that very troubled part of the world. In exploring this possibility, we might be able to associate ourselves with such countries as Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and West Germany, all of which have been willing to provide good offices to help stabilize the situation.
These are the short-run possibilities. In the long run what we must realize is that these conflicts will never be resolved as long as the underlying causes are ignored. It is senseless for the government, through the minister, to say that we have no interest in El Salvador while, on the other hand, it prides itself on promoting the North-South dialogue. Until we are willing to treat the basic issues of health, nutrition, housing, education and employment, we will continue to be faced with the tensions that today beset El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America.
There is a strong case for increasing Canadian aid both to Central America and to the Caribbean since these are areas which will most affect us if they are to become more and more a region of conflict and instability. One of my major interests as minister was to focus the attention of my department on the Caribbean and Central America, an interest the present minister does not appear to share.
For these reasons, I would like to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) convey to President Reagan our disappoint-

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
ment that the United States does not intend to place a high priority on foreign aid and the North-South dialogue. He should assure the President that Canada is willing to play its part and more, but that we look for greater commitment and leadership on this critical issue from the United States, which is, after all, the wealthiest and most powerful state.
In all of this we should remember that the people of El Salvador have an absolute right to determine their own future without foreign intervention. Our task is to help create the circumstances in which the parties in El Salvador can continue their own negotiations. What we can hope for in that process is for a government that will represent the will of the people of El Salvador.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem with the motion before the House today is that its drafters are people with an obsession with black and white, and a permanent feature of their obsession is obviously that black is always to be presumptively deemed the colour of the American side and white that of the fighting left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You didn't listen to my speech.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am speaking about the motion. The hon. gentleman may have tried in his speech to disguise the heart of his motion, but his motion is in exactly the terms I am describing. In my view, a debate conducted on the premises of today's motion would be more suitable for a high school auditorium than for this distinguished chamber.
The motion identifies the government of El Salvador as a repressive regime "fighting those who wish to establish a democratic government". Opinions may perhaps differ as to the character of the regime but not as to the character and motivations of those fighting against it. As Robert E. White, the former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, quoted fulsomely by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), said in a colloquy, sponsored by members of the Congress for Peace Through Law on February 26, which was printed by the New York Times yesterday:
The ultimate enemy of western civilization and of the U.S. in El Salvador is a Marxist-Leninist group dedicated to the overthrow of the government by force, and the elimination of all U.S. influence from that region.
Another participant in the colloquium put it this way:
Even though the political leaders of the left, like Guillermo Ungo, have impeccable democratic credentials, the men with the guns-according to Mr. White-are committed Marxist-Leninists.
According to the simplistic pieties of this motion, however, the men with the guns are "those who wish to establish a democratic government".
It would appear that the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not wish to condemn the use of these guns or the supply of such guns to the revolutionary forces in El Salvador which were being supplied months before the United States began to supply arms there. On the contrary, he seems to condone it or perhaps even commend it because he argued in
the House on March 2 that the left-wing forces are somehow morally justified in military action against the government of El Salvador.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is bad enough to listen to the banalities of the minister, but I wish he would stick to the truth. I said categorically in my statements-and I want the minister to reply to this and abandon the text written for him and respond to the debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order he should state it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said, as I was coming back to the chamber after checking one of his other inaccuracies, that I was giving support to one side in terms of military intervention. The minister nods indicating that is what I said. If he had listened to my speech he would know I said categorically that all people outside should stay out on both sides.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. gentleman takes that position today but he implied something else in the House on March 2, and that is what I was quoting.
We have our differences with the United States on El Salvador and we are prepared to express them, but our differences are not over rejecting the violence, whether from the Marxist-Leninist left or from the extreme right, or over halting the importation of huge quantities of arms from Cuba and other communist countries through Nicaragua into El Salvador. Our differences are principally with respect to the provision of American military assistance to the government of El Salvador, which we believe is neither desirable nor necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am obviously getting to those hon. members, Mr. Speaker. They obviously do not like hearing the truth.
We have expressed our disagreement with the American government on this point both privately and publicly, but we believe in doing so in terms which are appropriate to the cause and not wildly inflated because of some paranoia of the left. President Reagan has insisted that sending American troops to El Salvador is "not in our reckoning at all". Secretary of State Haig has warned right-wing extremists in El Salvador that a rightist coup would have serious consequences to the continuation of U.S. aid.
In light of the full circumstances, therefore, as we see them, we are prepared to contest the U.S. policy of military aid but not to protest it; we are prepared to pronounce on it but not to denounce it; we are prepared to criticize it but not to condemn it. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said, one must distinguish between El Salvador and Afghanistan. It is unfortunate she was unable to make that distinction and would denounce this action of the U.S. in terms of the kind which she and others used to describe Soviet
March 9, 1981

action in Afghanistan. In other words, we believe in seeing the situation in El Salvador as it is and also in describing it as it is, not as idees fixes might describe it.
In turning to a fuller exposition of the position of the Canadian government, it might be useful if I were first to provide the government's perspective of the nature of change affecting Central America as a whole and the extent of Canada's ties, capabilities, and interests with this part of the world before dealing with El Salvador in detail.
The countries of Central America are undergoing a difficult process of change from traditional regimes to new species of political, social and economic organizations. In certain states change is being accompanied by increasing violence and instability.
It is interesting that those over there on the left suggest I should not lecture them. We have just been subjected to another lecture from that side, so why should we not have our say over here?
Economically, the impact of external influences, in particular oil price rises, increased costs for other imports, fluctuating prices for principal export commodities and the reduction in economic activity in industrialized countries have slowed economic growth throughout Central America in recent years. Internal political and security problems are now affecting economic performance. In Costa Rica, the only state in the region with a long-standing tradition of democracy, the rising costs of social services have led to severe fiscal constraints. The governments of other Central American states, dominated by right-wing military dictators throughout most of their history, neglected the social sector until recently and have not had to face the same economic problem.
These states are now paying dearly for this neglect. Unresolved social problems are at the heart of pressures for political change and constitute the single most important cause of regional instability. It is no coincidence that the highest levels of instability in Latin America are to be found in Central America where general standards of health care, nutrition and literacy are among the lowest in the hemisphere. It is likewise no coincidence that hemispheric instability is centred in the region which has the highest rate of population growth in Latin America, with a population expected to grow from its present level of 20 million to 40 million by the year 2000.
While conditions differ among states, unequal income distribution, high rates of population growth, unemployment and unresolved agrarian problems are the most serious socioeconomic problems throughout Central America. The income distribution problem is probably the most important. Gulfs between "haves" and "have nots" have widened in recent years as the increase in wealth derived from growing national economies has not been passed on to the populations who have suffered losses in real income through inflation. The problem in Central America is one of growing expectations as populations seek to obtain a larger share of the benefits of economic growth.
El Salvador
This lack of government attention to basic human needs has in large part generated the internal pressures for change in El Salvador and Guatemala and was the major stimulus behind the overthrow of the Somoza government. Attention to the social needs of populations in Honduras and in Panama has led to greater stability in these states.
Politically, as recently as two years ago, all states of the area except Costa Rica were governed by military dictatorships allied to conservative oligarchies. Since that time dramatic changes have occurred in those states which formerly opposed even moderate change. In Nicaragua, popular discontent developed into a struggle led by the Sandinistas supported from abroad and resulted in the downfall of Somoza.
Turning to human rights, with some exceptions a tradition of respect for human rights, whether political, social or economic, has never existed in Central America. On the contrary, political violence, both in support of the traditional power structure and perpetuated against its representatives, has been a constant of regional political life for decades.
New leaders are emerging in both the military and economic establishments of all countries who recognize the need to modernize societies, to steer their states through a period of complex transition and to effect social and political justice. They are opposed by representatives of the traditional power structure and are often victims of right and left-wing extremists-from the former, the right-wing extremists, for betraying their origins, and from the latter, the left-wing extremists, for threatening to remove the basis for revolutionary change. In both El Salvador and Guatemala, the actions of both left and right have eliminated many leading moderates. In Nicaragua, gross violations of human rights did not occur following the overthrow of Somoza but limitations have been placed on press freedoms and elections have been postponed until 1985.
What is the nature of Canada's involvement in the region in these circumstances? Central America, unlike the neighbouring Commonwealth Caribbean, has not been the focus of traditional Canadian interest and bilateral political contacts have been infrequent. Canadians have had little in common with the ruling oligarchies and have regarded with repugnance the violence and widespread violations of human rights which have characterized the Central American political scene.
Commercial and economic development ties have been and will remain of some importance. Economically, Canadian investment in Central America is of significance, totalling about $300 million for the region. However, over $250 million of this investment is concentrated in one industry, nickel extraction, and in one country, Guatemala. Investors are now being discouraged by political uncertainty. Central America also constitutes an important market for Canadian businessmen, with annual exports totalling over $100 million, much of which is labour-intensive manufactured goods.
In development assistance terms, despite the absence of close political ties, Canada has recognized the pressing needs of the region and has been a leading aid donor in Central

March 9, i 98 i
El Salvador
America, providing more than $60 million in bilateral aid since 1972. In terms of concentration, Honduras and El Salvador, as the poorest of the area, have received the largest portion of the funding.
El Salvador and Honduras are program countries. Guatemala is a project country, and Costa Rica and Nicaragua are eligible for mission administered funds only. Cabinet has agreed that Nicaragua will become a project country effective April of this year. At the present time, the assistance to Guatemala which started in the wake of the 1976 earthquake is being allowed to run out, given the growing levels of violence in that country, and planning for new projects has been suspended in El Salvador as a consequence of the civil war.
What does this mean in terms of Canadian policy toward the area? In contrast to the neighbouring Commonwealth Caribbean, where Canada has long been regarded as a major outside power, Canada has no special expertise or capability in Central American affairs and is not as well placed as regional states, such as Venezuela or Mexico, to exert a positive influence on the evolution of the area. Canada's interests, while important and growing, are likewise not of the same order of importance as our interests elsewhere in Latin America, such as in Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil. While naturally sharing the concern of the international community, we therefore have no more obligation than other states in taking a leading role in resolving the conflict.
Turning now to deal specifically with El Salvador, Canada has never had major bilateral ties with that country; and has no resident ambassador there. However, in recent years we have been involved in providing development assistance in recognition of the pressing economic needs of its population.
The basic problems of El Salvador, which has the highest population density and the lowest per capita income of any country in Central America, relate to the critical need of the people of that country for opportunities of economic development and social justice which have been denied them for many decades by a series of authoritarian governments.
Canada, like many other countries, welcomed the overthrow of the dictatorial regime of general Carlos Romero in 1979 and its replacement by the government of progressive civilian and military leaders. This government adopted a number of social and economic measures which it believed would bring about needed social reforms. For example, it nationalized the banks and foreign trade. It also took initial steps to introduce a much needed land reform and adopted other measures in an attempt to provide a government which would be more attentive to the political, social and economic needs and aspirations of the population.
The new civilian-military junta was not very successful in accomplishing its worth-while objectives. It encountered increasing opposition from extremist right-wing elements both within the government security forces and outside the government, often financed by expatriate supporters of the previous regime who objected to the reform program, and also from left-wing forces who felt either that the reform movement was
not moving forward fast enough or who saw it as diminishing their own political influence. During the course of 1980 both these right-wing and left-wing opponents of the civilian-military junta government resorted to increasing intimidation and attacks on the government. They perpetrated an escalating number of murders, assassinations, tortures and other atrocities which have shocked the conscience of the world.
In December, 1980 the civilian-military junta underwent an internal reorganization designed to enable it to proceed more successfully with its political and social objectives and Mr. Jose Napoleon Duarte, a respected Christian democrat, was made president. In 1972, in one of the few honest elections in El Salvador, Mr. Duarte emerged as victor but was prevented from taking power by a military coup. He is widely believed to be the best person to lead a reformist government at the present time. President Duarte has pledged to turn over 40 per cent of the land to small land owners, to proceed with other social reforms, to hold free elections in 1982-three years earlier, I might add, than the leftist regime in Nicaragua-and to grant an amnesty to left-wing guerrillas. President Duarte's government has dismissed a number of military officers accused of human rights abuses and has very recently ordered the arrest of a notorious right-wing retired major who has alledgedly been advocating a right-wing military coup. Unfortunately President Duarte's government has experienced the same attacks from the left and the right, with the result that the human tragedy and loss of lives in El Salvador continues unabated.
When considering the current situation in El Salvador, it is important to put developments into the historical context which I previously outlined and to remember that, despite its failings and weaknesses, it is still the legal government of El Salvador and is recognized as such in the United Nations by Canada and by all other governments. While there are conflicting views held about the ability of the Duarte government to achieve its objectives of political, social and economic reform, we consider, as do many other governments in western Europe and in Latin America, that in the present circumstances it may nevertheless still be the most feasible channel through which the people of El Salvador can achieve democratic solutions to their political, economic and social problems if its extremist opponents on the left and the right can be brought under control.
The consistent position of the Government of Canada has been to deplore the senseless violence in El Salvador and to urge that the people of El Salvador be allowed to settle their political and economic difficulties peacefully and democratically without outside interference. These sentiments were shared by other governments and were endorsed in the communiques I mentioned in the House on March 2, which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has paid me the courtesy of reading this afternoon. That is exactly our policy.
In late 1980 and early 1981, the level of violence in El Salvador continued to escalate and the revolutionary forces mounted increasingly concentrated armed attacks on the government with the apparent intention of overthrowing it by
March 9, 1981

armed force. Prior to this time the government of the United States had supplied the government of El Salvador with a modest amount of non-lethal military equipment, such as communications equipment, uniforms, etc. However, when it became apparent that the revolutionary forces had obtained substantial quantities of arms, many of them of a sophisticated nature, and were bent on the overthrow of the legitimate government, the outgoing Carter administration authorized the supply of lethal military equipment to enable the government of El Salvador to deal with the threat to overthrow it.
On January 26, 1981, I met in Ottawa with two representatives of the revolutionary side who told me that their arms were acquired by purchase on the international arms black market with funds which had been acquired by bank robberies and kidnapping of businessmen and foreign diplomats, including the ambassador of South Africa who was subsequently murdered by his captors. In this context it is worth noting that these revolutionary forces have been responsible for 28 assaults on foreign embassies in the last two years, as well as armed attacks on the Salvadorian foreign ministry and other government buildings. The Swiss charge d'affaires was killed in 1979; the French ambassador was kidnapped within hours of his arrival in San Salvador and was held for 30 days; the Costa Rican embassy has been occupied three times in the past year and a half. The record and conduct of extremist right-wing elements, both within and without the government security forces, is equally bad. They are believed to be responsible for the assassination of Archbishop Romero, just a year ago this month, and the brutal murders of priests, Salvadorian politicians and American churchwomen.
Subsequently the United States government published a white paper on February 23, 1981 indicating that the United States had obtained incontrovertible evidence that massive amounts of weapons and military equipment of western origin, presumably to disguise their source-some of which have been specifically identified as being U.S. weapons left behind in Vietnam-had been provided to the revolutionary forces in El Salvador by a number of socialist bloc countries and funnelled through Nicaragua, with the apparent co-operation of some officials of the Nicaraguan government. We have no reason to doubt this evidence, which is also accepted as valid by many other governments.


Pauline Jewett: And no reason to accept it, either.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The current political and military situation in El Salvador is obviously highly fluid and we are not in a position to make assessments on the basis of first-hand information. However, our policy is not confused. On the contrary, it has been clear, concise and consistent. Throughout this period it has been the Canadian government's policy not to supply arms to either side in El Salvador or to any other country in Central America. I might say that there was a grievous error recently in the Toronto Globe and Mail in which it stated to the contrary. The information was obtained as a result of a reporter reading the wrong column in a series
El Salvador
of statistics, but the newspaper has never bothered to correct the record. The policy has thus been consistently implemented, and press reports to the contrary are quite inaccurate.
We do not believe that the problems of El Salvador can be resolved by military measures. We urge all other governments to follow the same policy and refrain from supplying offensive weapons, the use of which only causes increased violence and suffering for the people of El Salvador. We strongly support the traditional principle of international law, which is one of opposition to any interference from the outside in another country's domestic affairs.
We also believe that the problems of El Salvador can be solved only through political discussion and negotiation by the Salvadorian parties directly concerned. 1 explained this to the representatives of the revolutionary forces when 1 met with them in January. I also explained it to Secretary Haig in Washington. I have explained it to the House, and I have explained it many times to the Canadian news media. It will serve no useful purpose to engage in public denunciations. 1 can assure the House that we will continue to make our views in this regard known in bilateral contacts with the United States and in the appropriate multilateral fora, as we have done in the past, as and when appropriate.
We fully share the sentiments of hon. members with respect to the killings, atrocities and abuses of human rights in El Salvador and, like all Canadians, we deplore them. Bilaterally, we have made frequent representations to the government of El Salvador. Multilaterally, we have been among the most active of all states in fora such as the OAS and the United Nations in seeking to mobilize international opinion in favour of a greater respect for human rights in the Salvadorian conflict. During the current session of the UN Human Rights Commission we are actively working for a constructive resolution which will call for a restoration of respect for human rights and an end to all arms supplies to all parties in El Salvador.
As for the future, we believe that there is an urgent need for a political settlement which will enable the moderate democratic elements in the government of El Salvador and in the revolutionary forces to coalesce. Canada welcomes the first signs of a willingness to negotiate on the part of the government. The president of El Salvador, Mr. Duarte, has recently indicated that his government is prepared to have a dialogue with the revolutionary forces, and it is now up to those forces to respond. We have no illusions that the process will be easy, since the more extreme elements on both sides will resist making the concessions necessary for a lasting solution. In the interim, the revolutionary forces should cease undermining the efforts of the government to introduce its reform package, and both sides should take immediate steps to stamp out mindless violence.
Having made those points, it should be remembered that historically Canada has not had strong or important links with El Salvador. It is a country near our part of the world but hardly a neighbour. However, the human tragedy of El Salvador has engaged the attention of all countries.

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
In this situation, what are our responsibilities? The first is to try to inform ourselves so that when we discuss these issues we at least do so knowledgeably. Even this is not easy. Much of our information is indirect and partial. It is refracted through the prisms of particular points of view before it reaches us. Views conflict and there is even conflict about matters of fact.
In the circumstances, the views of countries near El Salvador or with more important interests in El Salvador than Canada are more important to us. We note that some of these countries, whose views we respect, have taken a stand close to our own. There has yet been no initiative to refer the situation in El Salvador to the United Nations, nor is it being dealt with in the OAS. A number of countries have said, as we have, that the flow of arms from whatever source should cease, and that political and economic solutions to El Salvador's problems should be sought. But no government-not Mexico, Venezuela or the Federal Republic of Germany-contrary to the words of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, has yet gone beyond this to launch a political initiative in order to bring an end to the internal strife with the aid of some outside mediator. Therefore, it hardly seems prudent for Canada to put itself in such a role, if that is what the opposition is advocating.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Indeed, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, in her capacity as secretary of state for external affairs, came to the same conclusion concerning Nicaragua as I have with respect to El Salvador.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, indeed I did not. We sent aid.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I recall her words on the radio program "As It Happens" on July 6, 1979:
-we are not in a position to carry out any special relations with Nicaragua ... I am not advocating that Canada jump in with any kind of a force or with any kind of a heavy hand to try to straighten out an internal, very difficult problem in Nicaragua, nor would I either in Nicaragua or in other countries.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I certainly was not advocating force.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In short, we have no more responsibility in the matter than any other sovereign state and, in practice, a good deal less knowledge and standing in relation to the problems of El Salvador than a number of other countries. Any sensible Canadian policy has to take these limitations into account. Sheer outpourings of moral indignation are not much help. They may ease the conscience but they do not advance the solution.
I think it is clear that there is no substantial ground whatsoever for this House to support this motion. I urge members to see the motion for what it is, namely, a calculated attempt to create tension between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States which will not add one iota of practical assistance to the real sufferers in this issue, namely, the people of El Salvador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate as a friend of the United States and, more important, as a friend of the millions upon millions of people throughout the world today whose economic and social rights are being grossly violated. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) will not accuse me of moral outpourings of rage when I add to the words already spoken on the floor this afternoon about the real human tragedy that is at the heart of this motion.
I said I was a friend of the United States. I lived in the United States, Mr. Speaker, for ten years; indeed, three of my children were born in that country. I have travelled extensively through it and I feel that I have had the opportunity of understanding a great people. It is precisely because of that understanding and that friendship that I have for the United States that I am so opposed to continued American military involvement in El Salvador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: But I say to the movers of the motion that it is a defective motion since it merely addresses itself to the question of the United States abstaining from or getting out of military involvement in El Salvador. It does not go on to make positive statements or recommendations, or even express a positive idea of what should be done in El Salvador in order to speak to the reasons why the Americans feel that they must prop up a regime for which the real contempt of this House should be expressed. I hope that in the few moments I have I will indicate a much more positive role for the United States to play in El Salvador and in that larger community of interest, the developing countries today, where 800 million people are grievously suffering from a lack of basic human needs.
El Salvador has suddenly been catapulted into international prominence. Do hon. members think the picture I have in my hand, which illustrates an article in the New York Times Sunday magazine entitled "The Agony of El Salvador", in which the corpses of two women are shown with their hands tied behind their backs, is the work of people who care about the suffering inside El Salvador? The residue of the famous 14 families of El Salvador has become its wealthy landowners. Listen to the New York Times description of this country:
And some 60 per cent of El Salvador's population is rural-
We already know there are five million people in that country, which is smaller in size than Vancouver Island.
-living in isolated valleys or mountain hamlets. Wooden-yoked oxen draw carts that ride on solid wooden wheels. Hundreds of thousands of peasants live in hovels made of packed mud; naked children with swollen bellies and open sores wander among the grunting pigs, garbage and flies. Their mothers and sisters trudge for an hour or more to the nearest well for water, carried in gourd-shaped plastic containers balanced on their heads.
A distinguished Canadian journalist, Hugh McCullum, the editor of the United Church Observer, went to El Salvador. After recounting the statistics of low caloric intake, high infant mortality and high percentages of malnutrition and illiteracy, Mr. McCullum says this:
March 9, 1981

The pattern is brutal exploitation, in which wealthy landowners have branched into industry and banking, even though they have now left the country with their profits, while the soldiers and police are used to ensure a steady supply of land, and a cheap and docile labour force.
That is at the heart of the situation in El Salvador and has led to a radicalization of the poor. When they became radicalized and aggressive, it was too much for the regime known as the juntas. It claims to have some validity since Duarte himself was elected in 1972. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the regime, it has had to react against this gradual coming together of the poor, who are helped by some of their own leaders. They rebel against 2 per cent of the people of the country owning 60 per cent of the land and against the conditions of misery into which their children are born.
The internal reforms which have been brought to El Salvador by the Duarte regime have clearly not lasted because they were not undertaken with conviction. The attempt to nationalize the banks and the sugar cane industry has fizzled out. Some people in El Salvador have been helped to improve themselves, but the reform never became a sign of hope to the people in El Salvador because it was immediately met by a wave of repression, goon squads employed by the wealthy and a paramilitary organization of the government.
Do hon. members think that it was the landless people who live in misery who shot Archbishop Romero while he was saying mass in his own cathedral in San Salvador, or who murdered nine priests, or who brutally slayed four American missionaries? Those killings can be laid at the door of the extreme right, the fanatics who want to stop any social reform which would benefit the wide masses of the people in El Salvador.
The Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops has undertaken an in-depth survey and study of El Salvador, and I quote two major findings:
The vast majority of the victims of repression come from the poorer sectors, and proof can be established that they were murdered either by extreme right commandos or by the military;-
That is the first of the major findings. The second is this:
The junta systematically persecutes all progressive organizations claiming to do so in order to protect its centrist position against the extreme left. Yet, it does nothing to stop the actions of the paramilitary extreme right, let alone uncovering the real leaders behind them.
Along comes Ambassador White, relieved of his ambassadorial post representing the United States in El Salvador by the new Reagan administration, who says the policy of the American government to use military intervention to shore up this regime which is largely responsible for a wave of killings-which now total 13,194 over the past couple of years-is a policy of madness. Moreover, he says that these so-called leftist forces are only about 2,000, that there is not the slightest possibility that they could upset the ruling government and, in fact, that the ruling government had this situation well in hand.
Why, then, do we see the new American government pouring funds into, and augmenting its military advisers-now up to about 50-in a country in which there is no real threat that the government will be overthrown? Of course, we know that
El Salvador
the reason is to stop communist advance in Central America. I applaud a stopping of the communist advance anywhere in the world, but to try to stop the communist advance by loading the problem on to the backs and shoulders of the poor in El Salvador is not the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Ambassador White said during his debate with Ambassador Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, which took place last week:
The important thing to realize is that this present government stopped the leftists cold, without receiving one rifle from the United States. Now is not the time to emphasize military assistance. Now is the time-when the leftists have been defeated-to emphasize a political solution.
To the extent that you emphasize a military solution in El Salvador, you are going to be buttressing one of the most out-of-control, violent, bloodthirsty groups of men in the world. They have killed-at a minimum-5,000 or 6,000 kids, just on the mere suspicion that they were involved with the leftists.
Archbishop Hickey, testifying before a House subcommittee last week and speaking for the American Catholic bishops as well as from his own experience in El Salvador, said that the situation there "is not principally a matter of guns, but of justice." He said that American bishops oppose military aid to El Salvador and find it "particularly ominous" that military advisers are being sent. He also said:
It is risky to the point of being reckless. It confirms the worst suspicions of Latin Americans that we are preparing for an invasion of El Salvador.
Again, referring to Pope John Paul's comments in the Philippines about human rights for workers in the course of his most recent journey, Archbishop Hickey said:
I can assure you that if some of those things that were said by the Holy Father were said in El Salvador by the simple catechists, by the local parish priests, that person would be in danger of his life.
In the issue of March 2, The Christian Science Monitor carried an article by Geoffrey Godsell who put his finger on the core of the situation. The lead paragraph reads as follows:
The Reagan administration has clearly chosen El Salvador as the best of the options available to send a signal to-and even test-the Soviet Union.
Today we find ourselves debating this issue. I believe that it is absolutely essential for the United States to hear from its friends around the world. As the closest neighbour, and I venture to say the closest friend, I believe that Canada ought to be able to speak frankly to the Reagan administration and I hope that the Canadian government will do so when President Reagan is here. I believe that we must be much more forthright than we have been in the past and that we ought to accompany our criticism of the present involvement in El Salvador with a plea to the United States that it is absolutely essential that it play a leading role in acting to redress the great conditions of misery that are producing the El Salvadors of the world. El Salvador will not be alone because 800 million people live in the same kind of conditions as are found there.
I think we must encourage the United States to resume the role it has played over the years. If we look back at the Marshall Plan we remember that, following the end of the

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
hostilities of World War II, the United States was very concerned that western Europe should not fall into the hands of the communists. In order to help western Europe, it sent over massive amounts of economic and social development aid. Those are the signals that the American government ought to be sending today.
In the North-South dialogue the United States has already given early signals that it is very cool to the issue and shows a lack of any element of concern. An illustration of that was the cutback in its foreign aid budget. The United States must be encouraged by Canada and others to play a leading role in the North-South Summit. If it indicates that it is not interested in attending the North-South Summit, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to others who play a leading role that the United States should be encouraged to attend; indeed, I say that pressure should be mounted to hold the summit in Mexico irrespective of the position or the United States.
Finally I come to the position of Canada. I listened carefully today to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as he recounted our involvement through our international development program in Central America. Our financial involvement in El Salvador and Nicaragua is minimal relative to the total CIDA budget. As host to the economic summit which will deal with the North-South question, I find it strange, when speaking to the problem of poverty in the world, that we should do so little about El Salvador. Even today I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not spoken as forthrightly as increasing numbers of Canadians would like our government to speak. They want it to say clearly that it opposes intervention by any government in El Salvador, that it opposes the sale of arms, the transfer of arms or gun-running by anybody. We believe that a political solution can and should be worked out through the United Nations.
The minister said that we would not take an initiative beyond that which our major partners in the west would take. Why not? Why cannot Canada raise its voice at the United Nations? Why cannot we propose an international commission for El Salvador? Why cannot we emphasize human rights, indivisible? Why cannot we emphasize development throughout the developing world? Why cannot we emphasize that this country will pay special attention to those who are most oppressed, those who live in regimes that are beneath contempt in their treatment of human life?
May I close by saying that if we are truly serious about fighting communism-and the United States is using this as its excuse-then I think we have to emphasize that the only way to make our world a safe, secure and stable place is to emphasize social reform and justice for the downtrodden people of the world.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges)-Public Service-Dispute involving veterinarians in Ontario and Quebec-Efforts to reach settlement; the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook)-Housing-Shortage of dwelling units in Vancouver-Government action; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) Parliament-Collective bargaining rights of employees.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to protest publicly the American military intervention in support of the junta in El Salvador, and calls on the Prime Minister in his talks with the President of the United States to urge an end to this military involvement on the side of a regressive regime which denies civil rights and is fighting those who wish to establish a democratic government.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the way the motion before us is worded that it requires us to think about two aspects of the role that Canada should play in relation to what has been happening in El Salvador, and at the same time, to make an attempt to understand what is going on in that part of the world.
It seems to me that it is important for those of us in this House and elsewhere who are interested in what is happening in Central America these days to understand the nature and the dynamics of the forces operating in that part of the World. We must also endeavour to make the people in Washington understand what is involved here, in their own best interests. That may sound presumptuous, put in those terms, but I am convinced that it is essential to make an extra effort at understanding.
Before I develop that thought, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to that part of the motion that deals with civil and human rights and put on the record, very briefly, Canada's role so far in relation to El Salvador.
March 9, 1981

First, it can be said that our concern about the situation in El Salvador predates the present controversy. We have been pursuing all the avenues available to us in the human rights field. We supported the resolution of concern at the Copenhagen international conference last summer. We have brought the full measure of our concern at the violence and human rights abuses in El Salvador to the attention of its government. At the present time, Canada is working with other delegations in Geneva to ensure that the Human Rights Commission will adopt a resolution calling for an end to the violence and violations of human rights by all elements in El Salvador and for an end to the supply of armaments to all parties in that country. The resolution calls for a peaceful political solution to the problems in El Salvador and for the appointment of a special rapporteur to inquire into the situation.
Next, Canada is responding to the plight of the people in El Salvador who have fled their country. The United Nations refugee commission is assisting those in asylum in the general region, and Canada has recently increased its contribution to the regular budget from $2.5 million to $4 million for such purposes. Canada has also responded with a $250,000 contribution, which represents roughly 10 per cent of the Red Cross current appeal for assistance to El Salvadorians.
No matter what steps we take to help the plight of people affected, and no matter what short-term recommendations we may be able to put forward this afternoon in this House, one fact remains clear. What is developing in El Salvador cannot be looked upon in isolation from a trend in other parts of the world where there is a concentration of power in the hands of governments which grasp power for themselves through nondemocratic means, and where governments have failed over the decades, maybe over the centuries, to achieve the level of social justice that we have in our western democracies.
The situation under debate here this afternoon in the long run could be another Cuba, if the extreme government in power now in El Salvador were to be replaced in the future by another extremist government of a different stripe. Already in Nicaragua we talk about a second Cuba. It could well be that other countries in Central and Latin America are destined to follow the fate of Cuba. It was only two or three decades ago when the United States witnessed, I suppose to its own dismay, the replacement in Cuba of a government headed by Batista with that of Castro. It would be desirable that we make an effprt to understand why and how it happened. I can understand the fears and the concerns of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), but nevertheless I urge him as I would urge anyone to attempt to understand why countries develop and accept totalitarian regimes.
We cannot look at El Salvador in the context of what has happened just in the last few months. We have to ask ourselves why El Salvador is going through its present troubles. Is El Salvador facing a situation whereby the neglect of basic reforms, such as social reform, redistribution of wealth, land reform and other forms of basic human justice, get overlooked
El Salvador
for such a long period of time that sooner or later people do catch up with their governments?
It is becoming fairly evident in a number of countries that the populations are beginning to disagree with established oligarchies of one stripe or the other which came to power through some exercise, of violence, probably with the support of some power abroad. It could well be that the entire Central American region, not just El Salvador, is in danger. If that were the case, then the consequences could be serious. This troubled situation may even occur as far north as the location of Mexico's oil reserves. Will we then be able to justify our concern only within the confines of the El Salvadorian situation? Obviously we cannot do that.
It seems to me that we have a gigantic task before us. We have to explain to our American friends how the situation in El Salvador evolved. We must explain that beyond considerations of power there are considerations of a social nature which have to be taken into account. The propping up of one government, as the experience of Cuba teaches, is not sufficient in the long run to ensure that a government will remain in power. The lesson which the West must have learned from the Cuban experience is one which is as valid today as it was 25 years ago. We cannot look at these events in isolation. They cannot be separated from the inadequacies of social reforms, the redistribution of wealth, the absence of the democratic means of change and the absence of democratic parties as we know them. So long as these countries are looked upon as areas for security not as an area where the security of one nation is at stake-because there are also basic fundamental social shortcomings, to put it mildly-we will not be dealing with the roots of the problem. We may be running the risk of dealing only with the symptoms, which is something we may be doing in this debate today.
The new President of the United States is facing a situation where he must demonstrate that the United States is in control of the situation and is in a position to counter certain influences from Cuba and from other parts of the world. In the long run this exercise will not be effective if it ignores the necessity of dismantling the unjust division of wealth and the menace created by unjust governments which take power and manage to remain in power. For the Americans to retain our support, it will be necessary for them to demonstrate to us and to other parts of the world that the United States is prepared to approach the situation in Central America with this kind of sensitivity to the social forces at play.
There is a certain dynamic in the El Salvadorian situation which is dangerously reminiscent of what has happened in other nations which have fallen prey to extremist governments. Therefore, it is useful that we have this debate today in the House. It gives us an opportunity to look at the situation against a much broader background. The background I would attempt to describe is a framework within which we can place a number of nations that are coming of age. They now have access to international means of communication such as radio and television. They are becoming aware of how different life can be under different circumstances. They are also the object

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
of propaganda competitions by various systems of government throughout the world. They are fertile ground for all forms of political activism which may not be so much local as imported. They are quick in taking root and developing momentum.
In that category you can place a number of nations, particularly if you look south toward Central and Latin America. We may be witnessing another step along the road of changes in power distribution whereby certain nations upon which the West has been able to count for a long time can no longer be taken for granted. The move toward establishment of certain basic principles, such as redistribution of wealth in very poor countries, may be such that it cannot be stopped by intervention from abroad.
Having listened to descriptions by other members, how can we accept the inequality of social conditions in a country like El Salvador? How can we accept the steps taken by the government there to maintain its power? Conditions such as those are repugnant to Canadians, yet we look at the situation with a sense of helplessness.
Because of the distance from Canada and the differences in culture, language and the like, we know that in the long run the solution must come from within that country. If the super powers are directly or indirectly involved, they can, if they wish, tilt the balance in their favour, but in the end, it will not bring about solutions of a lasting nature.
I am not saying that the situation in El Salvador and similar situations throughout the world can be resolved by outside forces. However, it will help if democratic countries such as Canada assist those countries to evolve and to adopt political parties such as we have. It would help if we supported the moderates in those countries, even though they are supposedly difficult to find. We should try to replace the conflict between ideological systems and goals of a social and economic nature. Otherwise, even though our intentions may be good, we will only be dealing with the symptoms and not with the root of the problems that have evolved over decades and indeed centuries.
The motion before us asks us at the same time to condemn and to urge. I doubt whether one could be effective by first condemning and then urging. One's intervention is considerably eroded if one indulges in condemnation and at the same time tries to convince one's neighbour of the correctness of their assessment. I would support the approach of placing full emphasis on and 100 per cent effort behind the act of urging.
While I disagree with the mover of the motion in this regard, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has done a service to this House by putting this motion forward on the eve of the arrival of President Reagan. It allows us to air our views on this issue. We can put forward the thought, which I believe reflects the majority in this House, namely that we should try to convince the Americans that what is at stake here is not just a power play, that the proper approach is improved social development.
I cannot state strongly enough the argument I have been trying to define this afternoon, namely that what we are
witnessing in El Salvador is not just a beginning, as it was not in the case of Cuba. We are witnessing a development which may have repercussions and a similar pattern of evolution in neighbouring nations in that part of the world.
We will regret it years from now if we do not register the importance of understanding the plight of the people in these countries. In essence it permits violence and conflict within their midst because of social and economic conditions that are unacceptable to any civilization. We feel very deeply about this.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the remarks this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). It struck me as rather strange that, during a debate on a very sensitive, pressing and serious subject, the minister would use the occasion to indicate to Canada and the world that we have no business intervening in the affairs of Latin America or, indeed, South America. It is strange he would take that posture considering the very positive position taken when this party was the government with respect to the situation in Namibia. The minister said that because of our lack of expertise in Latin America, we are the last ones who should intervene. On other occasions we have intervened with a force and compassion that at times was scarcely human. Did we know more about that other situation than the current situation in Latin America? Certainly the answer is clear: we did not know any more, yet we took a positive role, produced positive results and made a significant contribution.
It surprised me, indeed shocked me, that the minister would so underestimate the capacity of professional Canadian diplomats and non-governmental people, as well as concerned members of this chamber and of others, in their attempt to lend stability to another part of the world.
I want to move to a perhaps slightly different vein, a slightly different route from that which has been followed by my colleagues in this debate to this point in time. Let me address myself to the question whether or not Canada and Canadians have a legitimate interest in that part of the world.
Surely we have a legitimate interest wherever in the world the rights and liberties of people are being trampled and cast to one side. Surely there is no doubt that the absence of morality, and the broader question of human privation and human suffering, demand the intervention of not only Canadians but every human being in order to alleviate, ease and correct the situation. Surely Canada falls into that category.
We have another interest as well. There is conflicting data before us provided by the debate taking place about whether the United States should continue to intervene militarily through the provision of arms, lethal weapons systems and whatnot. That is not an aspect of the debate I particularly want to get into, except to say that I share the concerns of the distinguished former secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald),
March 9, 1981

who has said, as have others, that the motion before us is somewhat deficient in that it criticizes and condemns only one side. The Leader of the New Democratic Party was quick to correct that by saying he had without equivocation included both sides. After following the debate in recent weeks and days in this Parliament, I find myself closer to the interpretation placed upon that by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although I accept his clarification of what he intended.
The question is resolved depending on where you sit. It is too easy and shallow to make a decision based upon information you want to accept and interpret in support of your own particular point of view. The need for critical information grows. As this conflict grows, not only in El Salvador but as it grew in Nicaragua and as it is growing throughout the world, so grows our requirement to know and understand more about what is going on there and what is going on in the Caribbean basin, among the Commonwealth countries, those small, beautiful island nation states in that part of the world. It is important that we know and understand more about what is going on there, just as it is throughout South America. As the need for accurate and informed information grows-and it grows with urgency each passing day-so do Canada's responsibility and moral obligations grow to establish or achieve a method of collecting, analysing and acting upon accurate information. In that proportion our responsibility grows. We must do this because the luxury of failing to do so is no longer in our interest.
Perhaps to go beyond that, not only is this luxury as portrayed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs staying out of that part of the world one that we can afford no longer in our own self-interest in terms of trade, but it is a luxury we can no longer afford in terms of human privation and morality.
For the minister to argue, as he has in recent days and again here earlier this afternoon, that El Salvador is not a country of historic interest to Canadians is to admit a colossal and profound ignorance of historic events and a total misunderstanding of the interrelationships between Latin America, the island nations of the Caribbean and North America.
What happens in Latin America happens swiftly, as it does in the Caribbean and in South America. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. What happens there affects the entire intra-American basin.
Without debating the allegations flowing from both sides and the centre of that torn nation, or drawing a parallel with other revolutionary regimes throughout the Caribbean basin, Latin and South America and elsewhere, let me make three brief points.
First, there remains little doubt that we cannot of our own volition assess accurately what is going on and base actions of persuasion as a people, or as a mediator in the form of an informed and enlightened nation, unless and until the government takes the type of positive action suggested not only by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands but as well by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), the hon.
El Salvador
member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and, perhaps along another path, by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). That suggestion must be followed.
Secondly, we must be careful in whatever approach we take to the problems in Latin and South America so as not to equate diplomatic measures with moral approval of all of the activities of either side, or with any of the sides or points of view, in these struggles for changing internal order. I think that is fundamental. We must not abandon people because we object to the activities in whole or in part of their governments. It is the people of the Caribbean, of South America and of Latin America with whom we have long, honourable and historic ties.
Finally, we must always remember that if we lose this identity and association with people, if we confuse it with diplomatic niceties or with our objections to the activities of certain regimes which can be described as horrendous, then in fact what we will have lost is security in a friendly part of the world.
We may not, without fear of question, any longer turn a deaf ear or blind eye to events in this part of the world. To those countries in the turmoil of change, to those countries with economies torn by the difficulties of change, to those countries with the internal capacity to earn dollars ravaged by security concerns and rising costs of energy, to those countries that find it difficult to fit into trade patterns and so on, we must always demonstrate in every way possible that their trust and confidence in a democratic way of life can be relied upon.
Today more than ever it is important to expand and nurture our relations with all neighbours to the south. I should like to elaborate further on the minister's denial of Canadian interests in that part of the world; I am sorry he is not present in the chamber at the moment. For example, does the minister believe for a minute that because El Salvador is on the Pacific coast, there is no direct linkage with its neighbours, good or bad, to the east? Is he suggesting that there is no relationship with Cuba? We have heard enough in recent weeks with respect to Cuba and the movement of arms through Costa Rica.
In that connection, and at the risk of embarrassing a very dear friend, I speak with first-hand knowledge of the movement of arms from Cuba, through Panama, into Costa Rica and on into El Salvador. Is the minister suggesting that there is no relationship with Cuba, given Cuba's relationship with Grenada? I find that hard to understand. Of course, Grenada is still closely linked, although it has suspended the option of consulting with the people as democracies are wont to do. Nevertheless, Grenada still enjoys Commonwealth ties. Do we not have an interest? Of course we have an interest.
Is the minister suggesting that we have no interest in Panama or the canal? Does he not know where El Salvador is in relationship to the approaches to the canal? Of course he does. Is the minister suggesting that we have no interest in Costa Rica or Guatemala, with their democratically-elected

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
governments? Is he suggesting that we have no interest in these nations? What about Honduras or Nicaragua? Surely the minister was not telling the House that we have no special interest in the OAS, of which El Salvador is still a member, though I do not know for how much longer. Is he suggesting that Canada is not the most active observer with respect to the OAS? Of course we are.
Surprise must be registered in the area of trade. Surely it is not necessary to tell the minister and the government that Latin and South American countries are increasing their trade with Canada, and Canada with them, at a far greater rate than with the United States. They are buying more and doing more business with us on a percentage basis than the United States.
For example, exports of metals, electrical equipment, telecommunications, prefabs, road building equipment, etc., from Canada to El Salvador increased from $13.5 million to some $15.6 million. One might say that is not very much, but let me put it in another context. Imports to Canada from El Salvador have virtually doubled. I should like to keep this in the context of Latin American countries in which the good professor has indicated that we have no historic interest. Of course we have an historical interest. Between 1968 and 1972 we have done $520.8 million worth of business with Latin American countries, a growth rate of 10.9 per cent. During the same period, our growth rate with respect to exports from Canada to the United States rose by only 9.5 per cent. The growth rate is there, the business interest is there. The growth rate has not come about by disinterested Canadian businessmen sitting in Canada and waiting for things to happen. We have a very serious interest in this matter. In fact, in the next two to two and a half years, foreign investment in these countries will rise from $1.6 billion to something in excess of $2 billion. We have large interests, we have small interests; we have humanitarian interests, we have economic interests.
We did not hesitate to donate $57,000 for medical clinics and ambulance services in El Salvador by way of aid through the International Red Cross when it was apparent that it was needed. We had no hesitation in giving somewhat similar aid to Nicaragua, some $67 million to protect prisoners of war and their families, not to mention that we respond whenever there is an earthquake, a hurricane or flooding; whenever there is need, we respond. We have a long, honourable history of response. It does not augur well for the minister to indicate that we must stay out of Latin America because we have no interest or historical ties in that area. We must remember the assistance of countless non-governmental organizations and their diversified programs, the financial contributions to multinational institutions and so on. These efforts speak not only loudly for the humanitarian concerns of Canadians, but they also reflect clearly our interest in this area of the world. This interest goes back well over 100 years in a very active sense and in excess of 270 years in particular instances.
At least the government should follow its own lead. The minister knows my strong support for whatever efforts he can make in the Caribbean, Latin America and South America. I
commend him for his efforts in recent months. Through his own initiative he has committed the government to closer ties with that part of the world, to expanding and increasing all forms of aid.
Let me conclude by indicating that no matter how far the Secretary of State for External Affairs may go, he will not have gone far enough until he has reached 25 per cent to 35 per cent of our total aid package.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad indeed to hear the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) say that the New Democratic Party had done a service by bringing this resolution before the House today. I found that his whole speech and approach on behalf of the government was a good deal more illuminating and thoughtful than was that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). However, I would like to say to the hon. member for Davenport that he did to a certain extent misread the motion which we are introducing today when he suggested that the motion was both condemning the United States for something and urging it to do something. If you look at the motion carefully, Mr. Speaker, you will see that what we are condemning is the hon. member's government. The motion reads quite clearly:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to protest publicly the American military intervention in support of the junta in El Salvador-
The motion then goes on to urge the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his talks with the President:
-to urge an end to this military involvement on the side of a regressive regime which denies civil rights and is fighting those who wish to establish a democratic government.
For the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that the motion is "a calculated attempt to create tension between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States" would be laughable were it not so sad. The minister does not seem to realize that there are people, not only in Canada but all over the United States, in Latin America- Mexico and Venezuela particularly-and throughout other countries who are horrified by what is happening in El Salvador and by the escalation of American military aid to that junta. Perhaps this is what the minister meant when he said that he and his government had no expertise in this area.
Over the last weeks we have seen this concern raised in every city in Canada. It will be raised again in Ottawa tomorrow. Canadians cannot support this repressive regime any longer or the military aid which has been given to it. As I said a moment ago, it is not only Canadians who are concerned, but Americans in every city in that country as well. Some 52 congressmen are concerned. Indeed, within his own party President Reagan is now being challenged by the Republican minority leader of the House subcommittee on appropriations, Representative Conti, who has challenged the El Salvador military aid policy.
I wonder if the minister knows that three pieces of legislation will soon be brought before the American Congress in
March 9, 1981

attempts to change American military policy. The first of these is House of Representatives resolution number 1509, which is an amendment to the foreign assistance act of 1961. The amendment attempts to limit military aid, sales and credits.
Second, there is concurrent resolution No. 67 condemning all foreign involvement, including U.S. involvement, in El Salvador. It calls for a negotiated settlement and an end to U.S. military aid pending a review of that aid by the House committee on foreign affairs.
Third, there is the Ottinger resolution, which attempts to limit the President's powers to commit U.S. military personnel to foreign adventures. Senators Kennedy and Thongas said Friday that they will propose legislation this week in an effort to end U.S. military involvement in El Salvador.
The opposition to the U.S. government's policy in El Salvador is far stronger in the United States, in journals and magazines, as well as in the Congress of the United States, than it is on the part of the Government of Canada. The minister says that the motion is a calculated attempt to raise tension between Canada and the United States. Are all these criticisms of American policy which emanate from the U.S. Congress and the press not also of concern to him? With the minister's expertise in mind, does he not have any idea of the constituent elements in the democratic revolutionary front? Does he not know that it is an extraordinarily broad-based group with about 40 groups within it? Of course there are some communists in it; but there are also social democrats, socialists, conservatives, small businessmen, many Catholic priests, as he knows, and a large section of the church in El Salvador, the peasants organizations and labour unions. You cannot find any organization, in the labour movement, except one CIA-backed one, which is not supporting the democratic revolutionary front.
When Secretary Haig came to Canada and told our minister about the way he saw the situation in El Salvador, the minister accepted totally what he was told, without asking for any proof or evidence of the enormous volume of arms being sent in by Cuba, Nicaragua or the Soviet bloc. Indeed, the State Department has not yet published the evidence. It keeps telling us that it has evidence, but it seems very reluctant to publish it. Apparently, even the leader of the junta in El Salvador has not seen the evidence, since he has said nothing about it, not even to say that it exists. We need to know what it is.
A great many of us, including the minister I am sure, were led to believe a lot of "evidence" during the course of the Vietnam war, evidence also collected by the Central Intelligence Agency-evidence that turned out to be shoddy and untrue. Why do we not all say, "Let us have an investigation. Let us see what this outside intervention amounts to. Let there be a fair and impartial look. Let us not automatically accept something when we have not even seen the grounds on which it is based."
None of the documents has been made available. The leaders of Mexico, Venezuela and, indeed, every western European country that the State Department sent representatives to
El Salvador
visit, were very skeptical. Surely, as one of the best friends the United States has, it is our duty to raise our voices when we feel and think that the United States is pursuing a policy which could lead to another Vietnam. Surely it is not something from which we should hide. It is not something that we hope someone else will do. The point made by the minister that it is not Canada's concern, that we somehow can have no positive influence-as we can in Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela-is absolute nonsense. El Salvador is part of our hemisphere. El Salvador is closer to Ottawa, I believe, than Vancouver and has always been part of our hemisphere. The United States ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, says that what is happening with the American involvement is different from Vietnam because it is in this hemisphere. On television the other night she said that the difference is that it is taking place in this hemisphere. That is all the more reason for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to speak urgently, frankly and strongly of the opposition which we share with many elements in American society and government, with west-European countries and with many in Latin America itself. It is also our duty to look once again at the savagery of the right wing forces in El Salvador which have been encouraged directly or indirectly by the junta which governs the country.
We cannot simply dismiss 12,000 violent deaths. Even the former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, Mr. White, said that 80 per cent of the deaths were the responsibility of government troops or troops under government protection. As compassionate human beings, we cannot turn a blind eye to that, as the minister seems to be doing. More military aid from the United States will mean more violence. As others have said this afternoon, the solution must be a political solution, even though Secretary Haig, according to his remarks the other day, seems to have turned his back on that possibility.
The government has fallen into the trap of wanting badly to get along with the President of the United States, hoping that the fisheries treaty can be restored, hoping that money will be provided for the northern part of the pipeline, and hoping that the Americans will not mind too much about the government's national energy policy, and it has almost succumbed not just to the temptation but to how it sees reality, namely, that what the government of the United States says and does will automatically be approved by the Government of Canada. This is not only doing a disservice to Canadians, but it is also doing a grave disservice to our friends in the United States who are themselves critical of American government policy. But then they turn around and find we are supporting, with a pull of our forelock, what the American administration wants every time. All of us have friends in the United States, and we know they are distressed by our actions and attitudes these days.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) mentioned today in the House that the NORAD agreement will be signed while President Reagan is here. That is an agreement about which there has been absolutely no discussion in the House of Commons. The minister's answers this afternoon

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
clearly did not address many of the serious questions raised by the standing committee, particularly about the role Canada might play in aerospace-rather than just air space-a matter which NORAD does not even cover in the present agreement. In fact, the present agreement does not cover any of the urgent matters relating to American military strategy.
In the course of making known our strong feelings about the military intervention in El Salvador, I suggest to the government that we also make known our strong feelings about certain developments in American military strategy generally, particularly the doctrine the Reagan administration has announced respecting nuclear superiority. We should pause before we sign that agreement. It does not have to be signed until May. I suggest there be a much more careful examination of all military developments emanating from the U.S. administration. Many, if not all, of them are basically outside the NORAD agreement, and we have absolutely no say about them at all. This was even admitted by the commander-inchief of NORAD, General Hartinger at Colorado Springs when he agreed that effectively we did not or could not have any say. When asked why our presence is valued, he said it is to show the rest of the world that we share American military strategies. Well, we do not share the American strategy nor, as I have pointed out, do great numbers of Americans share American strategy in relation to El Salvador. That is why we brought this motion forward today and why every speaker so far, including speakers from the government side, with the exception of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have urged that a military solution in El Salvador is no solution.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I urged that too.


Pauline Jewett: Every speaker has urged that and has urged the minister to protest loudly and take back his statement he had no objection to Americans using offensive weapons in El Salvador and to withdraw it completely.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I made no such statement.


Pauline Jewett: We should all impress upon the Prime Minister-in case the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not done so-the importance of emphasizing in his meeting with the new President of the United States, that we do not necessarily share American strategic values or American military values. Above all, we do not share their escalating intervention in a country racked by the very terrorism which, when he first became secretary of state, General Haig said would become the top priority in American foreign policy. Yet that terrorism in El Salvador is, in effect, today supported by the American administration.
I hope all of us speaking in this debate will try to show not only concern but also passion about this situation in El Salvador in the hope that the democratic revolutionary front, which does represent the wishes of the people, may become the government of that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, members opposite have repeated today the same criticisms about Canada's policy concerning El Salvador as were voiced in recent days during Oral Question Period and on March 2 during the adjournment debate. They are complaining that we do not have any policy or that our policy is inconsistent or contradictory. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) explained very clearly during the adjournment debate that this government has been following a clear and consistent policy since its election. In his comments today, he gave a more detailed explanation of this policy, and I hope that the opposition members will now understand to what extent their criticisms are unfounded. It has been clearly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the government is opposed to any foreign intervention in El Salvador and that the population of that country should be allowed to solve its social and political conflicts on its own, by peaceful and democratic means.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the members of this House can support this policy and I see no need to dwell any further on this subject. In Canada as in other countries, there are people who are inclined to consider the conflict in El Salvador as a classical example of the political rivalry that exists between East and West. However, in his statement today, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that such were not the views held by the Canadian government. In its opinion, the basic problem in El Salvador stems out of the need for social and economic justice within a population which has for too long been refused any hope for a better life.
Because it has an industrious, progressive and homogeneous population, El Salvador has managed to achieve a certain amount of progress in facing the challenges of the twentieth century, but this country is also a quite eloquent example of one of the most difficult problems of this century, that is, overpopulation. El Salvador is now the most densely populated country and the one with the lowest per capita income in Central America, and its economic and social development has been severely hindered by this situation. Where the political development of El Salvador is concerned, nothing much more impressive is to be noted. In his book entitled "A History of Latin America From the Beginnings to the Present", historian Hubert Herring reports the following:

In El Salvador presidents come and go, civil wars rage briefly, and moderate dictatorships are the general pattern . . . But the social pattern of El Salvador remains undisturbed. No nation in Latin America presented a greater contrast than between the few Salvadoran families who lived in luxury, sent their sons to schools abroad, and drove fine sports cars-and the masses who are ragged and illfed. The chief families-the 'fourteen families' they were popularly called, although there were more than fourteen-hold the most land and the best land: it was estimated in 1961 that less than 0.1 per cent of the landholders owned
March 9, 1981

some 16 per cent of the farmland, in haciendas of 2,471 acres or more; while at the other extreme about 85 per cent of the farmers, holding less than 15 per cent of the farmland, were hard put to make a living from the meagre plots of 12.4 acres or less, working without machinery or scientific handling of seeds and fertilizers. The great plantations were officially run, but the humble workers on those plantations were lucky to get the equivalent of 50-60 cents a day, plus meagre rations of tortillas and beans. And the military leaders were not ready to break their long alliance with the country's elite, which had been effective in throttling social legislation. They had agreed to keep the poor in their place; and although the poor were beginning to awake-some turning to communism which flourished in a few labour unions-government administration still found it unwise to push social security, public health measures, and agrarian reform.
[ Translation]
The early thirties were marked with violence as the economic impact of the world depression led the peasants to revolt and consequently to the brutal repression which made thousands of victims, if I may open a brief parenthesis, Mr. Speaker, I would add that Canada was marginally involved in the events which occurred in El Salvador at the time as two Canadian destroyers, HMCS Vancouver and HMCS Skeena, under Commander Victor G. Brodeur, were dispatched to the coastal town of Acajutla "to protect, if required, foreign interests", as reported in the media at that time. It is also interesting to note that, in his subsequent report to Ottawa, Commander Brodeur stated the following:

The revolution was entirely due to lack of consideration for the Indians. There are only two classes in El Salvador, i.e. the very rich and the Indians. The very rich are very few and it is noticeable that these few left the country the minute the trouble started.
[ Translation]
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the situation in El Salvador had not changed much over the years. Therefore it is not surprising that political and social agitation has become endemic in that small country and that the workers in farms and cities rose against the long domination by prominent families and the military. On October 26, 1960, the world witnessed the first serious attempt to correct past wrongs, something which indeed turned out to be a harbinger of what is happening now. The government at the time was overturned by a group of leftist officers and civilians, but the six-man junta in power proved to be overly radical for most of the El Salvador officers and was in turn overthrown in another coup in January, 1961. Again may I quote professor Herring:

The new junta, headed by Colonel Julio Adelberto Rivera . . . promised early elections and a speedy return to constitutional government. . . During the first 270 days of the junta's reign, 325 decree laws were promulgated, and they attacked many of the obvious inequities in El Salvador's ill-balanced society. These measures . . . included an income tax decree establishing the top levy of 76.5 per cent on incomes above $70,000. This law also tackled the knotty problem of the flight of capital, by providing tax exemption for money used for private investment in El Salvador, while taxing uninvested capital at a higher rate. The income tax law was a sensational move, evoking throaty charges of 'communism' against the highly respected military junta . . . There was a furious exchange of manifestos between defenders and opponents of the measure. The ruling junta defended its course by saying that its policy was inspired by the obvious ills of the citizenry-'malnutrition, illiteracy, high index of infant mortality, bare feet, semi-naked bodies, filthy tenements, long and exhausting working hours, and wages of hunger.'
El Salvador

The promised elections were held in April 1962. Colonel Rivera was elected for a five-year term until 1967. Professor Herring continues as follows:
Forthwith the reforms launched by the junta began to take shape. High priority was given to agrarian reform; although densely populated, El Salvador has little available land for colonization; some state-owned land plus some privately held farms would furnish about 135,000 acres to be distributed to some 3,500 families in plots ranging from 5.25 acres to 14 acres; it was not a very bold program but at least it was a beginning. There were various measures for easing the burden on the poor: Sunday rest with pay; minimum wage laws; reduction of rent on tenements; provision for more generous food allowances for workers on the large farms. The new income taxes were enforced with considerable success. Banking laws were reformed making credit more easily available to small farmers. And government operations were honest.

In the 1967 presidential elections Fidel Sanchez Hernandez was victorious with 54.4 per cent of the votes and his administration continued Colonel Rivera's reform program. His policies included an agricultural reform project which greatly upset the conservative businessmen and the rich land owners. Then a great controversy surrounded the 1972 elections when a member of the Christian Democrat Party, El Salvador's current president Jose Napoleon Duarte, apparently rallied the majority of the votes. However, a subsequent official recount gave the majority to Colonel Arturo Molina. He was president until 1977 when the military resorted to similar tactics during the presidential elections and brought General Carlos Romero to power. Riots broke out as a result of that disloyal manoeuvre and the government imposed martial law; before order was restored about one hundred protesters had been killed.
President Romero was an inveterate conservative who associated social reform with communism; supported by the military, the conservative aristocracy resisted the peasants' claims for social and agrarian reform. Violence became commonplace; groups of vigilantes and rightist paramilitary tortured and executed the leaders of peasant groups and other partisans of economic and social reform. Naturally, that violence provoked leftist reactions. The intensity of the struggle between the two factions increased, and President Romero led a fierce campaign against the left and its followers.
On October 15, 1979, 19 years almost to the day after the reformist junta which I have already mentioned seized power, a group of Liberal army officers deposed Romero after a coup d'Etat whose victims were few and put in its stead a progressive junta composed of two Liberal officers, two members of the Christian Democrat Party and one Independent. As mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement, the new government promised to implement radical reforms in the field of social and economic affairs, the most important of which was an agrarian reform in two steps comparable to that implemented in Mexico. The first stage, started in March of 1980, involved all agricultural operations

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
of over ! ,234 acres; some 400 properties representing 600,000 acres, that is, about 25 per cent of all farmlands in the country, were redistributed amongst the peasants.
The second phase, which is to be implemented in 1981, is aimed at all farms of 370 to 1,235 acres. Unfortunately, left-wing groups immediately took advantage of the situation to try and foster a revolution. They launched a terrorist campaign which included the kidnapping and murder of several Salvadorian and foreign businessmen and bankers and, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his remarks, attacks on embassies and the kidnapping and murder of embassy staff. This resulted in the closing of a large number of Salvadorian and foreign plants, a 50 to 60 per cent decrease in industrial production as well as a corresponding chop in employment and a worsening of the situation for Salvadorian workers. In the last two years, 28 embassies were attacked by terrorists so that all west European countries, except Italy, were forced to close their embassies there.
It seems clear that as long as the extreme left in El Salvador had taken Romero, the military dictator, as its target, its chances of success were quite good. However, the reformist junta, with its land, business and banking reforms and its promise to hold an election within two years, sabotaged the strategy of the extreme left and destroyed its hopes of coming to power. It is interesting to note that the extreme left rejected the junta's platform without even giving it a chance to implement it. However, leftist attacks were not the only problems faced by the junta. It also faced the opposition of conservative elements within the military and the security forces as well as the opposition of those whose direct interests were threatened by reformist action and who tried to undermine the junta's ability to govern. Then, there was the terrible war of attrition between the armed sectors of left-wing and right-wing factions. The government was caught in the crossfire and became increasingly unable to control its destiny.
Mr. Speaker, I have given the background to the events which have occurred in El Salvador because I think it is important that we keep them in mind when considering the present situation. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs so correctly noted today, we must consider the crisis in the context of the past problems experienced by El Salvador. The tragedy lies in the fact that conflicts between the extreme right and the extreme left have taken unimaginable proportions; violent acts and murders are committed by armed gangsters, soldiers, revolutionaries and criminals on both sides, the government and its supporters being the targets more often than not. We are constantly informed by the media of these terrible crimes and atrocities which fill us all with the greatest repulsion. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that the Canadian government has brought pressure to bear on several occasions on the Salvadorian government to keep its army, police and security forces as well as paramilitary extremists under greater control, to put an end to these human rights violations and bring the guilty before the courts.
Apparently, President Duarte is trying to exert such control. Unfortunately, his efforts are too few and too late. Maybe the Salvadorian government could not, however, do any more than it did. We must keep on urging it to act more efficiently, and I was happy to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs state his intention to keep the pressure on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to follow my colleagues in the House in addressing the tragic situation in El Salvador and in seeking to encourage the government toward a positive approach which we as a nation might play in seeking an end to the bloodbath which currently is a day by day experience there. We hdard from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) some proposals which we might adopt in terms of being a peacemaker or mediator in that situation. My colleague for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) reminded us of the quality of human suffering that is part of that tragedy and of our common humanity. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) reminded us of our national interest and the interdependence which we have with the people of the Americas and the people of El Salvador.
This evening I would like, in the few moments that are mine in this debate, to turn my thoughts to the fact that we in Canada have a special interest. I want to take issue with the minister and his comments to us last Monday evening in the House that we do not have the right to comment, that we are not in a position to pass judgment on the political situation there and, therefore, we ought not as a nation take part in a moral discussion about the future of the human family and of our hemisphere.
I am reminded of our Canadian tradition of welcoming refugees, and the political judgment which goes with it, from the actions of governments which have, in many cases, expelled or forced out their nationals. I am reminded of the position of the government on disarmament, and the appointment of an ambassador for disarmament; of the matter of giving priority to disarming, and the moral positions that have been taken.
I wish to remind the House of our Canadian history in relation to the founding and developing of the United Nations and, through it, the setting up of peacekeeping mechanisms. Therefore, it is with a great deal of distress that I find the
March 9, 1981

government is suggesting through the minister that we do not have the right to comment. He is suggesting in this case of real concern to Canadians that, "given our lack of close involvement with El Salvador for generations, we are in no position to pass judgment on the political situation in that country."
I wish to suggest to this House and the government that all across Canada we have a very real constituency of concern. It expects this government to echo our concern for human rights and reflect the deep distress of Canadians at the ongoing, day by day account of the 25 or more people found assassinated each night in the streets.
Let me share with the House a letter which was addressed on March 5 to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with a copy to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) from the Canadian Council of Churches. The letter reads in part:
We, the representatives of the members of the Canadian Council of Churches, wish to convey our serious concern about human rights. We decided to write to you on the eve of the impending visit of President Reagan, whose statements on foreign policy clearly indicate a change in policy and practice on human rights by the United States administration-
As you are aware, the churches in Canada often have intimate and personal knowledge of the situation at the grass-roots level in many countries through their partnership with the churches in those parts of the world. We wish to continue to share this knowledge with our government in order that Canada can play a significant role in creating a more humane world. Precisely because we are nqt a super power, we are in an excellent position to align ourselves with other nations to work together for the protection of the rights of people who are used, oppressed and sometimes murdered . . . We note with pleasure Mr. Mac-Guigan's remarks made before church representatives on January 28, 1981 to the effect that human rights are the highest concern for the Canadian government; that it is a personal priority for him as minister; and that Canada will continue to act in defence of human rights on moral grounds, alone if necessary .. . We expect our government to stand firm on the position it took at the time Canada voted in the United Nations for the Resolution 53/192 in December, 1980 calling on governments to refrain from the supply of arms and other military assistance to El Salvador. We know for a fact that the present regime in the country is responsible for deaths of thousands of people-
We sincerely hope, sir, that Canada will continue to play a leading role in the struggle for the world where fundamental human rights take precedence over national security and balances of power.
This is signed not only by officers of the Canadian Council of Churches, but also by senior officers of the Anglican Church, the Baptist Convention, the Christian Church (Disciples), the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church in America, the Religious Society of Friends, the United Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
I want to suggest there is a constituency there which is aware of, and in contact with, the people of El Salvador and is sharing in the situation and looking for the moral support which Canada has traditionally given, ought to be giving at this time and ought to be communicating to her close friends, especially our very close and good friends in the United States.
In October, the United Church of Canada through its publication, the Observer, had an entire issue on "The Heroic Church in Central America". They began that presentation with a letter from the Salvadorian Episcopal Conference dated
El Salvador
March 5, 1977. These were the words of the conference at that time:
Even at the risk of being persecuted or misunderstood, the Church cannot avoid raising her voice when injustice has taken hold of society. She cannot remain silent when human rights are trampled upon, whether in institutionalized form or in concrete cases-
The author of that article, Mr. Hugh McCullum, went on in an opening comment to say:
What you do not understand in North America is that people here are prepared to die for the simple freedoms you take for granted-like freedom to live.
The story goes on to refer to the body of information which has been brought into question by the minister as to whether there are facts upon which Canadians build their concern. At one point, editor McCullum lists:	-
Fact-finding missions of British Members of Parliament, the Organization of American States (OAS), Amnesty International, an American ecumenical delegation, and ICCHRLA-organized visit by Canadian churches, as well as the Salvadorian Human Rights Commission-
It goes on to chronicle the number of groups which have concurred in their evidence of what is the situation there.
Lest we in Canada, at some distance away from Central America as some may feel, think that we are not in communication, let the House be reminded of the communication, dated January 1, 1981, which came ecumenically from Christian groups across El Salvador as an open letter to the Christian community and, indeed, to Canadians as a whole, speaking about their part in this struggle. Since there has been so much discussion about the radical left and the radical right, let us remember that the important element in the community is the vast majority of people who find themselves very often represented by Christian groups concerned with the wholeness of life, whether it be health care, agriculture or medical care. That group writes in its letter:
For years we have been close to the suffering people, to the poor and oppressed; we have experienced their misery but also their hope and their decision for an authentic liberation.
The church there says: "we want to be with the poor", and it makes three points. The first point is:
For 50 years the Salvadorean people has lived under oppression of gravely unjust economic, social and political structures, which in no wise have promoted the common good of the poor majorities-
It goes on to state:
Human rights have been systematically violated under military regimes of national security.
The letter goes on to state:
The Church has also been persecuted-
Later it states:
This government, consequently, is not legitimate. It does not seek nor secure the common good-
Secondly, the letter says to us in Canada:
The Salvadorean people has not chosen armed conflict; but rather conflict has been imposed on it. Over the years it has sought peaceful solutions in elections and used social and political pressure to achieve its aspirations. Everything has proved futile.

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
The letter goes on to state:
-the United States is not supported by any right to interfere in the destiny of El Salvador in order to determine its future and still less to support militarily the current government.
This is the third point in the letter, Mr. Speaker:
An insurrection for the liberation of a people is not only a legitimate historical reality, but, for Christians, it is also a sign of the times through which God speaks to and calls us. The first thing that a just uprising tells us is that God's patience has run out. The experience of Israel and Egypt is being repeated-
This pastoral letter, which came at the turn of the year to Canada, ends with these words:
With faith in God and in the blood shed by so many Salvadorian martyrs, we would like to end with the prophetic words of Monsenor Romero that we may not falter: "The cry of liberation of this people is a cry that reaches up to God and one that nothing and no one can stop." Over these ruins the glory of the Lord will shine.
I could go on and quote from a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) of February 19 from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops which again confirms the evidence sent to us by the Christian community there, and coincides with other evidence we have before us.
I could go on and read into the record evidence from the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America which, on December 3, 1980, presented a brief, documenting sources, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Canadian relations with the Republic of El Salvador. In that brief, they gave substantive evidence of the broad spectrum of persecution and denial of human rights, and they went on to speak about the effect on Canadians of the assassination of Bishop Romero. They refer to the fact-finding visits and frequent communications which have been a part of our experience and the shared concern of Canadians from Victoria to St. John's.
Already during this debate we have been reminded of our Canadian position which was authorized by this government, that is, to vote in favour of the words that Canada "calls upon governments to refrain from the supply of arms and other military assistance in the current circumstances;".
It is interesting to note that Canada was among 70 which voted for that; there were only 12 who voted against it, including the present government of El Salvador, and 55 which abstained, including the United States.
Ambassador White has already been quoted several times during this debate, but in case one thinks it is only the church community which is concerned, we also have the record of diplomatic reports, and we have already rehearsed in this House the concern of other Central and Latin American nations and the concern of West Germany and France. We have signed declarations with Venezuela and Mexico as a nation about concern for this supply of arms to that area.
We are reminded again in The New York Times of Ambassador White's comments as follows:
To the extent that you emphasize a military solution in El Salvador, you are going to be buttressing one of the most out-of-control, violent, bloodthirsty groups of men in the world. They have killed-at a minimum-5,000 or 6,000 kids, just on the mere suspicion that they were involved with the leftists.
One could also read into the record the testimony of Oxfam, a voluntary agency from the United States, and its comment on the agrarian reform. The minister, in his intervention, laid great emphasis on the slow but steady effectiveness of agrarian reform. Oxfam, U.S.A., reports:
Over 60 per cent of El Salvador's rural population are not potential beneficiai-ries for the current land reform program.
The current land reform program excludes the poorest and largest section of the rural population-landless rural labourers.
The peasantry. Church, academics, and agrarian experts of El Salvador have been excluded from the design, planning and implementation of the current agrarian reform.
The land reform program has been implemented in the context of increasing and unrelenting levels of violence against the rural population.
They go on to suggest that this program should not be given the credibility which, in debate, some seek to give it.
One week ago tonight, Mr. Speaker, in raising questions on El Salvador following question period, I proposed that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be called and that expert witnesses from the news media, international and Canadian, voluntary agencies, from the business and church communities be called in order that the division of opinion which has been raised by the minister, and the suspicion that there are divisions between the Vatican and the bishops, be tested in order that we can continue a positive and affirmative approach as Canadians for human rights.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to be with those who think it is important that Canada light a candle rather than curse the darkness of our world. We have an enviable record as a peacekeeper and peacemaker. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has suggested that Canada take the initiative by contacting neighbouring states, and that we take the initiative to see that an international body, either through the United Nations or through other groups, be invited and encouraged to seek a political solution.
I believe it is important for Canadians to respond, in the wake of the visit of the President of the United States, with their concerns. I believe that telegrams, telephone calls and letters ought to be sent to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs saying that Canada ought to continue its stand on disarmament and political solutions, and continue to stand for human rights in our world.
I want to suggest that if we are not prepared to initiate some international mechanisms which can bring forth that information, then let us ourselves, as Canadians, invite from all parties in this House those who will go along with representatives of the voluntary agencies, churches and the news media, and let us send a task force which will return and report to this House and to the Canadian people as to whether it is just a simple issue of left versus right, or whether this is a legitimate rising of expectations by people who want their freedom and their rights. Let the task force examine the great body of evidence from the voluntary agencies, the international news media and the churches, or whether we are being tempted to think that.
March 9, 1981

because there are communist elements and right-wing elements, somehow these are dominant and the great interests of others are lost.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you that we as Canadians have a proud tradition of seeking peaceful solutions and we would wish to be seen, in our conversations with our closest ally and friend, pressing them to pursue that direction in the world of human affairs.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has put before the House an important matter, and 1 think the thoughtful tone of the speeches today has indicated how seriously it is taken on all sides of the House. We see in our time the most appalling violations of human rights and incredible savagery by governments against their own nationals. Unfortunately we see this in dictatorships of the left and the right; no ideology has a particular claim to morality.
In the case of El Salvador, on March 2 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) listed a number of steps that have been taken by Canada in pursuit of our general commitment to work constructively with other nations for human rights. On many occasions, through the Organization of American States, the United Nations and its agencies, and in bilateral talks with the government of El Salvador in midi Kebruary, the Government of Canada made representations on behalf of human rights in that country.
We have consistently proclaimed our support for peace in the world and our opposition to the supply of offensive arms to El Salvador by outside sources, whether from communist or non-communist countries.
We have consistently insisted on the importance and necessity of a political, not military, solution in El Salvador. We have made it clear that we do not see ourselves or any other country imposing that political solution on that country, or favouring one side or the other, that this is a matter for the nationals of that country to resolve themselves.
This same position has been taken by countries very close to El Salvador, such as Mexico and Venezuela. On pages 7817 and 7818 of Hansard, there are listed accounts of a number of initiatives, which I will not repeat now, of joint Canada-Mex-ico, Canada-Venezuela and Canada-Brazil communications, all expressing the hope that El Salvador could achieve peace, democracy and social justice, and also expressing opposition to any kind of foreign intervention. So, Canada's position is clear and consistent.
The NDP motion before us offers no proposals or recommendations to bring about an end to the violence in El Salvador, except to protest a decision of the United States government to supply military equipment. The motion is onesided because concern has not been expressed about the receipt of arms by left-wing guerrillas and their use in contributing to the violence and tragic loss of life.
The motion also calls on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his talks with the President of the United States, to urge an end to American military intervention. The Prime Minister
El Salvador
and Secretary of State for External Affairs have already explained many times publicly that our government's policy is one of opposition to military intervention by any country, whether it be the United States or a communist-bloc or any other country. This has been the government's policy for many months, stated many times and was repeated today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
If the New Democratic Party wishes to have a resolution passed which might play a constructive role in bringing about a settlement of the tragedy of El Salvador, why does the motion not call on the Prime Minister or Secretary of State for External Affairs, in addition to discussing the matter with the President of the United States, to appeal to the leaders of the revolutionary groups in El Salvador? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has explained that he made Canada's position clear to representatives of the revolutionary force whom he met in Ottawa a few weeks ago. I understand that some hon. members opposite also met with those representatives at that time, and I hope that they conveyed to them the need to follow the road of peace and negotiation.
In the House on March 2 the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said:
-the only resort of the people of that country to deal with a vicious military regime is to take counter military action.
This remark puzzles me greatly. I find it difficult to understand a politician apparently recommending that people should continue to exercise violence, whatever the provocation. Surely as politicians we should try to negotiate and to find solutions by words, not by military action.
Canada does not have an embassy in El Salvador. Sometimes it is difficult for us to be clear about the exact situation inside that country, but we can look at the chronology of some of the events which have taken place in El Salvador since the Romero government was overthrown on October 15, 1979. These events have been reported rather extensively. At that time the new government promised social reforms. On October 25, 1979, the composition of the cabinet was announced. Two days later, left wing violence, rioting and looting began, with two government ministries occupied by leftist forces. The question that comes to mind is: Why, after only two days, did leftist guerrillas decide that these promised reforms would not be forthcoming and that it was necessary to begin to respond by violence?
Throughout November, bombings and violence continued. On November 28 left wing revolutionary groups kidnapped the South African ambassador. Throughout December and into January, 1980, violence increased to the point that the British embassy felt it had no alternative but to close. In February 1980, revolutionary groups occupied the Spanish embassy. During that month, the German government announced its intention of closing its embassy. The violence continued throughout February and March and a state of siege was declared on March 6. On March 24, Archbishop Romero was murdered while saying mass, and even his funeral on March

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
30 was disrupted by fire bombs and shootings. The leftists blamed the military and the rightists, while the government blamed the leftists, and the state of siege was extended for another 30 days.
Nevertheless, some reforms were pursued; at the end of April, sharecroppers and tenant farmers were given title to the land they worked.
The violence continued throughout the summer and autumn of 1980. On October 9, the South African ambassador, still a hostage of the left wing forces, died. Ten other assassination attempts were made; some successful, some not. On November 27, six leading members of the opposition were murdered. On December 4, the bodies of four American churchwomen were found in a shallow grave near the airport. On December 13, the junta was reorganized and Napoleon Duarte was named president. On January 10, the "final offensive" of the left wing began with widespread fighting and the calling of national strikes.
Nobody in the House denies that much of the violence, the murdering and the torturing, as far as we can see, was caused by right wing forces. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members have spoken plainly about this; but the resolution would seem to imply that the killings were caused only by the El Salvador government. While it is not easy to be clear about what exactly is happening, it is certainly clear that violence begets violence. Clearly no one is blameless in this terrible situation. The House should not be asked to approve a resolution which fails to take into account that there are, as always, two sides to a story, both of which in this case make very unpleasant reading.
The resolution before us also indicates that the left wing forces are the only ones wishing to establish a democratic government. The record would lead one to question this. The government of El Salvador has taken some steps to institute reform. In so doing, it has antagonized forces on the right and forces on the left. We all agree that the progress made has not been as swift or as significant as we would like to see, and I am sure that the people of El Salvador would like to see. But, despite the necessity of dealing with a continuing series of armed attacks, occupations, murders, assassinations and strikes, the government of El Salvador has been able to implement, albeit haltingly, some of its promised reforms.
There is no evidence to suggest that given a period of peace and tranquility, the government of El Salvador might not proceed to implement its reforms. If left wing sources are as determined to establish a democratic government, as the resolution would have us believe, why have they been so active in seeking to achieve power by brutal force against a regime which has publicly declared its intention to establish reforms?
No one on this side of the House has any illusions that the present government of El Salvador is perfect; far from it. Its imperfections are clear for all to see, but its imperfections are admitted by its leaders. They admit that greater efforts must be made to eliminate those imperfections. We have not heard that the leadership of the revolutionary forces admits any imperfections, but, as far as we can see, they urge their
followers to greater violence. The revolutionary forces have shown no great desire to work for a ceasefire and no willingness to negotiate toward a democratic settlement.
The president of El Salvador publicly expressed his willingness to negotiate with responsible leaders of the revolutionary forces. I hope those leaders with take up that challenge and seek to settle the differences in El Salvador with ballots rather than bullets. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs met the revolutionary leaders and sought their views, I understand they said that they were interested only in a discussion with the United States and that the discussions were only to persuade the United States to stop all military and economic assistance to El Salvador, so that revolutionary forces could overthrow the government.
It is hard to reconcile that view with the statement contained in the resolution of the New Democratic Party that the revolutionary leaders wish to establish a democratic government.
The Canadian government's policy has been clear and consistent throughout. We all care very deeply that there should be peace in that unfortunate country and that this senseless killing should stop. I certainly support the government's policy of objecting to the supply of military equipment by any and all countries to any and all parties in El Salvador. I support the government's position in using every opportunity to urge the government of El Salvador to put an end to abuses of human rights and to work toward a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the difficulties.
I support the Canadian government's activity in making its view known to other countries by discussions through diplomatic channels, but it is hard to see that the course suggested in this resolution would do anything to help matters.
This resolution contains two rather contradictory elements, one in which the Government of Canada is condemned for failing to protest publicly the American policy while, at the same time, we are asked to urge an end to military involvement on the part of the United States. It is difficult to see how, in the course of a state visit from an ally, our neighbour and friend, we can both urge and persuade, if that is what the NDP would have us do, while also prejudging and pre-empting the discussions by making public statements beforehand.
The resolution before the House is a flawed resolution, but it has served a useful purpose today by making us all think more deeply about the tragic state of affairs in El Salvador. It has made us think about the tragic denial of human rights in many other countries and the need for us to be vigilant and to use the international forums to express our convictions on every possible occasion.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that tonight I am part of an historical moment in our country's history. I am proud to be able to speak for my party on this resolution. I have been in the House of Commons for almost two years now and up until tonight there has not been a debate
March 9, 1981

on external affairs. This is true of the party which sits opposite and true of the party to my right. The people of Canada have not had an opportunity, through their members, until tonight, to speak about any subject whatsoever as it relates to the external direction of our country.


Eugene Whelan: You could have taken your day.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am happy tonight to have an opportunity to speak not only for Canadians, who I believe have not had their right fulfilled to hear about where our country is going externally, but at the same time to speak for millions of people who are not able to speak of conditions which they themselves no longer control-the oppressed people, millions of them all over the world who would like to have the opportunity to stand up in a free assembly like this and speak to the subjects which are keeping them, their families and, for all they know, their future families, in a state of slavery.
As a member of this House, 1 am happy to have the opportunity tonight to be able to speak freely. At the same time 1 believe I also speak for many friends of mine who are Americans, who no longer have this same ability to get up and, in a very clear way, criticize what is happening to part of our continent, as the member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) put it. In a particular way I would like to speak for the poor, the oppressed, the people who are living in slums, the people who are living in hide-outs in jungles, and the people who can no longer speak for themselves because of the frustrating oppression which has kept them in those places.
I would like to begin my remarks by reading into the record a message which was prepared by a wide sector of church groups in El Salvador. I feel that it is interesting for us tonight to give pause for a moment to say what the words "El Salvador" mean. "El Salvador" means The Saviour. The people there have a Christian tradition of almost 400 years. The capital of their country was called Holy Saviour and their country is called The Saviour. In this letter they are asking for salvation in a very special way. The letter reads as follows:
The people of El Salvador is living a critical and decisive hour of its history. It is deciding its future and destiny as a people. It is deciding to liberate itself from oppression, to regain its dignity, and to organize a society that will be fraternal and just for the poor majorities. In these moments the Salvadorian people is preparing itself for an insurrection as a last resort to obtain that justice and peace for which it has so yearned and which have so many times been denied it.
We as Christian, men and women religious, clergy, who work in the diverse areas of pastoral ministry, education, social development, and humanitarian aid, want also to accompany the people in these moments, acknowledge the justice of its cause and its struggle, and recognize the legitimate right which moves it to insurrection.
For years we have been close to the suffering people, to the poor and oppressed; we have experienced their misery but also their hope and their decision for an authentic liberation. We have attempted to serve them according to the Gospel, but they also have showed us the ultimate truth of the Gospel- the love of God as the good news of the kingdom for the poor. In this hour of insurrection, full of suffering and hope, we want to be with the poor, we want to explain our option, and we want to see in the insurrection of the people the very signs of the times, the word that God addresses us as Christians.
I will not read the whole letter. It was prepared on January 1 of this year by the Archdiocesan CARITAS of El Salvador, the Conference of Men and Women Religious of El Salvador,
El Salvador
the Federation of Centers of Catholic Education, the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council, the Baptist Assembly and the Christian Student Movement and others on an ecumenical base in El Salvador.
Tomorrow our country is welcoming the President of the United States. President Reagan is beginning a term of office. He, like many others, is beginning without a great deal of experience with respect to the responsibilities he must carry out in that role. I believe I state what many others believe-he does not have a great deal of experience in dealing with international matters. He has come out, or seems to have come out, of a life in which things were, to put it very simply, black or white.
If I can refer to his past history, it is not unlike a few poor cowboy movies on which one side there are white hats and on the other side there are black hats. You know from the beginning that the side with the white hats is all right and the side with the black is all wrong. It can be likened to cowboys and Indians, or G.I.s and Japs. It was so easy then, when the situation was clearly right or clearly wrong.
But places like El Salvador, Central America, Latin America and other countries in the developing world are not blacks or whites. They encompass a complex reality of all kinds of things-economic, social, religious and cultural. There, things do not come out black and white; they come out very grey. It requires a great deal of prudence and sensitivity to be able to make good judgments there. However, if one is moved by love and if one has a sense of justice, then those decisions will come with time, with listening and feeling. But it just cannot be said that they are right wing, left wing, communist or capitalist. Those names do not work. They are talking about the majority of people who no longer have the power to do anything except let the power of history flow over them or who finally say "No, I would rather die than let that happen."
I think the debate on El Salvador we are having tonight pinpoints another important reality of what our country and other countries are becoming more deeply involved with. It is the North-South reality. They are two little code words which do not seem to mean much to many people, simply because they are still new code words. The North refers basically to those countries which are more or less economically developed. The South refers basically to those countries which are in the process of development. In general, the North is above the equator, and the South below.
El Salvador is part of the South. It is one of the countries struggling to develop. It is not unlike other Latin American countries in which there has been institutionalized oppression of the poor. Its mode of developing will be different than that in other countries, but it must be respected. It cannot be opposed from an outside power, whether from the left, right, or anywhere else. The people there will have to make the decisions which will finally free them from the oppression of poverty which has put them in this situation.
8052

March 9, 198
El Salvador
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated by his words and actions that he is very interested in this question of North-South. I trust that he is telling us the truth because it is the most important question now facing our planet. However, I would like to advise the Prime Minister that in the question of North-South, it is not only important to be able to talk about the situation but it is also important that we appear credible in the situation. We must be authentic, credible and serious.
The Prime Minister has made several tours to various developing countries preparing for the North-South encounters of this coming summer. I do not believe those trips were well prepared. I believe the trip to Brazil, for instance, was not well prepared. If we are not credible, there could be a problem.
One of the witnesses who appeared before the North-South committee task force was Maria Helena Moreira Alves, a Brazilian social worker who is now studying in the United States. She explained to us in committee that during his trip to Brazil the Prime Minister did not see the right people. It is true that he saw government officials, but he did not see leaders of the church who are much closer to the reality. He did not see people in the labour movement or those in the very vital Brazilian press who write about how they see real development.
The Brazilian problem, although much larger than the El Salvadorian problem, has many of the same aspects. From my own personal experience, I now know that the situation of 30 million to 40 million Brazilians is worse than it was 15 years ago. The "economic miracle", as they call Brazil, did not finally help the poor. The poor are now no longer eating the minimum of rice and beans; they are now down to eating rice and are no longer eating meat. They do not think in terms of great concepts of economic growth; they think only in terms of how much they can purchase by the end of the week at the market.
Therefore, 1 ask the Prime Minister in his visits and in whatever he does, not only to be present but also to be credible, and not to tie on a quick North-South visit through Africa and Brazil at the tail-end of a ski trip. He should make his efforts appear to be serious from the beginning so that the people who have never had the benefits he has can see that he is interested in them.
On the question of whether El Salvador is part of our responsibility-and we have spoken about that in the House this week-I would say it is part of our responsibility because it is our neighbour. If we do not have the ability to handle our responsibilities now, then I would seriously say that we must find a way to obtain it.
On December 4 of 1980, I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) a private letter which reads as follows:
I hope that you will be able to find a way in which Canada can protest against the whole situation and bring to bear some pressure that will amount to having the rights of the people protected. I know from some former correspondence and conversation with you that you feel that Central America is not really within the zone of Canadian influence. I hope that the position will change and that Canada will make a much greater effort in creating a policy which will show our support to the democratic forces which are being suppressed in these countries.
Present groups of delegates from these countries indicate how important they believe Canada is in their struggle.
I would suggest that you make a tour of that particular part of the world, with a strong emphasis on future contacts in Central America. I would like to see the question of human rights violations tackled in a more practical way.
I think we are at a stage in our history at which Canada can now begin to set up new relationships with our neighbours. We can now determine what kinds of relationsips they will be, whether they will just trail along behind a super-power which decides the future of those countries or whether we can go in as a neighbour and say that we want to be their neighbour and friend and that we would like to help. That would not be interpreted or understood as a power play to control the future of those countries but rather as our desire to see them develop in the way they want to develop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: I would like to say much more, but I must close my remarks. Two years ago in February I attended the Latin American bishops' conference at Puebla, Mexico, when the Holy Father Pope John Paul II made his first visit to speak to the bishops of Latin America. While there, I was with the press corps and was standing beside Archbishop Oscar Romero when he gave a short press conference before he left to go back to San Salvador to bury one of his priests, who had been killed the previous day in an ambush by government troops. 1 can only remember it as being a highly emotional moment for myself and many who were standing there because we knew we would never see him again. He was going to stand tall for his people. In the following year, he came to terms with stress. A week before he was finally shot down by a long-range pistol bullet as he celebrated mass he said: "They can kill me, but the clamour for justice among the people they cannot silence".
I would like that to be my final thought and suggestion to my friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and to the government: let us stand tall as people in Canada. I know Canadians will support that. Stand tall, because the clamour for justice among the people will not be silenced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the remarks tonight for just a few minutes to comment on how proud I am of the speeches which were made by individuals within my party, particularly the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle).
I was also pleased to hear some of the things said by members of the Conservative Party who spoke today, particularly the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I am pleased to associate myself with their remarks because they have expressed a feeling that I have about this country and about Canadians. That feeling arises from actions taken in the short history of this country in support of the rights of
March 9, 1981

others. Throughout our history, many selfless acts of support for others have been recorded. Indeed, in former times members of that party opposite, as the government, look positions that have made Canadians proud of their country.
1 was shocked, however, at the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) this afternoon who set out the role chosen by the government. I think it has lost an opportunity. Some hon. members opposite pointed out that they could not support the resolution. That is valid and I can accept their opposition to a motion which condemns the government's failure to act. But I felt that they failed to address head-on the question of the suffering, the termination of human rights and the murders going on in a very small country in central America. There was an implication that this country does not have an interest or expertise in that area of the world. There is a great deal of compassion in this country, however, a great deal of courage and a willingness to assist the people. There is also expertise and knowledge but there seems to be an argument regarding distance which is felt to justify this position.
1 think there is an important and profound role that we could play in such cases. Two countries seem to be in jeopardy at the moment, and we should speak out about them and the oppression they suffer. The first is El Salvador. Some hon. members said today that 5,000 to 6,000 children have been killed because they were suspected of being opposed to the regime. That kind of thing cannot be tolerated.
It is my understanding that El Salvador was run by an oligarchy of 14 families. They controlled the country for their own purposes. Some hon. members used an unfortunate description in their remarks today; perhaps the department wrote some of the speeches, they were so factual. They tended to point out what a great place El Salvador is and to make much of the improvements that have been made. I do not know who coined some of the phrases those hon. members used, such as "highly respected military junta". There might be a line of thought that says, "yes, Hitler did put everybody to work" or, "yes, Mussolini made the trains run on time." I do not think that it is a wise choice of terms, however. I do not think I can identify, nor should the government identify, with some of the things that are taking place in El Salvador at the present time, and I am a little confused by the position the government has taken in the last few weeks.
I have in mind a scenario that goes something like this: that at some point last month the Secretary of State for External Affairs was invited to Washington to have talks with General Haig. General Haig said, "Look, I would like Canada to make a strong statement in support of the United States supplying arms and of the U.S. role generally in Central America." Then the minister came home and made a statement about acquiescing to the United States sending in arms and advisers. To my way of thinking, that was wrong. There was an immediate vociferous reaction in this House.
Next day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, a little more clearly, that he felt the Americans were making a mistake. As an observer of Canadian-American relations over
El Salvador
the years I have seen, as we all have, what has happened when Canada has tried to stand up to the United States. I wonder whether there was some instant reaction to the Prime Minister's statement that he felt the United States had made a mistake because, shortly afterwards, the fishing treaty was shelved, money was released in the United States for the Garrison diversion, the Alaska Gas pipeline was called into question. Today, again, we heard the acquiescent speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and tonight we have heard a range of presentations from the government side that point out all the positive things that have happened in El Salvador.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the most destructive governments ever. As Canadians we should stand up and this government should stand up and condemn its activities. We should call for arbitration or mediation of the dispute and call for a halt to the supply of arms and military advisers.
The other country in Central America which I feel is in some jeopardy, and which has come through what El Salvador is going through today, is Nicaragua. I am particularly concerned about this after what occurred in Chile due to American influence. In that country, whether the Allende government was right or wrong, 30,000 people were murdered by a military dictatorship. I think we can lay the responsibility for that dictatorship in the hands of the United States.
In Nicaragua today, there appears to be a government which displaced one of the most reprehensible dictators in Central America, namely Somosa. It took a long time to get him out. The litany of death, torture and violation of human rights equals that of El Salvador. Today, however, the United States speaks of boycotts, accuses Nicaragua of shipping arms to El Salvador and speaks of a whole host of reprisals against that country. I feel, however, that the country is going through a process that will lead to improvements and to democracy. Forty per cent of the productive capacity of the country was stolen or destroyed by Somosa in reprisal; thousands of people were killed; the country was destroyed by Somosa, but today a five-man junta is rebuilding the country. It is going through the process of reconstruction and is committed to holding elections in 1985. Today I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs condemning that process, saying El Salvador had committed itself to an earlier period for the election.
I submit that if we were to assist in that reconstruction process, if we were to support a government that is going through an evolutionary period and has overcome the violent revolution and wants to get on with rebuilding, probably the elections may come sooner.
It is my understanding that illiteracy stands around 70 per cent. Fifteen days after the junta came to power, it began a crusade against illiteracy and four months later thousands of young people went into the countryside to teach the people of Nicaragua to read and write. In some Indian areas, they invented scripts for languages that did not have written form. The next crusade was to improve health. In Nicaragua, people do not die of cancer, a luxury disease, they die of diarrhea.

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
They do not have a knowledge of standards of health and sanitation, and the next crusade is to improve standards of health and sanitation.
In the meantime, the United States started talking about boycotts, about intervention, about serious reprisals against the country-200 million people stomping on two million in a country just decimated by a vicious civil war and before that by a vicious dictator. This is one of the most outstanding examples of bullying and blindness in a long time.
When our friend, Mr. Reagan, visits us this week, we must convince him that what is needed in Central America is assistance in this evolutionary process of democratization. The greatest role we can play is to assist Nicaragua to restore its productive forces. We must assist with crusades for literacy, education, technical advancement and health. We must help to improve the lot of the people. Not only will Canadians-and Americans if they participate-win tremendous respect and support, but it would prevent a very tragic mistake from occurring which would draw more and more extremist forces into the Americas. It is interesting to think of the possibilities of an example such as Nicaragua. Certainly El Salvador is a different case.
1 saw the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) sitting in this chamber tonight. He is going through a buyback procedure to take fishing boats off the Canadian west coast. I understand Somoza stole and destroyed every fishing boat in Nicaragua along with many of the factories. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries might be prepared to offer to the government of Nicaragua those vessels we want to remove from the Canadian fishing industry so we can assist that country. I wonder whether the government of Saskatchewan and other sincere people in the country might want to supply food to the Nicaraguans to help them.
When Mr. Reagan comes to Canada, we should try to help him understand our point of view. We should not fear standing up with courage and conviction as Canadians to explain to him how seriously we view these matters and how much we would like to participate with the Americans in the evolution toward democratization and improving the lot of people in Central America at this time.
I have heard people explain their contacts with the United States during this debate. I would like to explain mine. 1 have American friends and part of my family is American. My mother was born in the United States, and most of my cousins and my uncles and aunts live in that country. When I see the President of the United States, I reflect back to my grandfathers who fought in an active theatre of war in Europe. My father and uncles all fought in an active theatre of war in Europe. In my generation, I and my two brothers are the only members of the family since the turn of the century who have escaped serving in an active theatre of war. My cousins in the United States and my mother's family were not so lucky; they wound up in Vietnam fighting in an active theatre of war with
very tragic consequences. It tested their concern as Americans. They did not believe in what they were doing. They saw their country torn apart by a tragic mistake.
The acquiescent speeches given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs over the last few weeks remind me very clearly of the Vietnam experience and how timid and reluctant we were until the end to come out and say it was a mistake. By that time, most of the people in the United States had figured out it was a terrible mistake.
I do not see it as a thing of that magnitude. All I see is two million people who are very depressed and in poverty-stricken circumstances being turned back to the 1930s and the old military dictatorship and the banana plantations, with the support of the U.S. marines. We should not support that turning back of the clock even though it is at a different level. We should invite Mr. Reagan to join with us to stop the flow of arms into Central America to begin the process, which our leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), has suggested, of trying to reach a political solution to the problem of El Salvador and then becoming involved in Central America, in the development and enhancement of the lives of those people.
I do not mind the criticism of the resolution we have put forward, that is a point of view, but I would like to hear a different approach from that of government members in the kinds of speeches they are making, things which might track along the remarks made by my colleagues from the Conservative Party and my own party. I think Canadians want to hear something concrete. I have received a great deal of mail from members of churches in my community, members of trade union groups and people from all walks of life who want to see the government move in that direction. I know other members are receiving letters. This is a serious enough issue to which the government should respond in a way to meet the desire of Canadians and the way I think is traditional in Canada.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which cannot be dismissed lightly. It focuses on a problem which concerns people and their basic needs. It falls short because it does nothing in a positive way to get at the root cause of the problem. How much better it would be if we were discussing Canada's role in world development and the North-South dialogue and encouraging the President to follow Canada's leadership in this respect.
I would like to put my credentials before the House when talking about our American friends. My wife is in the gallery tonight and she is an American.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Duncan Schroder: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has provided the House with a very extensive and detailed explanation of the current situation in El Salvador. As on previous occasions, he has made it very clear that the government has had a consistent policy throughout, which is shared by many of Canada's friends and allies. That policy can be expressed very simply. First, Canada does not
March 9, 1981

supply military equipment to El Salvador. Second, Canada thinks that it is wrong for other countries, be it the United States or a communist country, to supply military equipment to El Salvador because the use of weapons and military activities will not bring any real solution to the problems of El Salvador. It will only increase the human suffering which has already reached unimaginable proportions. Third, we think there should be a political settlement in El Salvador which would permit the democratic elements among all parties to coalesce and form a government which will provide the people of El Salvador the opportunity to develop their future in peace and social justice.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House a resolution which was put forward at a meeting of the Latin America and Caribbean Committee of the Socialist International in Panama City on March 1. According to my information, that resolution noted that the reasons for the conflict in Latin America, which lie in unjust socioeconomic structures and the long denial of the democratic life for this people, were not being assessed accurately. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his remarks today, has shown that the government is fully aware of the underlying socioeconomic causes of the conflict in El Salvador, and this government and many other governments are aware of their importance.
The Socialist International resolution also expressed the opinion that the people of El Salvador alone must determine their own fate and have the right to self-determination free of intervention from another outside country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has made it abundantly clear that the Canadian government's position is identical and that Canada's position has been expressed publicly over many months since this government took power.
The resolution of the Socialist International declared that one must work actively to find a political solution to the current crisis which the people of El Salvador are experiencing, and to render possible the establishment of a democratic and pluralistic regime. Here again, the resolution of the Socialist International reflects our government's policy.
The resolution also appealed to the parties of the conflict to work actively with freedom and justice to promote the freedom of the people of El Salvador and stability in Central America and the Caribbean. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his speech today, expressed the same sentiments when he said that we therefore hope that the democratic elements on both sides will be able to cease hostilities and negotiate an acceptable solution.
In this context, I think it is particularly interesting to note that the Socialist International resolution, which I have mentioned, made absolutely no reference to the supply of arms by the United States or by any other country. It is also interesting to note that in his address to the twenty-sixth congress of the Soviet Union, Mr. Brezhnev did not even mention El Salvador.
The resolution before the House calls on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to urge the President of the United States to
El Salvador
end what is described as military intervention on the side of "a regressive regime which denies civil rights and is fighting those who wish to establish a democratic government." This government's policy is clear. It is against the supply of arms by either side. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made that clear to those concerned in his discussions with them. Therefore, not only is there no need for public denunciation, but, what is more, there is no need for public denunciation on only one side, as the resolution requests. This could be quite unacceptable and without any utility whatsoever. I suggest instead that our approach should not be that of casting the first stone; but rather to invite the U.S. to join with us in the real task, the most difficult one, one that will cost us, but the only one that will work, that is, to talk about world development and how it affects these countries.
The World Bank in its world development report said that the worst aspects of absolute poverty include not only low income but also such things as malnutrition, frequent child death, disease and ignorance. That can be helped by human development programs, but less obviously, there is a very complex interdependence between the different facets of human development, just as there is between human development and increases in income. Health, nutrition, education and fertility all affect each other. What is most striking, partly because they are least expected, are the powerful effects that education, especially female education, has on fertility, child health and nutrition.
As this suggests, human development is a circular process, one which can be vicious or virtuous, according to circumstances and policies. It has its own momentum. What is done or not done today influences powerfully what can be done a decade or more ahead.
Nothing can make widespread misery and poverty disappear overnight. Human development, while necessary, is not the entire answer. There must be effective policies, active and enlightened support from the rest of the world, and even then progress will be excruciatingly slow.
My friends on the North-South task force, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), will agree that people are a country's most valuable resource. As Franklin Roosevelt once said, "we can't always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future".
Brandt offers the world a choice, to create a future of peace and prosperity or have chaos thrust upon us. Underneath the daily headlines of confrontation, a new world of co-operation is possible and a third wave is struggling to be born.
There is a great well of compassion and love for all humans in the American people. When visiting in Washington last year, I had the chance to wonder about the great American dream on a global basis. I found the answer I expected. The dream encompasses one of freedom and economic advancement for individuals, even in the least developed countries. Nurtured by having water, basic needs and health care, who knows what heights they may scale and what kind of development they may be able to achieve?

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
Another interesting thing my friends opposite would agree with is that America has always been a very generous country. In the old days, people received postcards from their friends in the United States showing the Statue of Liberty. It read:
Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
When the President is here, we should appeal to him to follow our leadership in encouraging world development. He should be encouraged to attend the mini-summit in Mexico City, and be encouraged to be prepared to talk North-South when he comes to Canada in July.
As a newcomer to the House of Commons, I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to travel with the task force to one of the poorest countries in the world. I look at El Salvador in comparison with a country like Bangladesh. I was impressed by one area I visited where we saw an integrated rural development program which encouraged women to be active. It lent the women money so they could start their own business of husking rice and making handicrafts which they could sell. After listening to what was like an an old-fashioned religious testimonial from these ladies, they told us, in answer to questions, what they thought of the program.
I was reminded of a fact this afternoon when one of my colleagues mentioned that world population is a problem in such countries as El Salvador, Bangladesh and almost all countries in the Third World. One of the women being helped to become more self-sufficient said that for the first time in her life she did not have to beg, she was no longer poor. She told us she had two children, her husband had had a vasectomy and they were not going to have any more children. In that country, the government is trying by law to sterilize 100,000 people a month with the hope that later on this number will be quadrupled. There is no chance of solving the population problem by decree. What I am saying is that if we approached this as a world development process by providing education and allowing these people some freedom, they will make the choice voluntarily, and make it gladly.
I agree with the comments that the government of El Salvador has shown an unfortunate inability to cope with the excesses of the extreme right wing. I also share the view of my hon. friend that our government should continue to urge the government of El Salvador to put its house in order. I am glad that President Duarte appears to share that same objective and seems to be making some progress. I wish him well and hope his objectives can be achieved as quickly as possible. At the same time, I call upon the opposing forces of the left to lay down their arms, put an end to their share in the killing and bloodshed, and enter into a dialogue with the objective of bringing peace to the people of El Salvador.
It is a plain and unavoidable fact that to Canadians our dealings with the United States are by far the most important
of our international ties. The United States is our closest neighbour, our predominant trading partner and our closest friend. As the hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), said to the Empire Club in Toronto on October 4, 1979:
I am also not sure that we really have paid as much attention as we should to our nearest neighbour and closest partner, the United States. . . Our relations with the U.S.A. are so enormously important that they just must be our first priority. Have we really been as attentive, as co-operative and, yes, as tough as we should be in this regard?
With regard to Canada having a role to play in El Salvador, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government of Canada do have an opinion which has been clearly expressed, in some cases publicly and in other cases privately, as should be the case. It is clear also that we have an interest in the matter. This has been clearly expressed in considerable detail today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What the Secretary of State for External Affairs was attempting to say in his earlier remarks is that our bilateral interests in El Salvador are not nearly as significant as they are in many other countries, even those close by such as the Commonwealth Caribbean, and, therefore, we do not see it necessary for Canada to make public pronouncements on the pros and cons of the developing situation in that country, or to seek to promote our role as mediators.
The accurate situation is that many countries in the world are in the same position as Canada in that we do not have a primary interest in the area and are not in a position to make great public statements. It would seem that even countries which are closer to the area and have a more direct interest have found it appropriate not to make such public statements.
In respect to an international fact-finding mission, I would point out that, as far as is known, the government of El Salvador has not asked for such a mission. It would be presumptuous, and not at all consistent with the basic premise of international relations, as well as an interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, for Canada or any other country to suggest that such a mission be established and intrude itself into El Salvador. Such a mission would be unfounded. If the government of El Salvador requested such a mission, that would be a different thing. So far, no such request has been received. It is also significant that neither the Organization of American States nor the United Nations has proposed such a mission, or even contemplated it.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon East, and I was very gratified during the question period on March 1 to hear that hon. member ask the Prime Minister how he could equate Canada's interest in respect of the North-South dialogue with the fact that the United States was planning to extend additional military assistance to El Salvador.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on this motion regarding El Salvador. As
March 9, 1981

1 do so, I wonder what suddenly qualifies me, or any member of this House, as an instant expert, both in the analysis and the solution of the problems of that country. I have not heard that country mentioned in the House of Commons this year, except in the past few weeks. It seems suddenly as though this week, because the President of the United States is coming, or because of intensive reports of repression in the area, these concerns are raised. I know from talking with Canadians in non-governmental organizations that these problems did not begin overnight, or even last week or last month. The difficulties in El Salvador have only now caught public attention for a variety of international and political reasons.
Having regard to this instant expertise of members of the House of Commons tonight, I wonder what is the source of the information being brought forward. As I watch the news from the United States on my television set, I note one type of reasoning and one type of program where intervention is justified and rationalized. As I watch the news from my television station in Canada, I note a condemning attitude, and an expression of great concern over some of the problems faced by that country. As I read the material coming across my desk from one source, namely, the Department of External Affairs,
I note one argument condemning the position taken and another defending it, and so I find it hard to know who and what to believe. There is a lack of information. Quite frankly, when we start hardening the line and taking sides, we start judging and condemning on the basis of very little information.
I have been a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for some seven years and I would like to know where this issue has been. Is the issue now before that committee? Has it been the subject of study, and are we in fact acting upon such a fact study or on information gleaned by our own information-gathering source, or are we again jumping to conclusions on the basis of information we have received through the media, as we have done in respect of so many international events and crises?
I think all of us had better start by being cautious about our sources of information. Let us not become instant experts, as far as judgments are concerned, and let us be careful about condemnation. It is very easy to look back in history and determine what we should have done and what we should have said. On many occasions, better judgment and a little less haste to judge and to jump in would have been in the interest of all.
I do not know whether I should believe when we are told that communists are running guns in the area in an attempt to overthrow a right wing government, socialists, or whoever they are. 1 do not know whether the Americans are just trying to escalate an East-West crisis or whether the Soviet Union is trying to escalate such a crisis to test the Americans and the new President. I do not know about all these things, but I know the end result of this kind of international intervention.
We have seen the end result many times in many places. I wondered about the end result of France, the United States, the Soviet Union and China being involved in Vietnam. I wondered what this has meant to the people of Vietnam. I
El Salvador
visited Vietnam and I know what this has meant so far. The international involvement has meant more troops, more guns, more death, less food and less social progress. That is what that international interference has meant.
In this modern world we see again and again the superpowers seeking ground other than their own where they can play their political science games of war, of experimentation and push and pull to see who will go the farthest. What a shame it is that El Salvador is seemingly becoming a victim of the international giants' power play.
I think it is dangerous to condemn either side at this stage, but it is not dangerous to condemn the results of this international power play in the area. What was the result in Cambodia? Twenty-five to 50 per cent of the people lost their lives, loss of freedom and social structure, and loss of food, and water in a country that had exported food. It is now one of the most impoverished countries of the world.
What of Ethiopia and Somalia, two of the poorest countries in the world, suffering again through the struggles of the superpowers? And what will we as Canadians bring to this debate in Parliament?
Well, it seems to me that what we are bringing, to start with, is condemnation. That is what this motion talks about. It talks about condemning, about judging, and it gives me great concern that members of this House, who badly lack information, are asked to pass on a motion of this sort. I think this motion is irresponsible in that it is escalatory, in that it promotes confrontation and anger-


An hon. Member:: Wake up, Bob.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is not a matter of waking up. Maybe you need to wake up. Perhaps the ones who need to be awakened are the ones who need to look at the whole international situation.
People point to another Vietnam. I am not sure that the situation in Vietnam, looked at in retrospect, might not have suggested a different course of action. When I compare nations in southeast Asia, and that is the comparison that seems to be made, where there is, in fact, basic democracy, basic freedom, multiplicity of parties, in some cases a parliamentary system like our own, I see prosperity and peace there although I see the problems there too. But then I look at Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, and it does not take much to judge which system is the superior of the two.
I am not going to stand here and condemn the United States offhand. The United States is a bastion of democracy and freedom, and I support the basic values of the United States in that direction. However, when it comes down to the question of escalating the cold war militarily and socially into a hot war situation, that is another matter. I do not want to see that in the area. I do not want to see the United States moving in in a bigger way, nor do I want to see the Soviet Union, through Cuba or whatever other satellite, moving into the area.

March 9, 1981
El Salvador
Instead, I think we have to see our position for what it is, and it surely somehow relates to what Canada will bring to the debate and what its attitude will be.
I think the attitude of Canada has to be that which is in our tradition. I think, instead of coming down on one side or the other of that east-west conflict, we should take the attitude that is being fostered in our parliamentary committees where in fact, knowledge and caring is being found. We have had a committee sitting hour after hour after on North-South dialogue. We need to redirect our effort from confrontation to peace and compassion and the reality of longer-term programs that will bring peace and stability to that region. We need to start caring about human rights, and we need to express concerns about human rights in El Salvador. I commend and support those hon. members who have said that. We need to express concern about human rights in Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Ethiopia, Somalia, wherever there is this east-west conflict the results of which we must share.
Now, it is very easy to say that Canada perhaps does not have an interest in the area or that we somehow do not really have an involvement there through our traditions or our practice. We might not have that involvement now but perhaps we should have it and anyway, whether we like it or not, if the east-west confrontation continues, we will be involved.
Hopefully, our involvement will not be a military one but rather that of a country with compassion and freedom. In trying to pick up the results, regardless on which side, the east, the west the right or the left, we will pick up the tragedy that will result from war in that region.
We know only too well in this House that there are no winners in any war. No war is ever won. The people involved directly suffer the most, anyone involved suffers in any kind of war. There will be, in fact there are already, losers in this war. I understand we are already starting to see the fallout of some
60,000	refugees and, again, it does not matter who wins, there will be refugees from the right wing, there will be refugees from the left wing. The refugees of the world are created by this east-west conflict. And who in the world will then be called upon to accept the refugees, to help them? The united Nations will be called upon to do so and so will Canada but, before these people become refugees, we must consider peaceful participation in the affairs of El Salvador, of South America and of the North-South community of nations. That is where the matter stands, and that is where we should be looking now.
Instead of condemning one side or the other, why not propose perhaps an international monitoring system that will supervise both economic and social support programs? Why not bring in this type of a program instead of political and military solutions one way or the other? We do not have involvement in the area. In fact, we know the need is there. It is clearly identified in almost any sphere by any group, it does not matter whether it is left, right or centre. The need for stability is demonstrated there, stability that can provide the infrastructure to deliver aid programs and, beyond the aid programs, an infrastructure that can deliver development programs. I wish that were the tone of the United States, of the Soviet Union and of Canada. This debate, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, has not provided that tone because the very nature of the motion is that of confrontation.
I am concerned about the disparities which I hear about, the stories that the area is wracked with terrorism, violence, oppression, torture and murder. Ten thousand people were murdered there last year alone, many thousands more were left homeless by the fighting. Yet, I am encouraged that in the midst of this, reform is also taking place. It is time for us to participate in making reform a reality and to move toward development and stability in the region. Whether it be a communist, a fascist or a democratic system, people prosper from strong and stable economic, social and political structures which deliver services.
Let us not look to confrontation with the President of the United States; let us look to supporting the President and encouraging a redirection in aid programs to that area. We should work toward an international monitoring of the military and political situation, and above all, we should supervise the distribution and control of arms.
In conclusion, I wish that Parliament, with its reputation for peace and humanitarianism, would come to the aid of El Salvador rather than joining with or condemning one side or the other.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, having read very quickly the motion moved by the New Democratic Party, I feel the very least that can be said is that it gives an incomplete description of the situation in El Salvador. I also believe that this motion is rather naive as it does not take into account the various implications and ramifications of the situation prevailing in that country, while on the other hand, the motion seems to me slightly pretentious as it purports to be based on a thorough knowledge of the factual reality in that unfortunate country.
Mr. Speaker, no one questions the fact that in Central America as in the Latin American continent as a whole, socioeconomic conditions are so horrendous that they literally make visitors to these countries sick to their stomachs. I had the opportunity to live for two years in South America and I can understand the feelings of exasperation and frustration of a working class exploited by oligarchies with the support of governments which to say the least tolerate those inequities. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, these problems must be solved by the people of those countries. In the case of El Salvador, the last thing to wish for would be a massive presence or intervention by any foreign interest.
Mr. Speaker, the motion gives the impression that we are living in a world where there are only good guys and bad guys, where everything is either black or white. In other words,
March 9, 1981

unfortunately, this motion does not consider all the hues of the complex situation now existing in El Salvador. For instance, this motion assumes naively, to say the least, that the United States, our southern neighbours, are the only country to provide military aid to one of the parties in the conflict. It also suggests, quite wrongly, that it was basically the United States of America which decided to become militarily involved in El Salvador. Absolutely nothing is said about interventions by other interests, countries or ideological groups. There is complete silence in that regard. What about Cuba? No, Cuba is completely out. Even though the Nicaraguan territory has been used, this is completely ignored in the motion.
Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian people have given a group of men the responsibility to govern their country, and when these men have decisions or judgments to make about situations outside our borders, I believe the least we can expect is that they should be quite familiar with the facts. I think that unfortunately, as far as the situation in El Salvador and the rest of Central America is concerned, we have to be extremely cautious, otherwise we might make judgments which will not serve the interests of Canada and the free world, or even of the people in countries like El Salvador who deserve a better fate.
I would like to close by quoting the words of the former American ambassador to El Salvador, Mr. Robert White, who has, on several occasions, publicly opposed the military aid given by his own country to the junta which governs El Salvador. Mr. White, who saw the situation first hand for a few years and who witnessed the events in that country, wrote the following-I say all this, Mr. Speaker, to show that everything is not either black or white and that it is not only a fight between the good guys and the bad guys-as I was saying, Mr. White stated the following, as reported by The New York Times on March 7, only two days ago, and I quote:

No leader of the leftist forces, whether it be Ungo or (Roman) Nayorga or (Hector) Oqueli, has ever-and I have asked that they do so publicly-made any effort to stop the leftist forces from murdering, kidnapping, assassinating. The left takes bus drivers out of their vehicles and guns them down in front of the people. The day that Dr. Ungo condemns that, he starts to gain some moral authority in my eyes. The government of Napoleon Duarte, on the other hand, and many of the moderate military officers, have explicitly condemned the excesses of the security forces. They have tried and thrown out a large number of enlisted people and have transferred a number of officers out of the line of command.

Mr. Speaker, 1 will conclude in pointing out that conditions are not as simple as we are led to believe, that the United States have to assume their responsibilities in the face of strategic interests and on behalf of world peace and also because we cannot allow the setting up of another Cuba on the doorstep of the United States we can deplore such conditions, but if we have to ask the American government to stop such arms shipments we should in the first place make sure that arms shipments from other sources do not reach El Salvador.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on February 26, as reported on page 7700 of Hansard, I directed a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Because of a totally unacceptable salary range, the Health of Animals Branch of Agriculture Canada has been having a rather difficult time recruiting veterinarians. This salary range is a discouragement to veterinarians to make a career for themselves in government service.
The starting salary for veterinarians in the federal service is not only a deterrent to recruiting, but a direct insult to the veterinary profession. To every veterinarian in the country, to be offered such a ridiculously low salary range after six years of university training, is an insult. That is the main reason why we have a serious shortage of veterinarians in the federal service today. What irritates me more is that no apparent honest effort has been made by the government and the Treasury Board up to now to alleviate this very serious situation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated last week, in response to a question from the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), that there were 23 veterinary vacancies is his department. However, what the minister did not say is that there is an additional 198 veterinary job vacancies in the federal service that would be open and pursued if only personnel was available.
The Government of Canada has chosen to ignore this ever-increasing and ever-alarming vacancy rate in the federal service, which has increased over the past few years. If this shortage of federal veterinarians is not acted upon very soon, the health of Canadians will be in jeopardy. Not only will it have an effect on the health of our people but it will have an effect, as well, on the safety, security and economy of our country. The consequence of the consumption of uninspected or inadequately inspected meat and meat byproducts, which make up more than 40 per cent of the Canadian consumers'

March 9, 198 i
Adjournment Debate
dollar, can be not only injurious to health, but could even be fatal. The threat of food poisoning through the consumption of meat and meat byproducts requires a constant inspection monitoring system, as is carried out by the Veterinary Meat Inspection Department of the Health of Animals Branch. To do the job right would require adequately trained veterinary personnel. There can be no disputing the grave consequences of a breakdown or reduction of services by members of the veterinary science group.
In view of this, I find it extremely alarming that the government has chosen to ignore the vacancy rate which has not only existed for several years but has increased over the past three. However, to give the President of the Treasury Board his due, I was encouraged by his reply to my question on February 26 when he said:
I can assure the hon. member that if there are major inequities they will certainly be adjusted during the current negotiation.
I believe the minister is a sincere man. I hope he will recognize the work of this dedicated group of veterinarians in the public service and correct a long overdue inequity. This group of veterinarians is not only dedicated but, on the whole, a very patient group. But patience, no matter how persevering, does eventually have its breaking point. A very low morale results from being constantly ignored in fruitless attempts for a better deal.
I appeal to the President of the Treasury Board to thoroughly consider all the injustices and inequities to which federal veterinarians have been subjected for so long and to come up with a favourable solution so that we can recruit desperately needed veterinanians into the federal service where they could have a very enjoyable and fulfilling career, which is certainly not the case at the present time.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate to answer the hon. member for Grey Simcoc (Mr. Mitges) and to set straight some facts he referred to in his intervention of February 26 last. He pointed out, and here I am quoting one of the figures he mentioned in his remarks, that the starting salary for a veterinarian hired by Agriculture Canada was $17,660. With all due respect for the hon. member, that figure is not correct. The current starting salary for a veterinarian who goes to work for Agriculture Canada is $22,863 and that amount is now being negotiated, so it may be adjusted along with the full salary scale applicable to veterinarians.
In his comments on February 26, 1981, the hon. member also said that the veterinary vacancy rate in the department was in excess of 30 per cent in the section which includes meat inspectors. After checking with the Department of Agriculture it would appear that the vacancy rate for meat inspectors is 17 out of 287, which works out to about 6 per cent. Those are the
correct figures. I see that the hon. member is shaking his head in disbelief. Those are the figures provided by the Department of Agriculture. If the Professional Institute of the Public Service which is negotiating for veterinarians has different figures to set forth I am certainly prepared to receive and review those figures on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).
The hon. member also stated that the negotiations are dragging on. In that respect perhaps we might recall a number of facts. First, the negotiations got under way in November 1980, and continued through January, 1981. They reached an impasse on salary and other related issues in mid-February, particularly on February 6, 1981, and as a result a conciliation officer was appointed; he got the parties together and was able to work in close co-operation with them between February 23 and 26. On February 26, 117 of the 156 veterinarians in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario did not report for work because of illness. Of course, nobody is fooled by this diplomatic illness, if I may call it that. It was a form of strike action that the 117 veterinarians from Ontario and Quebec took that day. Therefore, Treasury Board will certainly not pay sick leaves benefits unless proof of illness is duly submitted. Otherwise, the Department of Agriculture has no choice but to apply the disciplinary action which is warranted in such case.
Therefore, since the twenty-sixth, the conciliator has been waiting for a go-ahead from the parties involved. Considering the progress made with the help of the conciliator, there is a good chance that negotiations will resume within a week and that all parties will come to a satisfactory settlement.


HOUSING-SHORTAGE OF DWELLING UNITS IN VANCOUVER- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight because of a question put to the minister responsible for CMHC on March 5, 1981. His answer-at least to me-was somewhat misleading. I do not blame the minister because I feel he was trying to give a very straightforward and honest answer to the question, but the manner in which it was phrased may create in many minds- certainly in many minds in Vancouver-a conception which simply is not true.
The minister also suggested that I check my facts. I have checked the facts thoroughly, and I bring to the attention of the minister and the House that on Thursday when I spoke about 800 housing units being allowed for a population of
30,000	people moving into Vancouver this year, was accurate. Actually, in rough figures-and as well as we can determine- 888 units have been allowed in 1981.
The minister speaks of 3,000 units, but in terms of the housing crisis, there were actually 2,200 units allocated last
March 9, 1981

year. We might say that those 2,200 units were for the 30,000 people who moved into Vancouver in 1980, not in 1981.
Considering the exploding population and the very serious housing crisis on the west coast, the actions of CMHC have not been adequate, in my view. With the greatest humility and the greatest respect, I would ask the department and the minister to go over the figures again. They should look at what is happening on the west coast and at the continuing tragedy in the housing situation. If the minister does not take action to change his priorities, the situation will worsen in 1981.
Some facts and figures may be useful, Mr. Speaker. In 1979 there were 12,827 housing starts on the west coast, and 3,576 CMHC loans; in 1980, 16,780 starts and 2,440 CMHC loans; at the end of January, 1981, 1,492 starts and 10 CMHC loans. In 1979, 3,054 units were approved by CMHC; in 1980, 2,117 housing units were approved by CMHC and perhaps the most tragic figure of all, with an anticipated 30,000 new residents in the greater Vancouver area in 1981, 888 units were approved by CMHC.
Let me break down the figures for 1980, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important to understand how much they contributed to the alleviation of the severe housing crisis on the west coast. In 1980, 333 units were constructed for provincial use, mostly for senior citizens, and no one disagrees with that. There were 498 intermediate units for seniors' care; 446 hostel beds for halfway houses, battered wives, etc; 28 reserve housing for Indian reserves in the province, and six rural native units.
The two areas where some help has been given are the 621 units for the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation and the 1,689 co-operative housing units, roughly 2,200 units in all. I believe that is what the minister referred to when he answered my question. But those figures refer to last year, Mr. Speaker, not this year. Last year, 30,000 people moved into the lower mainland. This aggravated the shortage, caused doubling-up and the opening of many illegal suites, unsanitary conditions and basement accommodation. Another 30,000 people will move in this year. As I said to the minister, only 800 units are available for 30,000 people-perhaps I should say 3,000 for
60,000	people, if the minister wants to add the 1980 starts to the 1981 figures. It is a deplorable situation, and I think CMHC could and should do much more.
The answer I received from the minister last Thursday would show that he feels although the situation is severe, 3,000 units is not bad. I think 3,000 units is a drop in the bucket considering the number of people coming from Ontario and the rest of Canada to the lower mainland.
I suggest to hon. members opposite that some of the people who will not find accommodation at the coast or who will not be able to afford it, may be the sons and daughters of voters in their ridings. If I cannot make the point, then I hope those young people will write to their moms and dads telling them the problems they have run into when trying to get housing. Perhaps they will look at what we have said tonight about this issue and realize where the blame lies. Something should be done about this.
Adjournment Debate


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, in responding further to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) about the British Columbia housing market, I should like to emphasize the fact that the government has made a number of important moves to help alleviate the situation. In addition, there is every indication that the housing market is responding to the high levels of demand.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year the government increased the national allocation of 25,000 social housing units by some 5,000 additional units. Of these, British Columbia received a total of 1,569 additional units. Also, a further special allocation of some 1,100 units was made in December, 1980, to the Vancouver area. In other words, the federal government provided an additional 2,669 units over and above the regular 1980 allocation in response to British Columbia's pressing needs. Most of these non-profit and co-operative housing units will be coming on stream this year. I am pleased that this assistance has been made available and I am confident that it will go a long way in meeting the need for social housing in British Columbia. Furthermore, 3,730 non-profit and co-operative units have been allocated to British Columbia for 1981. This represents an increase of some 70 per cent over last year's original allocation, in direct response to British Columbia market conditions.
I should like to underline the fact, Mr. Speaker, that starts have increased dramatically in the province, in response to demand.
Once these units come on stream, they will be an important factor in alleviating the situation. In 1980, total starts in British Columbia were some 37,500 units, up more than
10,000	from 1979, an increase of 37 per cent. We are forecasting a record year for housing in British Columbia this year with an estimated 38,000 housing starts. As the hon. member is aware, the government also reinstated the MLJRB program in the last federal budget. This was in direct response to the tight rental situation in major market areas in Canada. It is expected that the reinstated program will result in 10,000 new units of which a large portion will be built in British Columbia. I might also add that the building industry in the province is operating near capacity.


PARLIAMENT-COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a question which I asked of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 18 last concerning the extension of collective bargaining rights to employees on Parliament Hill. At that time I pointed out that recently the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of

March 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Canada recommended to Parliament a charter of rights, which would have granted a number of rights to all Canadians, including the full freedom of association. I pointed out as well that at this time we are denying freedom of association and the right to full collective bargaining to some 3,100 employees on Parliament Hill, namely, employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.
Some 13 years ago a special committee on the public service recommended that this basic fundamental right of collective bargaining be extended to all employees on Parliament Hill, and that we live up to our obligations undertaken pursuant to certain conventions, for example, of the International Labour Organization.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was a member of that committee and he has been pursuing this matter diligently for years since that committee reported. Two years ago, the then government House leader, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), promised the House that the government would consider very seriously amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act to extend the right of employees of Parliament to choose collective bargaining.
Since that time no action has been taken whatsoever. What is the effect of this denial of collective bargaining rights and the denial of recognition of the right to full collective bargaining to employees on the Hill? What this means is that employees can be hired and fired at will.
Only too recently one of the major bases for hiring on Parliament Hill was the connection that the prospective employee may have had with particular Members of Parliament in office at the time. Therefore, there can be hiring and firing at will.
There is no grievance procedure whatsoever for employees in the offices of Members of Parliament. Only recently was there a grievance procedure established, and it is not a written grievance procedure open to other employees on Parliament Hill.
There may be unreasonable working hours or working conditions. For example, security guards on the Hill have been told that tomorrow every guard must work whether or not he or she was scheduled to be off. They do not know whether that time will be made up. These are completely arbitrary working conditions.
Working conditions may be unhealthy or unsafe. We need only point to the example of the print shop and the deplorable conditions existing there. There is no control whatsoever over basic working conditions. There may be arbitrary discipline or other problems with respect to promotion, salaries or other working conditions. As we know, salaries are handed down from on high. There is no opportunity for employees on the Hill to bargain collectively.
There are still employment ghettos on the Hill; women who are working as cleaning ladies and men working as maintenance staff. Surely in this day and age our Parliament should be setting an example and not perpetrating these kinds of sexist hiring practices.
I gave the example of the lack of grievance procedure for employees who may be sexually harassed. My reason for raising that example was simply to illustrate the fact that there is no appeal mechanism available to an employee if he or she feels there is a legitimate grievance of that nature.
When I raised this matter in the public accounts committee with Madam Speaker, she said quite properly that this matter should be raised with the government, that employees on Parliament Hill had no collective bargaining rights and that she as Speaker had no power to extend these fundamental rights to employees on the Hill.
It was a fine example of buck passing on February 18 when in response to my question, instead of suggesting that we should have this kind of legislation to bring Parliament into the twentieth century, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said we should go back to the Speaker.
The Speaker says she has no jurisdiction and the Prime Minister refuses to accept the responsibility of the government to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act to allow the right to choose. That is all we are talking about, the extension of the right to employees of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament, to choose collective bargaining for themselves, not the imposition of anything upon them. As 1 said before, in the present day we here on Parliament Hill are, in many ways, in the backwater of labour relations.
I urge the government to move forward and accept the recommendation made some 13 years ago by the committee, which examined this whole question very carefully, to live up to the commitment made by the then government House leader some two years ago to amend the legislation to permit the 3,100 employees on Parliament Hill full collective bargaining rights.
I would like to refer to one argument that is sometimes raised with respect to the right to strike. The government will know that essential employees can be designated. If Parliament is sitting and employees are deemed to be essential, those employees can be designated as indeed employees were designated during the strike of the clerical staff. I therefore suggest that that argument is without foundation.
In conclusion, I urge the government to seriously consider the fact that in this year where we are extending the freedom of association to all Canadians through a charter of rights, we should clean up our own house and extend the fundamental right of freedom of association of collective bargaining to the 3,100 employees on Parliament Hill.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) knows full well the government is committed to improving and protecting the rights of individual Canadians, as witnessed by the constitutional resolution now
March 9, 1981

before the House. Indeed, that hon. member has participated at committee during the study of this resolution, and I am sure, as a supporter of that resolution, he recognizes the efforts the government is making, as are all members of this House, to protect fundamental freedoms and liberties under the constitutional amendments which will be going forward very shortly from this Parliament.
The government believes in general that the collective bargaining system represents the most fair and the most publicly acceptable method of determining wages and working conditions in both the private and public sectors. Obviously the public service at large is organized, and it has been Liberal governments over the past few years which have been in the forefront of labour legislation, leading the way in the field of labour legislation, leading the way in the field of labour relations in this country, both in respect of its own employees in the public sector and in those industries which come under federal regulation.
1 should point out, however, that there are a number of ways, in both the common law and through statutory provisions, by which the rights of unorganized employees can be and are protected in Canadian society today.
It is also recognized that Parliament in the relation between its employees and employers, represents a unique case involving a number of complex and special factors. I understand the hon. member for Burnaby wants to include the staffs of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate in any proposed organization or collective association in order to
Adjournment Debate
cover all employees of the House, such as the protective staff, Hansard, etc. Perhaps that is a good idea. It is certainly being studied at the moment by officials of the government. In order to provide an accurate and comprehensive basis on which the matter can be considered further, we should allow those studies to take their normal course. Then Members of Parliament should have a full opportunity to debate whatever recommendations come forward from the government.
What concerns me about the hon. member's presentation, and this concerned me a few days ago when he directed essentially the same kind of question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is that there is almost smearing or innuendo in the comments he has been making, both publicly, off the Hill, and in this chamber. I hope I have the hon. member for Burnaby wrong in this regard and that he is not engaging in these kinds of tactics because this smears not only those in managerial positions on the staff of the House of Commons, but also Members of Parliament, both in the House and in the Senate. I would ask the hon. member, in making what could very well be, and probably is, a rightful case for association, not to use examples which could undermine the basic principle he is trying to bring forward in this House and in Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 10, 1981