1982-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I am sure has the support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson). In light of the growing problems associated with prostitution in Vancouver's West End and other cities across Canada, and in light of the pressing need to identify solutions to these problems, and bearing in mind that specific details about how to study and report on this issue will be worked out at the committee level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently enforced in this regard, and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) has indicated to this House on several occasions that, following serious thought, he will make an announcement on whether or not leather footwear will be re-integrated within the global quota. In light of the intolerable uncertainty being suffered by thousands of workers in the Canadian footwear industry whose economic survival hangs on the minister's decision to safeguard Canadian jobs, at
a time when the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) are costing thousands of jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That the minister make known immediately his decision to reinstate leather footwear and show concern for the people whose jobs are in serious jeopardy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Despite the fact that the state of our economy is at its lowest ebb in decades, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during question period in the House yesterday, refused to respond to all questions of an economic nature. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Prime Minister make a statement on motions to present his economic recovery solutions to the people of Canada, or failing that, he admit his disinterest or his incompetency and take the ultimate step toward economic recovery by submitting his resignation post haste.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House instruct the government to take responsibility for and to establish postage free rates for non-profit charitable organizations in Canada as a direct acknowledgement of the services they provide and in recognition of the significant contribution that volunteers make to the community, to the country and to the quality of life.

April 29, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The government's policy of massive taxation of the oil and gas industry to nationalize, Canadianize, and rapidly transfer exploration and development from provincial lands to Canada Lands is regressive to the entire industry and the total Canadian economy. Therefore I move:
That the government immediately (1) cut significantly the petroleum and gas revenue tax; (2) provide exactly the same incentives for exploration and development on provincial lands as is provided for Canada Lands under the petroleum incentive program; (3) drop immediately the retroactive 25 per cent ownership requirement on all Canada Lands:
I feel certain that, on reflection, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will be pleased to second this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which hopefully will receive the unanimous consent of the House. In view of the serious problem of street soliciting in the West End of Vancouver in particular, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, and including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard, and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations, provided that all witnesses on this issue be heard by the justice committee, or a sub-committee thereof, between May 10 and May 31, 1982.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, in the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped entitled "Obstacles", which was presented to the government during the International Year of the Disabled, 1981, one of the recommendations was that all government departmental publications, studies and reading material now available to the general public should also be made available to the blind and other disabled persons of this country in braille, large print, or on cassette tape. Even though the government claims it has accepted the above recommendation in principle, there has been nothing done thus far to meet the needs of the disabled as far as government publications are concerned. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House direct the government to take action immediately in this regard and prove that these special committees are not just a waste of time, money and effort, by commencing publication of essential government information in braille, large print and on cassette tapes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, Frank Lamont, a highly respected Winnipegger, who also is or was a lifelong western Liberal-this latter is a contradiction on its face, I appreciate-has joined every other Canadian not blinded by political ideology in critizing the National Energy Program. He said in part the other day, "It is impossible to understand how Draconian tax levels, suppressed prices and subsidized consumption of foreign oil are consistent with the strategic importance of Canada's oil industry, conservation or self-sufficiency." I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That this House, recognizing that our current economic descent began with the NEP, recommend that each cabinet minister in this regime be given an economic saliva test.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
April 29, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
closure of Macmillan bloedel lumber mill at CHEMAINUS, B.C.- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, MacMillan Bloedel in British Columbia has just announced the indefinite closure of its lumber mill at Chemai-nus as of May 14, 1982, with the loss of over 600 jobs. The word "indefinite" means only that the company can avoid severance payment to long-term employees. MacMillan Bloedel has made several fortunes from the resources of that area and the work of its employees. Instead of maintaining a modern plant at Chemainus, it has allowed it to deteriorate into a gunnysack operation while ploughing its profits into new operations in other parts of the world. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House condemn the irresponsible pillage of resources and disregard for its employees and their community shown by MacMillan Bloedel and that we condemn Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit governments which have adopted policies which encourage this cut and cut out philosophy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) recently gave a speech on pension reform in which she repeated again that it was nothing short of outrageous that, in 1982, being old, single and female is synonymous with being poor. Since she has stated in the past that it would cost $730 million to bring single pensioners above the poverty line, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House regard the statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare as being totally outrageous in view of the fact that the government intends to allocate the $819 million it no longer will spend on medicare and postsecondary education toward reducing the federal deficit instead of using this money to alleviate the condition of Canada's senior citizens.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to press stories, the remaining members, or the last three members of the Alsands consortium were to make a decision today at a board meeting held in Calgary this morning. Can the minister tell the House whether that decision has been announced or whether this project is to join the long list of casualties in the National Energy Program?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have not been informed of any decision by any members of the consortium.


FUTURE OF MAJOR PROJECTS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, on page 94 of the National Energy Program there are listed eight major oil development programs which, over the next decade, are supposed to generate some 500,000 barrels of oil and tens and tens of thousands of jobs. With the exception of the first project, which started before the National Energy Program, everyone of those projects has either been cancelled, postponed, or is in serious jeopardy. Can the minister tell the House what he is going to do to make up for this terrible loss of crude oil production for Canada, and even worse loss of the tens and tens of thousands of jobs that would have been generated if these projects had gone ahead, and they would have gone ahead without the National Energy Program?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that in the United States there is no such thing as the National Energy Program, but they have cancelled and postponed a large number of megaprojects, particularly the Synfuels program, which is very similar to our tar sands projects. The hon. member knows that those decisions have been influenced very considerably by the situation of high interest rates in the western world, the relative glut in the supply of oil, and concern about the evolution of prices. The United States projects I have indicated have been delayed. I hope that the various projects that were considered, Cold Lake, for example, will be brought to realization once the environment with regard to the evolution of prices for oil is clarified.


Harvie Andre: What the minister neglected to mention, or has forgotten, is that these projects, particularly Alsands, would have been half completed now if they had been allowed to start in February, 1980, when they were ready to start construction of that plant.

April 29, 1982
Oral Questions PREDICTED LOSS OF JOBS


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada in its 1980 review predicted that failure to go ahead with the large energy projects would mean, and I quote: "A cumulative total of 753,000 jobs would be lost over that period", referring to the 1980-1990 period. Given that the worst fears of the Economic Council of Canada appear to be true, what action does the minister plan to make up for these 753,000 jobs lost to Canada in the next decade as a result of his energy program?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have two comments and maybe three to make to my hon. friend. First, this government has always been supportive of the tar sands projects. In February, 1980, September, 1980, January, 1981, February, 1981 and all the months in between we have been supportive of those projects. I invite him to reflect upon some other decisions made not by this government but which had an impact on the decision to proceed. Second, I remind him that those projects are far from being shelved. Some may be delayed. Some are proceeding. Some will proceed quicker, such as development of the Beaufort and development off the east coast. They appear to be proceeding quicker than had been anticipated because of discoveries. Third, I remind my hon. friend that the Economic Council of Canada has very often been proven wrong, even in the last year, with its forecasts.


ALSANDS PROJECT-TAX AND ROYALTY STRUCTURES
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister knows full well that the delay in the Alsands project and the Imperial project was because there were not royalty structures in place and the tax structure set by the federal government was not in place. The minister also knows that the dry-up in the cash flow of the companies has stopped them from proceeding. In his offer to the industry, has the minister cut back on the PGRT to increase the cash flows to the company, and has he altered the tax and royalty structures offered to the companies?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada during the last few months have worked hand in hand to develop a proposal that would be fair to the companies and to the taxpayers and consumers of the country. These have been the objectives, and these objectives have been shared between the government of Alberta and ourselves. We have worked, as I said, extremely closely together. We have put forward joint proposals that, for the time being, are confidential. Once the companies have made their decision we will be very pleased to reveal the content of our proposals.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Despite vague assurances given to us by him in the past that there is nothing to worry about, and the seven years delay already experienced with the Alaska gas line project, the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his letter of April 23 to his counterpart, Mr. Alexander Haig in the United States, stated that we have now come to a "critical impasse". I wonder if the government and the minister can explain what is meant by a "critical impasse." And, also, could he explain the nature of the veiled threats contained in that letter? Is the Government of Canada threatening to withdraw Canadian support for this project?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the support for this project is part of the legislation that has been endorsed by Parliament and passed by Parliament under this government several years ago. So the support for the project is clear, is there, and it has been continuous. As far as the impasse to which my hon. friend refers is concerned, it is not an impasse that has anything to do with the two governments. There appears to be some difficulty at the present time in the United States among the promoters of that project. The Secretary of State for External Affairs wanted to draw this situation to the attention of the Secretary of State in the United States, to see if the United States administration would not use its good offices to try to resolve any of the outstanding issues there might be between the producers and the distributors in the Alaska gas pipeline project.


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is the ironclad guarantee?


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE ON STARTING OF PROJECT
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost already, jobs in the steel, the construction and other industries, can the minister now give this House his ironclad guarantee-


Erik Nielsen: Once again.


Dave Nickerson: -that the project will start within the next six months? Does he still believe that the project can be completed solely by private financing? Can he advise us what were the results of the meeting in New York last night between the Hon. Mitchell Sharp and the pipeline proponents?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to report on the result of the visit by Mr. Sharp in New York yesterday.
I have not been informed of the results of that visit. I might
April 29, 1982

tell the hon. member-he is aware, no doubt-that the Government of Canada had already authorized the pre-build of the line, which resulted in several hundred million dollars of work, of orders, and several thousand person years, in terms of the completion of that particular section of the line. It is hoped that the rest will be completed.


Erik Nielsen: Now it is called "hope" and there are no more ironclad guarantees.


UNITED STATES COMMITMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will recall that, in his own words in the House of Commons in 1979, he said quite clearly that an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline would have to be obtained before the prebuild was commenced. Quite obviously, that position was changed considerably.
I want to ask the minister a further question now, in light of the most recent statements coming from Washington, that the United States administration is having considerable difficulty in trying to convince the private sector that they ought to go ahead, and in light of the fact that Mr. Haig has indicated quite clearly that there will be, at the very least, a delay, and that there is a distinct possibility that the project will not proceed. Will the minister tell the House whether he still believes he has an ironclad commitment from the U.S. to build the Alaska gas pipeline, and on which day will Canadians begin to see the benefits he said in the House of Commons would flow to Canadian manufacturers and workers from the building of the Alaska gas pipeline?
[DOT] (M25)


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I note that in his statement my hon. friend pointed out that the governments of various countries have some difficulty getting the private sector to do certain things. That seems to be the case with respect to the U.S. administration at the present time.
I remind my hon. friend that the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration, under the previous President and under the present President, have indicated that the Alaska gas pipeline is a question of the highest priority for the U.S. government. We have no reason to believe this is not still the case. There may indeed be difficulties at the present time between the private partners, but we have no reason to believe there is any less commitment on the part of the U.S. administration to the realization of the project. This is why we have urged that government to make representations and to use its good offices to try to resolve the difficulties which exist at the present time between the private partners in the United States.
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, surely the minister recognizes that the commitment by the U.S. administration means absolutely nothing. There is not one single dollar committed by the U.S. administration to the building of the Alaska gas pipeline.


Mr. Huntington:: Tell us about the Mackenzie Valley and land claims settlements.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. U.S. Secretary of State Haig has made it quite clear that this entire matter now rests with the private sector, and there is no guarantee that the private sector will go ahead. Will the Prime Minister arrange to meet and speak with the President of the United States to impress upon him that there was a commitment made by the U.S. that it would build the Alaska gas pipeline if we would proceed with the pre-build? We have lived up to our end of the bargain. When will they live up to theirs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Paproski:: Stelco and the people of Hamilton are not going to appreciate what the NDP did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, do the rules allow for members of the opposition to ask each other questions? If so, I will cede to the hon. member for Edmonton North.


Mr. Blackburn:: That is just a cop-out.


Ian Deans: Don't you want to answer? I wish you would.


DEMPSTER LATERAL LINK-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DISCUSS PROJECT WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, let me ask another question of the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the question I have just asked, does the Prime Minister recognize that without the building of the pipeline we will not be able to provide the Dempster lateral pipeline link and that that will make it extremely difficult and very costly for us to gain access to our northern resources? Part of the deal was that we would be able to gain access to our resources in return for building the pre-build and in return for the Americans living up to their commitment. Will the Prime Minister sit down with the President of the United States, iron out the problem, and require from the President of the United States that he take whatever action is necessary to have his administration fulfil its end of the bargain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is accurate about the Dempster link. It was part of the negotiation that we would leave ourselves open to be able to link Beaufort Sea gas into the pipeline south.


Erik Nielsen: It was part of the agreement.

April 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as that is concerned, the hon. member is correct. I do not believe he is correct when he suggests that in some way the United States government undertook to build the line. He is correct in indicating that it was a priority for the Americans back in President Carter's time. We were begged-indeed, implored-to pass special legislation quickly because the Americans wanted that pipeline to be built, but I do not recall that in any of those circumstances the United States administration undertook to finance or to build the pipeline itself. It was something that was in the hands of the private sector both in Canada and in the United States.
I have discussed this matter with the President of the United States and I hope to seek occasions to do that again.


An hon. Member:: They won't let you into the country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I plan to meet the President in another country, Madam Speaker, but I am not sure if the hon. member who interjected would be allowed into that country.
I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has dealt with the matter. We have an undertaking from successive United States administrations that the pipeline was a priority. We still take it to be their priority.
I understand there are supplementary questions, Madam Speaker.


POSITION OF EXXON CORPORATION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will recall that the Reagan administration removed the prohibition against multinationals assuming an equity position in this project, leaving it open now for them to do so. Will the minister inform us whether there is any validity or substance to the suggestion that Exxon will now replace the American component, Northwest Alaska Pipeline Company, in holding the equity position that is available to Northwest Alaska Pipeline Company now?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right in suggesting that there had been some difficulties among the producers with regard to the distributors. That was the subject of discussion in the last couple of weeks. However, I do not have specific information as to what specific plans there are in regard to Exxon and its share in the project. I have not been informed of any specific proposal in that particular regard.


EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON DEMPSTER LATERAL LINK
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister would undertake to inform himself on that subject and either reply in the House or inform me accordingly.
In view of his ironclad hopes that the whole line will be proceeded with, will the minister please advise us whether, in
his view, the Dempster lateral will be proceeded with as the international agreement which forms part of the legislation, calls for?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to inquire and transmit to my hon. friend the information that can be made available to me at the present time. I would remind him, however, that some of that information may be considered confidential between the partners and I might not have access to it. I will be very happy to communicate to him anything I can get.
As far as the Dempster extension is concerned, if I remember the agreement with the United States, it provided for the possibility of tying the Dempster line to the Alaska gas pipeline. There was not an obligation to build that line and it was a right that Canada had, and would continue to have if the project proceeds as we hope.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His office announced on February 25 that Mr. Arthur Erickson and his firm had been awarded the contract to design the new Canadian embassy in a very prestigious area of Washington. This was after a special selection committee of seven civil servants and architects had invited submissions. In response, 318 people made requests and 71 put in detailed submissions. Four firms were recommended for that $30 million job, none of which was the Erickson firm.
Why did the government select the Erickson firm-Mr. Erickson is reputed to be a friend of the Prime Minister- when the selection committee had recommended four other firms and had ranked them in order of selection after the architectural firms involved had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in making their submissions? Why was the request of the committee and its recommendations ignored and the Prime Minister's friend appointed? Should they not just have said, "Only Trudeau friends need apply?"


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I took the view that there were 11 finalists and that they were persons or firms which obviously had been assessed as competent to be considered by the selection process for building the embassy. I thought it was correct for the federal cabinet to choose from among that 11 the one that we wanted to ask to make a proposal for that embassy.
I have taken the view, and I admit it is somewhat a change of policy, that the final decision should be made by the elected representatives of the people and that, within a small number
April 29, 1982

of firms submitted by the selection process, it seemed to be normal that the government would make the decision rather than some government officials or some outside representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASONS FOR SELECTION PROCESS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a strong argument for doing away with the public tender system entirely so that the few favourites of the government can have all the jobs that are going across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why did the government have four civil servants, two architects and one retired diplomat circulate the architectural profession in Canada, then have 11 semi-finalists selected who had to spend tens of thousands of dollars each in order to go to Washington and make submissions, and then have the panel recommend four firms? Those four did not include the Prime Minister's favourite. Why did they then ignore all that and go through the process so that the genuises in the cabinet were going to decide on their own who was best suited to do the planning?
The last time I heard something like this was when the Roman Emperor Caligula made his horse a god. Is that the principle that the Prime Minister of Canada is proceeding on-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that he knows better than anyone else who should be the architect?


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: Come on, Caligula.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is a little bit mistaken in his Roman history. I could tell him that if I had the power of Caligula I would not even have to turn him into a monkey. I think he is one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Convince the architects of that. Only Trudeau pets need apply. The great sun god, the sun king will decide.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has his facts all wrong. In the earlier part of his question he said that there were several hundred applicants and that 11 were chosen from that-


John Carnell Crosbie: Semi-finalists.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -from that several hundred number.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Four were recommended.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All those 11 were involved in the spending process that the hon. member refers to, with trips to Washington and so on.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: So it is even more unfair than we thought it was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was certain that only one would be chosen.


John Carnell Crosbie: Four were recommended.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore it is certain that ten of them were taking the chance that their spending would not result in a contract to them.
The question is, once that elimination had been made we came down to a small group of 11-


John Carnell Crosbie: Four.


Walter David Baker: Get your facts right, Prime Minister.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has used the figure of 11 himself. Does he object to me using that figure now?


John Carnell Crosbie: I want you to be truthful. Four were recommended, not 11.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Four were recommended and you could not-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just try to be truthful.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is responsible for FIRA. On November 23, 1978, the Foreign Investment Review Agency announced that Shell Canada Resources was given permission to take over Crows Nest Forest Products Limited of Fernie. At that time, FIRA gave assurances that Shell would maintain Crows Nest Forest Products Limited at not less than its 1978 level. Recently the foreign owner has violated that statement and laid off an entire shift of 200 workers. What steps is the government prepared to take to ensure that Shell lives up to the commitments given both by the company and the government to protect levels of employment?

April 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I will have this situation looked into, and if the undertakings are not being lived up to 1 will ask that the enforcement provisions of the law are vigorously employed.


HIRING PRIORITY SOUGHT FOR LAID OFF WORKERS
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that right across Canada FIRA is a pretty toothless tiger when it comes to protecting Canadian workers. When Shell took over Crows Nest Industries the first thing it did was split it into two companies, a forest company and a resource company. Now they have even refused to hire the men they are laying off from the forest company for their resource company, which is hiring. Will the government at least take steps to ensure that the men laid off by the forest company are given first priority for hiring with the resource company?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we will first want to see whether the situation described by my hon. friend is covered in the undertakings given as a condition of the allowance. If that is the case, then I will certainly do what I can to ensure that the act is being properly respected.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Limited.
Yesterday, the minister met with a group of expropriated farmers from Mirabel, a meeting that was mentioned on the news and in today's newspapers. Could the minister inform the House about yesterday's meeting, and could he confirm that his recommendation to cabinet will be to sell back some of the expropriated land at Mirabel?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question inasmuch as the newspaper reports I saw of the meeting I had with representatives of citizens of the area were inaccurate.
To begin with, as I indicated in response to a question in the last few days, the government has taken the position that the matter of rents is entirely separate from the long-range planning issues involved in the Mirabel land corporation. Indeed, we did not accept the proffer of rent yesterday and
suggested that was a matter for the courts if they could not settle the matter between lawyers. As far as the long-range plan is concerned, as hon. members know the Mirabel land corporation has advised me, and I have advised my cabinet colleagues. I think it is fair to say that because the objective of the study to begin with is to investigate the possibility of returning some of the land under certain conditions, yes, generally speaking, under certain conditions, that will be one of my recommendations.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that approval is being sought for a DREE grant to a consortium for the establishment of a mining equipment manufacturing firm in Sudbury known as Meco, and that such firm will be in direct competition with an established firm in North Bay called Jarvis Clark, which, because of the terrible state of the economy, has announced its intention to lay off 167 of its approximately 400 employees?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think it has been the custom to confirm DREE program applications because of commercial confidentiality, unless and until there is an approval. However, I assure my hon. friend that I will certainly bear in mind very carefully what he has to say on this subject.


CONSEQUENCE OF GRANT BEING MADE
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is to the same minister. I assume that the Minister of Supply and Services has been in touch with the minister on this matter, and I would be interested in knowing the minister's position and whether he is willing to look into it.
I understand the proposed grant is $2.2 million, and I hope he will have it denied because the awarding of these funds will mean the death of a very successful firm in North Bay.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services is in close touch with me on all matters pertaining to the industrial development of his riding. He does a very good job in that regard.


Mr. Clark:: Maybe you could call Arthur Erickson.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We will certainly keep in mind the views of my hon. friend, the views of the Minister of Supply and Services, and others on matters of this sort. Perhaps the hon. member's concerns should be expressed to the province of Ontario which
April 29, 1982

has already announced its willingness to support financially the very project he opposes.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will know that under the Constitution he must call a conference within one year to decide the question of aboriginal rights. Has he decided which groups will be invited, when they will be invited, and what role he sees the federal government playing in this constitutional conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the first step would be to consult with the provinces and see what their views are on the date for such a meeting, and what groups they would advise be invited to it. We could then have a discussion and try and reach final agreement on the date, agenda, and the participants.


POSSIBILITY OF HOLDING PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
[English)

Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, will the minister assure the people of Canada that there will not be another postal increase until service is demonstrably improved, or for a year and a half, whichever comes first?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is a decision that is primarily the responsibility of the board of directors of the corporation, but as we all know, any decision must ultimately be submitted for approval to cabinet. I feel the question is purely speculative and that it is not really an issue at this time. I am confident that the main objective of the new Canada Post Corporation is not to increase postage rates but to improve postal services in Canada.
* *
*


PRACTICE OF VACCINATING AGAINST SMALLPOX
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, since the conference is to be called to decide on the definition of aboriginal rights, can the Prime Minister tell me whether he will be in touch with his responsible minister to ask whether preliminary conferences can be called so that there are no surprises, or does he feel one conference is sufficient to decide the question of aboriginal rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I certainly will be acting in consultation with the minister in this matter. However, the hon. member obviously knows that the minister and the Secretary of State have been funding many native groups in order that they can pursue their legitimate claims and definition of their rights. This is not a new suggestion; we have been doing it for years and it has cost many millions of dollars.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Despite the spectacular results achieved by the World Health Organization in completely eliminating smallpox, that dreaded virus disease, from the face of the earth, can the minister tell me why some government institutions still persist in vaccinating people against smallpox? This practice is redundant, uncomfortable, and can induce complications.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, from what I know of the background of that question, and considering the personal case which was referred to, concerning one of our colleagues in this House, I do not think there is any reason to be worried about the vaccinations being carried on in some federal government departments.


CANADA POST
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has Canada Post, made representations to the government for an increase in first-class postal rates?
[ Translation)


André Ouellet: No, Madam Speaker.


SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerns unfair foreign competition for Canadian shipbuilders. The Canadian Shipbuilding & Ship Repairing Association reported:
During the past 20 months Canadian shipping and petroleum companies have ordered over $1 billion worth of ships and floating equipment from abroad for Canadian use.

April 29, 1982
Oral Questions
This is compared with only $400 million from Canadian shipyards. The minister well knows the reason for this-much higher subsidies and interest free financing which foreign shipping companies enjoy. For example, British shipbuilders receive subsidies valued at close to 40 per cent, whereas Canadian government subsidies were cut down to 9 per cent, and 19 per cent financing rates were added. Since the minister provides much higher subsidies through the Export Development Corporation for Canadian companies to build ships for export, will he change this irrational policy and implement an equivalent subsidy rate for vessels built in Canada for domestic use? It is only common sense.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this issue is one which is being actively worked on by the government. We hope to have some policy decisions in this area before too long. Certainly it is one which has to be taken very seriously. 1 am glad my hon. friend confirmed that $400 million of purchasing has been placed with Canadian shipyards because of offshore exploration activities.


ABSENCE OF CUSTOMS DUTY ON FOREIGN-BUILT VESSELS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the unfair customs policies which favour foreign-built ships over Canadian industries. Since no customs duties are now charged on foreign-built vessels purchased by Canadian companies which operate between our 12-mile limit and our 200-mile limit offshore, in fairness to the Canadian shipbuilding industry will the minister, through the Privy Council, implement customs rate changes for those deep sea foreign-built ships that operate within the 200-mile limit? Will he also increase the existing 10 per cent tariff which favours foreign-built oil exploration vessels over Canadian-built vessels?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member will be given careful consideration by cabinet.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on behalf of the residents of the riding of Churchill, seeing their member does not ask questions about employment in that area. In view of the work-sharing agrement which was signed between the Government of Canada and a provincial government Crown corporation-I understand that worksharing project has now lapsed and that there have been layoffs despite the assurances of the Manitoba government that no one would lose his job or his business-could the minister give us an update on whether or not those jobs will be saved, whether the work-sharing projects are in fact still in place, or have they ended as the reports state?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, a provincial minister in the Manitoba government announced that lay-offs would take place even though the work-sharing agreement was in effect. Therefore, it suspends the work-sharing agreement.
I should point out that I wrote to the premier of the province on Monday indicating that we were quite open to any proposals for job-creation schemes for forestry workers in northern Manitoba. I made that offer to provincial ministers as early as February, indicating that under Section 38 we could provide alternative employment in that area. I am hoping the Manitoba government will now respond with some degree of clarity to that particular offer, so that we can help the workers of ManFor to gain alternative employment in an area where there is a tremendous demand for forest management because of the fires which occurred a year and a half ago. I hope to enlist the support of the hon. member and other Members of Parliament from Manitoba to see if we can persuade the Manitoba government to enter into a job-creation program.


WORK SHARING IN NORTHERN AREAS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. I regret that those jobs now appear to be in jeopardy. The minister has appeared before cabinet asking for not only an extension but also for an increase in terms of work sharing. Could he report whether or not that has been approved and whether there are additional work-sharing arrangements being made in Canada's north?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, at the present time we have signed over 900 work-sharing agreements covering close to
50,000	workers. Many of them are in northern parts of Canada, particularly in resource industries such as lumber and other areas. I could not give the precise numbers if the hon. member is speaking about the Territories, but I could get that information for him.
As far as future considerations are concerned, we met with the users of work sharing a few weeks ago. We are now analyzing the results of that. I spent last week consulting with business and labour groups to determine what were their responses. I am now preparing proposals for cabinet. It has not yet had a chance to review them, but I hope that the proposals will be considered by cabinet before the end of May when we will make an announcement. Obviously the very demand for work sharing by business and labour demonstrates that it is providing a very important support during the downturn in the
April 29, 1982

economy and that they are highly supportive of us continuing our measure to provide them with assistance.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He knows that many people in Nova Scotia have been waiting for a very long time for some concrete action by the minister to allocate some badly needed orders for railway rolling stock to Hawker Siddeley and some additional orders for rail to the Sydney Steel Corporation. The Minister indicated in the past that he considers his role to be an advocate among his cabinet colleagues to ensure that disadvantaged regions of the country and their key industries receive work. So far we have seen the antithesis of economic development under the minister. While I can see that the entire country is now an economic basket case, surely some consideration should be given to those areas which used to be noticeably economically disadvantaged before the entire country caught up with them?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have been working on this with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I hope the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the government, will have some announcements in this regard before too long.
At the same time I should point out to my hon. friend that just today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on behalf of the government, announced a co-operative $5.5 million project to use Cape Breton coal, in combination with water as fuel for electricity generation plant boilers, the coal coming from the Cape Breton Development Corporation, a company for which I report to Parliament. There will be a new demonstration plant for this new technology. It is just one example of my efforts not only with respect to industrial development but also with respect to advanced technology in the interests of the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia economy.


SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, any news such as this is certainly welcome. I congratulate the minister for it, but he must realize that it is a pitifully small contribution when the Sydney Steel Corporation needs, since he mentioned Cape Breton, additional work which the Minister of Transport could allocate to that very important industry. We cannot have any stability, or improvement for the work force or justify the money spent, if there is not some work for the corporation to do. It is within his power as a cabinet minister to secure that kind of work, and I hope he will get to it.
Business of the House


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we do not need to allocate or force CN to buy from SYSCO. CN has been buying rail from SYSCO for many years. As a matter of fact, 83 per cent of CN's purchase of rail has been from SYSCO over a period of ten years. However, as the hon. member certainly knows, in the last year or so technical difficulties have arisen. For this reason CN had to look elsewhere in Canada-for example to Algoma-for the purchase of some of its rail.
In this coming year CN will be able to purchase 88,000 tonnes of rail from SYSCO, but SYSCO believes in the present circumstances that this is not enough. SYSCO asked CN to buy by anticipation and to stockpile rail. This is being looked at now. The cost of it would be $1.4 million, and we are looking around to see who could take care of that extra expenditure. The company would normally take care of it. CN, of course, prefers not to do so. A number of us are now looking to see if we can find a recommendation for this particular circumstance. But saying that CN is not doing its best to purchase rails from SYSCO is obviously not true.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am disappointed to think that the minister believes that CN cannot purchase additional rails from SYSCO. I would also want to straighten something out on the record. If he is saying that the quality of rails produced by SYSCO-in the Deputy Prime Minister's bailiwick-is not sufficient, it is interesting to note that a recent train derailment in the west, as I understand it, was not caused by a SYSCO rail but rather by an Algoma rail. Perhaps he had better reconsider the allocation of those particular orders.


Madam Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that that was not a question. He should not seek the floor to comment on answers.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and thirty-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on Wednesday, April 28, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader to confirm the business of the House for tomorrow and to inform us what he plans for next week?
16734

April 29, 1982
Parliament Hill


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the business of the House for tomorrow will be Bills S-19, C-58, in that order, and Bill C-91 if we have time.
[ Translation]
Next week, unless otherwise specified, Monday and Thursday will be opposition days, and Tuesday and Thursday the House will resume consideration of Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it came over the translation that we would be discussing Bill C-93 on Tuesday and Friday, but Wednesday did not come over the translation. Would the government House leader repeat what the business is for Wednesday?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what 1 said in French was that on Tuesday and Wednesday next week we will be resuming debate on Bill C-93. Monday and Thursday, unless otherwise notified, should be allotted days.


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period I made a mistake of fact. I said that the Emperor Caligula made his horse a god. As a matter of fact, he made his horse a senator and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made one end of the horse a senator on many occasions.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members do not facilitate the task of the Chair when they rise on a matter on the pretence of a point of order and simply continue to debate.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I wish to get some clarification on some information that your Honour provided the House in question period last Friday. The reason I am raising it today is that I have just received some background information which is contradictory to the information your Honour provided the House last Friday.
I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the special recruitment policies of the government for hiring francophones in the civil service. I also pointed out that no more unilingual English students were being hired as tour
guides on the Hill, even though 95 per cent of the visitors speak English. Madam Speaker pointed out that my statement was quite incorrect.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. In any event, the hon. member should have brought that question to me. We can discuss it in my chambers. This being a matter of administration of the House of Commons, as the hon. member knows, it should be discussed with me or with the members' services committee. Certainly the Speaker is in no position to elaborate or make comments on the matter or answer questions in the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, the reason I bring it up in the House is that you became involved in the answering of my question. What I would like you to clarify is that in the parliamentary guide for hiring students as tour guides, it clearly states under language requirements "fluency in both official languages". I seek clarification on how many unilingual English students you will be hiring and why there is not a percentage figure in the parliamentary guide as to how many unilingual English students we can hire because two-thirds of Canadian students cannot speak French and this is a highly discriminatory directive. I would like clarification.


Madam Speaker:: I can provide those figures to the hon. member. However, if I erred by getting involved in the question at that time, I shall not err a second time. We have those figures and I will gladly give them to the hon. member and even make them public, if that is at all helpful to the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi) moved: that the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Thursday, April 8, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,126 and 4,221.
April 29, 1982


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date the answer to question No. 53 of the first session of the thirty-second Parliament was prepared, how many additional orders in council were issued by the government and how many were in any way classified?


Yvon Pinard: The
number of orders in council is 6,897. None were classified.


Mr. Gilchrist: For each year 1976 to 1981 (a) what was the cost of unemployment insurance benefits (b) how many persons received the benefits?


Lloyd Axworthy: (a) Cost of Unemployment	(b) Number of Person!
	Insurance Benefits	Receiving Benefits
	($ Million)	(000's)
1976	3,361.6	2,4291977	3,928.2	2,5151978	4,538.2	2,5261979	4,009.1	2,3221980	4,393.8	2,2491981	4,828.3	2,354


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House, which it might be disposed to give, in order that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), or the government, might once again put the motion which would refer the question of prostitution to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Madam Speaker:: I am in the hands of the House but no one rose on motions to solicit-or ask for that!


Erik Nielsen: I am now asking the Chair to solicit the unanimous consent-
Justice and Legal Affairs


An hon. Member:: Careful!


Erik Nielsen: -of the House to enable that to be done by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, if the parliamentary secretary does not wish to do so himself.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in a situation where the business of the House or referral to committee is concerned, it is customary to negotiate with the party House leaders, and when there is good reason to believe there is unanimous consent, we rise in the House and ask the Chair to ask the House whether there is unanimous consent for a specific motion. This approach was tried at least twice this week, and it did not work. In the circumstances, I would prefer to have further indications as to agreement by the New Democratic Party before we use any more of the time of the House to obtain concurrence in a motion of referral to committee. As things are now, I do not believe the hon. member will get the unanimous consent he suggests there is, because further consultations will have to be held, and if we think there is good reason to believe that unanimous consent can be obtained, we shall act accordingly and present the motion again.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the government House leader knows the motion which would gain the unanimous consent of the House. We would be delighted to give unanimous consent to a motion which stated that it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution and including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations. We would be happy to give unanimous consent to that motion if the government House leader would care to move it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this is a matter which I am willing to discuss in the normal way and under normal circumstances. I do not see much difference. I see that the NDP has attached conditions. That is subject to negotiation. We had a very simple motion referring the subject to the committee while it debates a certain bill, but the NDP denied consent. Now it wants to attach conditions. We are willing to discuss that, but in the meantime there is no way that we will agree to a motion that the NDP moves on the subject. We will move the motion we moved earlier, and if the members of the NDP do not agree to that reference, it is too bad.


Ian Deans: Speaking on the point of order, Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear, lest I was perhaps misunderstood,

April 29, 1982
Supply
that we are not attempting to attach any condition. We are attempting to remove a condition.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, finally changed your mind, eh?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House supports the minority report on security and disarmament signed by six members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in April, 1982, calling for, inter alia, a world-wide nuclear freeze, no Cruise missile testing in Canada and a world-wide pledge against first use of nuclear weapons.
He said: Madam Speaker, we have never confronted anything in the past remotely approaching the scale of human disaster toward which the world now seems to be heading. The carnage of the two great wars would be as nothing by comparison if we do not reverse the disastrous competition in the creation of the instruments of nuclear death. The two great power blocs, engaged in a world-wide struggle with one another, locking themselves in, push us closer and closer to triggering off a Hobbesian world of uncontrolled violence. This time, however, the consequences are almost beyond historical imagination. We must now contemplate the possible destruction of mankind.

While so many are being threatened with increasing poverty, over $500 billion annually is being spent on arms; while there is a shortage of doctors, teachers and engineers, the arms industry is employing more than 50 million men and women, either directly or indirectly. Our system of values is being attacked on all sides. There is no religion or philosophy, whether western or eastern that condones taking this option.


Erik Nielsen: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: It is not in keeping with our practice to permit cameras behind the curtain, and to set the Chair up and the hon. member for-


An hon. Member:: Prud'homme.


Erik Nielsen: -Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), which is the practice which was just going on now. I do not know what the purpose was, whether they are for mailings or whatever, but that should not happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the matter will be considered at the appropriate time. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Well, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will keep getting up until I am heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: They are still there.


John Horton McDermid: Order them out of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To the best information of the present incumbent of the chair, there is an understanding between the House leaders with regard to the presence of the cameramen. If there is some disagreement with regard to that understanding, conversations directed through the appropriate channels will take place and the appropriate measures will be taken.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the understanding between the Speaker and the House leaders was to permit still cameras. Now, hear me out, please. The understanding was to permit still cameras behind the curtains during question period, but no longer than that. The photographers are still there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if I might be heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, he has made his point. The cameras are not there. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has been recognized and has made his point of order. The practice of which he has complained has ceased and the Chair has indicated there will be further discussions and the appropriate remedy taken if there has been an infraction of the understanding of the rules of practice of the House. Does the hon. member have anything to add to that?


Erik Nielsen: If you would hear me out, I would let you know, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking for is a direction from the Chair that the practice, as understood between the Speaker and the House leaders, of allowing photographers behind the curtains during question periods only, not only be adhered to but be enforced as well. That is what I am requesting the Chair to direct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard the point of the hon. member. The hon. member has made his point. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.
April 29, 1982


Mr. Prud'homme:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have a point of order. Your Honour must hear my point of order.
With my usual due kindness to the hon. member for Yukon, I do not know why he has dragged me into the debate. I was only speaking very privately with you, Mr. Speaker, asking for the list of Speakers for today.


Erik Nielsen: And, by coincidence, the cameraman was there.


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 was just speaking to Your Honour privately, very silently, if possible, to find out who will be the next speaker, because I will be speaking today. I wanted to know when 1 will speak. It is a long practice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made the point that he is not involved in any subterfuge whatsoever with the Chair, which the present incumbent is quite prepared to substantiate. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that it certainly reflects the sense of priorities among some people to have an interruption of this kind on this topic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Worst of all in this development is the spread and development of nuclear weapons in particular. Now more than ten nations are believed to have a nuclear weapons capability and another half dozen are very close to having it. There is in existence enough nuclear capacity for the United States and the Soviet Union to destroy each other's population several times over. It is therefore a moral obligation of the highest priority for politicians to think about the consequences of nuclear war and to act with realism and intelligence to avoid it.
We cannot look for a better guide than to the minority report prepared by members representing all parties of the House of Commons which studied the related questions of security and disarmament. I want to take this opportunity at this point in my comments to compliment all the members on that committee representing the Liberal and Conservative parties. I want to single out in particular, and I am sure it will be understandable, the very significant contribution made by three members of my party, the hon. members for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant). All members are to be commended for their serious moral and practical concerns about this question.
The sparse and precise prose of the minority report presents a grim but accurate portrayal of the consequences of nuclear war. I quote:
Supply
People not immediately burned to death, blown apart or asphyxiated in shelters would find themselves in a nightmare world, populated by the dying, dead, and insane. Food, crops, and land would be contaminated, water undrinkable. The survivors would envy the dead. In an all-out attack, who would survive, as radiation sweeps across the oceans and into the atmosphere, depleting the ozone layer, and releasing lethal ultraviolet rays? The collapse of the ecosystem would leave a global wasteland.
Many people have been deeply moved in recent weeks by a similar description found in the important analysis of nuclear armament and warfare provided by Jonathan Schell in his series of articles in The New Yorker magazine. I urge members of all parties in the House to read that series with great care.
The nuclear arms race has become a vicious circle. The accumulation of new arms by one side increases the feelings of insecurity in the other. This in turn leads to a further demand in the name of self-defence for more nuclear weaponry. In the past few years, the momentum of this circular motion has increased, I regret to say. It has reached what can only be described as alarming proportions. Rather than producing tranquility based on security, new arms spending is only increasing feelings of worldwide insecurity. This circle must be broken. Hence the timeliness and practical wisdom of the minority committee's report. What lies behind the report is a profound understanding of the world armament situation and the realization that Canada can and should show leadership in this field.
In this context, it is particularly worth noting that we in this country were the first nation on earth with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons to refuse to do so. That was a noble beginning. It is time we returned to the principles which gave it birth.
It is also worth noting that following World War II, as a middle power, Canada acquired a good reputation among the nations of the world as an activist nation, a nation willing more than once to move beyond the confines of the status quo. It is time that we returned to this tradition also. It is time for the Government of Canada to cease being a follower in the deadly armaments game. It is time to step out and speak up at long last for disarmament.
This can and must be done in practical terms. The nuclear minority report shows us how. What does it recommend? First, it recommends a nuclear freeze. It calls for a global freeze on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. This is the same as the resolution proposed by Senators Hatfield and Kennedy in the United States and which up to yesterday had the support of almost 200 United States congressmen and senators, and the numbers are growing daily.
Such a mutually binding freeze, accompanied by international inspection and monitoring mechanisms, is realistic. First, it would head off a new round of first-strike and related counter-force weapons development. Second, it is not unilateral disarmament; it would be binding on both of the great power blocs.

April 29, 1982
Supply
In this context it is important to note that agreement would entail as an early consequence the cessation of the development of the Cruise missile, which is clearly a first-strike nuclear weapon. In terms of the existing balance of nuclear power, this weapon is simply not needed. Although the Soviet Union has a clear advantage in intermediate-range missiles, the United States and its allies have an advantage in long-range missiles. As the subcommittee notes, there is now overall parity between the two sides, a parity which many existing military experts in the United States in particular are in agreement with.
To attempt to obtain nuclear superiority on the part of the United States is faulty, first because the Soviets have said that such American action will simply cause them to expand on their nuclear programs. Hence the cycle will once again move into motion. Second, as Admiral Noel Gayler, former chief of the United States forces in the Pacific, pointed out in last Sunday's New York Times, in the real world such so-called superiority has no meaning. I quote this former director:
We and Russia are like two riverboat gamblers sitting across a green table, each with a gun pointed at the other's belly and each gun on hair trigger. The size of the guns doesn't make much difference; if either weapon is used, both gamblers are dead. In the same way, the size of the nuclear forces makes little difference.
It is more than redundant, therefore, to proceed with the Cruise missile. It will set in motion even more spending on armaments on both sides. It will simply increase the already excessive balance of terror in the world.
The proposal for a nuclear freeze is practical. It gives no advantage to either side. The Canadian government should use its influence in the world community at the United Nations special session to get a freeze and effective international mechanisms for enforcement accepted. It is clear from recent talks that the United States will have to be prepared to change its views on the Cruise missile. On the other hand, the Soviet Union will have to change its views on the important question of inspection. The message for Canada is clear as to what our role should be. We must be working to convince both of the superpowers to show this kind of flexibility.
The second recommendation in the committee's report is that there should be no Cruise testing. Mr. Speaker, it must be very clear that this follows the first point. As the subcommittee points out, we should not be party to tests aimed at improving the technological capacity for nuclear war. It is only be denying the use of space in Alberta or Saskatchewan or anywhere else in our country that we will be clearly seen to be taking a step against the arms race. To participate in such testing would be to make a mockery of any claim to favour a halt in the nuclear arms race. The Cruise test question is, then, a specific test for Canada. We must now take a stand against the irrational and inhumane nuclear weapons race and we must begin by not permitting the testing of the Cruise missile here on our soil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is one which in my view does not have the same rigorous and
verifiable force in the real world as the first two. It is, nonetheless, very important. It simply is that Canada pledge itself never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. To me it is a profoundly important moral commitment which should be the first step to urge other nations with a nuclear capacity to join in. Surely, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), on this point as well as on the others, the Government of Canada should not hesitate to make such a commitment and to follow through with such appropriate subsequent action.
The fourth and final recommendation in the minority report is that we spend in Canada one tenth of 1 per cent, which is $7 million, of our defence budget on disarmament efforts. That amount could go to strengthen disarmament education, provide information and develop research activities in this field. Surely this proposal is precisely in line with the thinking of the vast majority of Canadians. Canadians, no matter where they reside, no matter what political party they support, are interested in peace. Canadians wherever they reside, whatever political party they support, would be more than willing to see this kind of allocation of government funds devoted to the development of peace and the means of achieving that, rather than put all of our emphasis on spending in the armaments field. The more than 30,000 people who assembled in Vancouver, in a demonstration that was clearly spontaneous, I am sure in this regard were speaking for Canadians from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The unspeakable horrors of a nuclear war cannot be exaggerated. Only madmen contend that they can be. I describe as madmen those who are in the armed services, whether of the Soviet Union or of the United States or of their respective allies, who talk glibly about being able to survive a nuclear strike, being able to have a so-called limited nuclear war.
However, Mr. Speaker, if I take it as fundamental that men and women of good will and reasonable intelligence in all parties would agree that any form of nuclear war will constitute a nuclear holocaust, in the real world of politics it is not enough to point out these consequences, no matter how horrific. It is the fundamental responsibility of the politician to present a workable solution and then to work for its implementation.
It is rare in political life that the ideal and the possible perfectly coincide. In my view, we now have precisely that situation. The goal is to begin mankind's march back from the nuclear precipice. The practical means are the proposals, supported by many people in many lands, that I have just described. All that we now need is the political will to carry them forward. Let us get on with this important human job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Appolloni:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) allow me a question?


An hon. Member:: No.
April 29, 1982


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of this committee that studied the disarmament question and I can say in all truthfulness-


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Ursula Appolloni: If the hon. member would keep his colleagues in check, at least a minimum of courtesy and free speech will be allowed us.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Ursula Appolloni: Thank you. The committee did work, I am very happy to say this, in a situation of non-partisanship and sincerity. It is along those lines that I ask this question very sincerely, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has just spoken. I fully respect his views, even though I do not share them. In his opening remarks, he paid particular reference to the members of the minority, who signed the minority report. That, too, is permissible; partisan bouquets may be given from one side or the other.
What I am referring to now is the specific reference the hon. member made to the moral stance of those who signed the minority report. This is my question, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the member for Oshawa is not implying that those who did not sign the minority report, or rather those who concurred in the majority report, are less than moral. My contention is that there are many of us who feel that the protection of our own and other Canadians' sons and daughters is also a very sincere moral imperative.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question very much. It gives me a chance to clarify that point. I agree entirely with what the hon. member has just said, that the majority as well as the minority are to be seen to be in fully equivalent moral terms. I would never suggest the contrary, nor did I suggest it. But it was a possible implication. I agree that one might have inferred something I did not intend, because I did not elaborate on the point. I welcome the opportunity now.
This issue in this country, as well as in the United States and in other countries, is something that does not divide people in terms of moral commitment. Most importantly, it divides us in judgment about the ways of achieving those goals.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the last year we have seen a growing worldwide concern over the arms race. More and more people are alarmed at the prospect of an increasing escalation of armaments which they believe may well result in a nuclear holocaust. I agree with the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) that the reality of a nuclear holocaust would be such that the description which he gave is certainly not excessive. Here in Canada there is also rising impatience with the failure of governments throughout the world to negotiate some of the most effective elements of effective disarmament.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, the government shares these concerns of the people of Canada, concerns which people all over the world have expressed. There is, alas, no magic formula to bring about the result we all wish. I believe that as a government we have been and continue to be able to put forward a responsible, coherent and effective policy to help achieve the ideal of disarmament and arms control to which we are all dedicated.
Canada's position is not identical with that of the superpowers. Both the United States and the Soviet Union are nuclear weapons powers. We are not. Both are engaged in the development of new nuclear weapons systems. We are not. Both have large expansions in defence expenditure underway. We have not. Both are involved in large-scale trade in armaments. We are not. Canada's position is that of a western middle power.
To say that we do not share the perspective of the two superpowers is not to say that we are either a neutralist or a non-aligned nation. We are a western middle power which supports western values and advocates the western alliance. In fact, we participated in the founding of that North Atlantic alliance.
I would like to quote, as applicable to our situation as well, the words last week of that great German socialist, Chancellor Schmidt, at the annual meeting of his party. He said:
German policy may not and can never be made from a position equidistant between Washington and Moscow. We stand on this side, on the side of free and equal peoples.
It seems to many of us that it is because the Canadian socialists do not share this position morally, politically or militarily that they can come to a different conclusion.


John Edward Broadbent: Back to the trivial and petty again, Mark.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would be very pleased to entertain questions when I have finished. The New Democratic Party obviously does not like to hear the truth. Members of the New Democratic Party do not like to hear what they could easily conclude if it were not for the fact that they do not favour belonging to the North Atlantic Alliance. Obviously for them a solution can be found on the basis of only one kind of approach.


John Edward Broadbent: What about Senators Hatfield and Kennedy?


Mark R. MacGuigan: We are talking about the NDP; we are not talking about American senators.


John Edward Broadbent: Just deal with the issue.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The American senators to whom the leader of the New Democratic Party is referring are supporters of the North Atlantic Alliance. His party is not. I sympathize with him because I believe he is a closet supporter of NATO but cannot come out of the closet because of his party. I sympathize with him.


Miss Jewett:: That is pretty sick, Mark.

April 29, 1982
Supply


Mark R. MacGuigan: Arms control and disarmament policy has been and is a priority of the government. It was the subject of intensive hearings in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence earlier this year. Before preparing its report the committee examined the spectrum of views on security and disarmanent. Whereas we are being invited today to support the views of six members of that committee who issued a minority press release, we should in fact be commending the committee for its efforts.
The committee's report, tabled on April 8, contains a number of positive recommendations. The government has been giving serious consideration to the recommendations in the formulation of Canadian positions for the second United Nations Special Session on Disarmanent.
This important international meeting begins in just over one month. Our preparations have been in progress for over a year. They have included a review of the strategy of suffocation proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the first special session in 1978, the validity of which was reaffirmed in the foreign policy debate last June. Preparations have also included extensive consultations with other countries undertaken by the Ambassador for Disarmament. Today I had the pleasure of welcoming and talking with Dr. Eugene Rostow, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the United States, who is in Ottawa for consultations with our government as to the position his government and western governments in general should adopt in the forthcoming months. I might also add that at the request of the former premier of Sweden, who is heading an international study of disarmament, our former ambassador, Mr. Ford, was made available to the study group which, I believe, is in the process of completing its report.
In my statement to the standing committee on February 25 I set out the Canadian objective at UNSSOD II, which is to chart the way ahead and give a further impetus to arms control and disarmament negotiations. It is in fact the period beyond UNSSOD II that is at the centre of our concern and that of our NATO allies. I was pleased that the standing committee also looked ahead in underlining the need to resolve the key decisive issues and to establish conditions which will permit a relaxation of tension, rapid movement toward a new rapprochement and the mutual and balanced reduction of global armaments.
States must press ahead in negotiating verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements not only on existing weapons systems-nuclear, chemical and conventional-but also on weapons systems around the corner. States must not allow arms control and disarmament negotiations to lag too far behind technological developments. The need for further qualitative limitation becomes greater with each passing year. The joint statement of principles negotiated as part of SALT II called for the further qualitative limitation as well as reduction in the number of strategic nuclear weapons. Canada's geographical position means that there is no more important negotiation for Canada than the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R.
talks on strategic arms, which we hope will be resumed at a very early date.
In looking to the future we must also be concerned about the development of weapons systems for use in outer space. Existing international agreements are no longer sufficient. Canada has spoken out on this subject at the United Nations and co-sponsored a resolution at the last general assembly which requested the Committee on Disarmament, the multilateral negotiating body in Geneva, to consider the question of negotiating effective and verifiable agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space. Canada looks to that body to pursue this issue when it resumes in the summer. We will be one of the active participants.
The Committee on Disarmament has in the past few weeks established a working group on a comprehensive test ban to deal with issues relating to verification and compliance with a view to making further progress toward a comprehensive test ban. CTB has been and continues to be a Canadian priority precisely because a CTB is a key element in limiting future generations of nuclear weapons. With our expertise Canada can and will play an active role in this new working group.
In negotiating forums like the Committee on Disarmament and the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna, as well as in deliberative bodies such as UNSSOD II, Canada will take effective positions which will further encourage negotiations.
To recapitulate, our fundamental position is as follows: it is a position of balanced deterrence by radical reduction. This is not something which can be defined exactly. It is a description. It is a principle, and ideal and a goal, but the goal of balanced deterrence is to be achieved not by accretion but by radical reduction of armaments of all kinds. It seems to me that this points to a goal which is not only the right one but also one which is capable of achievement.
By way of specifying that more general principle, I might say that we advocate, first, the radical reduction of present systems and especially the most destabilizing elements in the present systems and, second, we advocate that there should be no substitution of future destabilizing elements for the ones we succeed in eliminating by way of reduction.
In developing and articulating effective positions, the government will do so on the basis of a balanced security policy which takes into account the need for both nuclear and conventional forces. As I stated in the standing committee, the maintenance of forces sufficient to deter aggression and defend the North Atlantic treaty area is entirely consistent with our commitment to a vigorous arms control and disarmament policy. The two complement and support each other, forming a coherent whole. They serve the same goal of enhancing security and preserving peace. At UNSSOD II we intend to highlight the need for progress in both nuclear and conventional disarmament.
The point is that disarmament cannot be considered as a goal distinct from security. Disarmament can be attained only
April 29, 1982

to the extent that the security concerns of states are met, and beyond that, that states abjure the attempt to resolve grievances, even valid ones, by force of arms.
During much of the seventies we had a state that was most often described as one of detente. That state was one which was taken advantage of by the Soviet Union to develop further their nuclear capacity and in particular their intermediate-range nuclear capacity. That was the situation which confronted the NATO governments in December, 1979 when they decided on a two-track policy, on the one hand moving towards further disarmament and, on the other hand, providing us with adequate security.
In the context of the decision on security, which involved the modernization of nuclear arms, they agreed at that time that they would start deploying in Europe in late 1983, 464 ground launched Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing II missiles. When fully deployed the intermediate-range forces would represent a total of 572 warheads against the 900 SS-20 warheads-which is 300 missiles each with three warheads-plus 300 single warhead SS-4s and SS-5s for a total of 1,200 Soviet warheads. That is roughly the present state of the Soviet readiness, some 1,200 Soviet warheads. At the moment in NATO we have no intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
That is a measure of the gap which still exists. Even when these 572 warheads are deployed they will be many fewer than the number of Soviet missiles. Because we will have some defensive capacity, however, we believe that at least in the short run that will prove to be an adequate factor of safety.
That decision was arrived at on behalf of Canada by the predecessor government to this one. We were pleased to adopt it as our own when we took office. Because of the doubletrack concept it involved at the same time the movement toward disarmament negotiations which, in fact, become possible only if there is this kind of western capacity which can be bargained off against the existing Soviet capacity.
Following the decision of 1979, President Carter requested some 18 months ago that we allow one of the proposed missile systems, the Cruise missile system, to be tested in Canada. It is the Carter request, which was subsequently adopted by the Reagan administration, which has been accepted by the Canadian cabinet.
I have explained in the House that we propose to do two things. First of all, we propose a framework agreement that will possibly provide for the testing of large numbers of weapons systems in Canada in the future and which provides for the joint control of those operations and every other aspect of the testing, including any compensation which may become necessary for minor damage. In the case of each weapons system there will be a sub-agreement under which the testing of that particular weapon or weapons system will be legitimized.
We are proceeding with the negotiation of the framework agreement with the United States, as I have announced. At this time we are not proceeding with the negotiation of the sub-agreement dealing with the Cruise missile but there has been some misunderstanding about this. The decision to go
Supply
ahead with that has been taken. What is being held up is the implementation of the decision which has already been taken. We are holding this up in deference to the request made by a number of Members of Parliament. In fact, I may say that in any event, if there were a general agreement either on testing or on disarmament and arms control which made such tests either illegal or unnecessary, we would obviously not be proceeding with them. The fact that we will not be proceeding to negotiate the sub-agreement on the Cruise missile in the interval does provide an additional guarantee that we will await the results of the UNSSOD II meeting.
I might also explain that the reason Canada is the logical site for such testing is that I believe it is the only really effective site within the NATO alliance with not only the northern conditions but, more particularly, with the amount of space that is required. The width of the corridor which the United States could provide for such tests would be only five miles, whereas we are able to provide a 30-mile wide corridor.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why don't they use Alaska? Why don't they use their own land?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Some hon. members are asking why they do not use Alaska. I guess they know that Alaska does not go as far south as Canada, so the full range of the weapon could not be tested. That is the easy answer to that question, which I think was intended rather flippantly.
It should also be understood, contrary to what has so often been asserted in recent days in this country, that the Cruise is not a first-strike weapon and cannot be a first-strike weapon because of its slow speed. First-strike weapons are those which go quickly. First-strike weapons in Europe, such as the Pershing missiles, would reach their target in something like five or six minutes, whereas the Cruise is a slow-moving missile and can fly only at the speed of an airplane, some four or five hundred miles an hour. Although it is extremely accurate, it is also extremely vulnerable to defensive measures. It is true that it can probably fly under most present radar networks, but it is also easily detectable by AWAC planes. Its value is not for its first-strike capacity, which it does not possess as it is too slow, but for its accuracy. In that sense it is a responsive weapon.
On the subject of the Cruise missile, I have to say that when I listened to the leader of the New Democratic Party I was reminded of the famous remark of Clement Attlee, one-time leader of the British Labour Party. He said that some socialists seem to labour under the illusion that an ineffective defence is morally superior to an effective one.
The focal point of the Cruise decision is that it is only by possessing this kind of capacity, which matches the Soviet Union's existing capacity, that the Europeans can feel adequately protected.
The NATO decision of 1979 was made at the request of the Europeans, in particular the socialist government of West Germany, and is supported by the socialist government in

April 29, 1982
Supply
France. The head of the Socialist International, Willie Brandt, said recently that it has a peculiar value even beyond that of security, and that is, and I quote Mr. Brandt:
A move away from the NATO decision could supply the Soviet Union with an excuse for not negotiating seriously.
It is especially important, Mr. Speaker, that this point be clearly understood. The Soviet Union could have had negotiations on intermediate-range missiles with the West at any time since the NATO decision in 1979. They had no interest in negotiating until last fall at the time when it began to appear to the Soviet Union that the western countries were actually serious about deploying the Cruise and the Pershing. It was only at that time that they even condescended to open negotiations, which began late last year and are now proceeding.


An hon. Member:: What about SALT II?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member asks about SALT II. Of course, the Soviets had an incentive to proceed to negotiate SALT II because both sides possessed the same kind of intercontinental ballistic missile. However, the Soviet Union in fact has no incentive to negotiate here because there is nothing on our side that we can give up.


An hon. Member:: Trident submarines.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am interested in how the perception of the Canadian socialist is so different from that of the head of the Socialist International, whom they regard as a great authority on most issues of the day. I am interested to know that the NDP rejects the authority of distinguished socialists like Willie Brandt, Chancellor Schmidt and President Mitterrand; they prefer to rely on several Americans who, unlike them, support NATO. Perhaps if they could go along with the fundamental principle of those American senators, then they might be able to present positions which are more readily acceptable to the people of Canada.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you talk about the minority report? You are avoiding it.


An hon. Member:: Your logic is wonderful.


Mark R. MacGuigan: My logic is irrefutable; that is why they are getting so excited, Mr. Speaker. Noise is the refuge of those with an inability to deal with logic.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you are making so much noise?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the strategy of suffocation not only remains as a general strategy, but also is consistent with Cruise missile testing, although it has been alleged by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on various occasions that there is some fancied incompatibility between the strategy of suffocation and the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada. Mr. Speaker, if we succeeded in having the strategy of suffocation implemented following an international agreement, then we would not need the Cruise missile testing because, of course, there would then be an incompatibility; the right to do it, even the need for it, would be taken away by the
international agreement. But what we have done is to make a standing offer, which we continue to hold out to the world and in particular to the superpowers, where we urge them to take the necessary steps to suffocate the development of new missile systems.
As we said at the time, it is not a strategy of unilateral disarmament. If it were, we would have quite a different kind of policy and government; we would be a government of the kind that the NDP might be. But that is not our policy. Our policy is that we do our best to provide ideals to the world, to work towards those ideals. If those ideals are spurned by other countries, we have to make the best of the real situation which exists. Chancellor Schmidt has this to say at the recent conference of his party in Munich:
I want to say this to those who want to offer unilateral disarmament in the place of mutually binding disarmament agreements. Historical experience shows that one-sided powerlessness never stopped aggression by a force possessing power. This is the experience of neighbours of the Soviet Union, and the case of Afghanistan is still fresh in our minds.


An hon. Member:: I agree with the whole thing.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am glad to hear that the hon. member agrees with something his socialist brethren say. Mr. Speaker, it is because the Soviet Union took advantage of detente to invade Afghanistan, create problems in Poland, and build up its intermediate-missile force in the Soviet Union-as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) points out, there are many more examples I could use-it is because the Soviet Union has engaged in this provocative behaviour that this present crisis has arisen. The Soviet Union has not taken seriously what we thought in this country was the spirit of detente. They have used it as a breathing space to further increase their armaments, and to engage in aggressive activities in the world. It is this danger we are responding to.
The difference, I suggest, between these socialists here and the ones in Europe like Brandt, Schmidt and Mitterrand is that those socialists know what it is to live in the woods with the bear. They have to face reality, they have to adopt responsible policies and not just rhetoric. It is because of that, Mr. Speaker, that they came to present us as fellow members of NATO with conclusions which we were glad to accept in 1979, which we are prepared to accept now, and I want to assure the House and the country we will continue to accept. The worst step we could possibly take in the search for peace is to attempt to undermine the confidence of those in Western Europe who stand with us against the dangers from the East.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the important point is not only that we have adequate defence; we must have that, of course. But even more important is that we move towards disarmament with a realistic policy which will provide an incentive to the other side to negotiate. Without that incentive there is no possibility whatsoever of moving towards peace. The goal of the limited strength and radical reductions which we advocate is movement towards world peace.
April 29, 1982


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the lack of hyperbole indulged in by the two previous speakers. It is quite a relief compared to some of what we have heard in committee from members of the NDP. I would also like to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) on being here for this debate. It is a very important motion that is before the House today and I think it is fitting and proper that he participate.I appreciate the care that was taken in preparing his remarks.
We are here today, Mr. Speaker, with a motion on the Order Paper which refers to a self-styled minority report. It is with some regret that I note the adoption by the NDP of an American legislative process as if it were part of ours. There is no such thing as a minority report in our processes, for a very good reason. Canadians generally prefer committees of the House of Commons to operate on the basis of consensus. Indeed, throughout our deliberations on this matter, the committee promised time after time to enable a report to be rendered which would reflect the recommendations of the majority, while leaving room for the expression of opinions of those who did not agree with the consensus. This spirit of cooperation and compromise was to prove unfruitful, I regret to say. I suppose it was an even more bitter pill for the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), to swallow. Six of the 30 members of the committee, having had full expression of their views and opinions, at the end decided to issue a press release which claimed to be some kind of a minority report, whatever that is.
I feel a useful purpose has been served by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It has been beneficial for Parliament and for the country to be involved in what is one of the most important matters being discussed in the world today.
In the time available to me today I should like to review the work done by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on this referral, to note some of the evidence provided by witnesses, and to report some of the recommendations made by the committee. I want to cover some of the history of the last 37 years since the first nuclear weapons were detonated; and, finally, I should like to look at some of the recommendations of the so-called minority report.
The House gave a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on December 18, 1981, which read:
ORDERED-That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to examine security and disarmament issues with specific attention to Canada's participation in the second Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament scheduled for June/July 1982, and report to the House not later than Friday, April 2nd, 1982;-
This led to a meeting of the Standing Committee and its steering committee, at which time we discussed how much time we had, how much evidence we should hear and who should appear. As a result two letters were sent to the chairman of the committee. One was from the hon. member for
Supply
New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) who offered the names of 24 suggested witnesses, of which 10 were accepted. It was a very interesting list, and I am glad for the imagination the hon. member used inviting some of these people. I will mention Mr. Arbatov a bit later; he was one of the people included in the hon. member's list. I regret that his fellow worker in Moscow, General Mikal Milstein, was unable to attend. It added considerably to the excitement at committee.
I suggested 12 members, generally from universities and some retired military people who have taken up work with various Canadian institutes of strategic studies, etc. Of that 12, seven were accepted or managed to attend the meetings. I appreciate very much the work which was done by the committee staff in finding several others who were able to participate.
Due to the short time available, we were somewhat hamstrung. Many organizations on their own asked permission to appear, but due to the shortage of time not all could be accepted. The committee set an unenviable record for sitting frequently and for long hours. We started on February 3 and submitted the final report on April 8, having heard evidence by then from 56 witnesses and briefs and letters from 106 other organizations and individuals.
The evidence represented extremely divergent views. No one opposed arms control itself-the differences were in the methods favoured to bring it about. The key points seemed to be those dealing with verification of arms reduction and on-site inspections. Our first witness was Ambassador Menzies, Canada's ambassador for disarmament, who pointed out some of the difficulties facing the world. Before the committee he said:
A. major cause of instability today is the strain in East-West relations, which has resulted in an erosion of that climate of confidence defined as "detente" in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, signed by 35 heads of state or of government in Helsinki in 1975, of which Canada was a member. The Soviet arms build-up, the invasion of Afghanistan, the failure of the United States to ratify the SALT II Treaty, and the excesses of martial law in Poland have all been contributory factors.
He was referring to contributory factors to the instability in the world today. He continued:
A significant source of instability lies in the irregularity of the cycle of armaments modernization in the major military powers.
A later witness, Dr. G. R. Lindsey, the chief of operational research and analysis in the Department of National Defence, gave us a very professional view of the stabilizing and destabilizing effects of nuclear weapons. He said:
In judging an armaments plan or an arms-control proposal, careful attention should be paid to the influence it will have on both crisis and arms-control stability. It is not by any means an automatic conclusion that more of some weapons would be destabilizing. In general, weapons-enhancing capabilities for a counterforce first strike are destabilizing, while those invulnerable to a first strike are stabilizing.
In general, one could say that adding to an inferior force or reducing a superior force tends to be stabilizing, but the types and functions of the weapons need to be examined. My message to this committee is that the best test of a proposal for arms control is to see whether it is stabilizing or destabilizing.
Dr. Lindsey also gave us an estimate on nuclear costs. We have heard quite a bit of talk about the tremendous cost of the

April 29, 1982
Supply
nuclear arms race. He pointed out rather clearly-and it was supported by other witnesses-that it was not the nuclear part of armament which was expensive. He said:
It is also important for those of us who spend a lot of our attention trying to reduce the cost of defence systems to remember that the total expenditure on strategic systems represents somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent of the defence budgets of the nuclear weapons states and no per cent at all for all the others.
This is something we should bear in mind when we hear some of the claims made about what could be done in the way of helping to solve all the other problems in the world with the money which we would save if we reduced the nuclear stockpile.
Ambassador Ford was another distinguished witness. He has had more experience in Moscow than any other witness, with the exception of Mr. Arbatov, I suppose. He gave us his opinion of the Russian psyche; he knew the Russians very well after spending something like 20 or 30 years in Moscow. He said:
Economics, therefore, provide a good reason for the Soviets to try to seek a slowdown in the armament contest. The other good reason is that they are genuinely worried that the Americans, given their present mood of determination to close the nuclear gap, can, and will, produce a very formidable military machine. They are, for example, seriously worried by the technical excellence of the Pershing II and Cruise missiles.
Hence, I am sure that the Soviets are prepared to negotiate seriously on intermediate-range missiles-sometimes called TNF-at Geneva, and to recommence the negotiations on strategic nuclear forces, SALT II or START. It should be noted, however, that the Geneva talks could have begun two and a half years ago if the Soviets had been prepared to do so. They have only agreed to begin negotiations after it became apparent to them that the new American administration was determined to build up its forces without an agreement-
The Soviet threat consists, in short, of its undoubted ability to destroy the west if it so wanted. Since this would also mean its own destruction, it is not likely to happen, but the possibility exists. Circumstances could certainly arise under which both sides would stumble into conflict, but the real threat lies in the political power the Soviet military strength represents, one they are not shy about using.
Mr. Arbatov was a very interesting witness. He assumed a totally uncharacteristic role of being an ordinary person and a layman. The role suffered somewhat when he displayed a great deal of technical knowledge about the weaponry on both sides. Some deviousness by this self-styled ordinary layman was evident in one exchange, which I would like to read. The first few words from this committee hearing are mine. I said:
For many years they had the trip-wire theory for use of nuclear weapons in western Europe; that is, if somebody put his foot across the line of the other side, a nuclear war would start. This was a NATO policy and well known, I believe. They have gone toward a flexible response which would not mean that they were going to fire everything at once, but would select among nuclear weapons if they could.
I was saying this to Mr. Arbatov. I said:
But I was rather alarmed when we were given to understand that it is Russia's avowed intention to respond with strategic ICBMs against the continental United States if any nuclear weapon, no matter how small, is used by the United States' servicemen against Russians in Europe, which is a kind of trip-wire in reverse. I wonder if that is really Russian policy.
Mr. Arbatov replied:
Actually, such wording was never said by anybody in the Soviet Union and it is, I would say, a very inaccurate and frivolous deduction from some of the points made in connection with the concept of limited nuclear war.
To which I replied:
Actually, it is a misquote of a quotation of yours, sir, in Bonn on, 15 March, 1981 where you said when discussing tactical nuclear weapons: "Should these missiles-I repeat, American missiles-strike Soviet territory, the retaliatory blow will be directed not only against those countries in which they were fired but also against the United States exactly as if they had been launched in Montana." Now, that is a quote that is attributed to you.
To which Mr. Arbatov said:
Yes, yes, I said it.
As I said, it was very interesting to have a witness who had this deviousness of playing a simple country squire which he liked to pass himself off as.
Later I would like to say a few words about what might happen with conventional war as an alternative, but I think it might be appropriate to quote some of Dr. W. Harriet Critch-ley's evidence. Dr. Critchley is a well known political scientist, lecturer and university professor who, surprisingly, takes a particular interest in northern warfare. Her reputation is well established. She said:
One of the things I would like to see more emphasis on in the forthcoming special session on disarmament has to do with the control of conventional weapons. At the first special session, the neutral and non-aligned states, contended that nuclear weapons were the greatest danger to world peace and, therefore, we had to have disarmament or arms control of nuclear weapons first, before we discussed conventional weapons.
Yet, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, in the 37 years we have had nuclear weapons, we have not used them. In that same 37 years, according to the IISS, we have had about 133 wars and killed 25 million people. The wars involved 80 different countries, at one time or another, and they were all conventional weapons wars. The neutral and non-aligned do not want to discuss conventional weapons arms control, not to mention disarmament. What also bothers me in that regard is that they have a marked reluctance to sign the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.
I agree entirely with Dr. Critchley when she says that she would like us to be sure not to forget conventional warfare and the devastation it wreaks throughout the world.
This brings me to the area of nuclear weapons, the area that attracts the most attention from disarmament and arms control advocates.
There have only been two instances of nuclear warfare since the development of the atomic bomb 37 years ago. Both of these uses were in the Second World War and they occurred within three days of each other. They were directed against one country, Japan. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in 287, 669 dead and injured and the destruction wrought by these nuclear weapons is commonly cited by nuclear disarmament groups.
However, I think something has been lost over the years. In 1945, the Allies made the decision to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan in order to bring an end to the war that had dragged on for over four years at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. It is interesting to note the actual world wide casualty figures for the Second World War: battle deaths, 14,904,000; battle wounded, 25,218,000; civilian casualties, 38,573,000.
April 29, 1982

An invasion of the Japanese homeland would have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives and did not even carry with it the certainty of success. In order to prevent further death and destruction, the Allies dropped the atomic bomb. Whether or not this resulted in more deaths than would have occurred in a conventional conflict is an open question. It is something that we will never know. However, we would do well to remember that the dropping of the atomic bomb achieved the then desired result. The war ended and peace between East and West has reigned for 37 years.
The use of the atomic bomb demonstrated to the world the awesome power contained in these weapons and underlined the need for control. In the 1950s, the United States advocated international control over atomic weapons, but this was rejected by the Soviet Union. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and the U.S.S.R. were involved in bilateral talks to establish limits on their strategic arms. Unfortunately, while these talks were to a degree successful in placing limits on specific systems, they left it open to each superpower to build up to the limits where it was behind, and they also left many loopholes whereby the treaties could be circumvented. The Soviet Union has taken advantage of the defects in these agreements. Consequently, the Soviets have now attained parity with the United States in the area of intercontinental strategic missiles and have attained superiority in the area of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
After the Soviet Union achieved parity in strategic nuclear weapons, the advantage in intermediate-range missiles and the development of a more accurate, mobile and longer-range missile-the SS-20-added a new dimension to the NATO-Warsaw Pact relationship. Accordingly, in December, 1979 the NATO allies decided to deploy 572 single warhead Pershing II and ground launch Cruise missiles in western Europe beginning in 1983. The Russians continued to deploy SS-20s and these now number 300. The Pershing II missile has a range of 1,100 miles; the Pershing I-A, which it will replace, has a range of 400 miles. The Cruise missile has a range of 1,500 miles. The new SS-20 missile has a range of 3,100 miles, and even if moved east of the Ural mountains, could still reach every part of western Europe. Such a launching location would be safe from all NATO theatre weapons.
The 1979 decision to deploy IRBMs in western Europe was coupled with a call for arms-control talks between the two superpowers. These talks are now in progress. In November, 1981, President Reagan offered to cancel deployment plans of the 572 Pershing II and Cruise missiles if President Brezhnev agreed to dismantle a total of 600 SS-20, SS-5 and SS-4 missiles. The Russians will not do this. Instead, they made a counter-offer to cut by two thirds the U.S. and Soviet arsenals of medium-range missiles in Europe by 1990. The proposal included the British and French nuclear forces. The key word in this proposal is "Europe". If an agreement were to be reached on this basis, the Soviets could still deploy SS-20s in Russia east of the Urals and, as I have mentioned, these would still pose a nuclear threat to Europe.
Supply
In light of this current international situation, which was clearly defined at our committee meetings, it seems incredible to me that six members of the standing committee should deem it advisable to publish a report such as is now being discussed. I would like to comment on that report.
The first recommendation in the minority report is for a global freeze on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. The naivete apparent in this recommendation is astonishing. There is absolutely no way in which to verify a ban on missile production without on-site inspection, which the Soviets have said they will not allow. In addition, a nuclear freeze at this time would cement the Soviet advantage in medium-range nuclear missiles aimed at Europe and would leave the Europeans completely vulnerable to a Soviet attack.
The second recommendation is that there be no Cruise missile testing in Canada. I have many reasons as to why we cannot and should not support such a recommendation. However, I will limit myself in this short and gratis time to saying that we agreed to the modernization of nuclear weapons in 1979. The present government has concurred in the decision which was taken. We would fail in our commitment in the worst possible fashion if we were now to decide that we would not allow this vehicle to be tested in our skies.
I would like to consider the fourth recommendation next because the third recommendation warrants a longer response. The fourth recommendation is that Canada should pledge about one tenth of 1 per cent of its defence budget to disarmament efforts. Let us look at how these people wanted the money to be spent. Some of the money was to be spent in dissemination of disarmament information. Some of the propaganda put out by disarmament groups is very well meaning, but this effort could stand some additional funds in order to publish information which is a little more accurate than any I have seen to date. I have also seen what happens when well meaning schoolteachers attempt to explain nuclear warfare to their students without balancing their description with any hint of historical perspective, and I regret that very much. I also agree with Mr. Gregory Wirick, the executive director of the United Nations Association in Canada, when he told the committee, concerning the recommendation for a referendum, that in some ways it would do more harm and more damage than good.
The third recommendation is that Canada should press all nations to pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. I was rather surprised when the leader of the New Democratic Party seemed to amend this recommendation slightly during his speech by suggesting that it should refer to Canada only. However, in my copy of what is called a minority report under the heading of the House of Commons-


Marcel Prud'homme: It is not the same.

April 29, 1982
Supply


Allan Bruce McKinnon: -it states that Canada should press all nations to pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, I cannot see that that should apply.
I think that at the present time the Warsaw Pact conventional forces outnumber those of NATO in the general order of three to one. That means that in the event of war, NATO could either surrender or risk total devastation of its territories and the loss of millions of lives. To avoid either of these unsavoury ends, the western allies would have to devote a great deal more of their resources to conventional defence. When one looks at the scale of the difference, it would frankly mean tripling the military defence budgets of those nations which form NATO to enable them to pay for and sustain, in conventional sizes, the equipment of the Russian forces opposing them.
I understand that the NDP wants us to get out of NATO and NORAD and sometimes points out that Sweden gets along well without being in NATO or NORAD, as does Switzerland. I would simply like to comment that whereas Canada contributes 1.7 per cent of our gross national product to defence, the contribution from Switzerland amounts to 20.2 per cent of government spending. I believe that Sweden's defence budget works out to 3.2 per cent in terms of its GNP.
Therefore, I see no way out other than through the continued surveillance of what is going on in the world in order to try and convince the opponents of NATO that there is a serious debate going on about how we are to reach this happy land in which there would be a verifiable reduction in arms. However, it must be verifiable. The real problem today is that the Russians are unwilling to have on-site inspection or any system of verification which is satisfactory to the western world.
I thank Your Honour very much for the extension of my allotted time.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to participate in this debate because it is indeed a momentous one, particularly in view of the current situation. We are not sure whether or not another war will break out tomorrow morning in the Falkland Islands and whether or not it will escalate. It is the atmosphere in which we are discussing disarmament today.
We are also discussing it at a time when Poland is still overrun. It is still under martial law. We think Mr. Walesa is still alive, but he is certainly not free. We are also discussing it at a time when Afghanistan is overrun and totally unfree. This is the situation today.
However, I am indeed grateful to the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who opened this debate. I repeat what other hon. members have said in saying that I am grateful to him for making a speech which was not too emotional. I am particularly grateful to him for having been very careful, following my question, to point out that this is not an exercise of pointing a finger at one person or another, saying
that this one wears a black hat and the other one wears a white hat. It is not a question of who is moral and who is immoral.
I believe I speak for all hon. members of this House in saying that what we are discussing today involves a very serious difference of opinion and a difference in judgment. However, in all good conscience, I do not think that anyone in this House who holds different views from mine can be accused of insincerity. I think that is important to point out.
Unfortunately, this whole debate on disarmament has been obfuscated by dreadful tactics which I personally deplore. For example, let me read a cutting from the London Free Press dated March 30, 1982, in reference to a recent visit by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to Vancouver. We are told that the minister was lucky to have escaped relatively unscathed from a mob of militant nuclear protesters in Vancouver. The point I am trying to make is that it is counterproductive in this debate, to say the least, for one side or the other to be militant, all in the name of "brotherly love", or to resort to the kind of tactics that we should not if we are being sincere in our quest for disarmament. Unfortunately, this has already happened. We are not only told that in the news clipping, but we are also told that the minister was roughed up and spat upon. The whole situation was disgraceful. Worse still is the fact that the incident stemmed from a large meeting organized by the United Nations Association of Vancouver and the B.C. Coalition for Disarmament. Does disarmament mean that we stop arms build-up against the Soviets and knock up our own minister? To my way of thinking, that is not disarmament.
However, what I wanted to discuss is the real need for disarmament. I do not think we can even do that unless we also discuss the need for security. As I said earlier today in this House, I was a member of the committee and it was a very interesting experience. I am glad that we did agree to discuss security before tackling the subject of disarmament. It was amazing and almost ironical that Canadians should be speaking of either security or disarmament. The irony was that because of our historic and geographic situation it had never been necessary to worry about security. We have never been invaded since 1814 and even then we won the war, for goodness sake. We have not been threatened as other countries have been threatened and overrun every decade in their history. I very sincerely say that we, thank God, have not been threatened.


James Douglas Manly: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is rising on a point of order.


James Douglas Manly: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member for York South-Weston accept a question?


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I was good enough to wait until his leader had finished before I interrupted him. I would
April 29, 1982

hope that the hon. member could reciprocate my courtesy by waiting until I had completed my remarks.
We were talking about security and the apparent irony of Canadians discussing security in the context of countries that have been overrun every decade of their history. We were also talking about geography. Thanks to geography we have been free. Here again I thank the good Lord-and I mean that seriously-that we have been free from many of the conflicts that have shattered the world, particularly in this century. We do not-and I might add in parenthesis that I regret this- have a big standing force. As a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, I deplore the very small size of our regular force. It is inadequate. Their equipment is inadequate. I said that openly before. In this context, for Canadians to talk about security and disarmament seemed ironic, but it was very important that we did so.
During those hearings it became increasingly apparent to us that our security is perhaps ephemeral. It is no longer something we can take for granted. Where geography may have helped us in the past, perhaps geography in this context will be our worst enemy in the future because we are near the big force. I am not sure we can be lucky enough, even if we wished, to avoid what happens to the United States. That is, whether we wish to or not. If I have time, I will talk about our agreements with NATO and NORAD. We no longer have the luxury of feeling immune from what is happening in the world today. The biggest service that we as parliamentarians can do for our constituents is to tell them that we are not as safe as we thought we were. The world is not as safe as most of us wish it were. What are we going to do about it? The argument has been made by several people that the arms race will lead to higher tensions.
As I said, we had experts on both sides debating this point. This is why there was a majority report that I signed. The majority of us listening to those experts thought back to the days in 1939 when the Prime Minister of Britain came back from Munich and told us there was no problem, that we could afford to disarm. I remember in those days Winston Churchill was called a warmonger because he had the nerve and the audacity to shake the British out of their complacency and tell them that he did not believe there was going to be peace. He was a "warmonger". He was despised by many. Too late we listened to him. I am not saying that is the situation today, but it could be.
The situation today is perilous inasmuch as those who describe the reality of the situation are now too being called warmongers. That is totally counterproductive. I do not want to repeat what has already been said in this debate. One of the futilities of the House of Commons is that we tend to repeat what was said by our colleagues. I do not want to do that. I want to take another perspective because we are going to be asked what Canadians want in the future with regard to arms control and a nuclear freeze.
Supply
I want to give my perspective not only as a Member of Parliament representing 91,000 constituents, but as a Member of Parliament who happens to have two sons of military age and two daughters, if they wish to join. Am I going to urge that we disarm, that we put a freeze on nuclear weapons, that we stop the Cruise missile testing in Alberta so that I can save not only my kids but all Canadian kids from that? If I were to do that, I am convinced that I would be foolish, to say the least, and perhaps reprehensible. I would not be living up to my obligations. What we need to do is to be extremely realistic. If, God forbid, Canadian men and women have to go to war again, I want to make darn sure that they are properly equipped.
What does properly equipped mean in the Canadian context? I said a few moments ago that to my regret we have a very small standing force. I am not at all convinced that they are adequately equipped. I do not point any fingers; it is a sign of the times. It is a sign of economic restraint and many other things, but it is a fact.
We cannot defend ourselves. We cannot do so if the adversary is the Soviet Union. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we will depend very heavily on our allies. What do we give them in return? The first thing we have to do is give them our will. That is important. We must give them our political will if we cannot afford too much of an economic will. We have to give them the political will to help them. If necessary, give them the few miles they want in Alberta to test their missiles, which by the way, and let us be very clear, are dummy missiles. There are no nuclear warheads on them. What we are thinking of doing, and only thinking, is to allow our best ally to check the mechanism of a weapon which could very well be the salvation not just of the United States, but of Canada.


Mr. Blaikie:: The only dummy around here is yourself.


Ursula Appolloni: Is it immoral to try and defend Canada as best we can? As I said at the beginning, the hon. member for Oshawa was good enough to put away these red herrings in the interest of a good, productive debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I wish you were.


Ursula Appolloni: The one thing about this committee, despite the fact we had three different parties represented on it, was that there was no rudeness, no catcalling, no garbage coming from any side, as I hear this afternoon in the House. Too bad we do not have that atmosphere in the House of Commons.
Coming back to disarmament, the answer to disarmament is brotherly love. If we had brotherly love, for goodness sake, we would not need any kinds of weapons at all. Unfortunately, that does not exist. It does not exist in this House of Commons. Can you imagine if this existed in the arena of nations and they were at each other's throats, if not at other parts of their anatomy? This is the reality of the situation. We may not like it, but we have to live with it.
We were talking about security. That, too, was a very interesting debate. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 29, 1982
Supply
McKinnon) mentioned Mr. Arbatov. Mr. Arbatov is a Soviet citizen. He is an interesting person, in fact extremely interesting. He was more interesting to people like me who have not had too much experience with the Soviets. We have read about them and seen them on television, but we have not met them face to face. On that occasion in committee, we were able to talk to Mr. Arbatov, who, by the way, is cited as being one of the top people of the Soviet Union. He is somebody to whom we should listen. It was fascinating to hear his testimony. If anyone is following this debate, he should ask for the minutes of that particular meeting at which Mr. Arbatov was present.
Mr. Arbatov, for instance, had no answers to my colleagues who specifically asked him: "If the Soviet Union is so interested in peace and disarmament and brotherly love, what are you doing in Afghanistan?" Mr. Arbatov told us: "Oh well, the Soviet authorities had to fight the bandits." The bandits-in Afghanistan! Since when does Mother Russia have to send in tanks and a lot of people just to fight a few bandits, ill-paid, ill-clad, ill-equipped? Is that the Soviet idea of security?
We talked about Poland. Some of my colleagues were very intimately concerned with Poland, they themselves being of Polish ancestry. What did Mr. Arbatov have to say about that? Why are the Russians in Poland? Is this security? If so, whose security? Russia's security? Do they really need to invade an innocent country just to keep some bandits in check? Do they really need to invade Poland? I do not think the Polish army was a big threat to Soviet security. I do not think the Polish people are, who, if we understand them and agree with the reports we have, are not very well paid at the moment. So what do they want in Poland?
That is what is happening today. People who cannot defend themselves, like the Poles and Afghans, are being put under the bloody boot of Russia. What are we going to do? We will freeze our nuclear armaments? It is almost funny to think of this in Canada. We do not have nuclear weapons. But now, even if we do not have them, there are those among us who will say that we should not even let the Americans, our best allies and perhaps ultimately our only defence against the big boot of Russia, even attempt to test the mechanism of one of their weapons. I wonder how irresponsible we can afford to be- unless, of course, we do believe in the good will of the Soviet Union.
Having listened carefully to Mr. Arbatov's testimony, having read many, many papers on the whole situation, having served for two years-perhaps the finest two years of my life- with the Department of National Defence, I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that peace is uppermost in the minds of the Soviet Union. No one can convince me to that effect.
The hon. member for Victoria mentioned Sweden. Sweden does not belong to NATO, nor to NORAD. Sweden spends much more of its GNP on defence than we do, very much more. Do hon. members know what happened in Sweden not so long ago? A Soviet submarine got into one of the bays in
Sweden. It was not just an ordinary submarine, it was a nuclear one. I did not hear any protest. I did not see any protest marches in Toronto or in Vancouver or in Winnipeg or anywhere else in Canada. I did not see any marches of protest against the invasion, which it was, by a Soviet nuclear submarine into Swedish waters. No, no, we were very quiet. I did not see any demonstrators going to Litton Systems in Toronto because a Soviet submarine had been in Swedish waters. No, no, we did not do that.
I think we have to be extremely consistent, Mr. Speaker, in our approach to what is happening. No one, especially those of us who are interested in defence in this Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, wants war. Many of us know what war is. We do not have to read textbooks, we do not have to watch war movies, whether from the American point of view, the British point of view, the Japanese or the German point of view. We do not need that sort of propaganda because we ourselves know what war is and we do not want to repeat it for ourselves or much less for coming generations.
However, it is because we know what war means-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You don't know what nuclear war means.


Ursula Appolloni: -that we are more concerned than ever to make sure war does not happen again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Do you know what nuclear war is?


Ursula Appolloni: If war can be stopped, it is by deterrent. If the hon. member across the floor can give me a proper deterrent which will not be just idle words, I will accept that deterrent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Have you ever been in a nuclear war?


Ursula Appolloni: Other than nuclear. In the absence of a deterrent, I will take the nuclear any time. We have to stop war. That is what we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wenman:: That is the point. She has not been through a nuclear war.


Donald W. Munro: This is a very important debate, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad we are having this opportunity to examine a matter which has been altogether neglected here for too long. I regret it is being brought forward under the misapprehension that we are discussing a minority report. There is no such thing, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, in Canadian parliamentary practice as a minority report.
I regret and deplore that a document such as this, bearing the Coat of Arms of Canada and the heading "House of Commons of Canada", should be circulated throughout Canada in this form, or in this other form, also carrying the Coat of Arms of Canada, suggesting that the House of Commons has approved this particular package of words.
I do not know whose paper was used for this particular operation, or who authorized the use of the words "House of
April 29, 1982

Commons" on this cover of the so-called report. This other one is in a better form and should have been a press release. As a press release, that can be done. It was a very happy thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) had in describing it as a press release.
With respect to the actual status of minority reports, it is worth recalling Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition. I would like to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because it is important that the status of this report be recognized across this land for what it is: it is a press release.
Section 641 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 202, reads:
(1)	If a member disagrees with certain paragraphs in the report-
And we were preparing a report, Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
-or with the entire report, he can record his disapproval by dividing the committee against those paragraphs to which he objects, or against the entire report, as the circumstances of the case require; and he can put on record his observations and conclusions, as opposed to those of the majority, by proposing an alternative draft report.
The second paragraph of this particular section reads as follows:
(2)	While the opinions of dissenting members may be included in a committee report, no separate minority report may be tabled in the House.
None has. There is no such thing as a minority report. Yet we hear the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) describing it as "the minority report", which it is not.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is, whether you like it or not. You just held it in your hand.


Donald W. Munro: Or as the "minority committee's report", which it is not either, Mr. Speaker. Beauchesne describes very clearly that when a report is being prepared, those who object to paragraphs or to the whole report may have their views expressed in that report before it is tabled.
A very wide spectrum of views was expressed in that committee. As has been mentioned, there was a wide spectrum of views ranging from those of Arbatov on the left through to views from the right. In order to accommodate that spectrum we compromised throughout, until the last two or three days. Then those who dissented and did not feel they had received enough concessions no longer showed up. They went off to prepare their press release and had the audacity to present it to the Canadian public as a minority report.


Mr. Sargeant:: That is a lie.


Donald W. Munro: They used House of Commons stationery, and I think that is absolutely inexcusable. I will therefore continue to call it the "press release by the dissenting rump".
There is one other aspect of the report which I find regrettable. Three weeks ago the chairman of the committee
Supply
tabled-in both official languages, as is the practice-the full report in this House. I have a copy of it. It is on legal-size typewritten paper. There is not yet a bound report. Today, three weeks later, there is no bound report for distribution to those concerned. However, meanwhile this press release has been distributed far and wide. Even with the Post Office conditions we have in this country, there has been time for it to come back from the extremities of the land to Ottawa with the request that we subscribe to it. There is no regular report ready for distribution, and I find that rather regrettable.
The reports of the special committee on the disabled, the special committee on reserves and the special committee on alternate energy sources and a number of other committee reports were bound. I think it was done in the case of the special committee on federal programs financing. That was done quickly. Why we should have had to wait three weeks for the final edition of this full report I do not know. In fact, during question period I tried to ask the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) if he could explain why we have had to wait three weeks for that full report. Perhaps when he makes his contribution to this debate he will be able to tell us why there has been no final version of that report so that we might send it to those who contributed to the hearings and are interested in the outcome of our report.
I also find it curious that six members out of the 30 should consider themselves anything more than just 20 per cent of the committee. They have elevated themselves to a prestigious position and circulated misleading advertising.
I want to refer briefly to this press release since it is actually before us. I think one might even say the motion before us could be ruled out of order because the words used are improper. The words should be: "That this House supports the press release on security and disarmament signed by six members of the standing committee." Nonetheless, it has been widely circulated and there are some interesting observations in it, one of which I would like to examine a little more closely. It has to do with a nuclear freeze.
There is a notion today that rough parity exists between the superpowers. That is referred to somewhere in this press release, and I think it is worth while to ask ourselves just how the conclusion that there is a rough parity was reached. At page four of this particular version, the press release says:
Because the Soviet Union has a significant advantage in intermediate-range missiles currently aimed at western Europe, NATO feels it necessary to deploy new single-warhead missiles in European sites.
Then the next paragraph states:
There is, in short, rough parity today between the superpowers.
I do not know where these hon. members were when Dr. Lindsey was speaking to us. "Rough parity" is a strange way to describe the missile situation in Europe at this particular time. Not many people were privileged to receive copies of the report of the hearings of this committee, and I therefore feel it very important that one, or perhaps two, paragraphs from one particular day's testimony be put on the record of Hansard so

April 29, 1982
Supply
that this might be available to anyone who is interested. I refer to the testimony presented by Dr. George Lindsey, who was mentioned earlier as being the chief of the operational research and analysis establishment of the Department of National Defence. My colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), mentioned earlier the matters of stability, crisis and so forth, but I want to show that the view expressed by the dissidents that there is rough parity between the superpowers is not in accordance with the facts.
On February 17, 1982, on the fifty-eighth day of testimony, as recorded at page 10 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for that day, Dr. Lindsey had this to say:
If we lump long and medium-range systems together and include British, French and United States systems under NATO, then according to this book-
He was referring to "The Military Balance 1980-81," which is a reputable study prepared in Britain.
-the Warsaw Pact leads NATO by 4,400 to 1,300 land-based vehicles, and 2,000 to 650 nuclear warheads available.
Is that rough parity?
Now if you add in sea-based systems, you have to decide whether or not to include the 400 American Poseidon submarine-launched warheads. These are normally declared available to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, but they have already been counted in the central strategic balance. Let us put them in too-
Just for good measure, in order to be sure we know what we are talking about.
-and then the total score is 4,400 to 1,550 for nuclear carriers in favour of the Warsaw Pact;-
That is a pretty big advantage. It is not rough parity, nor is it even rough justice.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Three to one.


Donald W. Munro: Three to one.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: That is not true.


Donald W. Munro: Someone said that is not true.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: It is not.


Donald W. Munro: If the hon. member can produce more reliable figures, not from Arbatov, but from someone else on whom I can rely, I would be glad to have them when I am finished.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: The only guy you rely on is "Ronnie Ray-gun".


Donald W. Munro: -and in available warheads, Warsaw Pact leads by 2,000 to 1,150. That is a pretty big advantage. But one might wish to break it down into some of the subsystems. In doing that, in land-based vehicles, Warsaw Pact leads 1,250 to 200; aircraft, Warsaw Pact leads 3,100 to 1,100. If you break it down into long-range land-based carriers, Warsaw Pact leads 600 to 18 in missiles, and 1,000 to 250 in aircraft; medium-range, Warsaw Pact leads 650 to 200 in missiles, and 2,100 to 850 in aircraft.
There is no rough parity that I can see there, and how hon. members opposite can see rough parity in these Figures, I do not know. The only rough parity I have been able to discover is in the book entitled "The Balance of Military Power" which has a foreword by Dr. Luns, Secretary General of NATO. Mr. Arbatov might not want to rely on this document, but I am prepared to rely on it. The only rough parity occurs in the armed forces, and for the Warsaw Pact they stand at
4.758.000	and for NATO at 4,875,000. So NATO has a slight edge.
I find it strange that from the conclusion that there is rough parity, so-called, it is possible to jump immediately to the question of the freeze. Before I do that, however, I should like to refer to some figures published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. These show the growth of forces from 1970 to 1980 to be just as important historically as the present situation and certain important conclusions may be drawn from this.
In 1970 the U.S.A. had 1,054 ICBMs and in 1980 it had 1,052; in 1970 the U.S.S.R. had 1,487 and in 1980 1,398. In 1970 the U.S.A. had 656 submarine launched ballistic missiles and in 1980 it had 576; in 1970 the U.S.S.R. had 248 and in 1980 it had 950. Is that representative of a move toward rough parity, Mr. Speaker? In long-range bombers the U.S.A. had 512 in 1970 and 348 in 1980; the U.S.S.R. remained steady at 156. The number of total warheads in the U.S.A. went from
4.000	in 1970 to 9,200 in 1980; in the U.S.S.R. from 1,800 in 1970 to 6,000 in 1980.
That disparity in 1970 was not exploited by our allies to the south who are our colleagues in NATO in the way that the head of the Warsaw Pact is trying to exploit the disparity that exists today in order to get a freeze which this group, in its press release, is trying to obtain so that there will be no negotiations. Why should the Soviet Union want to negotiate when these figures show that they are ahead? There is no reason why we should decide on a freeze at this time, Mr. Speaker.
On that subject I should like to refer to what Helmut Schmidt said recently when addressing a Social Democratic Party meeting in Munich.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Donald W. Munro: Just one quotation, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when I first learned the contents of the motion for today, I reread the minority report on security and disarmament of April, 1982. In large part, my original impression of the report was confirmed. It is a humane report. It sets out the extent of the
April 29, 1982

world's build-up in armaments. It expresses most people's desires, namely, a retreat from potential nuclear holocaust.
If it has a serious flaw, it would be that it lacks a modus operandi to accomplish world disarmament or world arms control while at the same time not jeopardizing security. But then, most disarmament reports seem to have this flaw.
Life would be so much more sane if we could have the Warsaw Pact members sign and adhere to the minority report, or, for that matter, the majority report. The minority report calls for a "global freeze on the testing, production and development of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles". The report goes on to say that a "freeze is relatively easy to verify".
It would be more accurate to state that without mutual consent it is relatively easy to verify testing, but not production and deployment. Most people would agree that we have enough nuclear bombs. Most people'would agree that we do not need any testing of nuclear bombs per se.
From 1945 to 1980 there have been 1,271 nuclear explosions. In warheads, the United States now has the equivalent of 200,000 Hiroshima-type bombs; the U.S.S.R. has the equivalent 430,000; and France, which we do not really consider a nuclear power in the same category as the Soviet Union and the United States, now has 4,700.
The majority report points out that six countries now have the capability of detonating a nuclear device and that within ten years 44 countries will have that ability. That is frightening, Mr. Speaker. The number of bombs does not seem to be the contentious point between nations but the delivery system is.
We are concerned with proximity of weapons and the ability of those weapons to penetrate. This is the case whether we are discussing the SS-20 missile, the Pershing II, the Trident submarine or Soviet submarines.
In a few short years the Soviets have deployed 180 nucleararmed SS-20 missiles against Europe and China. There is a total of 300 SS-20 missiles in place and approximately 900 warheads deployed.
Incidentally, I notice that since France withdrew from NATO the Soviet Union has not pointed fewer missiles in that direction. This might be something for the NDP to remember-withdrawal from NATO would not make this country any less a target. There are at least 10,000 nuclear weapons deployed for use against Europe and they all point the same way-away from the Soviet Union. As a result, NATO has become quite concerned.
The ratio of military balance between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. is about 1.3 to 1. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) gave some figures but I think they show the military balance between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO in Europe. It is important to look at world parity, however, and that is about 1.3 to 1 in favour of the Soviet Union. We can live with that.
Supply
Right in the middle of this, we have to look at intermediate-range nuclear missiles such as the Cruise missile. The ratio there is 600 to zero in favour of the Soviets, and that is our concern. What the allies want the Soviets to do is dismantle those missiles and go to the zero option. In return the allies will not place the Pershing II and Cruise missile in Europe; sort of disarmament in reverse. We support that zero option policy.
In December, 1979, NATO decided to deploy 464 Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing missiles in five West European countries, the U.K., Italy, Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands. NATO felt that since the Russians would not agree to remove their 600-odd missiles, this move was needed for western security. The zero option still exists and is open to the Soviet Union; we have not put those missiles in place yet. But even the sponsors of this resolution will agree that there was no serious debate about the removal of SS-20 missiles until we made a firm decision to deploy the Cruise and Pershing missiles by 1983.
That logically brings me to the next point on the testing of Cruise missiles: Are we to break our agreement with the U.S. on testing of the Cruise missile in Canada? It is a developed missile; it has had at least a dozen successful flights.


Pauline Jewett: Have we made the agreement?


Ron Irwin: The decision was made in 1979. It is a low-flying missile guided by terrain observation. The guidance system needs more testing, and we have an existing firing range at Cold Lake. I was in Calgary last weekend on the disarmament panel, and there was a presentation by Dr. Cynthia Canizzo. She pointed out that on this range we have devices which will monitor the Cruise missile as it is being tested, along with planes monitoring the missile in flight. The missile can be shut down at any time and, most importantly, there are no nuclear warheads in the missile. They will be dummy warheads. It is a relatively safe situation.
We voted over two years ago to deploy 464 armed missiles in Europe. But the minority report advocates now say: "Let's not even test the guidance system in Canada." At the same time we are quite prepared to let the arms system be installed in allied countries in Europe. This logic is so cynical as to be almost amusing. I heard one remark to the effect of "let it be done in Alaska". The minority report suggests that because we honour our obligations to our NATO partners, we are not honouring our obligation to humanity-and that it the exact wording in the report. I find that to be the most pontifical statement in the whole minority report. NATO is analogous to a family arrangement. If anyone aims a gun at your family, that person must know it cannot be aimed with impunity. If someone tries to break down your door, you do not wait until the door comes tumbling down before you prepare yourself. You prepare yourself as soon as you hear the noise, and the noise of the SS-20 installation preparation in Europe by the Russians, east and west of the Urals, is thunderous.

April 29, 1982
Supply
The minority report suggests that our testing the Cruise missile will "only stimulate the Soviets". That is the exact wording. In my humble opinion the Soviets need little stimulation to fuel their expansionist appetite. The thief who breaks down my door may be stimulated to work faster by the noise of my preparations on the other side, but I suggest he will be even more stimulated to discontinue his work. If the SS-20s are dismantled, the Cruise missiles will not be deployed; that is clear. If not, the Cruise missiles will be deployed; that is even clearer.
I wholeheartedly support the objective of bringing the arms race to a halt. Only an insane person would think otherwise. However, I think we should take the time to study these various proposals for a freeze or moratorium on production and deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union. It is particularly important to consider, Mr. Speaker, any freeze proposal with caution in the context I have just described to you in order to establish what one is being asked to freeze. While a freeze may be a simple and clean solution with a lot of appeal, some superficially attractive variants-in particular the idea of an immediate global freeze on the deployment of nuclear weapons-would be seriously harmful not only for western security, which is the overriding objective, but also to the case for verifiable arms control, which is the only realistic means to achieve this objective. The task which is in the forefront of the western agenda is the negotiation of a real and balanced reduction in nuclear weapons.
The Soviet president announced that he had decided to suspend further deployment of SS-20 missiles on the European territory of the Soviet Union. This apparent self-restraint is deceptive for two reasons. Deployment of SS-20 missiles continues east of the Urals within striking distance of most of Western Europe, and approximately 300 of these missiles with a total of 900 warheads have already been deployed. NATO's combined intelligence is that that is all Russia originally intended to deploy. So it is not much of a concession.
Moreover, the continuation of this partial moratorium after the fact is conditional on the abandonment by NATO of their nuclear modernization plans. A more acceptable freeze proposal, a version of which was tabled in the U.S. Senate and House, would seek, through negotiations, to establish a balance at the lowest possible level, and then freeze it. As I indicated, disarmament in reverse.
Chancellor Schmidt recently said "the unbelievable Soviet armada is aimed at us." He was right. Last week he said that he strongly opposed an immediate nuclear weapons freeze which would institutionalize the Soviet advantage in Europe, and he reaffirmed his support for NATO deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles starting late in 1983. Canada has given its support to NATO as of December, 1979. We continue to give that support and we still look at the zero option. And we will still be in Europe if that option is not accepted.
We have also agreed with our NATO allies that a freeze on implementation of the deployment aspect of the December, 1979, decision will remove any hope for the future success of
the Geneva negotiations, and that an immediate global freeze on nuclear weapons would detract from the goal of negotiated and verifiable reductions and limitations.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let anyone in this House think that I support a global build-up of arms. The last ten years have been an arms disaster. We have had a Soviet arms build-up, we have had Afghanistan and Poland, and SALT II was not ratified. That was because of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. We have had the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, and countries going nuclear. Why? Because it is cheaper to go nuclear than to buy conventional arms. At the same time, since 1945 we have had 130 wars in which 25 million people have been killed with conventional arms. Fifty of those wars have been in the last ten years.
We had this debate last week, Mr. Speaker; it continued in Calgary, and we are having it today. If nothing else, the minority report is stimulating debate. There is an arms madness in this world. We spend $500 billion per year on arms. That is just madness. We have 500,000 of our best scientists working for the military. That represents 40 per cent of all scientists in the world. The military is the greatest user of the world's natural resources. The annual military budget of the world equals the annual incomes of 1,800,000 people in the 36 poorest countries. When I said on Friday that for the cost of one Trident submarine we could school 16 million children for one year, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) said that without Trident submarines there would be no schools. I would rather have the schools. I agree with him logically, but I would rather have the schools. In two days the world spends 20 times more for military programs than for economic assistance to the poorest countries-it spends $14,800 per soldier in the world on military expenditures but only $230 per child on education. We are wasting our resources, our scientists and our money.
Canada has a good record. Last week when the hon. member for Victoria said that we tend to overemphasize our influence, he made a good point. Because we are liked in the world, we tend to think that we have a certain influence. We are liked because we are not colonialists; we are liked because we do not have aspirations. I do not think we should underestimate our importance, but I think we can only operate in the world as long as we belong to societies and groups such as NATO or NORAD where we can exert some influence over this madness.


Pauline Jewett: But you do not exert any.


Ron Irwin: The NDP exerts none. I still do not know the policy of the New Democratic Party; on Monday it is for NATO and on Tuesday it is against NATO. The NDP in Calgary does not even know. I would be pleased to know whether the NDP wants Canada to be in or out of NATO, so that I will at least know what to debate.
Canada was the first NATO country to relinquish nuclear capability. We virtually invented peacemaking.
April 29, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ron Irwin: Members of the NDP can harp. It is the truth, and the truth makes anyone harp. Canada has the most stringent safeguards on the export of armaments and the safest nuclear plants in the world. The NDP wants us to spend less on armaments. I think it was the hon. member for Victoria who mentioned that we spend 1.7 per cent of our gross national product on armament, which puts us in the second lowest place to Luxembourg in the NATO alliance. We have gone a long way toward peace.
I support the five or six recommendations of the majority report and I sympathize with the minority report. In many ways they fit together. They are looking for strategic arms reduction talks, decisions on anti-ballistic missile treaties, comprehensive multilateral test bans, nuclear weapons free zones, non-proliferation and, an end to chemical and biological weapons. We all want this. On the whole the minority report has been a genuine effort of concerned members of the committee to ease world tensions. It has stimulated debate on the points of view which vary in the majority report. I think we can live with them, I think they are important. But how can we vote for them when it is a vote of non-confidence?


Pauline Jewett: What do you mean?


Ron Irwin: If I vote for the minority report today, the Government of Canada falls. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose or contribute to controlling world armament if I voted for the minority report. To accept it for discussion is one thing; to bring down the government is another. Therefore, it is unlikely that the minority report will be supported by this side of the House.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consultations have taken place with representatives of the opposition parties. We have agreed to seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents for the purpose of tabling the offer made by the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada to the Alsands consortium.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the joint proposal by the Government of Canada and the
Supply
Government of Alberta to the partners in the Alsands consortium.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House supports the minority report on security and disarmament signed by six members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in April, 1982, calling for, inter alia, a worldwide nuclear freeze, no Cruise missile testing in Canada and a world-wide pledge against first use of nuclear weapons.
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today deals with an issue which through the years has grown in importance and, by consequence, has become visibly and vocally controversial. Because people throughout the world rightfully seek to live in peace, concern over the change in nature and weapons of death and destruction of war is more than justified.
As a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which conducted an exhaustive in-depth review of the issues of security and disarmament, I along with my colleagues had the opportunity to examine these concerns and the reasons behind them.
Prior to the presentation of our reports the committee spent long hours over many days listening to and reading comments from a great many individuals and groups from diverse areas of the Canadian and international community. One of the reports represents the views of a majority of committee members; the other, as has been pointed out very well, was a press release. I will address this split later. Each group, each individual and each report, while varying in approach to the problem at hand, revealed quite clearly an abhorrence of war and a deep-rooted horror that the consequences of another major war would be the destruction of mankind. The immediate and obvious focus of concern is the possibility of and the escalation toward a nuclear war.
Since the dawn of the nuclear age some 37 years ago, mankind has had to live with what has been described as the terrible burden of nuclear weapons and the havoc they may wreak. In a recent address, the United States Secretary of State Alexander Haig, commenting on the issue, said;
No one has ever advocated nuclear war. No responsible voice has ever sought to minimize its horrors.
If there is any comfort or slight encouragement to be derived from the current situation, it is that this view is being expressed by a representative of the administration of one of

April 29, 1982
Supply
the two super powers which have the capability to engage in such a war.
The contradiction in the minds of many people is that while the avoidance of war and the desire for peace are being espoused, the arms build-up throughout the world continues to escalate in numbers and in potency. In its simplest form, people are saying: "If you really want to live in peace, why do you carry a gun?"
The answer, in theory as well as in reality, is that those of us who want peace and security live in a world in which we are surrounded by those who carry guns and have demonstrated their desire to use them. Thus, the establishment of a competent and capable military force by a nation with an underlying wish for peace cannot be considered a contradiction. In its true sense the military force of a nation is its vehicle for security at a national level.
It may be appropriate to draw an analogy to security on more personal and better understandable levels. Police and fire departments are established to protect the individual and the community as a whole from unwanted intrusion, aggression and destruction. Businesses and homes are equipped with safety devices for the same reason. We wish to live undisturbed in peace but we equip ourselves against others who do not share our desire.
To live in a world where peace is a universally attained goal is certainly the ideal. Unfortunately, ideals are seldom achieved. Because of this and of the very obvious territorial and ideological ambitions of aggressor nations and individuals in the world today, to pretend that a threat to our security does not exist is pure folly.
It has been well documented that, with variations, history repeats itself, and history has clearly shown that those who, however well meaning, blindly avoid either comprehending or responding to reality are quickly and decisively destroyed by those who have the power to take advantage of the weak, weak-willed and weakly equipped.
Obviously, the solution is to remain attuned to the reality of world events and to demonstrate both the will and the capability necessary to deter the opportunistic aggressor.
A solution which is less obvious, indeed seemingly elusive, is that which would halt this senseless state of mistrust between the major superpowers, which has resulted in the alarming situation in which we find ourselves today. In their effort to establish equality of capability, each remains deeply suspicious of the other's intentions, with the result that the parity desired with respect to weapons is in continual dispute.
In simple terms, if one side has two guns and the other has three guns, the side with one gun less wants the extra gun in order to feel equal. However, the side with the extra gun objects on the grounds that the two guns possessed by its opponent can shoot a bullet farther and with more destructive force, thereby making them equal.
This simple example, when expanded to encompass the vast array and complexity of weapons and inventory of weapons by both superpowers, gives some idea of the nature of the major difficulties surrounding disarmament. While disarmament remains under discussion, the cost of continuing the arms race has reached astounding levels. An estimated $600 billion will be spent throughout the world for arms and equipment related to the armed forces. The state of the economies of the world nations today adds greatly to the pressures.
Nations which are fighting merely to survive have difficulty to justify moneys being spent on weapons and armies dedicated to a possible fight to survive as a nation.
We are well aware of the burden placed on the American economy due to its massive defence spending. What may be less obvious, however, is the problem such spending is creating for the Soviet Union, the other superpower.
During an appearance before the standing committee, Dr. Georgi Arbatov, a director from the embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Canada, and a very high profile member of the Soviet parliament, eloquently outlined the stress that the arms race is felt even in his own country. Although there was criticism when he was invited to appear before the committee as a witness, what he said was certainly interesting and quite stimulating. I had the privilege of questioning this eminent Russian, and it is interesting to note that some of his comments appear in the committee proceedings. It would be of interest to many members in the House and to many others to read the proceedings of that particular day.
Although I do not take every word he says as gospel and may question some of his statements, I recall pointing out to him what an important person he was in the U.S.S.R. Of course, he denied this and said that he was just an ordinary citizen of the U.S.S.R.
I inquired whether he would be present at the disarmament talks which are to take place in June and July in New York. He said that he would be there but that the Soviet ambassador to the United States and the foreign minister of the U.S.S.R. would be present to state their government's policy. However, I told Mr. Arbatov that I was quite sure he would be more influential than many others due to his vast knowledge of the subject. I said, "Even though you are not saying it, you will be at the right hand of those eminent citizens of the U.S.S.R. and will certainly be coaching them". I also mentioned to him that Canada was very fortunate in its long record of never having being invaded since 1814 when we won the Canada-United States war. Mr. Arbatov replied, "Yes, you are fortunate because you have two very good neighbors." I thought that statement rather ironic.
Another interesting comment made by Mr. Arbatov was that he agreed that the arms race was a tremendous drain on the Soviet economy. I pointed out to him the amount of money being spent by the United States-some $200 billion-as well as the fact that these figures are known worldwide, especially by the U.S.S.R., but when we try to pin point the exact figure from Russia, we only get an evasive answer. I believe he
April 29, 1982

indicated it was 25 per cent of their gross national product which, of course, we also do not know.
As I mentioned previously, we in the committee heard from many witnesses and while their concern was obviously genuine, I felt that in some instances they were seeking a dangerous path to peace, that of unqualified, unilateral disarmament.
Canadians have already witnessed this government's attitude toward disarmament. I am pleased to see that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) is here because 1 suggest to him that our Canadian armed forces, which is our vehicle for national security, our contribution to the maintenance of world peace, has been disarmed to the brink of dissolution under this government. Under this government, our military has been decimated and neglected for over a decade.
As a member of two international military alliances, NORAD and NATO, Canada is supposed to be assisting our allies in the defence of the free world. It is common knowledge and a matter of shame to many Canadians-particularly those men and women who serve in uniform-that our contribution is merely token.
Although our people are of the highest professional calibre, and what service they do provide is of value, this nation's minuscule contribution to the alliances in manpower, equipment and spending percentages is far less than it should rightfully be. Of the 15 NATO nations, only the small country of Luxembourg pays less per capita for defence than does Canada. Furthermore, what we have for the little we spend is nothing to brag about. Although we may have the best people, the equipment and the funds they have to work with certainly are not the best.
Let us look at our navy. We may call it a navy but that would be stretching the imagination. Our navy presently consists of 20 ships which, to say the least, are not of 1982 vintage. Although we have a new program to build six new patrol frigates, they are still in the design phase. Even this program is in difficulty and is incurring rising costs, as usual. When I first came on the committee for national defence, I heard stories about the great frigate program. I believe the cost of building those six frigates some years back was $1,000,400,000, but the latest figure is now $4 billion, and the Lord knows what the figure will be by the time the first frigate is on the water and delivered to the hon. minister, whoever he may be at the time. By then it will be even higher.


Pauline Jewett: Yes, he or she.


Stan Darling: Sure, he or she. I am well aware that the day may come when we could have a woman minister of national defence, and she may be a woman of the calibre of the present prime minister of Great Britain.


Pauline Jewett: Oh, perish the thought.


Stan Darling: She would certainly carry her weight.


Some hon. Members:: Ursula.
Supply


Stan Darling: If the government had understood the necessity of our military and had provided sufficient funds for a sensible, smooth-flowing program of equipment replacement, we would be spending far less than we now do to try to catch up to where we were before.
This nation has one of the longest coastlines in the world. I believe it is 37,000 miles long. It stands to reason that a viable, up to date and strong navy is of great importance to us. Following the Second World War, Canada had the third largest navy in the world. People watching the serious situation in the Falkland Islands with concern were probably laughing and discussing the fact that Argentina only had one aircraft carrier. However, that is one more than we have.
Our air force and our army are in equal disarray. We are slowly re-equipping these two elements of our military as well. It has also become a case of too little too late, and now at too high a cost. Yet, despite the state of our military today, there are people who feel we should reduce its size even more. There are those who would like to see Canada sit back and let the United States assume full responsibility for our security. What they perhaps do not know is that our great neighbour to the south now spends a significant portion of his defence budget to what could be considered to be in our defence as well. I believe that our defence budget, which has increased this year, is in the $7 billion bracket, up considerably from a while ago. However, when compared with the budget of $200 billion of the United States, we find that its budget is ten times higher. If the United States spends $200 billion on arms, our equivalent would be $20 billion. Is that not right, Mr. Minister? The Minister of National Defence is shaking his head. I am not suggesting that we are in any financial position to spend that amount, but it is worth while to compare the budgets.
The U.S. assumes most of the cost of NORAD, which is our continental defence and is the major spending partner in our NATO alliance. Can we take pride as a nation? Indeed, do we have any right to call ourselves a nation if we turn to another to defend our very existence as a nation? If we do not have the national will and the gumption to assume more of our own defence requirements, can we shame ourselves even more by refusing to assist our defender with our joint requirements?
The United States seeks permission to conduct testing of a number of items of military equipment on and over Canadian soil. One of these is the Cruise missile. The motion before this House in support of this press release demands, among other things, that no Cruise missile testing be allowed in Canada. The U.S. has stated that it would like to test a missile from our facilities at the Canadian Forces Base at Cold Lake in northern Alberta because the terrain and climate is similar to that on the Russian front where it might be used. As soon as the request was revealed in the media, a hue and cry went up exhorting the government not to grant permission. Critics berated the government for its potential involvement in a nuclear weapons system, many of them not realizing that testing would in no way involve the use of the nuclear warheads themselves.

April 29, 1982
Supply
In light of the fact that we have passed much of our defence on to the shoulders of the Americans, I very strongly feel that we should at least have the decency to assist them with our defence where possible. I want to commend the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) for their favourable position on this issue. I say to them that I hope the agreement for testing will be approved.
The other two points in the motion which call for a worldwide nuclear freeze and a worldwide pledge against the first use of nuclear weapons are commendable concepts. However, as I outlined previously, they have questionable application. If any one of us had a magic wand and could wave it with certain assured results, we would instantly cause to disappear all weapons, nuclear and otherwise. At this point I must underscore the fact that I do not belittle any expression of the desire for peace. I, too, wish with all my heart that the words "conflict" and "conquest" would become an archaic part of our language, the use and meaning of which were forgotten in the mists of time. I do believe that everyone throughout the world must continue to speak out on behalf of peace in the hope that one day it will become reality.
Therefore, I understand and applaud the motives of those who make their voices heard. Throughout the country, in many municipalities, a referendum will be held on the issue of nuclear disarmament. It should come as no surprise to anyone when the results of those votes are an overwhelming support for the disarmament position. In my view, the votes which will be recorded in the referenda at the time of municipal elections will, in all probability, show the support of more than 98 per cent. Canadians will naturally raise their voices throughout the world in a call for peace, but the voice of the people must come from the mind of reason. We must reasonably assume that the path to world peace contains many difficult obstacles, although they are not insurmountable. However, they are ones which require that we be ready for the challenge. These obstacles will be vividly presented in New York in June when Canada joins with the other members of the United Nations for the second special session on disarmament.
In its majority report, our committee presented 32 detailed recommendations for the Canadian policy on arms control and disarmament as guides for the upcoming UN meeting. Among the recommendations, all worthy of consideration and support, are a few I would like to highlight. While suggesting that Canada encourage the superpowers to resume talks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired, unless he can obtain unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is agreed.


Stan Darling: While suggesting that Canada encourage the superpowers to resume talks and reach early agreement both on strategic arms limitation and mutual balanced force reductions, we also recommend that the UN devote special
attention to ways of encouraging peaceful relations between the two. We suggest this could be achieved through the use of confidence-building measures and confidence-restoring techniques, such as good offices, mediation, arbitration and peace-keeping. It was also our recommendation that Canada should support in principle, where appropriate, nuclear weapon free zones and support in principle the concept of zones of peace. We also felt it imperative that Canada take a strong stand on the need to establish a comprehensive prohibition of chemical weapons. It was our view that one of the most critical and crucial fields for arms control and disarmament is nuclear non-proliferation. We suggest that the Canadian delegation do everything possible to highlight its importance for the future of world peace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Stan Darling: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) had the floor.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House for allowing me to finish my remarks.
It was our view that one of the most crucial fields for arms control and disarmament is nuclear non-proliferation and we suggested the Canadian delegation do everything possible to highlight its importance for the future of world peace.
Canadian participation in these meetings on disarmament is that of a concerned partner, one willing to help resolve the grave and serious problem. We in Canada have been fortunate in that our nation has been spared as a theatre of battle in the two major world wars. This may not be the case in the future.
During past wars, many thousands of Canadians fought and died in defence of freedom. The freedom we now enjoy and the future we anticipate exists only because we cared enough to keep them secure. It is not unreasonable to hope we will never again be called upon to fight in defence of what we hold dear, but it would be folly not to be prepared to do so if need be, and if we can help build a sense of mutual confidence and cooperation between the nations of the world, the need may never arise.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on some of the comments made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) who spoke before me, I would like to say that the disadvantage
April 29, 1982

we may have owing to the obsolescence of our equipment is largely compensated by the ability and professionalism of the men and women in our Armed Forces.

I would like to congratulate the members of the committee. Despite some divergent views, they displayed a good example of democracy in the hearing of witnesses and worked as hard as possible.
I decided to speak on this motion because I feel directly implicated in it, not because of the content or the repercussion that such a resolution could well have on the future of this country, and 1 would say the future of this planet, if it were adopted, but because I care for the survival of my children and of future generations.
I will try to put forward my view in a most objective way and with the greatest possible understanding for those who do not share my views. I am one of the lucky ones who managed to live through the last war. As you know, I was a bomber pilot. I served in England for nearly two years. Then I was shot down and spent two years in concentration camps in Germany, Russia and Poland. I know from bitter experience all the reasons for hating war and I know all the horrors of war.
When I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) talking about the horrors of a nuclear war, I assure you I was not scared. At the same time, I know the other side of the coin. I hope, however, that we will never again have to experience the horrors of any kind of war.
I do not say that for my personal benefit for there are many thousands of Canadians who have done the same and even more than I have done. I am thinking of the ones who have given their lives because of the naivete of some well-meaning politicians like Mr. Daladier, certainly a good socialist, as well as Mr. Chamberlain in 1938.
They succumbed to the temptation of wishing to evade the aggressor, by giving up or making concessions. It is what I would call submission. In recent history, it was called the spirit of Munich. Daladier and Chamberlain were not betraying their people. They were only doing that which any good democrat would do, that is abide by what they thought was the wish of their people.
Today these demonstrators who parade in the streets singing the same slogan are the successors, or les heritiers, of those who were frenetically applauding Chamberlain's return from Munich.
It was a pity at the time to see these gullible people thinking that that kind of disarmament was reassuring, not knowing that it was condemning them. These poor leaders who, to preserve still several short months of confidence from their people, were in fact hiding the reality and their concerns. It was accepted with ease that some friendly country had to be sacrificed to appease the appetite of that dictator at the time.
Then they were reassured by the declarations of specialists or by telegrams from ambassadors affirming in chorus that Mr. Hitler would be thrown out of power because of the bankruptcy of the German economy. They were showing to the dictator their unarmed hands to reassure their aggressor and take away, they were hoping, all of its reflexes of fear and
Supply
aggression. What a farce when we know what followed! I feel, however, that there are some who are following this same process these days using the same words and with the same intentions to make the same error.

In 1938 in Munich, Chamberlain and Daladier wanted peace at any cost. By advocating disarmament, they condemned the nations of the world to a war that was postponed only one year. They were hiding the facts. We must not fall in the same trap. That is why NATO has a bipolar policy, which aims at strengthening our defence and making every effort to negotiate bilateral disarmament. It is reassuring to speak about world disarmament, but it must occur on both sides. Unilateral disarmament without reasonable parity would be equivalent to nothing but surrender and capitulation. While our sociocapitalistic system is not perfect, I still prefer it to the sociocommunist regime because we have much greater freedoms and rights than any other country. The temptation of wanting to escape the aggressor by yielding to him denotes a spirit of submission that I do not accept.

Following those remarks, I should thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for presenting this motion to the House for debate today. It underlines to the Canadian people the distinct lack of realism possessed by that party on all these matters, their lack of realism in spite of all the facts.
This debate provides us, on the government side, with an opportunity to present to the Canadian people the realistic facts upon which our current defence posture and that of our allies in the western alliance rests.
The NDP members appear to be united in their support of this motion, this motion that reflects a minority of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. If this is indeed the case, then I am puzzled; I hope that we will hear clearly, one day soon, their full policy with respect to NATO, North American defence, and even the defence of their own country.
It is important to point out that we are debating today a motion based on the minority report of the SCEAND Committee which examined Canada's security and disarmament policy. Fully 80 per cent of the members of that committee agreed with the final report, a report that was prepared after a month and a half of extensive hearings-hearings at which numerous, well-known witnesses, representing a wide spectrum of views, were heard. This motion suggests that the NDP is not pleased with the report of their peers. Since this is the case, it is important to recall for them some of the evidence presented therein.
Last week, every member of the House of Commons, as well as every member of the other place, received a copy of the letter that I sent to the hundreds of Canadians who had

April 29, 1982
Supply
expressed an interest in the subject of the proposed flight testing of unarmed Cruise missiles in Canada. Hon. members opposite also received a copy of this letter and by now have had an opportunity to weigh its contents. Regardless of one's political or philosophical underpinnings, I can assure everyone that the facts presented therein are not in dispute. Defence is not a matter for philosophers; defence questions are questions of stark reality and, therefore, I think that it will benefit this debate if parts of this letter are read into the record.
[ Translation]
I must clarify certain other points concerning the present state of the negotiations with a view to signing an agreement with the United States on tests of weapon systems in Canada. In addition to unarmed Cruise missiles, the United States might want to test other systems, such as helicopters, surveillance and identification systems and aircraft navigation systems. Canada would have full and continuous control over all testing, which would be subject to the environmental and security requirements of our country. The Cruise missile would not be more dangerous than a small plane because there would be no impact and the use of a parachute would make the missile recoverable. Each test proposed by the United States would first have to be authorized by Canada and could even be forbidden later on. Biological and chemical nuclear testing would not be authorized. Finally, the negotiation of such an agreement with the United States could prove a strong incentive for the two superpowers to conduct fruitful negotiations with a view to concluding a monitoring agreement on weapons control and a balanced and mutual disarmament. The government will proceed normally with the negotiation of the master agreement. It is not expected that any agreement on Cruise missile testing will come about before the end of the year, and certainly not before the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmement. Of course, any agreement on arms testing in existence or being negotiated would be subject to the provisions of any new agreement made during UNSSOD II. However, in the meantime, Canada will continue to ensure the strength and efficiency of the Alliance.

Clearly, the Canadian government, and myself as Minister of National Defence, would dearly love to halt the production and testing of any weapons system, and to live in a world that is free of aggression and free of any threat to peace. Sadly, today's international scene does not present us with such a picture. Unfortunately, history, as I said at the beginning of my speech, provides us with overwhelming evidence that such a naive approach to the world is both irresponsible and dangerous. Certainly, the history of the Soviet Union's expansionism since World War II and of their blatant disregard for basic human rights-even as we speak, in Poland and Afghanistan-is evidence enough of the danger inherent in such an approach. Intentions are all very well but clearly one's actions and the actual facts of history will demonstrate one's sincerity. The U.S.S.R. has clearly demonstrated its sincerity in this regard.
It is all very well for the members of the NDP to travel across this land, preaching an end to war and peace for the world. Mr. Speaker, we as a government simply cannot take that chance. We are positively bound to protect our people's right to peace and freedom by something more substantial than the pursuit of an ideal and a "pie in the sky" approach to matters of such importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, the security of the western alliance is based on the concept of credible deterrence. This motion proposes a worldwide nuclear freeze, a freeze on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Put quite simply, a freeze at this time is unacceptable because it would freeze an unstable and unequal military balance, thus entrapping the West in a position of dangerous inferiority.
We must remember that a global freeze would apply not only to strategic nuclear weapons, where a rough parity might exist between the Soviet Union and the United States, but also to intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe, where the balance has been seriously upset by the Soviet deployment since 1976 of 300 SS-20s. It is unfortunate that this clear imbalance in favour of the Soviet Union, which has brought about NATO's modernization program, is not recognized by members opposite.


Mr. Ogle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member accept a question?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will finish what I have to say and if there is time then, I will be ready to answer the question.
Clearly, Canada does not favour proposals for a U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. nuclear weapons freeze at existing levels. Rather, we hold the view that the two major nuclear powers should first negotiate substantial and verifiable reductions, both quantitative and qualitative, in their nuclear arsenals.
We believe that the U.S.A. is committed to arms control and to the achievement of equitable and verifiable agreements aimed at substantial reductions in nuclear forces. While freeze proposals reflect the desire of people everywhere to reduce the threat of nuclear war, proposals in themselves do not promote reductions, equality or verifiability. Rather, it will result in a locking-in of existing inequalities, while making further progress difficult, if not impossible. For these reasons, the goal in arms control must continue to be the negotiation of substantial reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both sides. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that we can do better than a freeze, and we want to do more than a freeze.
It is for similar reasons that I cannot support the final proposal presented in this motion, that calls for a worldwide pledge against first use of nuclear weapons. There is considerable confusion in the public debate about the terms "first use" and "first strike". It may be helpful to members and to our discussion if I attempt to define the terms.
A first strike, often qualified by the adjectives "preemptive" or "disarming" is generally taken to mean a major premeditated attempt by one side to destroy the offensive nuclear systems of the other effectively, to the point that the country concerned could not effectively respond. It is, of course, a principal reason why both the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union have seen fit to maintain what is described as a triad of strategic forces- land-based, sea-based in submarines and heavy bombers. This is in order that their eggs are not all at one time in the same basket. It is our judgment that neither side has the capacity to
April 29, 1982

undertake a disarming first-strike at this time, and that neither looks to achieve such a capability.
The first use of nuclear weapons, on the other hand, is quite a different matter. It is also at the very heart of NATO's doctrine of flexible response, which is that any aggression would be responded to at a level and by the means necessary to halt it. Fundamental to the strategy is the need to maintain all options open to the western alliance. To foreclose any option- for example, by declaring that NATO would not be the first to use nuclear weapons-would convey quite the wrong signal to the other side at this time. More directly, such a declaration would be seen by our European allies as a withdrawal of the American nuclear guarantee from Europe, a guarantee which has played a major role in keeping the peace there for over 30 years.
This motion, while similar to the recent proposal put forward by the former U.S. secretary of defence, Robert McNamara, has conveniently refused to recognize a fundamental condition upon which McNamara's renouncement of first-use was based; that is, that the only responsible way in which the allied governments could adopt a no-first-use policy would be on the basis of an improvement in western conventional forces in Europe. Not unnaturally, this crucial condition has attracted a good deal less attention than has the no-first-use proposal.
Hon. members opposite, unfortunately, have not learned from the past, or the present. In committee yesterday I was questioned on what I meant when I referred to Pax Sovietica. I ask them not to ask me but to ask those who have strayed in some way from the Soviet path and from the strict Soviet line. The Hungarians in 1956, the Czechs in 1968, the Poles in 1981 and the Afghans know full well what the term "Pax Sovietica'' means. Soviet actions in these instances indicate clearly that the western alliance must remain very vigilant.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the House when he really believes a freeze would be possible? I understood he was indicating there could be a freeze.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising on a point of order. If he is rising for the purpose of asking a question, that could be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated he believes a freeze would be possible at a certain level of weaponry. That is what I understood, in any event. When does the minister think it would be possible for that to take place?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that at the moment a freeze would be very unequal. If a football game is stopped in the middle of the game and the score is three to nothing, that would not be very equal.
Supply


Ian Deans: This is not quite the same.


Maurice Lamontagne: I know that is not the point. I will get to the point. We want to do something better than a freeze. Our aim is to reduce to the lowest level possible the nuclear strength, the nuclear force of both sides. For example, the U.S.A. has asked the U.S.S.R. to remove the SS-20, the SS-4 and the SS-5. If the Soviets did that, we would have a certain equality as far as this type of armament is concerned.
What I cannot understand is that everyone seems to be scared of a weapon, the Cruise missile, which is not yet in a position to hit anybody. It is just in the testing stage. On the other hand, no one is afraid of the huge nuclear arsenal of the SS-4, the SS-5 and the SS-20.


Ian Deans: I am petrified.


Maurice Lamontagne: Why is the hon. member so afraid and why does he want disarmament right away, before we achieve a certain parity so that we are able to have a credible deterrence so that the U.S.S.R. can be given the incentive to sit down with us and seriously negotiate peace and disarmament?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the evidence before the subcommittee on security and disarmament was always interesting and often contradictory. One of the areas in which it was contradictory was the very one about which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has just been talking, namely, is there or is there not rough global parity between the two sides? This has also been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the United States and Europe. I find it very misleading to be told by the minister that there is no such global parity. In his capacity as Minister of National Defence it seems to me the minister should be providing us with the best estimate which can possibly be made on the question of global parity, but the minister is not doing so. We all know about the SS-20. We also know about the submarines which can demolish every city in the Soviet Union. We know about those. We also know-and a great many authorities have said exactly the same thing over the past many months, including many to the committee-that if we look at this matter in a global fashion, we see that there is now rough parity. I agree with the minister that it is better to move toward a nuclear freeze in a position of rough parity than in any other. Because there is rough parity now, the movement for a global freeze has attained large dimensions.
I am sure the minister reads and respects Paul C. Warnke, who was the arms control and disarmament adviser in the previous U.S. administration. Paul Warnke has stated quite clearly and flatly that there is now rough parity. He says:
-in the over-all strategic balance there is certainly no Soviet advantage. In the most significant respects, such as survivability, the edge is ours. If an immediate freeze could ... be achieved, the existing situation of mutual deterrence would be preserved. Neither side could possibly anticipate profiting from the initiation of a nuclear war. The country attacked would retain the capability to inflict comparable devastation on its attacker ... A freeze is the necessary partner of reductions.

April 29, 1982
Supply
In that connection I was very happy to see a ray of hope this afternoon, one to which the Minister of National Defence has not seen fit to adhere tonight. It came principally from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), although I should add that the parliamentary secretary perhaps gave us even a greater reason to hope that the minority report on security and disarmament, the report we are asking the House to adopt, had made a real impact on this House and on the Canadian public. The parliamentary secretary said that it has stimulated debate on the points of view which vary from the majority report. He said he thinks we can live with these points of view and that they are important. That was terrific. I thought, "There we are; we have a majority in favour of our recommendations." The parliamentary secretary went on to ask how he could vote for them when it would be a vote of non-confidence. I plead with all hon. members of the House not to regard this as a vote of non-confidence but to regard it as a free vote so that every member, with his knowledge and conscience, will vote freely. I will return to that later in my remarks.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, perhaps most unexpectedly, shed some hope on the acceptance, although maybe not today, of the four major recommendations made in the minority report on security and disarmament. Of course he is very annoyed that members of the NDP on that committee were among the six who signed the minority report. I cannot understand why he was so petulant about the NDP and its support of the recommendations today. He did not refer to the fact that there was a Liberal member and two Conservatives who also signed the report. I cannot quite explain his petulance unless he is perhaps a closet NDP, to paraphrase him.
I was unhappy that he focused on half of the signatories to this report. None of us wants this to be simply an NDP move. It is not in this Parliament and it is not in this country. There are people from all walks of life and of all political beliefs who believe in the very things we advocate in this report. I regret very much that he wanted to have it as something that only the NDP was pursuing. That simply is not the case.
As I understood the minister's remarks-and I have not seen all the "blues"-he implicitly gave a great deal of support to the minority report on security and disarmament. I would draw your attention to his reaction to our first proposal for a nuclear freeze, that:
Canada should put its full strength into the campaign now gathering strength in many parts of the world: a global freeze on the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles.
It is true that he did not mention this first proposal specifically but it seems to me that implicitly he supported it. Some people might even argue that he went further. The reason I say he supported it is that by far the most important thing he said this afternoon, in my view, was that the goal of the government in UNSSOD II would be balanced deterrence through radical reduction in nuclear weapons.
As has often been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, if a freight train is coming down the track you cannot throw it into reverse until you first stop it. In other words, you cannot have radical reduction until you first have a change of direction-until you have first halted the arms race.
In our recommendation on the nuclear freeze in the minority report that section reads:
Rather, a practical policy is to promote mutual, balanced and verifiable disarmament by first of all freezing further growth.
In other words, you will not get radical reductions until you have created a freeze to get a change in direction. You have to stop the arms race so that it can be reversed. This was also a very important part of the House-Senate joint resolution in the United States. It was the second of two points and reads as follows:
Proceeding from this freeze, the United States and the Soviet Union should pursue major, mutual and verifiable reductions in nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems, through annual percentages, or equally effective means, in a manner that enhances stability.
When the minister said that our goal in UNSSOD II and elsewhere will be balanced deterrence through radical reduction it seems to me he is implicitly agreeing; otherwise there is no logic to a nuclear freeze. It is the first step to radical reductions.
At the moment, the wonder of the world is why people of conservative thought are rejecting the idea of a nuclear freeze, particularly those who know and understand that there is rough global parity and that this is the moment for the freeze.
The syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick writing in the Los Angeles Times of March 22, 1982, had this to say:
Where are my brother conservatives? What are they doing about the most awesomely important political issue in the world? Alas, the answer is, not much.
He identifies this as follows:
-an issue of life-or-death meaning to the whole planet, and there is not a sentence in their resolution that thoughtful conservatives could not support.
He was referring to the Kennedy-Hatfield resolution. He continues quoting the resolution:
"The greatest challenge facing the Earth is to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war by accident or design." What is wrong with that? "The nuclear arms race is dangerously increasing the risk of a holocaust that would be humanity's final war." Can anyone deny this? "A freeze followed by reductions in nuclear warheads, missiles and other delivery systems is needed to halt the nuclear arms race and to reduce the risk of nuclear war." Isn't this an idea worthy of exploration?
He goes on to say:
The resolution urges that the United States and the Soviet Union jointly "pursue" a complete halt to the arms race, that the two nations "decide" how such a mutual and verifiable freeze could be arranged, and that, proceeding from such a freeze, the two nations "should pursue major, mutual and verifiable reductions in nuclear warheads, missiles and other delivery systems."
The article continues:
Otherwise, unless words have lost their meaning, the Kennedy-Hatfield liberals are proposing exactly what Reagan's START proposed in November.
I think that is the direction the government is going, if I take the remarks of the minister this afternoon to mean that there must be a freeze before there can be radical reductions.
April 29, 1982

I thought the minister was moving a little on the second recommendation of the minority report, that there not be any Cruise testing in Canada. He has already moved to some extent because 1 assume that originally the plan was to have the agreement signed by this time. When it became public, then, of course, he moved toward not having it signed, at least until we have had the second special session on disarmament at the United Nations.
I think he may be moving a little further and coming closer to our second recommendation, because this afternoon he said, as I understood it, that Canada is not involved in development of nuclear weapons systems. I take this to be a promise that we will no longer be involved in development of nuclear weapons systems. Of course, we are now involved, as we all well know. Not only are we possibly going to draw up an agreement for the testing of the Cruise missile but we have also been involved for some time in giving support to industries that are helping to provide the guidance system for the Cruise missile and other nuclear weaponry, particularly Litton Systems Canada Limited. Vickers Canada and Litton Industries are providing the hulls for the Trident submarine. When the minister says we are not involved in the development of nuclear weapons systems, of course that is not true. We are involved through testing, if we do test, and by encouraging the manufacturers of the Trident and Cruise missiles through grants and loans. The reason I have some hope is that I take it he is moving toward a position that, just as we are not going to have nuclear weapons on our soil once they are pulled out of Comox, so also we are not going to be involved in the future in the development of nuclear weapons systems. For this reason I believe it is possible that the minister and many members will follow, in a sense, the lead which the Canadian public is already giving; that is, no Cruise testing and no further manufacture, although the latter is not in the minority report.
The minister made no comment at all on the third recommendation in the minority report that all nations should pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons. I take it that is because he would be in fundamental agreement with the nofirst-use pledge. I expect he has read the article in the spring issue of Foreign Affairs written by Robert McNamara, the former U.S. Defence Secretary; George Kennan, former Ambassador to Moscow; McGeorge Bundy, a former adviser on national security; and Gerard Smith, the chief arms control negotiator in recent Democratic and Republican administrations. Nothing in that article confirms what the Minister of National Defence just said, that the authors had made the nofirst-use pledge conditional upon an increase of conventional armaments. Certainly Robert McNamara and the others have pointed out the great importance of conventional armaments which they would like to see accompany the adoption of the non-First-use pledge. However, to the best of my knowledge, that is the most they have said. For lack of time I cannot give hon. members the details of this article. However, I urge the
Supply
minister and all members of the House to read it. I would just like to emphasize the last few words of the article:
There has been no first use of nuclear weapons since 1945, and no one in any country regrets that fact. The right way to maintain this record is to recognize that in the age of massive thermonuclear over kill it no longer makes sense-if it ever did-to hold these weapons for any other purpose than the prevention of their use.
As 1 say, because the minister did not comment on the nofirst-use pledge-although 1 am confident he has read most of the material surrounding this proposal-I assume he would support it.
Finally, in the fourth general category of recommendations in the minority report on security and disarmament is what one could broadly call Canadian efforts at disarmament education, efforts that we might make to encourage greater public knowledge and understanding of the whole question of security and disarmament. This would include the desirability of a global referendum on disarmament which, as we point out, is being taken up by more and more municipalities in this country. Again, it may be that the minister did not refer to that recommendation because he was in agreement with it. He is a universitaire and no doubt puts a good deal of hope in public illumination and education. However, it also may be that he feels there has been a tremendous awakening of public interest in and knowledge about these important life and death issues. It certainly has not been referred to as much today as I think it ought to have been, this enormous upsurge in public interest and concern. We of course had evidence of that only last Saturday in Vancouver when a march to end the nuclear arms race, followed by a rally, was attended by 30,000 to
35,000	people, according to a police estimate. I expect it was one of the largest marches and rallies ever held in Canadian history, representing a cross-section of people in British Columbia and therefore in Canada.
I am sure all of us here are aware of the tremendous popular movements in most European countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to her has expired. Nevertheless, she may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pauline Jewett: I thank my colleagues. Some people have said that surely these movements are communist-inspired. Most, if not all, of the witnesses before the subcommittee on security and disarmament said that was not true. They said the only one which might have been communist-inspired was the one in Paris; otherwise, they are popular movements. When the minister spoke earlier about some of the bigger powers in NATO and NORAD wanting the two-track decision, I wish he had also mentioned how many of the smaller powers do not want the Cruise missile. Belgium has not even discussed the matter yet, that is how badly they want it; the Netherlands has come as close as they can to refusing the stationing of the Cruise missile on their soil. We must not confuse the wishes of the larger powers with those of the smaller powers on these matters. It is irrelevant whether they are socialists, Christian Democrats or whatever. We should not make a big deal of

April 29, 1982
Supply
these political labels, anymore than we should of the kind of people who go to these marches.
As I say, there has been a growth of public concern, and I believe it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to try to meet that concern. Therefore, I ask every member of the House to regard this, as we do, as a free vote. Certainly, it is not going to bring down the government, although I suppose it might help us to get the Tories to vote for it if it did.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Pauline Jewett: We are simply asking for support of this minority report and its four major recommendations on security and disarmament. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee which did not submit a majority report but rather the Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, a report that gave rise to a press release issued by six members, irrespective of the position of each member, I would like to congratulate sincerely and warmly the members of all three political parties who sat on that committee. I think that they have given special consideration to that concern.
Second, they followed their schedule and I think that no parliamentary committee has shown more devotion during all the years I have sat as a member. I should say that the atmosphere which prevailed within the committee was outstanding. I often suggest to members of this House to have a close look at the proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Despite totally divergent views on some issues, we have successfully maintained an atmosphere of complete co-operation and understanding. My one regret, because I do have one, and I wish to tell my colleagues and friends of the New Democratic Party about it, is that very early in our proceedings, I had tried to set up a new system to include any minority views in the committee's final report.
I am the kind of person who believes that minority views could have been expressed and attached to majority views. I have worked, accordingly, for three or four months, with the feeling and understanding that that would be the case. On very divided issues, we would say that the committee recommends them, even though many members feel very strongly that they are impossible. I do not know who is responsible, but I regret that we could not add these views. If we could have, we would not have had to go through the inssuance of a press release by six members of the standing committee.
Also I express my deepest thanks to the staff. Sometimes we forget about them, but I like to follow the lead of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), my very
good friend, who always makes a point of thanking the staff. The research staff worked very hard, for which I thank them. For example, I could name Roger Hill and the clerk who worked with us. I am never afraid to share in the experience of others who did a very good job and succeeded in producing an enormous amount of work. It is unfortunate that the press release was issued, but by next Monday we will have the final edition so that members of the public and members of political parties will be able to read the report rather than the press release issued by six members of the committee.


An hon. Member:: Boring.


Marcel Prud'homme: I may be, I may be. Defence and disarmament are certainly not unfamiliar subjects. As I said, we worked together for quite a while on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Hon. members have already mentioned that over 50 witnesses appeared before the committee and that there were over 50 meetings.
Recently I returned with an NDP colleague and some Conservative colleagues from a meeting of the Inter Parliamentary Union in Lagos, Nigeria, where I had the privilege and honour of working with an important drafting group. I draw the attention of hon. members to the resolution which was produced by consensus in Lagos. It is now being submitted to the second Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament. This was the unanimous view. Perhaps it was not as much as the Soviet Union or my friend from Cuba wanted; perhaps it was not as much as our neighbours to the south, the United States, wanted. It was a unanimous report contained in a resolution which will be submitted to the special session. Since we were all parliamentarians, I felt we should report to our respective parliaments on our activities. Therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this resolution of parliamentarians appended to today's Hansard. I have copies of the resolution which I will distribute to all parties. It will be presented on behalf of all parliamentarians in the world at the second Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. I request permission to table the resolution and to distribute copies of it.


Pauline Jewett: What is it?


Marcel Prud'homme: It was a resolution which was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Political Questions, International Security and Disarmament, entitled:
The Contribution of Parliaments to the Adoption of Concrete Measures by the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament and Their Implementation, in Particular, the Reduction of Military Budgets and Its Effect on World Economy and Employment and on the Economic and Social Development of the Third World
We all agreed to it in Lagos. If hon. members would like to obtain a copy of it-


John Edward Broadbent: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, of course, but I would like to have this tabled this evening.
April 29, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before entertaining discussion on this document, I understand the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is seeking unanimous consent to have the resolution appended to today's Hansard.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we would be in agreement on the condition that the hon. member agrees that the entire minority report, which he has argued very persuasively should have been included, be attached to today's Hansard as well.


Marcel Prud'homme: For the benefit of the hon. member, I think we are talking about two different subjects.


John Edward Broadbent: We are debating the minority report.


Marcel Prud'homme: I see that I will not obtain unanimous consent. It is unfortunate that the House will be deprived of a motion which parliamentarians unanimously accepted in Lagos. I see my reverend friend the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) nodding his head in agreement. If hon. members of the NDP want to be partisan-


John Edward Broadbent: Who is being partisan?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member could explain to the leader of the New Democratic Party what he is talking about. It is not the majority report or the minority report of the subcommittee; it is a resolution from Nigeria. We would like to have it attached to Hansard; surely he does not object to that.


John Edward Broadbent: Wonderful, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member is so shocked by what happened in Saskatchewan that he does not have all his marbles tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead, go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore, the Chair understands that there is no unanimous consent to attach the resolution as an appendix to Hansard.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will try to resist the wonderful and peaceful appeal of my good friend, the official critic of the NDP, who said that we should use our knowledge and conscience to vote tonight and that we should not consider it a non-confidence vote. This is what she said.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Would you be good enough to ask the House to table the subcommittee report?


Marcel Prud'homme: It is too bad the hon. member did not ask. I am always willing to agree. It is too bad, it is too bad. I read the minority report and I should like to deal with it now. I would prefer to talk about the views expressed by the committee, but unfortunately not enough was said about the report itself. A considerable amount of work was done by my hon. colleagues to which the official opposition referred this afternoon. They referred to some of the resolutions but not to all of
Supply
them. In fact, 21 resolutions were put forward. I see some members of the New Democratic Party agreeing because they themselves said in their minority report that they agree with much that was said. Unfortunately, they could not agree with the majority report, and consequently added their minority views to the report.
I can find most of what is contained in the 11 pages of the first issue of the minority report in the full report, except for the four points which were made as well as some other points.
I will start with the last point. Hon. members may be surprised, and I hope the official opposition will not be shocked, when I say that we should provide more resources for the study of disarmament. I, personally, am quite sympathetic to this view. I know the committee will forgive me for saying so, and I suggest that it is a small bonus I get for having abided by their wishes so well when I shared in that concession by not putting my views forward. I am disappointed that the committee did not accept the proposal that we create five or six chairs of peace in universities similar to the strategic studies which have been taking place across Canada and which are paid for by the Department of National Defence. I urge hon. members to allow the three parties to work together in order to reassess our views on this proposal because I am confident that we can come to an agreement on this particular point.
I must say that I do not doubt the credibility or the sincerity of the New Democratic Party. However, I would ask them, in return, to give us credit for the same credibility and sincerity. I was going to argue with what the leader of the New Democratic Party had said, but my colleague, the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) already asked him to correct his statement about the high degree of morality of the members who signed the report. I find his answers totally acceptable and I now know that he does not doubt the sincerity of government members.
I would like to comment on a proposition which is often raised, that of non-first-use of nuclear weapons. All members should realize that those who advocate a pledge by NATO countries of non-first use of nuclear weapons are suggesting two things: first, the United States should withdraw its nuclear umbrella which presently aids in deterring a conventional attack on our NATO allies in Europe; and second, that our European allies should agree to the withdrawal of that protective nuclear umbrella. I would tell members of the New Democratic Party, and any others who advocate such a policy, that it is not looked upon as being favourable or acceptable to the governments of Europe. I discovered, when I spoke to some members of the social democratic party in Lagos, Nigeria when asking their assessment of NATO, that they were very strongly in favour of NATO. I expected that they would have had the same view as my friend, the hon. members for New

April 29, 1982
Supply
Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and that socialists would share the same view internationally. But since they were so much in favour of NATO, I had to reassess my own understanding. If my hon. friend from New Westminster-Coquitlam said that her views were in my best interests, I would suggest to her and members of her party to reassess their thinking about NATO. I realize that there is division in their party about NORAD and NATO. Obviously, if it is good enough for socialists in Europe to be strongly devoted to NORAD and NATO since it demonstrates an air of solidarity in the western world, it should be good enough for the NDP and for all Members of Parliament. As well, the foreign minister for the Republic of Germany has rejected the nuclear no-first-use proposal and has reiterated his country's support for NATO's doctrine of flexible response as the only plausible deterrent against aggression and political pressure at any level.
It is interesting to note that those who propose the no-first-use of nuclear weapons to counter a conventional attack, in my opinion, ignore the fact that such a renunciation would require the NATO countries to increase their conventional forces considerably. I wonder if the supporters of that resolution are advocating that kind of build up. If they are not, I suggest that their view is full of inconsistencies and would weaken the security of our European allies.


An hon. Member:: What is security?


Marcel Prud'homme: I am asked what security is. In my opinion, security does not mean naivete. I believe that it is absolute madness to be spending over $5 billion for armaments in the world when that money could be used for development in other areas. Security also means being sure about your sincerity about disarming and using that vast amount of money to combat ignorance and poverty and to help people throughout the world. Security means to be able to believe that the other side is equally sincere and that it is not trying to take advantage of my sincerity to build up better armaments and force me into a position where I have no choice but to give in to their demands and conquests. To me, this would be security.
I will say in the House that I have absolute understanding for the views expressed in the minority report by those six members. My difficulty is reconciliation and finding a way to harmonize the views of those groups who are well intentioned. I predict that the question of nuclear armament will be the question of the 1980s. It will be the issue which will animate the students and all concerned people. It is my hope that the other side will be equally concerned. I do not like to say "the other side" but it is those groups who do not share the same sincerity. I hope the hon. member who is about to interrupt me will be quiet. I will not say who he is, but he was very rude this afternoon to the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) when he called her speech stupid. I call that intolerance, when we all agreed this afternoon to extend the time allocated to any member and he refused to give that courtesy to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). I ask, in all sincerity, why there are so many people, when we begin to debate the question of disarmament, who
fight each other in the name of disarmament. It is similar to people killing each other in the name of God, be it in Iran or in Northern Ireland. I saw the same intolerance when a colleague of mine went to speak at a university. He was violently attacked by ministers or members of the clergy. They were discussing disarmament with as much sincerity and as much desire to arrive at a conclusion. I do not understand that. I always try to see not what divides people, but what could happen there. Accordingly, I will conclude by saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, following the speech of the chairman of the committee on external affairs, I think it would be appropriate for me to say on behalf of members of the committee that we did appreciate the chairing job that he did. He did it with appropriateness and competence, and for that I commend and thank him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would like to preface my remarks tonight with a theme which I think should be kept constantly in mind throughout my presentation. There is a consensus in the House. The Progressive Conservative Party agrees, the security and disarmament committee agrees and I agree that there are no winners in a nuclear war, or any other kind of war for that matter. Therefore, the maintenance of peace is the highest priority for all rational thinking men and women in this country and of this world. That consensus is, in fact, the consensus which created this debate, which created this committee, which created this report and which propels this debate forward in the House today.
In the next 20 minutes before I end this speech, it could begin and it could be all over at the same time. If a one megaton bomb were dropped 20 minutes from now on the centre of downtown Toronto or downtown Vancouver, within a two-mile epicircle of blast there would be instantaneous incineration into millions of pieces of what were 200,000 or
300,000	Canadians. In a two mile to six-mile circle from the centre, there would be instant blindness for those who turned to look at a fireball many times brighter than the sun. There would be instant deafness as eardrums shattered. Lungs would collapse and there would be fatal third-degree burns which medics could not treat, even if they had the capacity and competence to do so. Within that circle, everything combustible would instantly burst into flames. Even beyond that six-mile distance from the centre, flying objects would blast through windows and walls. Within a 12-mile circle there would be continuing damage and, above all, a mass of charred, irradiated bodies fleeing, dying, struggling their way from the epicentre of the blast. Conditions would be intolerable as a result for those beyond the 12-mile centre of the blast. Some people would survive.
April 29, 1982

In the lower mainland of British Columbia there are one and a half million people. If 500,000 were killed, there would still be one million left who would survive in some capacity. If there were an all-out nuclear war, it has been estimated by witnesses before the committee that 500 million people out of the four billion on the face of the earth would be eradicated. We usually speak in terms of five million or ten million in conventional wars. The price is too high. The price of one million is too high. The price of 100,000 is too high. The price of a thousand, of a hundred, of one, is too high. Even if these unspeakable weapons were never unleashed, who in the House could really justify the billions of wasted dollars and the resources which could have helped a world so full of human suffering and deprivation?
I, too, campaign for peace. I, too, will march for peace. I, too, will stand and preach for peace. Military expansion must stop. Peace must begin. Peace must be given a chance. How can we prevent the unspeakable? How can we prevent this terrible Armageddon that I have just described? Is the answer to be found in pacificism, or is it to be found in nuclear bullying by superiority of either the East or the West, or in deterrence? The motivation for bullying nations varies from ideological reasons, which may or may not be expansionary, to insecurity. If nations were not expansionary in their ideology and felt sure of their own sovereignty, war would cease to be the factor of major concern that it is today.
Human beings, regardless of ideology, naturally seek security, both personally and collectively. We have not had nuclear disarmament or even reductions in nuclear arms because the essential element of negotiations is mutual trust between nations. There is a need to develop a political will to establish the motivation for concrete measures to reduce the level of risk. Confidence-building measures must be developed to lessen the mutual distrust which pervades the relationship between east and west. The pursuit of peace can realistically be achieved through mutual respect for one's capability through the balance of power.
Ideally, however, and we must also strive for the ideal, peace can only be maintained indefinitely if it is in fact based on good will and the spirit of peace. That spirit of peace does not start between nations. That spirit of peace starts inside the individual parts of all mankind. It starts in us as individuals, in you and me, in our determination to participate and seek solutions tonight. Whatever our solution may be, while some of us may be right and some of us may be wrong, the desire starts here for all of us. If we cannot find that desire and if we cannot find the internal peace, we will never ever find peace in this world. We must expand that sense of peace and commitment through our own personal lives to our community and to the larger community of man.
The way to build the political will for peace in today's world is through recognized and respected adoption of specific spheres of influence. This must be joined to an arms control policy which will work toward achieving mutual, balanced and verifiable reduction of nuclear arms at all levels, from the highest denominator to the lowest possible denominator. This statement of mutual reduction of nuclear arms at all levels, from the highest to the lowest levels possible, is another
Supply
consensus that we have here today. The only dispute is over the means of achieving the end.
The catastrophic consequences of another world war, with or without nuclear weapons, make deterrence of conflict the highest objective. It is imperative that we prevent deterrence from turning into coercion in order to prevent coercion from becoming conflict. The deterrence of conflict is dependent upon the perception of the nature and source of the threat to peace. That threat to peace differs depending on the position from which one sees it. However, for the western democracies, the threat that we are conditioned to or that we believe in, that we are in fact preparing for, because that is what NORAD and NATO are all about, is from the Soviet Union.
Soviet military spending is impossible to calculate exactly, but the most impeccable sources place it conservatively, and our committee was told it was even higher, at 13 per cent of gross national product. The United States and its allies spend approximately 3 per cent of their gross national product. Soviet arms spending has risen steadily in real terms over the last 12 years, while western arms spending has fallen and is only now attempting to match Soviet increases. No one likes that attempt. No one is pleased at the attempt to waste more money for the building of arms.
As the Soviet Union moves closer to rough parity in nuclear weapons, and that is generally accepted today, and to the overall narrow margin of superiority in both conventional and nuclear power that they now possess, we have to look at their position in the world. Unfortunately we see their intent expressed more aggressively in their attempts to forcefully expand at least their influence around the globe.
They backed Cuban proxies in Angola in 1975, backed Ethiopia in the Ogaden in 1977, supported Vietnam, the fifth largest standing army in the world, in various excursions into Kampuchea, and invaded Afghanistan. More recently we have seen the Soviet Union-inspired imposition of martial law in Poland and the destabilization of Central America. That is the concern. The concern is the intent.
Some people might say the British in their development period established colonies throughout the world. Also, we worked through a period of the United Nations of decolonization, and Britain finding its own place in space and time. The United States could perhaps at this stage be accused of the same thing. That does not mean we should now tolerate a new wave of expansionism in the name of the Soviet Union.
Determining the intent of the Soviet Union, therefore, has become more and more important as they move toward the window of opportunity. It is in that window of opportunity in 1984-85 when the clarity of this superiority will in fact reveal the clear reality or lack of reality of the threat which may exist to this part of the world.
While the United States practised the theory of detente during the 1970s by transferring high technology to the Soviets
16766

April 29, 1982
Supply
and unilaterally freezing the deployment of land-based missiles, the Soviet Union has continued to build up both conventional and nuclear forces on a massive scale based on the Soviet doctrine of quantitative superiority.
This includes the development and deployment of the SS-20 in the European land mass and the creation of a global blue-water fleet, one of the most if not the most superior in the world. Soviet quiet renunciation of detente can be seen in a 1976 article in Pravda which defines detente as the expansion of Soviet influence throughout the world by all means short of super-power confrontation.
The Soviets, by virtue of their Marxist ideological precepts do not necessarily respect the same definition of terms that is generally accepted in the western world. This is a classic example of the crucial difference that the failure to understand the Soviet mind-set can make. Based on this, it is not surprising that some scholars contend that detente in fact never existed.
While the Soviet Union believes that nuclear war and its debilitating results must be avoided, they see the development of superior capabilities wedded to a strategy designed to achieve military victory and a dominant post-war position as the only rational approach to nuclear forces. Too often the Soviets are opportunists who will seize any attempt or initiative to fill any vacuum they perceive to be forming, and attempt to expand their influence throughout the globe by all methods short of war.
The Soviet buildup of military forces has been, as James Schlesinger notes, "the like of which the world has never seen." The West has suddenly wakened up and said "What has happened?" The public on all sides are not only asking what has happened but are saying, "help". That is what those
30,000	marchers are saying. They are asking somebody to do something about it because they do not want to be incinerated in an international nuclear global war. That is what we are discussing here. How do we help? How do we answer? How do we do something? What is that something that we do?
The basic thrust of the minority report is unfortunately based on well-intentioned but somewhat naive premises, and therefore arrives at conclusions that could well increase rather than decrease the risk of war.
The report concludes that "we condemn the continued arms race." Who in this House of Commons does not condemn it? Idealism is the wellspring of new initiatives and progressive hope. The minority report, the pacifists, the hawks, all are a part of a balance of a very delicate equation that may make world peace. We cannot live without any of them. It is a matter of determining what that balance will be.
If in fact this minority report were to be implemented with all of its provisions, it would appear to the majority on the committee that the possibility and probability of a nuclear war would not be decreased but in fact increased. If the possibility of nuclear war is increased, tell me where the morality stands then? If it is increased and this minority report is implemented, and there was a world war, who would be morally wrong? Not the side that advocated balance and deterrents, but the side that suggested we take unilateral disarmament decisions.
That is a position we cannot afford to take, a risk we cannot take for the moral purpose of maintaining peace in the world.
Rejecting the argument that a freeze is impractical due to the imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, as this report does, is unrealistic and simplistic. The Soviet Union, with its tactical superiority, could launch a conventional war in Europe. This would be extremely destabilizing as the United States would have to respond with strategic nuclear weapons to deter or else be faced with the unacceptable fait accompli of Soviet hegemony in Europe.
There has been recently much ado about the Kennedy-Hatfield proposal for a nuclear freeze. We have seen the recent demonstrations; 30,000 in Vancouver, 800 in Ottawa, Ground Zero week in the United States and earlier massive European protests, all warning about the danger of having nuclear weapons. What about the danger of not having nuclear weapons? That is equally dangerous to having nuclear weapons.
I have been talking about the danger of nuclear war for years in this House, questioning ministers for several years, and nothing has been done. I have been talking about a civil defence program in Canada, and nothing has been done. To advocate the unilateral abolition of nuclear weapons, as many groups do, would make us susceptible to coercion.
A nuclear freeze at this time would perpetuate the deficiencies in allied forces which would increase rather than decrease the risk of war. A freeze at current levels is too pat, too simple, too naive and inadequate because it is only one part of that equation which throws off the balance.
If the Soviet Union and the United States were frozen at current levels, the Soviets would have little reason to negotiate for reductions as they would be frozen in an advantageous position. This can clearly be seen in the fact that intermediate nuclear force negotiations could only be instituted over Soviet recalcitrance after NATO decided to deploy the Pershing II and Cruise missile to counter the SS-20 in Europe. A freeze will not encourage reductions because there would be no incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate from a superior position. The concept of a freeze at current levels ignores the strategic imperatives implicit in the concept of nuclear forces. Finally, a freeze on all aspects of production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult to verify.
The report's proposal to institute a no-first-use policy would be unacceptable for two reasons. First, NATOs flexible response doctrine encompasses first-use, not first attack-and, Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between first use and first attack-to counter an impending conventional rout in Europe by overwhelmingly superior Soviet forces.
Second, the treaty would not be an effective deterrent, but rather a useless scrap of paper if a nuclear scenario should ever arise as a contingency. A no-first-use treaty would not in any way, as the report contends, contribute to "a great increase in
April 29, 1982

global security". If a nation perceives the need to use nuclear weapons, a treaty in face of that perception will become meaningless.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired. I call upon the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), but the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) may continue if there is unanimous consent. Are hon. members agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I will conclude very quickly, Mr. Speaker. In discussing strategic nuclear weapons, it is important not to be obsessed by their undoubted power of destruction, so obsessed that one neglects to realize their power to deter major war. The world has had great cause to be gratified that all wars since 1945 have been well below the scale of global war. For most countries, including Canada, they have been quite small and far away. If we have strategic nuclear deterrence to thank for that, let us give that deterrent its proper due, notwithstanding the potential power for destruction if the deterrence should ever fail.
We have not had global conflict in the past 37 years, since the advent of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have been invented and they cannot now be uninvented. It is exactly because nuclear war would be so terrible that the most important responsibility of government is to adopt policies which will prevent it. There are no simple answers, however,, to these complex and intricate problems. One should also, however, not limit the scope of possible solutions. Politics is the art of the possible; and we must reconcile the art of the possible with the ideal, and strive for it.
One practical alternative to disarmament is arms control. Arms control can reinforce deterrence and stabilize the military balance at lower levels of risk and effort. The overriding objective for arms control is reducing the risk of war. The most concrete hope for achieving this goal is through the negotiated mutual, balanced and verifiable reduction of nuclear arms at all levels to the lowest possible levels. This would encompass the successful completion of START, include the zero option for Europe, and would also, hopefully, be linked to a just and speedy conclusion to the negotiations for mutual balanced forces reductions, MBFR, in Europe. Bilateral negotiations, based on the mutual self-interest in the continued survival of one's national way of life, is a practical and legitimate solution to one of the most vital concerns facing humanity today.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is again a consensus in this House of Commons. There is a consensus that the objective we seek here tonight is a way to peace, to stability and to a better way for this world. Let not one of us put down the other point of view. Let us examine all of these points of view, let us establish a balanced, verifiable, mutual reduction in arms in the world, keeping these objectives before
Supply
us and, above all, hold forth the objective of peace for ourselves, our country, our nation and our globe.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left, about ten I believe, to try to express what I felt during the sittings of this committee on disarmament and more specifically what I feel reading the motion now under consideration. The Chairman of the committee has asked me to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion, he did an excellent job as chairman. In fact, he did an excellent job in general.
I now come back to the motion under consideration. I would like to quote the last lines of this motion, which read as follows:
-signed by six members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in April, 1982, calling for, inter alia, a world-wide nuclear freeze, no cruise missile testing in Canada and a worldwide pledge against first use of nuclear weapons.
That is signed by Mr. Broadbent.
Of course, the man in the street who would get to read such a resolution could not object to such pious wishes. No one could. It is obvious that no one wants a world war, that no one would want us to build missiles here, or anywhere else, that no one wants to be the first to attack. Everyone wants peace. I can understand such thinking on the part of Members of Parliament because they have to reflect the views of their constituents. When we meet with people, they tell us that they do not want war. However, we should always keep in mind that our constituents, first and foremost, want security. They do not want anyone to come around and take away their property, their homes, their country or their territory, and Members of Parliament may sometimes forget that fact. However, when someone who shows off in front of the people of Canada and the rest of the world as a candidate to the office of Prime Minister of Canada is seen moving such a motion in the House of Commons, I find it impossible to understand or justify, and even dangerous. I consider it dangerous that one of the three men now in full time competition to become one day Prime Minister of Canada should believe that such pious wishes can be approved by an assembly such as this one without endangering all Canadians.
Either this man completely fails to understand what Canada is all about and even less what the Soviet regime stands for and what the dangers are which now exist in the world, or he does not care what he does as long as he is gaining political advantages. There is no other answer, Mr. Speaker. If at the age of 32, after two years in this House, I can understand that a motion like this one, approved by such an assembly as ours, could open the door to the Russians, open up whole territories and place us in a situation where we would be unable to go anywhere, where we would no longer have any weapons, I do not see how someone who has been a Member of Parliament for as long as the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who is a party leader and who wants to become Prime Minister of Canada, can fail to do so.

April 29, 1982
Supply
It boils down to this, as I often say when referring to that party, is it the no-decision party. They do not know where they are going, and they will never know it, Mr. Speaker. They cannot know it and what better proof do you need. It is an aberration! Surely I would be the first to want to go and say tomorrow, listen, constituents from Lac-Saint-Jean, there will be no more wars. There are some people from Lac-Saint-Jean in the galleries this evening, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to greet them. There will be no more wars, no more nuclear weapons. That is all over. We are now all brothers. We will all love each other. We must not delude ourselves. We have responsibilities as a member country of NATO, one of many countries which have ensured their own defence for years and have never done otherwise, especially Canada. Everywhere Canada went as a member of NATO or the United Nations, it brought peace. I must say this because, as you know, this occurred under Liberal governments.
Of course, we had a Conservative government for nine months, but things were not going too well and it was not defeated too soon. The Canadian embassy was being moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Arab countries were all hopping mad at us. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we were declaring war against them even before the Americans. We were showing the way to everyone, swords held high. There we go! Canada is coming. Here we are! That was the policy of Joe Clark, the policy of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Fortunately, that lasted only nine months, but it was quite incoherent.
On the one hand, we have the fellow who tells us: There are no atom bombs left on earth, let us disarm Canada completely, let everyone disarm around the world because, even if the Russians rearm themselves, it cannot be a serious matter. On the other hand, we have the other group telling us: Let's go everybody, with fixed bayonets; let's go fight the Russians. Thank goodness there is a happy medium, and that medium is the Liberal Party of Canada. It happens to be there. If we did not have it, there would be problems, not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world. Things would be difficult. This matter is put to us and we are asked to vote on it. Let me tell you right now that I will vote against it for two main reasons. First, because under the cover of good intentions and with a view to tripping up the government, I would never give any authority to that party which cannot make up its mind about anything at all. And also because behind all these good intentions, the threat of a nuclear war remains. The day when we vote on and implement this proposal, the Russians will pounce on us. We would look smart. Listen, there are two very good reasons for that, and I ask my hon. colleagues of any party to be just as reasonable as we are. We are past the stage of pious wishes, we are reasonable people. We must consider not words but deeds. Canada is the country which reduced its Armed Forces from
120,000	to 80,000 troops over the past ten years. Canada is the country which had over 250 fighter planes and which will have fewer than 150 within two years. Canada is the country which
is carrying out its disarmament in a sensible fashion, to be able to defend itself and assume its responsibilities within NATO, while keeping abreast of the very advanced new developments in new and defensive weaponry. And this is how things should be, Mr. Speaker.
About this hope of peace on earth, I said at one point when Mr. Arbatov, from the supreme Soviet, came to testify before the committee about disarmament, that the SALT II comprehensive discussions, the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, all strike me as sheer hypocrisy. I will give you an example: suppose you placed two individuals one in front of the other and told them: You two guys are going to kill each other, but we are going to decide what sort of weapons you will use. Maybe you will use nuclear weapons, and maybe not. Maybe you will use shotguns, and maybe not. But you have to be enemies and fire at each other. I feel that this motion proposes something like that: no more nuclear arms or tests. But people will continue to get killed, because since World War II, some 25 million men, women and children have been killed in wars, Mr. Speaker. Although Lebanon, my father's native country, has been occupied by Syria for the past six years, I have not seen a single one of those holier-than-thou doves rise and say that foreigners should get out of Lebanon. No. Thousands of Lebanese have died these last ten years, but it matters not. We see them die and we do not even bother. Go ahead and die! In the meantime we, the sanctimonious, want no nuclear bombs. We are afraid they will explode over our heads.
Mr. Speaker, one conclusion is to be drawn from a motion such as this: those people want no more nuclear arms because they are more concerned with their own safety than with global peace. Truly, global peace is certainly much more than that. As I was saying, the day someone wants to introduce a motion here dealing seriously with peace, he will have to come here and ask whether there is in this world a table at which we could have one representative from the United States stating that we are capitalists and want peace, sitting with a representatives from the Soviet bloc stating that he is communist and wants to discuss peace, a table at which representatives from our countries would sit to deal with peace. Mr. Speaker, I have an anecdote to tell.
I stated in here some months ago, in a very emotional speech, that a Liberal could even be a communist. I know honorable members opposite, Mr. Speaker, members from the Progressive Conservative Party, from the constipated party, made use of this statement as far away as in their constituencies, in mailers, in partisan publicity to collect moneys. I know some of them who went as low as that. Do you know what that means? Narrow-mindedness. That is the kind of people who are responsible for wars, who say that the other fellow over
April 29, 1982

there, the Russian who is stuck with a communist government, is somehow different from you, that you must shoot at him simply because he is a Russian. And the other fellow, like Brezhnev, who is at the other end and tells his Russians: "You are going to shoot at Canadians because Canadians are capitalists." They are the ones who are truly responsible for wars, not the arms. What is lacking is the leadership, the fact that 300 million Russians are told: "You are communists, you are going to invade Afghanistan. You are communists, your enemies are the Americans." It is the fact that on the other side Americans are told: "Beware, if there is a Russian here, shoot him."
When you play around with people's feelings, you become fascists, fanatics about ideas, flags and states. True peace is there, Mr. Speaker, when people can rise, travel around the globe, without shouting that they want no more nuclear arms because on that day nuclear arms will no longer be needed. But let us start from the inside, let us stop misleading Canadians into believing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 58(9).
The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.

April 29, 1982
Supply
[Translation]	At 10.12, the House adjourned, without question put, pursu-


Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House stands ant to Standing Order, adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Friday, April 30, 1982