1983-10-27

POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 have to rise at this time in order to present to the Chair a submission with respect to what should be the Orders of the Day today. I believe it is important in raising this matter prior to the calling of the Orders that I should cite from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citation 237, which states at page 79:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
[DOT]	(Il10)
Standing Order 62 provides, Mr. Speaker, that 25 days are to be allotted for the consideration of the business of supply in any given year. On those days Opposition motions shall take precedence over all Government supply motions. Standing Order 62(5) outlines the semesters of supply and establishes that in the period ending not later than December 10 each year, five days are to be allotted to supply. To date in this semester the House has considered the business of supply on one day only.
Yesterday, the Government House Leader stood in his place and announced that today would be an allotted day for the consideration of the business of supply. His words may be found at page 28349 of Hansard, and 1 read those words under the heading "Business of the House":


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I should like to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day, this being subject to change.
The form of the Government House Leader's notice that he would be allotting today for supply is fully consistent with the established practices of this House. I emphasize the word "practices". Following upon the notice given by the Government House Leader, the Opposition was required by Standing Order 62(4) to give written notice of the motion to be considered on the allotted day. Standing Order 62(4)(a) and (b) outline the notice periods for Opposition day motions. Standing Order 62(4)(a) says:
Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an
opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates.
Standing Order 62(4)(b) says:
If an opposition motion pursuant to section (9) of this Standing Order is to be proposed on a Friday, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given that the recorded division on the motion, if demanded, is not to be deferred.
Those are the two applicable Standing Orders to my submission. Today being Thursday, only 24 hours' written notice was required for an Opposition motion. Although the notice requirements are expressed as a period of 24 or 48 hours, the long established practice of this House has been to understand these requirements such that the 24 hours' notice requirement is fulfilled if notice is submitted during the sitting day prior to the consideration of a motion, and such that Citation 400(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
The publication of a proposed motion, once in the Notice Paper and the next day on the Order Paper, is sufficient to cover two days' notice under S.O. 42.
I emphasize, too, the submission that the practice requirements have been met so long as that notice is submitted during the sitting day.
If the notice requirement for today's Opposition day motion were to be strictly interpreted as amounting to 24 hours, Mr. Speaker, there would have been insufficient time between the time the Government House Leader rose in the House to allot today as an Opposition day and the time of 11 a.m. this morning when the House was scheduled to enter into consideration of Orders of the Day. That is the reason for the long established practice of notice being sufficiently filed if done within a sitting day.
Yesterday the House did not sit until 2 p.m. Thus, if a full 24 hours were required to elapse between the filing of a written notice and the time that a motion could be taken up in the House, an Opposition day motion could not be considered prior to 2 p.m. today. Because the Government House Leader could not rise for the purpose of giving notice of his intention to allot today for the consideration of the business of supply before Routine Proceedings had been reached, the 24-hour period, strictly interpreted, could not begin to run until at least 3 p.m. yesterday.
However, Mr. Speaker, Citation 399 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition notes as follows under the heading "Publication of Notices":
The exact time at which notices should be handed to the Clerk at the Table is of minor importance.
As authority for that, there appears the reference to Journals, April 14, 1913, at page 461.

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
A written notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 62 was filed with the Table during the sitting yesterday. On that basis, I submit that the Opposition has met the notice requirements for an Opposition day motion and that the business of the House today should be the consideration of an Opposition day motion. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the Projected Order of Business indicates that the business to be considered in the House today is the report stage of Bill C-155. As well, today's Order Paper contains no reference to the motion that I submitted to the Table on behalf of the Hon. Member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). In other words, the supply day that was allotted by the Government House Leader yesterday seems simply to have disappeared.
In anticipation of your dealing with Standing Order 47, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it has no applicability here. It is Standing Order 62 that deals with supply days. As there may be some concern that proper notice was not given yesterday or that the events which transpired in the House prior to the adjournment last evening may have blocked the filing of the notice of motion, I would like a moment to discuss yesterday's events as they occurred and the practices of the House with respect to the notice requirement.
It was at 5.12 or 5.15 yesterday, when Members returned to the House to vote on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), that the Government House Leader spoke to me to confirm the fact that today would be an allotted day. I do not rest my case on that but I think that fact should be made known. He did the same thing last week when he allotted a day. Out of courtesy, he simply confirmed to me that there would indeed be an allotted day today. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as can be demonstrated by reference to page 28349 of Hansard, that the announcement made by the Government House Leader was, in his own words, subject to change. At 5.12 p.m. yesterday, the Government House leader informed me that there would be no change and that the Government intended to proceed with an allotted day today.
Immediately after my discussion with the House Leader, proceedings began in the House again and I became involved in presenting a lengthy point of order on which the Government House Leader also made a submission. At the conclusion of the point of order, the House proceeded to the division on the motion for the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Throughout this period I did not have the opportunity to file the Opposition day motion with the Table. However, I did file with the Table a copy of the notice of motion during the time in which the division bells rang prior to the division on the time allocation motion moved by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). At that time the House was still sitting and, indeed, still had a decision to make. In other words, the notice of motion had been given to the Table well before I rose to seek the consent of the House to file the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the Chair interrupt the Hon. Member to ask him a question at this point? At what time
yesterday was this notice filed? I am asking the Hon. Member if he cares to offer this information.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it was filed after the division had been recorded on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville and before the division on the motion of the Minister of Transport. The House was still sitting, waiting to record the division on the motion of the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is being very helpful and very explicit. I hope he understands the reason why the Chair is asking the question. This was after six o'clock?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, of course it was, and I will get to that in a moment. It appears quite clearly from the record.
However, my point is that it was filed while the House was still sitting. As I noted in my remarks last evening, I submit that consent was not needed. The Government House Leader was of the same view last evening, and I believe that he still is, although he may have some quarrel with my submission as to the correct order to be called today. I rose to seek consent last night so that there could be no question that the motion had been filed and there could be no question that the motion was properly before the House today. I did that because of a knowledge of some apparent doubt which existed with one or two of the officials at the Table.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP at that time refused to give their consent to the filing of the motion. I can only presume that they did this in order to facilitate debate on the Crow and to prevent the House from considering the matter of Revenue Canada's abuse of authority. But Madam Speaker, having determined that consent was not forthcoming, adjourned the House for the day. At that point in time the House was still sitting. Indeed, the House was called upon to make a decision as to whether or not that consent would be forthcoming.
Therefore, we arrive at the current stage of the proceedings. The motion is not on the Order Paper and I question the absence of it. The Projected Order of Business indicates that Bill C-155 is the business for today. If Bill C-155 is proceeded with, I believe that the House could not then move to an Opposition day motion and complete consideration of that motion today. That is plain. As a result, it is most important that any outstanding questions with respect to the procedural acceptability or validity of the motion of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe be settled now, at this stage. It is something we cannot reserve.
The key point in my submission rests on Citation 399 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, as previously cited. The substance of Citation 399 may be traced back at least as far as the Third Edition of Beauchesne which also contains, at pages 827 and 828, the Speaker's ruling on which the citation was based. That ruling is quite lengthy but I believe it bears directly on the events of yesterday and that it will help the Chair to make a ruling on the point of order now before the House.
October 27, 1983

The ruling by Mr. Speaker Sproule was based on the rules of the House as they existed at that time, November 21, 1912, when Standing Order 40 under "Notice of Motion" had this to say about the practice then:
Two days' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for the putting of a question; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the table before five o'clock, p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings-
I emphasize, the time was explicit-at five o'clock p.m. Mr. Speaker Sproule of that day had to deal with the same question that is now before the Chair. As reported in Beau-chesne's Third Edition at page 827, we find the following:
(a)	The publication of a proposed motion once in the Votes and Proceedings and the next day on the Order Paper is sufficient to cover two days' notice under Rule 17 (now S.O. 45).
Rule 17 is now Standing Order 45. The (b) paragraph is most important. It reads:
(b)	The exact time at which these notices should be handed to the Clerk at the Tabic is of minor importance.
The paragraph continues:
The House, according to Order, resumed the adjourned Debate on the proposed Resolution of Mr. Borden, to amend Rule 17* of the House of Commons, and the proposed motion of Mr. Hazen: "That the question be now pul."
A point of Order was raised by Mr. Maclean (Halifax), That as forty-eight hours had not elapsed between the time the notice was given and the said Resolution was proposed in the House, the said notice was insufficient.
On the next page we find the following:


Mr. Speaker:: I have only to say that my understanding has always been that the notice is intended to be given to the members of Parliament for a specific purpose, namely, that they may not be taken unawares, but may have an opportunity to prepare for the motion. The two days' notice, as I have always understood it-and I have discussed this question with the Clerk previous to the present one, and with the one before him-means that the notice must appear on the official paper of the day twice, first on the day after it is given, in the Votes and Proceedings, and then, on the day following that, the day that it might be considered, on the Order Paper of the House. I am told that the usual practice has been followed in this case.
It was not followed in the case before us today and it should have been, in my submission. Mr. Speaker Sproule continued:
With regard to the exact time at which the notice should be laid on the table of the House, my information always has been that that is for the convenience of the officials who prepare the Votes and Proceedings for to-morrow, and the Order Paper for the following day, and for the convenience of the Printing Bureau. Therefore it was provided that the notice should be laid on the table of the House before five o'clock. I had occasion some years ago to make inquiry with regard to the time when these notices were laid on the table of the House, and I found that in many cases it was done as late as eleven or twelve o'clock, and sometimes after twelve o'clock at night. The first clerk whom I sat under, Mr. Patrick, when I applied to him gave me the explanation that the exact time at which they were laid on the Table did not matter so much but the essence of the rule was that they should appear on the official papers twice-first in the Votes and Proceedings, so that the members might have full notice, and the second day upon the Order Paper for that day. Therefore my decision is that the point is not well taken.
In other words, notwithstanding the late filing, the motion was accepted and the business of the House was allowed to
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
proceed, as I will be suggesting it should be allowed to proceed today.
In my submission, it was possible to file the notice of the Opposition day motion at any time during the sitting of the House yesterday and, at the same time, meet the 24-hour notice requirement, notwithstanding Standing Order 47, which has no application in this instance. But even if it did, that six o'clock has not pursuant to our practices in this place been so stringently interpreted as to mean that a notice filed at 6:01 p.m., 6:05 p.m., or indeed 6:15 p.m., could not be accepted as long as the House was sitting. That such a filing should happen to take place shortly after 6 p.m., as is the instant case, rather than precisely at 6 p.m. or before 6 p.m., should have placed no great burden upon the Table as the Order Paper could not be printed until such time as the House had completed its sitting last night.
It is the right of Members to give notice of motions, and I submit that in any case where there is any doubt as to the procedural validity or standing of a motion, the Chair and the Table should err on the side of Members rather than deciding not to print the notice of motion on the Order Paper. In this case, however, there can be no doubt of the procedural regularity of the notice. At the time the unanimous consent of the House was sought by the Speaker yesterday, the House had not concluded yesterday's sitting. We still had two decisions to make-first, the recorded division on the Minister's motion and, second, just before adjournment when the Speaker at my request sought unanimous consent so as to remove any doubt which might have been in the minds of the officials at the Table. At the time unanimous consent was sought by the Speaker yesterday, the House had not concluded yesterday's sitting. This point is born out at page 28360 of Hansard, where the following may be found under the heading "Point of Order" and under the sub heading "Allotted Days, S.O. 62- Proposed Motion":


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There seems to be some doubt with respect to whether or not we in the Opposition, as of right, have the privilege of filing notice of an allotted day subject after six o'clock.
That gets to the point the Chair was asking me. It continues:
It is clearly after six o'clock now and if the House would feel so disposed to grant its consent to extend time for filing under Standing Order 47-
That was the Standing Order which was causing some concern to the officials at the Table.
-we would want to move the following motion for tomorrow's allotted day which has been designated by the Government House Leader:-
At that stage it still had the status of being designated. Then I read the motion which appears in the official record of the debates during the sitting yesterday as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its contempt for the taxpayers of Canada, which it demonstrates by the creation of a taxation system in the form of the income Tax Act that is increasingly incomprehensible for individual taxpayers and by its failure to end capricious and unfair practices of the Department of National Revenue.
28364

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Madam Speaker:: 1 do not think 1 will hear much argument. I will ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Then the Hon. Members to my left said "No".


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
At that point I know the Government House Leader wanted to rise and make the same kind of argument in his usual expert fashion that 1 am making right now, so that we could proceed with an allotted day today. Hansard continues:


Madam Speaker:: No, 1 am sorry. It being past six o'clock, I must adjourn the House until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
The motion was given to the Table and it was later read into the record by myself. Both events took place before the adjournment of yesterday's sitting and in the presence of 223 Members who were present in the House for last night's vote on the time allocation motion.


Mr. Beatty:: There were 224 counting Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, 224 counting the Chair; I am corrected quite properly. On the basis of the traditional understanding of the 24-hour notice requirement as referring not to a set period of hours but to the fact that motions subject to a 24-hour notice requirement must be filed, at the latest, on the sitting day prior to the day-I am in the final stretch and 1 would like the undivided attention of the Chair, which has been listening very conscientiously to the important point 1 am making-that they are taken up for consideration in the House, and on the basis of Mr. Speaker Sproule's ruling and the subsequent citations in Beauchesne, there can be no doubt that adequate notice was given and that the motion should be before the House today.
The House was still sitting. If we are to apply with that degree of stringency the time of six o'clock, which seemed to be in the heads of some of the officials at the Table last night, then we discard all those past practices. That motion could have been printed on the Order Paper. Without intending any disrespect to the decision made by the officials at the Table in not including it in today's Projected Order of Business or the Order Paper, 1 seriously question that decision. It should have been printed, and I think I raised this point on a previous occasion. While the House was sitting, the Table was seized of the motion; indeed, 224 Members were seized of it. The whole purpose of providing that kind of notice is to put all Members on the alert so that they can prepare for the following day's business.
In fairness to the government House Leader, 1 should say that somewhere around nine o'clock or 9.30 o'clock last night-1 do not have the exact time with me-an official in his office called me on the telephone to inform me that today's order would be Bill C-155. I thanked him for the courtesy of the information, but it did not deter me in my resolve to raise this very important point today.
1 believe, with great respect, the fears or doubts of the officials at the Table, with whom I spoke last night were not well-founded. Sometimes, like me, even they could be wrong. The practices of this place have long been that the notice requirements are met even though the notice may have gone slightly beyond the six o'clock requirement. If there is any doubt whatsoever in the mind of the Chair on this question, it surely, in my submission, must be resolved in favour of the Standing Order 62 process rather than the rigid application of Standing Order 47.
Therefore Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition 1 request that you call the motion of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) for debate this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be very brief. This morning, three Standing Orders are being applied, namely, S.O. 62(4)(a),
S.0.47 and S.O. 22(2), which gives the Government the power to determine the Orders of the Day. That being said, it seems to me the situation is very straightforward. First of all, this debate is purely academic, since the Government decided yesterday to put consideration of Bill C-155 on today's Orders of the Day. It could have decided to do so this morning, and we could even at this very minute decide that not Bill C-155 but Bill C-12 will be on the Orders of the Day, since it is up to the Government to determine the order of business in the House, and the Standing Orders do not require notice of such a decision, except that it must be made before the Orders of the Day are called.
What happened yesterday is very simple. At three o'clock, on a point of order, I designated today as an Opposition day, and I was under no obligation to add what I did and I do so occasionally-namely, that this was subject to change. At that point, the Opposition had all the time in the world to table a notice of motion before six o'clock. Whatever the intentions of the Opposition were, 1 am not going to make a mountain out of a molehill, since this would be as childish as it is useless. For some reason, they preferred not to table their notice before six o'clock, claiming that it was subject to change anyway and they wanted to find out whether I was going to change my mind.
My learned colleague refers to what happened around 5:12 p.m., when he asked me whether this was going to be an opposition day or not and whether I was going to change my mind. I merely answered that I did not think I was going to change my mind and if I did, I would let him know in due time. He could have tabled his notice before, and he could still do so at that point, until six o'clock. However, he did not. Subsequently, after six o'clock, the Member for Yukon (Mr. October 27, 1983

Nielsen) felt obliged to seek the unanimous consent of the House for tabling his notice, which he read very quickly in order to have his notice read into the record and prepare his case for this morning. It was past six o'clock-this is important-and he asked for unanimous consent. The mere fact that the hon. gentleman asked for unanimous consent proves, in my opinion, that he had dropped the idea that he could do so without seeking the unanimous consent. In any case, I say we do not need this argument to win our case. Consent was denied, and the hon. gentleman seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask on a point of order. If the Chair had recognized the Hon. Member, I was going to say that I would advise the Opposition later that evening of the business of the House today, and I was certainly not going to rise to argue that unanimous consent was not necessary.
When my hon. colleague says that he felt I was going to argue his case, he is wrong. My purpose in rising on a point of order was to say that since unanimous consent was not forthcoming, I was not going to challenge the Chair's decision. Later, I would inform the Opposition of the business of the House for tomorrow, which is today.
Subsequently, about half an hour later, I managed to reach the House Leader of the New Democratic Party personally, and I confirmed that the business of the House for this morning would deal with Bill C-155. 1 personally tried to reach the Member for Yukon, but unfortunately, there was no answer. Maybe 1 had a wrong number. In any case someone in my office, as the Hon. Member acknowledged earlier, managed to reach him around 8:00 or 8:30 to confirm that the Orders of the Day would include Bill C-155. I spoke to the Clerk of the House myself to let him know that consideration of Bill C-155 would be on today's Orders of the Day, and I was not obliged to do so before six o'clock.
In the circumstances, the point raised by the Opposition House Leader is purely academic. He is not losing an opposition day, because today is not a designated day, and as they say, I undesignated it. I changed its designation. Today's Orders of the Day were determined yesterday. They were advised in time. That is our prerogative. It is Bill C-155, there is no problem. However, if the Opposition House Leader wished to reserve the right, in future, to table a notice after six o'clock but before the end of the sitting day, this is another issue on which a debate could be held if the situation warrants. It is a point that could be discussed. There are those who will say that a notice of motion which according to Standing Order 62(4)(a) requires twenty-four hours' notice, must, according to Standing Order 47, formerly S.O. 42, be tabled before six o'clock, and incidentally, in the citations from Beauchesne mentioned by my hon. colleague there is a reference to Standing Order 42, now Standing Order 47. Thus, when he says that
S.O.	47 does not apply here, he should not refer to citations that are based on S.O. 47, formerly S.O. 42. There is a contradiction here.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
There are those who will claim that by analogy, the twenty-four hours' notice mentioned in S.O. 62(4)(a), must be given before six o'clock, pursuant to S.O. 47. I can live with that, and I think that is the opinion we have received up to now. Once again, the problem is purely academic, because the Orders of the Day were changed yesterday to accommodate the Opposition. We were polite and we advised them. The Hon. Member for Yukon cannot deny this, since he himself felt obliged to seek unanimous consent, which was not denied by us but by someone else in the House.
Finally, to stress once again the perhaps pointless aspect of this argument when he refers to Citation 399 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I feel the decision does not contradict the point I am trying to make, and in any case, even if the Hon. Member for Yukon claims that Citation 399 contradicts what I am saying, let it suffice for me to say that the citation dates back to 1913, when the House did not adjourn automatically and sat until late at night. There was no set adjournment at five or six or nine o'clock, which explains the comment that the exact time at which notices are handed to the Clerk at the Table is of minor importance. In 1913, no one ever knew at what time the House would adjourn. I do not think my hon. colleague was here at the time, but I am sure that if he cares to check what I just said, he will realize that his point is not a valid one. This citation can not apply here because it does not refer to the same Standing Orders.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief. First of all, pursuant to S.O. 22(2), it is up to me to determine the Orders of the Day. That is clear. Changes were made and this has happened before. We decided to change an Opposition day when the Progressive Conservatives played a trick on our colleagues who were in Europe. We can do it again if necessary. We did so yesterday evening, not as a response to that kind of trick, but to another kind of manoeuvre. My hon. colleague is smiling, and he knows very well what 1 mean. We did so to accommodate them, and S.O. 22(2) gives us the authority to determine that the Orders of the Day will include Bill C-155.
Second, I have some comments on the Hon. Member's notice that was not submitted in time. If he had not sought the unanimous consent of the House, what he said this morning, would have gained in credibility. Third, I think that, by analogy, we have no choice but to apply the time provision in
S.O.	47 when dealing with the issue of twenty-four hours' notice pursuant to S.O. 62(4)(a).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a problem at this time. There are a number of Hon. Members asking to be recognized. In fairness to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who should be recognized, the Chair would like to give the Hon. Member for Yukon an opportunity to reply afterwards, if that is agreeable.

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really think it would be helpful if I made the additional point so that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain could deal with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Briefly, the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: The Government House Leader raised a question which I really did not develop fully for consideration of the Chair, and that is the rights of Members to have their motions printed in the official documents of the House. The Chair will note that that motion last night which was left with the Table during the sitting does not appear on the Notice Paper of the Order Paper. It does not appear anywhere.
I have not had the time to be able to cite specifically the precedent, but the House will remember that within the last year we had put down, after being notified of an allotted day, a motion, filing it with the Table. It was printed in the records of the House. The New Democratic Party on the same occasion put down a motion for the same allotted day, which would have caused the Chair to have to make a decision. But that is not relevant here. The relevant point here is that both of those motions were printed on the Notice Paper and both appeared in the official records of the House. Indeed, the Government changed the allotted day and the printing of both of those motions was carried on until the allotted day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In fairness to the Hon. Member, he is developing an area where a good deal of argument could take place. The Chair is not persuaded that it is absolutely relevant to a decision on a matter that must be before us. The Chair at this point would like-


Erik Nielsen: It is before you now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is before us at this point.


Erik Nielsen: The second one is before you now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are other points that obviously could be considered. The Chair is trying, with the greatest attention that the Chair can offer, to focus on the essential points and would recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain at this point.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal only with the question originally put before you, if I may. At the outset I want to make it clear that I am obviously sympathetic to the purpose of the point of order of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It would evidently be to the advantage of the Opposition to be able to file, should this Chair find in favour, a notice at any point after six o'clock.
SO)
The question before us, however, is a different one, I think. I hesitate to say it but the Hon. Member for Yukon and his colleagues are the authors of their own misfortune. It has been the practice in this House for some long period of time, as I understand it, that the filing of an Opposition day notice has
been required to be done prior to six o'clock. In fact, yesterday when I was informed at about one minute to six that no motion had been filed, my immediate reaction was that perhaps the Opposition day was intended to be ours and that we had not been informed. Knowing how competent the Hon. Member for Yukon usually is in these things, I could hardly believe that he had been so tardy and slipshod. Nevertheless, it turns out that this was the case and I regret having to say that.
There are two matters before you, Mr. Speaker. The first is whether it was required last evening that unanimous consent be sought to have the motion filed late. The Hon. Member for Yukon clearly believed that it was required, otherwise he would not have raised a point of order and sought that unanimous consent. The events of the day were not so filled with turmoil as to make it impossible for a Member to have filed notice prior to six o'clock.
Immediately upon calling orders of the day after three o'clock there was a dispute about whether the Minister or the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) had the floor. Subsequent to that the decision of the Chair was made that the Minister had the floor. The Minister moved his motion under Standing Order 83 and spoke for the ten minutes he is allotted. The Hon. Member for Vegreville followed with his speech, and for some reason that escapes the majority of sensible people in the House of Commons, he moved to go to the orders of the day. Effectively, what he did was eliminate the opportunity for any other Member to speak against the Government's attempt to impose time allocation. 1 can only assume that was his intention since no other intent could be read into his action.
What he effectively did was to make sure that only the Minister and himself were able to speak during the two-hour debate allotted for the purpose, thus excluding any Member of this Party or any individual Member of the House from speaking. The result was that at the end of the two-hour period prescribed in the Standing Orders the Chair, quite properly in my opinion, put all of the motions necessary to dispose of the question. That occurred at 5.15 in the afternoon so there was still lots of time to file an opposition motion.
The Hon. Member for Yukon then rose to argue on a spurious point that somehow or other the vote should not take place until six o'clock. It was an interesting but quite irrelevant argument, I thought, and he took up, as he has this morning, about half an hour of time making this argument based, I submit, on faulty background information. Nevertheless, he made it and time went by.
The vote was taken on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville that we proceed to orders of the day. My Leader rose at that point and sought unanimous consent to extend the time of sitting to allow us to continue through the proceedings prior to orders of the day in order that he could move a motion, or at least receive a ruling on a motion for an adjournment debate on the very important question of the invasion of Grenada. That was refused. It is an important point to recognize that it was refused. In refusing to extend orders of the day it became quite clear that at the precise
October 27, 1983

moment that the vote on the motion of the Minister was concluded, we had technically arrived at six o'clock and the only thing left to do was to move to adjourn.
At that point I contend that the Hon. Member for Yukon could have made the argument he made this morning. He could have risen and said that having been informed by the Table that they were not going to accept his motion, it was his opinion that a Speaker's ruling was required then and there on whether there was a necessity for unanimous consent or whether the Standing Orders and precedents he has cited today should and could prevail. The Hon. Member chose not to do that.
I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, page 78, Citation 235, which reads as follows:
Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate-
I emphasize "immediate", Mr. Speaker.
-notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House. The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred.
I contend that if there was a question to be decided at that point, it was not whether the Hon. Member was entitled to file, having been refused permission to do so by the Table; the question before him was, should he rise on a point of order and get a ruling from the Speaker to permit filing to take place? He chose not to do that. I cannot help but read into his actions that he believed he had exceeded the time limit under normal practice and that he was requiring the unanimous consent of the House to do that which otherwise he could not do. I contend that his rising on the question today at eleven o'clock, interesting though it is, is too late. The question was quite clearly before him and should have been raised in the House yesterday at 6.15 if, indeed, it was a point of order.
Frankly speaking, I suggest that although as a Member of the Opposition I would be happy if you could find a way to rule that we are entitled to file a notice of motion after six o'clock, as it would be to our advantage if the Opposition could file at any time, the practices of the past have made it necessary to conclude that filing must take place prior to six o'clock.
Since the Hon. Member missed the opportunity to raise that precise point of order at a time when it could have been ruled upon by the Speaker, and since today's decisions passed by without the Hon. Member having raised the point, the Hon. Member then pursued the matter through asking for unanimous consent which he must have believed at the time was necessary. With the benefit of overnight reflection he seems to have changed his mind, but unfortunately he has not made a case sufficient to justify overwhelming support.
As I started, Mr. Speaker, I end. The Hon. Member for Yukon is learned in the rules of the House, and he constantly informs us of this. He has frequently pointed out to me and others when we are in violation of the rules, and I have accepted his advice graciously on all occasions. I can only conclude on this occasion that because of his inadvertence,
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
neglect, tardiness, slipshod manner or whatever, he failed to do what is necessary. I regret that I cannot support the import of his argument although 1 do support the desire he has in mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard one spokesman from each of the three Parties. The Chair will now propose to hear the Hon. Member in whose name the motion was attempted and then will render a decision on the matter.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your courtesy. There are a number of key points which the Chair will want to take into consideration. 1 want in particular to respond to one argument made by the Government House Leader and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. It relates to the procedure followed yesterday afternoon when my House Leader rose following six o'clock to ask for unanimous consent to allow the motion to be filed.
The suggestion was made by the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the NDP that the action of my House Leader was in some way a confession on his part that he did not, by right, have the ability to file that notice of motion last night after six o'clock and that somehow the fact that he rose at that time prejudiced my ability to have my motion considered today. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The reason my House Leader rose when he did last night to seek unanimous consent was to avoid precisely what has happened this morning.
Instead of going on to debate the Crow, as the NDP would like, we on this side of the House want to debate a motion dealing with Revenue Canada. Our Members are prepared to deal with that motion. Many of us have worked for a considerable period of time in order to deal with it. What is essential here, Mr. Speaker, is that the ability of Hon. Members to act on motions such as this should not be circumscribed by a literal interpretation of procedures or by a decision made by the Table which would prejudice the rights of individual Hon. Members; in this case, myself.
What has happened today because of the New Democratic Party's unwillingness yesterday to give unanimous consent to the very reasonable request which was made by my House Leader is that we have already lost one hour of the time which is allotted for an Opposition day. Even if you find, Mr. Speaker, in our favour-as I hope you will and as I believe you must-the effect of the NDP refusal to give consent has been that a minimum of one hour has been lost to debate what would be the Order of the Day.
That was the reason my House Leader rose yesterday to seek unanimous consent. The record is very clear. He said: "There seems to be some doubt with respect to this." He did not say: "I believe I am no longer entitled to put down this motion". In order to eliminate any question and to facilitate the proceedings of the House, he asked quite properly for unanimous consent, which would have avoided the procedural debate we are having at the present time. It certainly would

October 27, 1983-
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
have facilitated matters for the Chair and for every Hon. Member, including Hon. Members of the NDP and the Government, who would be taking part in the debate today. Surely, one of the reasons why notice is required is to enable Hon. Members to do their homework in preparation for debate.
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should certainly set aside the argument which was made by the House Leaders of the NDP and the Government that in some way my House Leader prejudiced our right to make this argument today by his actions yesterday, or that he was in any way conceding that we did not, as a matter of right, have the ability to put that motion down.
A second point was raised by the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. He referred at length to the attempt by his Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbcnt), to ask for unanimous consent to extend the hours of sitting yesterday. The argument the House Leader made was that when Government Members refused that unanimous consent, it was then clear that the proceedings would lapse at six o'clock. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the final line in yesterday's Hansard you will see it says precisely this:
At 6.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
The record of the House of Commons itself makes it very clear that the House was in session. The House was sitting until 6.34 p.m. last night. The record also makes it very clear that both at the time my House Leader submitted that motion to the Table and at the time he rose to ask for unanimous consent, the House was still proceeding. It is perhaps a reflection on Madam Speaker which is made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party if he suggests that it was improper for my House Leader to be permitted to raise this matter at that point. However, Madam Speaker was clearly of the opinion that the House was sitting. Otherwise she could not have given the floor to my House Leader, and otherwise she could not have sought the unanimous consent of the House as requested by my House Leader. Again, the argument which is made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party is spurious and irrelevant.
The question is this, Mr. Speaker. The first issue that has to be considered by you is whether or not Standing Order 62(4) is to be taken literally. Does it in fact require, literally, that 24 hours of notice be given before an Opposition day? On the face of it, clearly that is not the case. Clearly it would have been physically impossible yesterday, because the first that any of us in the House learned that it was the Government's intention yesterday to designate today as an Opposition day was following three o'clock. How could we conceivably have squeezed 24 hours into the period between three o'clock and eleven o'clock this morning? There has never been any dispute about that in the House. We have never had a case where the New Democratic Party and the Government House Leader have risen to argue that the 24 hours referred to in the Standing Orders must be taken literally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, that point was amply made by his House Leader.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Good. As long as you accept the point which was made by my House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, because it is a key argument which has to be made here. It leads to this question: What is intended by the House in terms of the requirement of six o'clock? Why is there any requirement for a specified time? My House Leader alluded to that when he referred to the citation in Beauchesne and quoted from the decision which was made by one of Your Honour's distinguished predecessors. It was very clear that the reason that procedure exists is to ensure that Hon. Members are aware of what the next day's business would be. If the procedure has been interpreted by the Chair throughout the course of time as meaning that notice must be given during the present sitting day about what is happening the following day, clearly there is no dispute whatsoever about it, Mr. Speaker.
The record of the House of Commons itself shows that at the time notice was given, at the time unanimous consent was requested, the House was sitting. The sitting day was continuing. It cannot be argued that because it was after six o'clock, that somehow takes away from the right of Hon. Members of Parliament to submit these motions, notwithstanding the fact the House was still sitting, and notwithstanding the fact that, according to Hansard, at that time some 224 Hon. Members were present in the House. If we were to accept that, Mr. Speaker, what we would find is that this would be a negation of the whole principle which was accepted by you a minute ago when you said the House Leader put the case very clearly, that that Standing Order is not to be taken literally.


Erik Nielsen: Nor is 47.


Henry Perrin Beatty: And, as my House Leader has just said, nor is Standing Order 47. If the Chair accepts the principle that the reason for requiring notice is to ensure that Hon. Members are given the right and the ability to know what the next day's business is during the sitting day, one has no option except to conclude that the notice was properly given during the sitting day and on time. To set an arbitrary cut-off time, which is not in the rule book, of six o'clock, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, would be grossly unfair and would undermine the whole principle of this question which has existed since, I believe, 1913.
There is another matter which I would like to develop and which has not been touched on by the Hon. Members who have spoken today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair listened intently to the argument of his House Leader and the Hon. Member so far has repeated what his House Leader has said.


Erik Nielsen: No, he has not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member, if he has a new point to make, to make it.


Erik Nielsen: He is doing it.
October 27, 1983


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, that is precisely what 1 intend to do. I would like to refer the Chair to Standing Order 55 which reads as follows:
Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
My submission, Mr. Speaker, is that if there was doubt as to the procedural acceptability of a notice of motion filed after 6 p.m., the proper procedure was not for someone to decide not to include it in the Orders of the Day today and to prejudice my rights, as an Hon. Member, to deal with that motion, but rather for it to appear on the Orders of the Day and for the Speaker now, before calling the motion, to deal with the question of procedure. 1 would argue, Mr. Speaker, that my rights as an Hon. Member are prejudiced when a decision is made arbitrarily that a motion which is submitted by an Hon. Member on this side of the House in good faith, believing fully that it is within the rules of the House, is summarily not included in the Order Paper for today.
If one looks, even in a cursory way, at the Standing Order 55, the procedure which should be followed is very clear. For someone simply to make the decision that the notice of motion would not appear because it was filed following six o'clock departs from the principle established in Standing Order 55 and gravely undermines my rights, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament to deal with this matter and have my motion considered. I consider that element every bit as serious as the matters raised by my House Leader and the House Leaders for the other two Parties, because it is my rights as a Member which are in jeopardy as a result of this decision.
If you were to accept the argument that since it does not appear in the Orders of the Day today because it was filed after six o'clock we are to go to Government Orders and not debate an Opposition day motion, then I suggest that deeply undercuts my rights as a Member and prejudices my ability to defend an action which I believe, and which my House Leader believes, was entirely in order and consistent with precedent.


Mr. Fisher:: You can say that without blushing?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I believe that on the basis of Standing Order 55 alone a compelling case can be made for the procedure followed last evening, and that not including my motion on today's Order Paper was wrong and my rights have been prejudiced. Additionally, I believe the argument by my House Leader was compelling since there is no question that when the order was filed last night it was filed consistent with the practices of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to Hon. Members, the Chair has heard a good deal of argument-


Mr. Mazankowski:: Procedural acceptability.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, the Chair is not going to listen to a series of repetitive arguments; but if the Hon. Member for
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has a short point of order, the Chair will listen to him. But the Chair does not intend to listen to a lengthy repetition of arguments.


Mr. McKnight:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 move:
That the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster be now heard.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.


Erik Nielsen: The motion must be put without debate.


Mr. Ouellet:: The motion is not yet put.


Yvon Pinard: I got up on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: The motion has to be put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville has moved that the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) be now heard.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Who seconded the motion?


Erik Nielsen: I seconded the motion.


Yvon Pinard: I raised a point of order before the motion was made.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed please say nay?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 1 rise to follow my House Leader and the Hon. Member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) on the matter of the allotted day assigned by the Government House Leader with the caveat that it may be changed. As my House Leader and the Hon. Member in whose name the motion stands have expressed, that motion was subject to withdrawal.
The rationale for rising in his place to ask for unanimous consent, which I think would have facilitated the movement of the business of this House much more rapidly than we have this morning by carrying on this debate, was the time that had elapsed. If we are indeed to be consistent concerning the ability of Opposition Members to have allotted days, it would appear to be incumbent upon those of us on this side and on

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
the Government side to inform my Elouse Leader whether the offer of an allotted day would stand or be withdrawn.
When my House Leader rose to seek unanimous consent and read the motion, as he did last evening, it would appear he was trying to facilitate the business of the House. That motion appeared to be agreed to by the Government House Leader. I thought 1 saw his head nodding in the affirmative and he had no objection to that happening. Lor some reason Members of the NDP refused to give unanimous consent, and therefore at the first opportunity my House Leader-


Mr. Althouse:: Get your facts right.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -presented the argument for the Opposition day. 1 fail to understand why anyone would not consent to a motion which would remove Revenue Canada from the backs of the taxpayers in Canada.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: A point of order.


Erik Nielsen: We are on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) rises on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster is on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have been on a point of order all the way along. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre rises on a point of order.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster would not wish to break the rules of the House and impute motives to any Members or any Party, particularly when, if indeed there was a "no" yesterday, it was not clear where it was from.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has the floor. The Chair requests the Hon. Member, in the interests of the House, not to repeat arguments but to deal with essential items concerning the point of order raised by his House Leader.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not realize I was casting aspersions on anyone. 1 just said that the NDP denied unanimous consent.


Mr. Keeper:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not necessary for a Member to tell the truth?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member who put this motion feels that he was denied the right of a Member of Parliament to have a motion which he feels very strongly about debated on the floor of the House of Commons. Rather than repeat myself, I now move:
That the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: By unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The concern the Chair has at this point is that motions of a particular form, repeated with a dilatory purpose, raise some fundamental questions about the way in which this House conducts its business.


Erik Nielsen: Then hear us out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will hear the Hon. Member for Yukon and then render a decision on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice in this place for many, many years for the Chair to listen to submissions and hear Members out who feel they have a contribution to make to a procedural debate. 1 urge the Chair to reconsider the imposition of any guillotine on a procedural debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sure the Hon. Member, being an experienced Parliamentarian, is well aware of ample precedents in which the Chair has listened patiently to arguments, and beyond a certain point has decided the argument has been sufficient for the purpose of the Chair to render a decision to the House. The Chair has listened for well over one hour, and listened patiently, to the Hon. Member. I am sure the Hon. Member, who has a great respect for Parliament and who at some time may face even greater responsibilities than he has now, will realize the implications of what he is doing.


Yvon Pinard: Oh, never!


Erik Nielsen: There is no doubt about the truthfulness of your last two sentences, Mr. Speaker.
1 have now had provided to me the precedents in order for the Chair to come to a balanced decision with respect to the rights of Members to have their motion printed in the official records of the House, which is part of the point of order I raised initially. Perhaps while I am presenting my argument, these precedents could be obtained for the Chair or I will pass mine up. However, I think it would be helpful if the Chair had them while I am arguing.
I shall refer to Hansard of Lebruary 12, 1982, at pages 14953 to 14966 inclusive. At that time, a very full debate on this question was raised and the Chair reserved its decision. Three days later, on Lebruary 15, at page 14997 and page 14998, the question was resolved. On February 12, 1982 I raised a question under the subheading:


MR. NIELSEN-PRINTING IN ORDER PAPER OF FILED OPPOSITION MOTION-CHANGES TO ORDER PAPER MADE BY GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
1 made a lengthy argument at that time on the basis that the Order Paper had been changed. At that time as well, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain sought a meeting with the Chair to discuss the subject. He is not present at the moment
October 27, 1983
[Stage Direction]
but he will recall that. He sought that meeting in order to discuss this matter with the Speaker, but was unable to do so because of the events that were occurring during that time.
On that occasion, as reported at page 14954 of Hansard, 1 said the following:
Let me read now the Order Paper following upon the announcement Thursday by the government House leader, the Order Paper and Notices for Friday, February 5, 1982. At page 2 the Chair will note that Friday, February 12, has been designated as (Allotted Day-Supply).
That situation is on all fours with the situation that is before us here. In that case, the words "Allotted Day-Supply" appeared in italics and in brackets. I was making the argument that the Government, having announced that allotted day, could not smuggle in a change on the Order Paper by the use of the Standing Order allowing it to set the business of the House. The point I am making is that under the Order Paper of that day appeared this heading:
Notices of Supply Proceedings Pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a)-
That is now Standing Order 62(4)(a).
Note: Friday. February 12, 1982-Third allotted day for the supply period
ending March 26. 1982.
Today's Notice Paper goes that far. That much is printed. I want to emphasize and underline the fact that that notice which has been carried throughout the week on the preceding Friday stipulated, following the word "Note", the date of Friday, February 12, 1982. I would underscore that as I underscored the appearance today on the Order Paper of the announcement by the House Leader yesterday making today an allotted day.
I shall now deal with the motion. In the precedent that 1 cited on page 14954 of Hansard for February 12 appears this
passage:
As the Chair appreciates, under our Standing Orders there must be 24 hours' notice filed in order to set the allotted day down for debate. It is past history that notice of that motion was set down at 1.12 in the afternoon of Thursday, February I 1. The motion that was set down first, I point out, bore no date. It
was as follows:
The notice that followed was printed in the Order Paper under Standing Order 58(9). The point of that debate as it relates to this one was that the motion itself was in the possession of the Table. The House was seized of it, having been given it during the sitting, and it was printed in full on the Order Paper. The Speaker reserved her judgment with respect to the right of Members to have motions printed on the question of alterations and 1 would like to cite briefly from her ruling of February 15, 1982, at page 14997 of Hansard, under the subheading:

Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule on the point of order which was brought up last Friday by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). His point of order was that the notice filed by him in the name of the Leader of the
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Opposition (Mr. Clark) pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a) did not appear on the notice paper of Friday, February 12, 1982.
Before dealing with this point, I should like to clarify certain references made to the Order Paper by the Hon. Member in his submission on Friday last. The Hon. Member alleges that the government, merely by verbal announcement, has altered an item appearing on the Order Paper.
I respectfully submit to the Hon. Member that the government docs not alter the Order Paper. Only decisions by the House can have that effect. On the other hand, the notice paper is made up of notices given by members of the House in accordance with the Standing Orders. The production of these papers is under the direction of the Clerk of the House.
Reference was made to page 2 of the Order Paper which is entitled "Projected Weekly Order of Business". Although it is not an official part of the Order Paper, it is inserted for the information and the convenience of Hon. Members. The same is true of the notes projecting dates-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has brought his instances to the attention of the Chair and has argued his case very well. The Chair has listened patiently to his argument. The Chair is now in the position of being able to make some observations that might perhaps be of assistance-


Erik Nielsen: There are other points to be covered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must at some point decide
and


Erik Nielsen: There are other points to be covered which you have not even heard yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given ample opportunity. This is the third occasion he has been recognized on the same point of order. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I would like to repeat to him a remark that I made before. What he is doing to Parliament by this procedure is something for him to weigh with his own conscience and his accountability to the people of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Is that a threat?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is prepared to make an observation on the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to make an observation. The Hon. Member is seeking to substitute a procedure different from that which has been the practice of the House. The Hon. Member for Yukon very correctly pointed out that Standing Order 62(4) cannot be taken literally. Twenty-four hours' notice cannot be given and has not been given. The Hon. Member for Yukon, in a very learned and well prepared presentation, has cast reflections upon whether or not Standing Order 47 is relevant. The Chair has some concern as to whether or not it is relevant. However, the Chair must ask the Hon. Member for Yukon what he is arguing. He is arguing that the sitting time of the House should be the limit and not six o'clock. That is his argument.
I call to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that yesterday there was a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) which, if granted by the Chair,

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
would have had the effect of allowing for a sitting beginning at eight o'clock and continuing until an undetermined hour. 1 call the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that there are a number of provisions in our rules to allow for the extension of the sitting time of the House. 1 call to his attention that if we are to substitute a rule that a motion can be put down any time while the House is sitting, that would in effect make for a chaotic situation. In fact, there was once a time when we sat for 26 hours. If that kind of a sitting had preceded a designated day, there would have been no limitation whatsoever, according to the rule put forward by the Hon. Member for Yukon, on the time for which a motion would have to be set down.
The Chair is therefore required by the logic of the situation to look at the practices that have evolved in the House since 1968. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the procedures of the House in 1913 may be relevant but the Chair has some difficulty relating them to the revised procedures that we have adopted since 1968.
It is therefore the decision of the Chair-


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -that the practice of the House of requiring a six o'clock deadline for the submission of motions is a legitimate practice of the House established since 1968 and the logic of the situation requires that it be observed. The Chair rules that the Hon. Member's point of order is not well taken.


Erik Nielsen: It is an observation, not a ruling. I have a point of order.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing Order 33 reads as follows:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
At this stage we have had before us a point of order which has been decided on by the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I have another.


Mr. Taylor:: I have another one also.


Mr. Malone:: I have another one.


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 have an entirely different one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon. Again, the Chair will fall back on an
observation made before on procedures of a dilatory character. In the British House, the authority of the Chair to deal with dilatory motions is clear. In our practice in the past it has not been so clear. However, at some point Hon. Members in this House will have to ask themselves at what point are they going to have confidence in the Chair to deal in an orderly way with the business of the House in an absolutely neutral and impartial way.
If a series of dilatory motions can be put forward now, one after another, the effect of which is to prevent the House from proceeding to its business, Hon. Members will have to reflect on what they are doing because the procedures that are being followed now in their custom of precedent will not lightly disappear from the record. Whether or not orderly government is possible in the House of Commons if such procedures are followed through to their logical conclusion is a matter for Hon. Members to consider.
The Hon. Member for Yukon has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: This is not Schefferville. The Speaker is right.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we would have that confidence in the Chair, but when an occupant of the Chair rises and clearly and repeatedly states that he intends to make observations and then, in the course of making those observations, it suddenly becomes a ruling before Members are heard, that we cannot accept from an occupant of the chair because it is simply not upfront.


Yvon Pinard: So you are blaming the Chair. You are accusing the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I was making a point which I was prevented from making when the Chair made its ruling.


Yvon Pinard: You are reflecting on the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: The record will clearly show that I raised the point in my initial submission to the Chair and the Chair has chosen, for whatever reasons, to ignore that second point upon which a ruling should be made.
I ask the Chair now to consider the points that I was interrupted in making by the ruling the Chair made during its observations when I was attempting to make additional new points which were not before the Chair in order to assist the Chair in its ruling. How can we-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if this is a new point of order. If not, you have ruled and I suggest that the Hon. Member should respect the Chair's ruling. If he is blaming the Chair for having made a decision and is now trying to argue again because you had not given him, according to him, full opportunity to be heard- which is, of course, not true-then I suggest he is not respecting the Chair and should no longer be heard.


Erik Nielsen: Usually the Government House Leader makes intelligent observations.


Yvon Pinard: I do not waste the time of the House.
October 27, 1983


Erik Nielsen: If he had been following my remarks, and he is closer to me than the Chair, he should know that I was making new points and arguments in support of a point of order that I raised initially here today and which has been ignored in the so-called observations of the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: The ruling was made.


Erik Nielsen: Not on the point I raised initially. The Government House Leader says that the ruling was made. The ruling has not been made on the point that 1 raised with respect to the right of Members to have their motions printed in the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member-and the Chair has a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member's experience and background-he raised a point of order concerning whether a motion should have precedence over the item of Government business raised by the Government House Leader.


Erik Nielsen: No, that is not my point at all. That is why the Chair should listen to my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point that the Hon. Member apparently made at some length, as I am sure the record will bear out, was that there should not be a proceeding with the item indicated by the Government House Leader-


Erik Nielsen: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -but that a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe should have been the order of the day.


Erik Nielsen: That is not my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That was the original point of the Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: That was not the original point and I would like to make my point.


Yvon Pinard: You had an hour and we still do not understand you.


Erik Nielsen: I have not. I have been interrupted so often.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the question of the right of Members to have motions printed-


Erik Nielsen: Now you are getting closer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -the Chair has indicated, and I thought it was clear, that a motion should be put down within the procedures by six o'clock. Obviously, motions before six o'clock would be printed.


Erik Nielsen: I have submissions to make before another ruling is made. I have submissions to make on that point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened at considerable length. There is no requirement that the Chair must listen
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
indefinitely or that the Chair must listen to repetitive arguments. That has not-


Erik Nielsen: It should at least listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -been the practice of any Parliament. The Chair has indicated that motions which follow the practice of the House and are left with the Table before six o'clock must certainly be printed and the precedents which the Hon. Member has cited, to the best knowledge of the Chair-


Erik Nielsen: I have not finished citing them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member did cite some precedents previously. The fact is that motions after six o'clock do not have the same right as motions before six o'clock. That is part of the Chair's decision.


Erik Nielsen: Since the Chair has not heard my submissions on the points that I had to make, it is my submission that it is the obligation of the Chair to hear argument on new points that Members wish to make before any ruling is made.
My narrow point which was totally distorted by the Chair- misinterpreted is perhaps a kinder word-was that Members have a right to have their motions printed on the Order Paper. I was in the middle of citing a precedent with respect to that matter when 1 was cut off by the Chair. I want to complete citing that precedent. I am reading from a ruling made by Madam Speaker. Surely the present occupant of the chair would at least listen to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The present occupant of the chair is well aware of the matter that the Hon. Member is citing. The present occupant of the chair has done his very best, on more than one occasion, to recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon this morning.
In fairness to Parliament and in fairness to other Hon. Members, there are limits to the number of times the Hon. Member for Yukon can continuously rise at this point. I am sure, after mature reflection, the Hon. Member himself will recognize that Parliament must conduct its business in an orderly way. The procedures for orderly conduct of parliamentary business have evolved painfully, but Parliament rests upon the acceptance of those procedures, especially by experienced Parliamentarians who carry great responsibility in this House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, an impartial Chair has an obligation to listen to the arguments of Hon. Members and not attempt to impose discipline-


An Hon. Member:: You are not being heard.


An Hon. Member:: Your microphone light is out.


Erik Nielsen: 1 am being heard by Hansard, if no one else wants to hear me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon has the floor.

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: We are governed by lights and dials and knobs in this place, and I could say a few words about knobs, too. I was saying that at page 14997, to refresh the memory of the Chair, Madam Speaker was dealing with this subject. 1 had reached this point, quoting her ruling:
Reference was made to page 2 of the Order Paper which is entitled "Projected Weekly Order of Business". Although it is not an official part of the Order Paper, it is inserted for the information and the convenience of hon. members.
That is where Bill C-155 appears today. That, Sir, is a new point which the Chair has not considered. Simply because Bill C-155 appears on the Projected Order of Daily Business does not fit within the Standing Order as being sufficient notice with respect to the change of the order of business-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Chair put a question to the Hon. Member, with all due respect to him? He is quoting, I believe, from page 14997 of Hansard. Is that correct?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, you will recall-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: February 15, 1982, the Speaker?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if you will tell those at the console to turn on my light I will be heard by you.
I said at the outset that in order to assist the Chair I wanted your officers to get you the precedents from which I cited when I was on my feet on this last occasion before being interrupted. I cited the page number of Hansard from which I was quoting


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I indicate to the Hon. Member that in the precedents quoted by Madam Speaker at that time both of those motions had been placed on the Table before six o'clock, within the required time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, maybe 1 am having difficulty communicating. I am talking now about Bill C-155 and the idea that simply because it appears on the publication being dealt with by Madam Speaker at that time, the "Projected Weekly Order of Business"-did not constitute the kind of notice that Standing Orders refer to when the Government is given the authority to set the order of business of the House. Could we understand that point, Mr. Speaker? I am only one Member. There are 282 Members in this place who require notice. Last night there were 233, or whatever the number was.
Now as to what occurred. I was telephoned by an officer in the office of the Government House Leader. I managed to inform perhaps five or six Members of this Party that there had been a switch in the order of business today. None of the other Members had been communicated with so they are confronted today for the first time with something different to debate, and the Member in whose name the motion stands was not one of those I consulted after receiving the personal notice from the office of the Government House Leader.
Therefore, you have at least 93 or 94 Members of this Party who were unaware of any change in the order of business today. I dare say there would also be some Members in the
New Democratic Party who were unaware there was a change in the order of business today. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Orders do not give the Government House Leader the opportunity, as broadly as you want to stretch them, the authority or the opportunity to come in in the middle of an order of business and change without due notice the order of business. That is what happened here.
We were aware that today was to be an allotted day. That is the business on the official Notice Paper, not Bill C-155. On the occasion upon which Madam Speaker ruled, and in defence and support of her ruling against the arguments 1 was making at that time, she said that the Projected Order of Business is not an official publication of the House of Commons and, therefore, the Government House Leader could do what he did. If that is a precedent, if Madam Speaker's ruling means anything, surely it means that Members should not be caught unawares by a sudden change in Government business at 8.30 p.m. or 9.30 p.m., as was the case last night when I was so informed. There was no way at that time that I could have given notice to Members here, particularly the Member in whose name the motion stands for today, or could-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Chair put a question to the Hon. Member? In the interests of clarifying the situation, is the Hon. Member contending that the Government House Leader did not have authority to call Bill C-155 as the business for today? Is that the Hon. Member's contention?


Erik Nielsen: I certainly do contend that in support of the right of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe to have his order proceeded with today, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Chair ask the Hon. Member another question in the interests of resolving our difficulties? If that is the contention-


Erik Nielsen: Why do you not let me complete a sentence before you stand up, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Courtesy is a normal procedure of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is attempting to observe it. If the Hon. Member's contention is that the Government House Leader does not have authority to call Bill C-155, what does the Hon. Member believe should be the order of business of the day and what is his contention?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if I were to be allowed to complete a sentence, with great respect to the Chair, before being interrupted, the Chair might understand what I am contending. But if 1 am continually interrupted in mid-sentence, then there is no way that I am ever going to get through to the Chair so that it will understand.
What I am contending is that some 95 Members, in particular the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, came here, on notice given on the official records of the House,
October 27, 1983

prepared to debate a Private Member's motion. That is what they came here to do. They were not given notice of any other order until they received the Projected Order of Business in their mail some time before twelve o'clock today. That was the first indication those Members had that Bill C-155 and not the motion of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe would be debated.
I say it is an abuse of the Standing Orders of this place for the Government House Leader to attempt to do what he has done; not with respect to me, because I had that notice, and not with respect, I presume, to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, because he had that notice. But some of the rest of the Members had that notice. Therefore, being prepared, the Government having slipped up-1 could be kinder to the Government than that-it is the doubts in the minds of some of the officials at the Table that have produced this problem, and I say that with respect to them too. But the reason we are not proceeding with something of which we had notice is because of what happened last night and today.
I contend, Sir, that the Government can only proceed with Bill C-155 today if it had given proper notice to all Members that it was the Government's intention to do so-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: the Hon. Member-


Erik Nielsen: That is what Madam Speaker was asked on February 15, 1982, if you will hear me out, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. With due respect to the Hon. Member the Chair has listened to him for a considerable period of time this morning. I have recognized him on four occasions so far.


Erik Nielsen: Only because you have interrupted me. It could have been once.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question which the Hon. Member seems not to accept, namely from the Chair is designed to clarify in the mind of the Chair the items before us. This is one which the Chair asks the Hon. Member to reconsider.
What we face is a situation in which the motion by the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, which was put on the Table after six o'clock last night, has been ruled by the Chair not to be in order. In the circumstances, the business of the House has been indicated by the Government House Leader under Standing Order 22 and it is the opinion of the Chair-


Mr. Gamble:: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Government House Leader, according to Standing Order 22, has the right to indicate House business and that Orders of the Day be called at this point, as indicated by the Government House Leader.


John Albert Gamble: A point of order.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not prepared to entertain a series of dilatory motions whose object-and I call this to the attention of Hon. Members-is to impede the orderly flow of House of Commons business. This is something which Hon. Members might well wish to remember. They may well wish to remember my words of today, because circumstances could well change in this place and Hon. Members are creating precedents that they themselves might have to live with. That is something that they will have to be concerned about and answer to themselves.
At this point the Chair recognizes the points of order that have been raised. It has ruled on the points of order that have been raised. It is always the right of Hon. Members to raise points of order, but there is a point at which the Chair has to decide that the proceedings are dilatory, designed to impede the conduct of business of the House, and under such circumstances the Chair has to exercise some initiative. The Chair is calling the item of the day and on the Clerk to read the item.


Mr. Mayer:: A point of order.


Erik Nielsen: 1 have a question of privilege.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear a point of privilege from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Erik Nielsen: I have one too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope that you will find my question of privilege not dilatory.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interrupt the Hon. Member for Vegreville for a second, because my question of privilege has to do with the remarks of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: My question of privilege has to do with the remarks of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville has been recognized.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly defer my question of privilege and yield the floor to the Hon. Member for Yukon, but I want to reserve the right to raise my question of privilege because it is a very serious matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: My question of privilege arises out of remarks made by the Chair. The Chair accused me of having risen four times. I point out to the Chair, with respect, that the only reason I had to rise four times was because I was interrupted by the Chair six times.

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair's statement was that the Chair had recognized the Hon. Member four times, which is not quite what the Hon. Member has said.


Erik Nielsen: The record will clearly show what happened, Mr. Speaker. I was continually interrupted.
The other question of privilege I have is that it is said that I would not answer questions from the Chair. Sir, with respect again, the Chair hardly gave me that opportunity to answer questions because of its continual interruptions in my submissions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville has a matter of privilege.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I have had an opportunity to review the remarks in the official report of the House of Commons proceedings, Hansard, arising out of the exchange which took place yesterday at page 28349. Mr. Speaker, 1 want to tell you that I believe very sincerely that my privileges-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member please serve notice on the Chair relating to this matter? I believe the Standing Orders require that he give the Chair notice under such circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, in fairness, the Chair has asked if the Hon. Member would give notice of it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have just had the opportunity of reviewing the official record of the House of Commons proceedings. 1 will not be very long. I think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, there is a point at which the proceedings and practices of this House have to be observed.


An Hon. Member:: We want to hear what it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, if the Hon. Member has an item of privilege arising out of the conduct of proceedings, he does not need notice.


John Albert Gamble: Right here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: But to raise a question the day after concerning what appears in Hansard, the Chair respectfully asks the Hon. Member to give notice. That is the practice of the House.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I quote Standing Order 20(2):
Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 47, any Member proposing to raise a question of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting, shall give to the Speaker a
written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
The Chair cannot disregard the Standing Orders of the House, nor would the Hon. Member really knowingly request the Chair to do so.


Arnold John Malone: A point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I just simply want to reserve the right to make a point of privilege which I think is very fundamental. I firmly believe that my rights and privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached and eroded. I think that on the basis of the official record of the House of Commons proceedings-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can give notice, and his privileges and rights will be observed scrupulously according to the Standing Orders of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member, who is an experienced Parliamentarian, knows that this is the Standing Order and that it calls for notice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to take this opportunity-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -to serve notice now that I will be raising this matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -this afternoon.


An Hon. Member:: You have to give written notice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is my notice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, it says "shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House". If the Hon. Member is giving to the Chair a written statement, the Chair will be pleased to receive it and can assure the Hon. Member that his rights will be scrupulously observed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order.


Charles James Mayer: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer).


Charles James Mayer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think you know the respect with which 1 hold the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: They can laugh, they can laugh. 1 am not speaking to Government Members; I am speaking to the Chair.
October 27, 1983


Mr. Nystrom:: Throw him out.


Charles James Mayer: I fully agree with you, Mr. Speaker, when you say that we have to have confidence in the Chair to deal with the business of the House. 1 wrote this down, it may be paraphrasing, but you made the point that we must have confidence in the Chair in order to deal with the business of the House in an impartial way.


Mr. Evans:: What is this, a conversation?


Charles James Mayer: I agree with that and 1 think all Hon. Members would agree with that. I can read the Standing Orders too. 1 believe you read Standing Order 33 from the Chair, but I will read it again:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
My point of privilege is that yesterday afternoon in the debate the Speaker-


John Leslie Evans: You are out of order.


An Hon. Member:: That happened yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will be aware that his point of privilege falls into a category similar to that of the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Charles James Mayer: No, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the matter arises out of yesterday's proceedings-


Charles James Mayer: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I will hear the Hon. Member.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of what happened I suspect less than a half hour ago in the House. My concern is that there is a conflict. I have to-


An Hon. Member:: You suspect?


Charles James Mayer: -relate to what happened yesterday in order to point out the conflict I see with what happened today.
Yesterday, when the motion was put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), Madam Speaker allowed some subsequent debate on that motion. She recognized the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and she recognized the Hon. Government House Leader. Today, you did not allow debate; you put the motion forthwith. I submit that according to the Standing Orders-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member-


Charles James Mayer: Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made a very serious accusation. This is that a Member be heard.


Charles James Mayer: That is right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate is not permitted on that a Member be heard. The Standing Orders say "to be put forthwith without debate".


Some Hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, this week, the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association issued, through its Chairman, a press release on the disturbing situation in the shipbuilding industry. According to figures provided by the Association, after the 9 per cent cut in the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program, 100 commercial ships built abroad have been licensed in Canada, while only 51 orders for commercial ships were placed in this country. The Chairman admitted that the only short-term orders were placed by the Canadian Government, adding that this was only a partial solution to the present problems in the shipbuilding industry.
Yesterday in Quebec City, 1 attended a conference on recovery of the shipbuilding industry in Quebec. The comments of all speakers were rather calm and serene, in the circumstances. I seconded a proposal by Pierre Fortier, a Liberal Member of the National Assembly, to have a federal-provincial meeting in the near future to consider possible solutions to the problem. Actually, I would favour a multipartite meeting of representatives of the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, the municipal governments concerned and management and labour. This kind of consultation would certainly be a step towards a comprehensive response to the disastrous situation in the shipbuilding industry.

October 27, 1983



STATUS OF WOMEN


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, the level of poverty among Canadian women is unacceptable and the rate is steadily increasing. Of the 500,000 elderly poor in Canada, fully 350,000 of them are female. Inflation in recent years has eroded their incomes and impoverished their retirement. Working women earn less than 50 per cent of the wages of working males.
The problem, in part, is culturally derived from stereotyping. A recent Canadian study demonstrates that school age females still harbour many myths about working women. An astounding 80 per cent of school age females expressed the belief that a university degree would decrease their chances of marriage. More than half expressed the belief that children of working mothers became juvenile delinquents.
I therefore suggest that government programs of questionable value or marginal success be eliminated, or have their budgets reduced, so as to allow the available means for a national children's TV program to be broadcast in all regions, with an inter-mix of both official languages, with the objective of stimulating curiosity and reason, enhancing tolerance, and broadening the sex roles for both young females and males, putting language training and role shaping in concert with the most compatible age for such learning.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament will end in a few days. Historians will judge it as perhaps the most profound since Confederation. Indeed, the session has evolved a new federation as the nation has become fully sovereign. Whosoever writes the history of this session carries on an enormous responsibility. John Ruskin'wrote:
The only history worth reading is ... the history of what was done and seen, heard out of the mouths of the men who did and saw.
Every Member of this House, therefore, carries the burden of having to record that history as they "did and saw". 1 challenge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the former Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and in fact, every Member of this Thirty-second Parliament, to record in writing their emotions and experiences of this session. That challenge goes to you too, Madam Speaker. For months now, I have been writing mine in a document called "Parliament and Patria-tion-The Triumph of Unilateralism". It is a challenging undertaking. This session of Parliament has been truly exciting and historic.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, tabled June 1, 1982, drew the attention of the House to serious water and sewage problems in Indian communities across Canada. The Committee recommended that a special capital fund be created to correct these problems. A year and a half have gone by and very little has happened. Indian people continue to suffer poor health because of impure water.
The Kingsclear band in New Brunswick is a case in point. For the last nine days the primary school has been closed because of a contaminated water system. The iron count is nearly three times the permissible level. The water runs black, and carries an offensive odour. Indian Affairs advised the band to flush the water system three or four times a month. Flushing means that for a few days the water runs brown instead of black. Several children have developed a rash, and the community hesitates to use the water for washing. Many families now carry their water from two nearby springs.
These primitive and subnormal conditions should not exist in Canada in 1983. The Government must accept its responsibility and make funds available now so that Kingsclear and other Indian communities can have decent water.



THE PRESS


Hon. Jim Fleming (York West):: Madam Speaker, I seek the floor today to address the issue of press councils, an important issue because the print media in most Canadian cities have no direct daily print competition.
When the Kent Report was released, only three Provinces had press councils. In Ontario, less than half of the daily newspapers were members. Since the Government's proposal for a national advisory council on newspapers was made, there has been progress. In 1982 the Ontario Press Council had 17 members; today there are 34 dailies belonging to it. Equally encouraging is the establishment of press councils in British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces.
The only part of Canada where voluntary press councils are still not available is Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I use this occasion to urge the daily press in those two Provinces to act. Without such a mechanism, individual Canadians must deal with their daily newspaper at the benevolence of the publisher or editor or, in the extreme, through a costly trip to court. Such courses of action are not satisfactory when the print media have such a considerable impact on the public, and when so much of the media is in the hands of so few owners.
I reassert that the proposed national advisory council is completely independent of government and remains a potential means of redress for Canadians where advisory councils do not
October 27, 1983

exist. If a point were to come when a national advisory council would no longer be necessary, surely that would be not only when we have voluntary press councils in all Provinces but when those councils are clearly free from potential influence from the publishers, both as the prime or major source of funding and appointments.
A free press has nothing to fear from independent press councils-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the nation as a whole, especially Canada's grain farmers, should not have to tolerate the Government's decision to hold back on average 25.2 per cent of grain producers' money from export sales. The Government, through the Canadian Wheat Board, is holding from producers 17.7 per cent of the export price wheat, 29.3 per cent of the export price of Durum wheat, 26.8 per cent for feed barley, 27.9 per cent for malting barley, and 24.4 per cent for feed oats. This amount, if multiplied by the number of tonnes exported this year, will result in a total pool account of approximately $1.1 billion by the end of this crop year.
This is totally intolerable and inexcusable at any time, but especially now when farmers are in such financial difficulty. The vast majority of farmers burdened with loan payments will be forced throughout the year to borrow money at rates of 14 per cent to 16 per cent, costing them additional millions of dollars. All of this will occur even though the Wheat Board can borrow at one-quarter per cent below prime. Therefore there can be no logic for these present holdbacks and the low initial grain prices.
One can only explain this by suggesting the Government is playing politics with the grain producers' money. It intends to withhold producers' money until it feels an election is imminent. The Liberals then will attempt to trick Canadians into thinking they are being good to farmers by giving back to producers the money that is already rightfully theirs.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) was pressing the Government to state a position on the U.S. led invasion of Grenada. It sounded clearly as though he was being supportive of the invasion. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the Government would like more information before making a decision, the Leader of the Opposition suggested this information had already been provided by President Reagan in a television report on Tuesday morning.
That was Tuesday, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, a day later, the Opposition external affairs critic was singing a different tune. In comments to reporters the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) said that the Conservatives were trying to be as neutral as possible on the invasion.
"We're trying to be more neutral. . he is quoted as saying by Canadian Press. "Let's get the evidence first," he stated.
What a difference a day makes, especially in the world of Tory policy making. We may well ask just who speaks for the Conservative Party on such serious and sensitive matters. Is it the Party Leader who wants us to support the invasion, or is it the official external affairs critic who says we should wait and see? Even worse, is the Leader of the Opposition shooting from the hip, or is he just ready to take a position for Canada on such important matters on the basis of what President Reagan says or does?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, there have been numerous responses in the farm community to the current economic crisis in the agricultural industry. One of these has been from a women's activist group called Concerned Farm Women. Based in Bruce and Grey Counties, their expression of concern for the farming community exemplifies the traditional presence of agrarian reform groups throughout the histories of these two Ontario counties.
This farm women's lobby group was formed in response to the debilitating effects of high interest rates and other economic consequences of the recession. In an effort to preserve their communities, these farm women rallied together for their common cause. One of their many activities was to take on a project about farm women, to determine and document the extent of financial and psychological stress among farm families. The result of this project is the publication of a book entitled "The Farmer Takes a Wife".
This book documents the stress resulting from the recent crisis in the agricultural economy. Lack of profit from low commodity prices and high input costs, and other financial concerns were cited as the main factors contributing to stress

October 27, 1983
on the farm. Higher degrees of stress were evident where financial problems were extreme. Specific financial problems causing stress included inability to pay the interest on bank loans; the impending possibility of losing all or part of one's farm; machinery purchases and repairs, and other farm expenditures.
The book concludes that farm women's priorities continue to focus on the traditional concerns for family and farm but that their work is now more complicated with the new challenges of financial stress facing them today.
Having defined the extent of the difficulties, Concerned Farm Women, with other-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, the people of the United States are being told only the part of the story on the illegal invasion of Grenada that the Reagan administration wants them to know. It is called managed news.
The U.S. media are being outrageously deficient and negligent in reporting the whole story as it develops. For example, during the past night CBS Nightwatch presented mainly the statements and views of the U.S. Government and of individuals who support this immoral action. Not one word was broadcast of the objections by South American countries such as Colombia, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, and Costa Rica.
No mention was made of objections by Spain, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, West Germany, Japan, China or Canada.
There was not a word to the people of the United States that Grenada is an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, like Canada.
This U.S. intervention ranks in the same category as intervention in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Government has even barred its own reporters from entering Grenada to report on-the-scene events.
American Free Radio has broadcast to the world for decades to tell us about freedom and democracy, including freedom and responsibility of the press.
The question is who is going to tell the American people?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in regard to the situation in Grenada, I want to deal with the reported reply given by the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States to our ambassador in Washington when our ambassador complained that Canada had not been consulted prior to the action taken in Grenada.
For the Prime Minister's benefit I quote the reply attributed by Mr. Gotlieb to Mr. Kenneth Dam, Deputy Secretary of State. Canada was not consulted, according to Mr. Dam, "because of concerns on the security side that the invasion shouldn't be too widely known".
In view of the grave implications of Mr. Dam's statement for on-going Canada-U.S. relationships, has the Prime Minister communicated with President Reagan or other senior officers of his Government to obtain clarification of this rather remarkable statement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition calls it a remarkable statement. I think he has made some rather remarkable statements himself in the last couple of days. I would add to his astonishment the fact that, according to Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, she had not been consulted either. Presumably the United States did not find it advisable to consult her, or to consult Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Prime Minister that as a Canadian citizen 1 take no pleasure in reading that kind of statement that was on the front page of the newspapers today. 1 do not have to assure the Prime Minister of that.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF UNITED STATES REPLY
Martin Brian Mulroney: In view of the importance of it, may I repeat, Canada was not consulted, according to Mr. Dam, "because of concerns on the security side that the invasion shouldn't be too widely known". I ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of the Government of Canada, if he has consulted with the Leader of the American Government or one of his leading officers to obtain clarification of that.
It seems to me that this kind of statement should not be left on the record unchallenged. I should like to know, for the record, if the Prime Minister has communicated with the President to obtain that clarification?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the answer is that on that point I have not communicated with the President. I have been in correspondence with the President on other matters, but not on that point. I
October 27, 1983

must say that I share the astonishment of the Leader of the Opposition. He is quoting a senior officer of the State Department as having said that. I do not know the implication of that. I do not know the impact of that. I just know that the United States apparently chose not to consult Canada, not to consult Britain and, presumably, not to consult France either, although 1 do know for a fact that the eastern Caribbean countries had agreed among themselves that Canada should be consulted. Something apparently happened in the urgency to act that they did not consult us.
There was a communication to Canada at seven o'clock or 7.30 on Monday evening-apparently the same kind of communication went to Great Britain-where we learned that the United States and the other members of the task force or invasion force were saying to us that various options were being considered for rescuing the American citizens on the island.
1 could add, Madam Speaker, that when I learned of that on Monday night, when the Minister phoned me back on Monday night, I immediately said that we should tell the Americans that they should envisage every way of rescuing or making sure their citizens were secure before contemplating an invasion. That message in fact was not delivered because, by the time it was ready to be delivered the next morning, the invasion had already taken place.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, 1 do know that we were supposed to have been consulted. I have been told this by Prime Minister Seaga of Jamaica, who phoned me to apologize for the fact that the person who was supposed to notify Canada had not done so. That person was not the President of the United States. It was one of the other political leaders of the area. The same thing may have happened in the case of Great Britain. I have read in the dispatches that the opposition in Great Britain is chiding Prime Minister Thatcher precisely because she had not been notified, either. Was it for reasons of security? I do not know the reason Margaret Thatcher is being given.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CHALLENGE REPLY
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, 1 believe it is clear from the reply of the Prime Minister that he also reads very serious consequences into the statement, because as a NATO ally and as a NORAD partner of the United States of America our relationship must be based on mutual trust at all times. That occasionally requires us to resolve doubt in favour of our greatest friend, neighbour, and ally, the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is a very disturbing reply, having regard to the unique degree of trust and confidentiality which must exist between our allies. May I ask the Prime Minister if the Government intends to allow this statement by the Under
Oral Questions
Secretary to remain, or will he challenge the statement and advise the House of the manner in which he would propose to do that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not challenging the statement, nor do I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said on Tuesday in this House that President Reagan had explained everything he needed to know in his statement on Tuesday. I believe there are a lot of things we have to know, Madam Speaker, which we are trying to find out. The instance raised by the Leader of the Opposition is one of the things which puzzles us. However,
I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle which we cannot put together.
I tell the Leader of the Opposition again that I was phoned by Prime Minister Seaga after the event, apologizing for the fact that the person who was supposed to communicate with me had not done so. I also know, I repeat, as is apparent from the debate in Great Britain, that Mrs. Thatcher had not been informed, either, of the invasion. It is apparent that most of the allies had not been informed of the invasion. It is something in which a few participating parties were involved, but no one from the outside.
It is quite conceivable, Madam Speaker, that the United States and the other participating partners did not want anyone to know. It is possible also, as I indicated, that they wanted us to know and that the persons who were supposed to contact us did not do so. I repeat, it was not the United States which was entrusted with letting us know of the invasion, it was another Caribbean leader, and the message did not come through.


FOREKNOWLEDGE OF BRITISH AUTHORITIES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister who has left the impression with the House that perhaps the British were not informed, as he was not informed. Would the Prime Minister indicate if he is aware of the fact that Sir Geoffrey Howe stated in the British House of Commons that:
Britain had been told last Friday that the Organization of East Caribbean States might be asking for military help in invading Grenada.
The next day those States decided to form a multinational force and the United States informed Britain that a request for assistance had been received in Washington.
Sir Geoffrey said that on Saturday night Britain had been told by Washington that the United States would proceed "very cautiously."
Would the Prime Minister indicate if any of that type of information was conveyed equally to the Canadian Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it will depend on what the Hon. Member means when he says, "proceed cautiously". That is the whole point. "Proceed cautiously" with what? I suggest that there was no firm knowledge conveyed to Canada that "proceeding cautiously" would involve a disembarkment of American and other troops

October 27, 1983
Oral Questions
on the shores of a sovereign country. There were all kinds of hypotheses put forward.
We do know-we were informed-that several of the eastern Caribbean leaders were quite indignant and incensed about the events going on in Grenada, particularly about the murder of Prime Minister Bishop. These views were conveyed to us. Some were talking that we should act physically. Some were talking that we should even try to get groups together to restore order. However, I am saying that, as far as we know, the decision to invade was not taken, as advised by the United States, until some time, perhaps, late Sunday or during the day of Monday. 1 do not even know at what hour that decision was conveyed to the Caribbean leaders.
I do know that in that period of time, between the Sunday and the invasion on Tuesday, a message was supposed to come to me, personally, about the invasion, asking my views about it, even asking if we would be prepared to participate. That message never came to me because the call was was never put through by the responsible political leader.


POSSIBILITY OF COMMONWEALTH PEACEKEEPING FORCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House three things? First, who was the responsible political leader who did not put the call through? Second, in view of the fact that the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States has asked the Commonwealth Secretariat for a peace-keeping force to take control of Grenada-assuming that security can be forthcoming-until such time as an election may be held, would the Prime Minister indicate if any request has been made to Canada to join in that Commonwealth peace-keeping force? Third, what would be our response in the event such a request were made? Would we willingly join?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have sought the answer to part of that question, to wit, whether the request had been made to us directly. So far as I am able to find out, no such request has been made to us. We know of Secretary General Ramphal's suggestion, or appeal. However, I believe it was made generally to the Commonwealth countries. I have myself been attempting to communicate with certain Commonwealth leaders to explore the same type of idea, Madam Speaker.
If an election is to be held after the invading troops leave, then presumably some kind of Commonwealth force would be required. 1 am offering, subject to the approval of Cabinet, to participate in such an observation force on an election.
If, Madam Speaker, and 1 hope it is not the case, but if the hostilities are prolonged-and we have no certain information on that, either, but it appears that the invaders are meeting with considerably more resistance than they thought-I would even go further and suggest that perhaps we could call for a truce, ask all foreign nationals to leave the island of Grenada, and then the Commonwealth could send observers in to ensure that that truce is respected. This is a strange way of making
this suggestion public, Madam Speaker. 1 am trying to get views of other Commonwealth leaders on that, but I feel it is appropriate in these circumstances, because of the great confusion surrounding the whole operation, that I take Parliament into my confidence in this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. DANIEL BENOIST, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MINISTER OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL SOLIDARITY OF FRANCE
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our Gallery of Dr. Daniel Benoist, Secretary of State to the Minister of Social Affairs and National Solidarity of France, with responsibility for the aged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, 1 was going to address this question to the Prime Minister but I will ask it of the Minister who has otherwise been fielding questions on the Grenadian situation.
I understand from External Affairs that there was a meeting last Friday in Barbados between officials in our Commission in Barbados and Mr. Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados. At that meeting Prime Minister Adams said there was a very strong likelihood of a U.S. led invasion of Grenada. Was this information passed on to Ottawa? I am told it was the Minister for External Relations, who has disappeared from the scene in the last few days, who received this information. If so, why was no immediate action taken on Friday or Saturday to remove Canadians from Grenada? Or was the Government, with advance knowledge of an invasion, deliberately failing to evacuate Canadians in order not to undermine the United States rationale for carrying out an invasion, namely, to save its nationals?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister has stepped out to take a call from Mrs. Thatcher. He will be returning shortly.
Relating to the Hon. Member's question, the premise is inaccurate. It is true that our High Commissioner in Barbados,
October 27, 1983

Mr. Noble Power, met with Prime Minister Adams last Friday. In the course of that discussion Prime Minister Adams mentioned the possibility of the Eastern Caribbean states considering military action and that it would have to be discussed at a subsequent meeting of those states. He made no mention of a decision for an invasion, nor did he make any mention of any participation by the United States.
The accuracy of his recollection of that meeting and the report he gave on it is confirmed by a meeting High Commissioner Power had yesterday with Prime Minister Adams in which the Prime Minister apologized, through Mr. Power, to our Prime Minister for there not being prior consultations with Canada.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Minister has not given us the assurance I think this House needs, that the Minister for External Relations was in fact informed of the meeting and the speculation-if it was only speculation, because I understood it was much more than that-that there was going to be an invasion.


REMOVAL OF CANADIAN CITIZENS FROM GRENADA
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, to the same Minister, I am particularly worried about all Canadians there and about the six CUSO workers-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 really have to ask the Hon. Member to come to her questions more quickly. This is the supplementary question and it looks like it is going to be as long as the first one.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I was just coming to the question. Has the Minister any information about whether the United States has at last stopped stalling Canada's attempts with a Hercules aircraft to evacuate the Canadians there?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member, through you, that I have no evidence or indication that the U.S. at any time has been stalling in relation to our rescue operation. We have been anxious that Canadians be brought out at the first possible time it was safe to do so. Indeed, our consular official who travelled yesterday to Grenada returned and said it was not safe to move Canadians from the Ross Point Inn to the airport at that time because of the areas in which fighting was still occurring. I subsequently explored the possibility of the use of American helicopters to move our people to the airport.
During the night, when 1 received a call from General Sturgess, who is in charge of our military mission in Washington, we received permission for the Hercules aircraft to go in and take the people out as soon as they could be safely removed to the airport.
While I cannot vouch for the absolute authenticity of the latest word, I have just been handed a note which says that the High Commissioner in Barbados has phoned and that Canadi-
Oral Questions
ans are now being assembled at Point Salines and the Hercules has departed Barbados for Grenada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would add that, in the meantime, seven Canadians elsewhere in the island, and we do not have their identities as yet, have apparently been evacuated by American aircraft to South Carolina. There may be several Canadians still in the St. George's area and we are doing everything possible under the military conditions, which are quite different than have been portrayed in the last day or two, to make effective contact with them.


Pauline Jewett: Given the length of the Minister's replies, it does show the need for an emergency debate in this House.


FATE OF GRENADIAN LEADERS
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, does the Minister have any information at all on the fate of government leaders in Grenada, particularly the fate of Bernard Coard, and can he give us any information about the puppet Government the United States is organizing in Barbados-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Pauline Jewett: -for Grenada?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I have no information at this time relating to the fate of Bernard Coard or other government leaders on the island, although I do have a report that contact has been made with the Governor General, the details of which are unknown.
Again I want to emphasize to the Hon. Member that the conditions on the island are such, particularly in built-up areas, that there are far more people with arms opposing the invasion than had been anticipated, and communications as well as movement are extremely difficult. Under those circumstances it is not surprising that it is not yet possible to have information on the whereabouts of former government leaders. 1 have no information whatsoever with reference to the possible formation of a new government.


REPORTED REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM GOVERNOR GENERAL OF GRENADA
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same Minister who will know that in a parliamentary democracy the highest constitutional authority is the Governor General. Given that Prime Minister Eugenia Charles, Prime Minister of Dominica, indicated that the original request for assistance this past weekend in fact originated with the Governor General of the island, has the Government changed its view of the event?

October 27, 1983
Oral Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, we have no confirmation of the fact that Governor General Scoon initiated an invitation for an invasion. I would only say its credibility is, I suppose, somewhat in question because of the fact it had not been mentioned in preceding days. However, I do not exclude that possibility, and we will continue to make inquiries in that regard.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that the reason that was at least claimed for no earlier knowledge of this information was that Mr. Scoon was under house arrest and that his life was in risk if this information came out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, Members opposite claim that the Governor General of Grenada was under house arrest by the Americans. That just shows their lack of knowledge of what is going on. My question, Madam Speaker, to the Minister is-


An Hon. Member:: It's cheap.


John William Bosley: It is not cheap, Madam Speaker. It is the Members opposite who are being cheap.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. member ask his question?


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, you are obsolutely correct.


GOVERNMENT POLICY INQUIRY
John William Bosley: To paraphrase what the Prime Minister said earlier this week, is it Canada's policy to support the requests of Governors General of Commonwealth countries when they ask Commonwealth countries to come to their aid?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I shall begin by dealing with the first part of the Hon. Member's question in which he said the reason that the information was not communicated in the last two days was because the Governor General was under house arrest. If he had communicated an invitation to the Americans to undertake such an invasion, then, as I was suggesting, it was obviously in the interest of the Americans to have made public the fact that they had received such an invitation, and I would find it surprising that they had not done so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: In relation to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, the question is hypothetical and obviously would depend upon the circumstances. Those circumstances would be judged by any sensible Government on the basis of the merit therein.


SAFETY OF GOVERNOR GENERAL OF GRENADA
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, could the Minister please explain to the House how the Government of Canada, recognizing that the then Prime Minister of the country was shot once he was released from house arrest, can maintain that the Governor General of the island was not at some risk from the people in control of the island?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Member is not listening or whether he is desperately trying to find grounds for a supplementary question. I have never at any time said that the Governor General was not under some degree of risk. He may well have been. That is not at all relevant to the matters which we have been discussing. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to check the "blues".

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.

A recent ruling by Revenue Canada requires that musicians with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra be taxed as employees rather than as independent contractors or professionals. Liberal Members of Parliament from Toronto have been deeply concerned about this particular ruling, and the matter is now urgent. In order to meet Revenue Canada's deadline, the bank would have to start today to redesign its payroll deduction systems, and the orchestra's annual meeting is to be held at four o'clock this afternoon. Can the Minister offer to the orchestra or its musicians any hope that this ruling will be reconsidered?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would like to point out that yesterday afternoon, I discussed this matter with some of his colleagues, including the Members for Scarborough Centre and Mississauga North- [English]
After those discussions, I asked officials of my Department to stop any actions related to the ruling made by the district office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 also want to inform the House that I will be meeting with representatives of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra on Tuesday, November 1 -
October 27, 1983



-and also reassure the Hon. Member and all Members of this House that a thorough review of this case will be made early next week.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Crombie:: A supplementary question-


Madam Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North does not take the floor, I will give it to someone else.

Oral Questions


LOCALE OF PRODUCTION DECISION PROCESS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Going back as far as the Fowler Commission, every study that has been done of the CBC recommended that more production decisions should be made at the regional level rather than in Ottawa, yet in the last couple of weeks we have seen the resignation of the senior person in charge of CBC productions, Mr. Herrndorf, obviously because more of those responsibilities are being shifted to Ottawa. How can the Minister square this increased bureaucracy in Ottawa with the recommendation that production decisions be made at the local and regional levels?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In the Minister's policy statement of several days ago he set out a very laudable objective for CBC television which is, that within a relatively short period of time, the CBC should provide 80 per cent Canadian content during prime time. However, the Minister made it clear that there would be no more money forthcoming for that kind of increased production and suggested that the money could be raised by the CBC through increased efficiency, which we assume would mean the laying off of another 500 employees. Given the fact that CBC has announced the appointment of six new vice-presidents, would the Minister explain how CBC can achieve that goal without more money, and how it can become more efficient by firing employees and appointing more vice-presidents?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, 1 can inform the Hon. Member that I did indeed mention at least four ways in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could have access to more funds, including the Hon. Member's suggestion for better management of the CBC which today has a budget of $850 million. I would like to add: giving CBC senior management an opportunity to reallocate resources and make its international sales operations more aggressive than they have been in the past. In doing so, they could release funds that would give them access to another fund we established as of July 1 of this year, which would enable the CBC to purchase nearly $115 million worth of new productions made by private Canadian producers. There is also a possibility for the CBC to make co-productions with major French and European television networks and with the private sector in general. All this would help produce a very substantial amount of new programming in this country.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that a network like the CBC must have strong regional production. The only way we can create a national network is through strong regional productions which are then fed into a national network.
Regarding the substance of the Hon. Member's question, he may have noticed that one of the measures taken very early on by the new President of the CBC was to appoint a new Regional President responsible for ensuring that the regions have access to senior management in Ottawa and can report directly to the head office in Ottawa, thus emphasizing the importance of regional resources.


INCOME TAX
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I would first like to thank him for changing his mind since Monday and placing a moratorium on the tax ruling from his Department with respect to the musicians of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Thank you very much. 1 had raised in the House previously a question requesting that similar action be taken on behalf of the artists and painters of our country. At that time the Minister also indicated that he could not do so. However, I would like to ask him today if, in light of his decision with respect to the musicians, he would reconsider his response and place a moratorium on the tax rulings affecting artists so that they can now enjoy the kind of tax regime which will allow them to be creative again.

October 27, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, 1 can not consider both cases in the same light.
When early this week, the Hon. Member asked his question about the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, he pointed out that there were differences between various orchestras in Canada. For instance, I know that at the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra and in Vancouver and Halifax, musicians are considered to be in an employee-employer relationship with the orchestra and are therefore subject to payroll deductions such as unemployment insurance premiums and Canada Pension Plan, which does not apply to the case that led to a ruling by the Department, a ruling, now suspended, with respect to the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, nor, for that matter, to the Montreal Symphony Orchestra.
In view of the different treatment of some symphony orchestras in Canada, I have decided to suspend the ruling and to review the contracts and determine how orchestras are dealt with as far as the employer-employee relationship is concerned.
If we look at the matter of deduction of expenses for other artists, including painters, engravers and so forth, the situation is quite different, since it concerns the provisions of the Income Tax Act for deduction of expenses incurred to produce a work of art, in relation to the sale of the work in question, and I feel that since these cases are not related, I cannot deal with them in the same way.

tions problem between Venezuela and Canada, 1 am sure we could find alternative sources for the oil supplies needed in the Maritimes and Quebec.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the answer the Minister just provided to the House, in the event that the Caribbean sea routes for oil shipments from Venezuela, for example, to eastern Canada are jeopardized by the instability in the region, however remote that possibility might be-although many experts claim it is real-is the Government planning any contingency measures? If so, what are they?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not think we need be overly concerned about this problem. I wish to thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter, and we shall take appropriate action, but as far as I am concerned, I do not think there is a major problem, nevertheless I will raise the matter with my officials as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The current crisis in Grenada has raised some serious doubt about the security of major sea routes in the region, especially from the point of view of the importation of oil into Canada from the whole region and the possibility that that importation might be jeopardized. Given that the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec together import approximately 100,000 barrels of oil a day from Venezuela alone, has the Government assessed the implications for Canada of any threat to the security of these crucial Caribbean sea lanes as a result of current or potential de-stabilization in the general region of Grenada?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not think there are any major problems in this respect, because Canada's sources of oil supplies are very diversified, and if there were a communica-


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister just had a conversation with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Is he now in a position to tell the House specifically about the nature of that conversation? More specifically, did he discuss with her any of the possible options that might be taken by Commonwealth countries concerning the extremely serious situation in Grenada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, at this stage I would think it advisable not to take the House into my confidence about what 1 said to Prime Minister Thatcher or what she said to me.


John Edward Broadbent: I would assume from what the Prime Minister said earlier in Question Period, however, that he will at some point take the House of Commons into his confidence.


HIGH COMMISSIONER'S INFORMATION PRECEDING INVASION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I wish to return to a question that was asked earlier concerning the possibility that, as early as last Friday, the Canadian High Commissioner knew about the possibility of an invasion being one of the serious options under consideration. If this was known, was it transmitted to a member of the Cabinet or a
October 27, 1983

senior member of External Affairs in Ottawa and, if either an official or Minister of the Crown was informed of this possibility, why was action not taken then to evacuate Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there was information conveyed to the Government about the Friday meeting between our High Commissioner and the eastern Caribbean heads of government when they met in Barbados. But that was in the context of the question we were then discussing, about whether or not we should extend recognition to the new regime.
The House will recall that the then Acting Minister said that we were consulting other countries in the area. It was in the framework of these consultations that certain statements of eastern Caribbean state leaders were made to the effect that something should be done, and the idea of having some physical intervention was expressed by one of them. However,
I know of no planning and, according to all of our information, certainly there was no involvement of the United States at that point.
I repeat what I said earlier. I think the decision to have an actual invading force was taken some time between late Sunday and late Monday. That was well after the events to which the Hon. Member is referring.


TRANSMITTAL OF INFORMATION TO CANADIAN AUTHORITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if it is the case that the High Commissioner of Canada was provided with a variety of options last Friday, including the possibility of invasion, would the Prime Minister tell the House if this was conveyed to the Government of Canada over the weekend? If so, in addition to dealing with the problems of Canadians residing in Grenada, why did the Government of Canada during that weekend not send back its opposition, in the strongest possible terms, to any possible invasion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, because the first real news that we had of the invasion was Tuesday morning. The first suspicion that we had that an invasion might take place was Monday night. The moment that 1 heard about it I did ask for that message to be sent.
What happened on Friday was not, as the Hon. Member said in misquoting me, that a variety of options, including invading, was put to us. There was a group of leaders who were expressing their strong feelings about the events that had taken place in Grenada. There was no plan for invasion, nor was that option put to us. But, as a result of those events in the preceding week, we did take steps to try to ensure the safe evacuation, if need be, of Canadian nationals who were in Grenada. That much we did attempt to do.
The House was told by the Acting Secretary of State how our attempts to have a LIAT charter plane evacuate Canadians were frustrated by the elapse of time and hesitation of some of the authorities involved in the Caribbean area.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT'S JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS IN CALGARY
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to his employment creation formulas, for one program he uses data that is 54 months out of date, while in another the date is 18 months out of date. In each riding of the city of Calgary he creates 5.5 jobs for every 8,000 unemployed. Is it the Minister's opinion that that is an adequate response to unemployment in the City of Calgary?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think that is virtually the same question that the Hon. Member asked me last week. If he will check Hansard, he will find that the answer is exactly the same today.


SUGGESTION THAT LOTTERY ALLOCATE JOBS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it has been suggested by a constituent that the Minister conduct a lottery for those 5.5 jobs for 8,000 people. Will the Minister fund a lottery to choose the 5.5 people who get a job?


John (Moody) Roberts: Personally, Madam Speaker, I am not very inclined to lotteries. I am not certain that the hon. gentleman means his suggestion seriously.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On September 21 the Minister indicated that he was looking at options to deal with the problems faced by Newfoundland inshore fishermen as a result of a catch failure. There are over 2,000 fishermen involved. The Minister has been contacted by the fishermens' union and by the Newfoundland Government. Has he now examined the options? What action is the Minister prepared to take in view of the fact that these fishermen do not qualify for unemployment insurance?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, that is, in contrast to the previous question, a very sensible one. I have been, as the Hon. Member has suggested, examining the situation. I have asked for a set of proposals in relation to it. I had hoped to have those recommendations today. I expect to have them tomorrow or very early next week. Once I have seen them and been able to chose among the various options which my officials have

October 27, 1983
S.O.	30 Motion
suggested to me, we will be able to make an announcement very quickly.

[ Translation]


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of informing the House that the petition presented by the Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) on Wednesday, October 26, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have the usual Thursday question. Would the Government House Leader be so kind as to inform the House of the order of business he intends to call today, tomorrow and as far up to November 4 as he can take
us?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Yes Madam Speaker, it is Bill C-155.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 30   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GRENADA-INVASION BY MULTINATIONAL FORCE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on House business. Some consultation has taken place. Would it be possible to obtain the permission of the House by way of unanimous consent to allow the question you had before you in the name of the Leader of this Party requesting an emergency debate on the situation in Grenada to be put? As you know, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) filed proper notice yesterday. Unfortunately, the matter was not dealt with. He has since filed notice today requesting that the question of Grenada be dealt with by the House of Commons by way of an emergency debate. Could you seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with that matter now rather than in its proper order, so that we could determine whether or not such an emergency debate might well take place?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we are most certainly agreeable to the Chair considering forthwith the request made under Standing Order 30. We give our consent as requested by the New Democratic Party.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we too would agree to the request of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Further, we would be prepared to go so far as to relieve the Chair of the necessity of ruling on the urgency of the matter and agree to give consent now to an emergency debate on the motion tonight at eight o'clock, when it will occur in any event.


Madam Speaker:: As we have unanimous consent it is so ordered that there will be an emergency debate upon a motion to be moved by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent). Since there is unanimous consent for an emergency debate at eight o'clock, perhaps the House will agree also that the Hon. Member for Oshawa give the House a brief statement so the House will know exactly what the subject matter of that debate will be.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I think the most concise way of giving the House a statement of the subject-matter would be for me to move the motion, which following the events that have transpired during the past 24 hours, has changed somewhat in nature.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely: the invasion of Grenada, an independent member of the Commonwealth whose Queen is also Queen of Canada, by a multinational force led by the United States of America, an action which violates the principles of international law, contravenes the Charter of the United Nations, and, according to a Minister of the Crown as revealed in the House of Commons yesterday, has resulted in endangering the lives of Canadians; an action about which the United States in extraordinary unconcern did not even inform the Government of Canada.


PRIVILEGE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the outset I would like to say this. Since the point I want to make does come close to a ruling that was made yesterday, I want to tell you in advance that I am in no way intending to reflect upon a decision of the Chair. However, having said that, I do firmly believe that I have a bona fide and legitimate question of privilege, particularly after having had an opportunity to review yesterday's proceedings.
October 27, 1983

My breach of privilege. Madam Speaker, I believe occurred at Routine Proceedings at page 28349 of Hansard. Briefly, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I rose at precisely the same time as, if not before, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I think that is confirmed by the official report of the House of Commons debates, namely Hansard. I can say to you that we really have no other official record to go by. There is really nothing else to go by but the record of Hansard.
I want to quote precisely what happened. At page 28349 we find:


Madam Speaker:: Motions.


An Hon. Member:: A point of order-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Transport.


Mr. Axworthy:: Madam Speaker, I move-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


Mr. Epp:: A point of order.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I move:
That the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard, Madam Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.


An Hon. Member:: There is a motion on the floor.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.
I would then like to refer to your words, Madam Speaker, at page 28357 for October 26, 1983, prior to the vote. You stated in your observations, I guess would be a fair way of putting it:
What has to be clear and what I reaffirmed before the House is that several Members rose at the same time-
If you go back and look at the actual transpiration of events, Madam Speaker, you will note that those Members to whom you referred were recorded as having risen after I was recorded as asking to be recognized on a point of order and after the Minister of Transport had been recognized by you. I merely point that out. You said that you were having difficulty in ascertaining who should or should not be recognized because there were several Members-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not say I had difficulty. 1 said that the Chair has to select when several Members rise at the same time. That is what the Chair has done. I selected one of the Members who had risen at the same time.
I have dealt with the matter the Hon. Member is raising. If the Hon. Member were writing the verbatim report of what took place in the House and if three Members rose at the same time and shouted "A point of order", how would he list them in the report? He would make an arbitrary listing of those three people who rose at the same time. The argument the Hon. Member is using is not totally convincing. It does not convince me. Furthermore, the Hon. Member knows that when several Members rise at the same time it is customary to recognize a Minister before any other Member. This kind of courtesy has been afforded to Ministers in our House and in many other Houses. I do not have the exact reference, but I
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
am sure it was in Erskine May that I read it was the practice in Great Britain.
I have dealt with the matter. Further, the Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege. It is a point of order, if he has one. I dealt with this the other day. Furthermore, the entire proceeding is over. We have had the motion, we have had the debate, we have had the vote-the entire proceeding is over. I really do not see what is the point of raising a point of order on that particular matter at the present time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me to make one further point. I was not aware that Standing Order 33 provided for a different status of Member being recognized. That is really my second point. If there was any doubt, it seems to me it is incumbent that there be a strict application of Standing Order 32 and Standing Order 33. Under the heading "Rules of Debate", Standing Order 32 reads:
Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address the Speaker.
It is fair to say that I was uncovered, and probably so was the Minister of Transport. Madam Speaker has sugested that there are two classes of Members, but Standing Order 33 reads:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
There is a no indication there about having been recognized or about whether a Minister has the floor. It reserves the right for a Member of Parliament to be heard.
There are the rules which have been established by the House of Commons. The House of Commons is master of its own house. It establishes its own rules, it administers them and enforces them. I humbly submit that under the provisions of Standing Order 33 my rights as a Private Member of this Chamber were denied. I believe very firmly that I had the parliamentary right to put my motion. If we are to have a set of Standing Orders, then there should be provisions that qualify how the Standing Orders will be applied. They are certainly not contained in this rule book. Either this rule book has some meaning, or we might as well thrown it out the window.


Madam Speaker:: The rule book has a lot of meaning, but it has to be read against practices, against interpretations of several authors, the authority of which we accept, namely, Erskine May, Bourinot, Beauchesne and possibly others, and against the precedents. This is what the Chair is constantly doing.
I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to suggest that Members do not have equal rights. They all have equal rights in the House, but courtesies are afforded to certain Members as a matter of practice and as a matter of general consensus in the House. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition will rise

October 27, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
during Question Period; he can ask two, three or four questions. It is a courtesy. He could rise, and if other Members had risen before him and attempted to catch the eye of the Speaker, the Speaker would not expect the Leader of the Opposition to jump up several times; the Speaker would immediately recognize the Leader of the Opposition. Does that mean that the Leader of the Opposition is not equal to any other Member? He is equal, but perhaps he is a little more equal in the sense that those courtesies are afforded to him, as they would be to a Member who has perhaps sat in the House a very long time. This is in the parliamentary spirit, and 1 do not think I am betraying the spirit of the House by allowing that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are allowing the Minister of Transport.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, there are a few criteria. The power to select of the Speaker, of course, is absolute; that is one sure thing. The Speaker relies on a few criteria, one being that the Speaker tries to recognize those who rise first, naturally. That is tout a fait normal. If several Members rise at the same time-one, two or three on the same side-of course I am free to select anyone I choose to select. I wonder whether the Hon. Member would have any objection had all the Members been on the same side.
I will refer to what Bourinot said about recognizing Ministers. Under the chapter entitled "Precedence in Debate" it reads:
It is usual, however, to allow priority to members of the administration who wish to speak and to new members who have not before spoken-
That is not the case with the Hon. Member. It continues, "and in all important debates", and so on. I have dealt with that problem. 1 am sure I have not been unfair to the Hon. Member. Now he says, quoting Standing Order 33, that his motion should have been put forthwith, but Standing Order 33 has to be read against something else; that is to say, when an Hon. Member has possession of the House, he cannot be interrupted by a motion that another Member do speak. If he does not have possession of the floor, of course on a point of order such a motion may be entertained.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the question which has been raised is a serious one. I rise for the purpose of seeking clarification for the future because of its importance. First may I observe, as the Chair has quite rightly pointed out, that the recognition of the Leader of the Opposition in the circumstances described is a long-standing practice of the House, because he is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There is no Standing Order requiring that; it is a practice. Similarly with respect to Ministers of the Crown, quite rightly the Chair pointed out, on the basis of the strength of the Bourinot citation, they are given that courtesy as a matter of practice. However, there is no Standing Order which gives Ministers that kind of priority.
Here we are dealing with a Standing Order of the House, created by the House as the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, and enforced by the House. There are two aspects to that Standing Order that have to be viewed in light of yesterday's events for which clarification is required. The Hon. Member for Vegreville is not only on the record as having been recognized but clearly on the record as having moved his full motion. That relates to Standing Order 33, which I suggest to the Chair has to be taken in two parts. The first part reads:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place-
At that point there is a semicolon in the Standing Order. The second part of the Standing Order reads:
-but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
It is the second part of that Standing Order on which I seek clarification. That was the situation yesterday. The Hon. Member for Vegreville rose and was recognized, and he put his motion on the basis of the second half of that Standing Order. Without reflecting at all upon the discretion of the Chair which the Chair exercised yesterday in recognizing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), quite properly, the Chair went on then to recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville, again quite properly; but it was at that point the motion was made. The provisions of Standing Order 33 after the semicolon require the Chair to put the question forthwith on that motion.
There need not be any number of Members rising at all because that applies to the first half of the Standing Order. If 1 wish to rise in my place, even if no other Member stands, my interpretations of the last half of that Standng Order would permit me to advance a motion that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) or any other Member be now heard or now speak. If I make such a motion without any Member standing, I think that the question has to be put to the House. A fortiori, even stronger, if one Member rises, I can put the second half of that Standing Order to the House by moving that kind of motion. If more than one Member rises, we shift to the first half of that Standing Order. In either event, in any circumstance that I have described, such a motion would be in order. That is the area that we are dealing with.
The Chair might want to think about that before giving me the clarification for guiding our future practices in this House because it has been important in the past and will become increasingly important in the future.
I have one last point before I resume my seat with regard to the proceedings of yesterday. The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) indicated to me that he was going to raise the matter. Again, without any intention whatsoever of reflecting on the exercise of any discretion by the Chair yesterday or any ruling made by the Chair today or yesterday, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, like myself, looks at that Standing Order and sees the final wording that the question shall be put when the motion has been moved by a Member forthwith without debate. Those are the words. Any-
October 27, 1983

thing that occurs in this place is, of course, debate. We have a precedent that says even Question Period is debate.
Yesterday the Government Elouse Leader was heard after the motion was put. I was heard. Today, the Chair was confronted with a situation where he had to put the motion without debate. He applied the Standing Order, in my view quite rightly, rigidly and put the question immediately without hearing any points of order or whatever-because they are all debate.
That area has to be clarified because, Madam Speaker, one thing was done yesterday and quite another thing today. We are, therefore, in somewhat of a dilemma. I would suggest very strongly that you might want to hear other Members, particularly the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette. I suggest very strongly that you do not come to any decision today on that question but take it-I see the Chair nodding its head in the negative. I make the suggestion not for the purpose of asking her, as she said yesterday, to shirk her responsibility. 1 would never do that. However, I would ask her to take it under very careful consideration, look at past practices in the House, look at the orders and at the precedents before coming to any precipitous ruling. The question and its future application is important not only to the Opposition but the other side as well, because they also have used that Standing Order.
Referring to precedents of the Chair, particularly when it is not necessary to come to an immediate conclusion today, it might be prudent for the Chair to consult with her officers and satisfy herself by a personal reading of the precedents that there might be some merit in what 1 am saying so that we can be guided more efficiently in the future.


Madam Speaker:: I think we can end this matter. I do not see why the time of the House should be taken for clarification by the Speaker on points of procedure. 1 am not in the habit of giving clarification of points of procedure in the House. That is not my function.
This case is clear enough. It has been dealt with. The total proceedings took place yesterday and everything was perfectly in order. Today, after the proceeding is all over, Members are asking for points of clarification for future conduct, as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says. Certainly the Speaker is not going to fall into the trap of giving clarification and applying it to future conduct which the Speaker knows nothing about. Future situations in the House will be judged as they occur, taking into account all of the circumstances, the Standing Orders and precedents which may apply to the particular situation which has arisen.
The Hon. Member says quite rightly that a motion that an Hon. Member be now heard has been dealt with one way on one day and a different way the other day. That is precisely because the circumstances were different. The Hon. Member did not mention the fact that, of course, Members may on a point of order ask that an Hon. Member be now heard as long as no other Member has the floor legitimately. Beauchesne states that a motion that a Member be now heard must be moved before the Member recognized has begun speaking. If
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
the Member recognized has simply said "Madam Speaker," that is enough to be in possession of the House and, therefore, under those circumstances a motion that another Member be now heard is not in order. If the Hon. Member who has been recognized has not exercised his right to speak and another Member rises and proposes that another Member be now heard, then the motion has to be put to the House forthwith and voted upon.
The two circumstances were different. They are quite clear to me and, I am quite sure, they are clear to all Hon. Members. 1 consider this matter closed. I do not feel it is necessary to hear any other argument unless we have a seminar on procedure. We could do that at some other point; we could go out of the House and have a seminar on procedure. 1 will be quite willing to share my knowledge with Hon. Members and to share their opinions on a number of matters, but I do not think this is the time or the place to do it.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. 1 have been attempting since twenty minutes to one to gain the floor on a point of order on a question that arose at twenty minutes to one or thereabouts. Strangely enough, it touches upon something that was raised without dealing with the same circumstance. I know the Speaker may feel that I am trying to rehash, but 1 am not. I hope she will listen to me in this instance. I would raise it later, but 1 have to raise it at the earliest possible moment.
This morning during debate, two things occurred that require, in my opinion, the Speaker to make a ruling. The first was that a Member had the floor on a point of order. Another Member took the floor away from that Member by rising on a point of order. That happened this morning. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was speaking on a point of order. At that point a motion was made by another Member who rose on a point of order that the floor be given to someone else.
I do not want to go into the detail. I would simply ask that the Speaker review the debates of this morning to determine whether or not my submission on that is accurate and, if it is, to rule, as I would have asked had 1 got the floor, that one Member who has the floor on a point of order cannot be interrupted by another Member rising on a point of order. That is the first question. It is important that that be upheld; otherwise chaos would ensue.
The second point is, in my judgment, equally important. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) sought the floor and got the floor today during the discussion on points of order. The only way that he could have got the floor was to rise to speak to the point of order that was then under consideration. However, having engaged in discussion for a moment or two, in fact for a minute or two, he then

October 27, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Deans moved that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) be now heard. 1 contend that that is out of order. A Member who gets the floor on an existing point of order surely is not in a position to move that another Member be now heard. If there is a point of order being discussed on the floor of the House, a Member rising on that point of order cannot then move, under Standing Order 33, that another Member be now heard.
I ask, for the sanity of the place if nothing else, that that matter also ought to be reviewed and that a clear ruling be made that when a point of order is under discussion it is not then possible for a Member to rise and, in advance of the point of order having been ruled upon, make a motion that another Hon. Member be heard. I would suggest that that is quite improper.
I further suggest that if it were to be allowed that a Member, once engaged in discussion whether on a point of order or something else, whether in debate, on a point of order or a question of privilege, cannot then transfer his speaking place to another Member simply by motion. If that were the case it would be possible for one Member or one group of Members to preempt any other Member from gaining the floor legitimately.
That speaks in part, although I did not intend it to, to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I did not intend to address the question he raised but I put it to you that, unfortunately-and this is no reflection on the Chair because these things do occur-it can create some very difficult situations. This was the case this morning. If that prevailed, once one Member got the floor, he or she could transfer that speaking order to another Member who could transfer it to another Member who could transfer it to another Member, and so on. The only way to stop that would be to hold a vote, and I do not think that is what Standing Order 33 was intended to so.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose I have to thank the Hon. Member for bringing up the matter. I was not in the Chair this morning when those events occurred but I understand that the Member who tried to pre-empt the Member who was speaking on a point of order was ruled out of order, and that was to the satisfaction of the House. Exactly what the Hon. Member says should not be allowed to happen was prevented by the fact that it was ruled out of order.
I will review the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I see the Hon. Member shaking his head. I am not going to review the other point brought up because that matter is closed. I will look at what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is referring to. If there has been any injustice to any Member, we will certainly try to correct it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While you will be making all those beautiful reviews, perhaps you would consider reading Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 117, Subparagraphs 4 and 5. I think that if those provisions were to be applied we would have more order in the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to suggest that you review the "blues" for today when a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house)-I did not have my electronics functioning as they usually do-I rose trying to say to the Chair that there could not be a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre when there was already a point of order before the Chair; but the Chair allowed that. It is no reflection on the Chair but that is the kind of thing 1 mean. That is my recollection. I could be wrong.


PRIVILEGE
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of the occurrences in the House this morning. It is not very often that I take positions of this nature or become involved in procedural matters. I came into the House at a quarter after eleven and was here until one o'clock. During that very extensive period of time points of order were raised with respect to the nature of the business of the House for today. I came in to deal with the matter that I understood would be dealt with, and that was the motion of which this Party had given notice yesterday before the House closed and with respect to which there had been a designation of an Opposition day by the House Leader for the Government. As I finally viewed his conduct in the House at the end of that day, his acknowledgement of consent to the nature of the business of the House was the motion that I came into the House prepared to deal with.
These remarks are made by way of preliminary discussion only because this morning the Chair ruled that regardless of any of those consequences-quite frankly the nature of which I have discussed here and no one else has with respect to that last comment-the nature of the business of the House was not to be the nature of the business that I anticipated. I had on several occasions endeavored-


Madam Speaker:: Order, I have to interrupt the Hon. Member. There was no ruling on this. The Chair had no choice but to contemplate the business of the House which was before the House. The business which was before the House was probably different from what the Hon. Member for York North was expecting it to be. The Chair does not determine what the business of the House will be.
The Hon. Member has to be quite clear that this is not the role of the Chair, and the Chair has not done that. The business of the House is determined by the Government which gives the Clerks an indication what the business of the House will be for the next day. The Clerk of the House of Commons has no choice but to write that down and make it the business
October 27, 1983

of the House. 1 do not rule on that nor do any of the assistants in the Chair rule on it.


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, I was making those remarks in a preliminary fashion. I do not have the "blues" for today and I did not really intend to deal with the merits of the issue, but I think if you will check the "blues"-I am rising now because I did not want to give notice as the issue happened today-I think you will find that in the course of making observations, the Chair ruled what the business of the House was to be. The business of the House was to be Bill C-155. Those, I think you will find, are the exact words used by the Chair this morning. My question of privilege however-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I cannot let that go by. The Chair quoted what the business of the House was to be, but it did not rule on what would be the business of the House. The Chair cannot rule on that.


Erik Nielsen: It did.


Madam Speaker:: I should like to know what the question of privilege of the Hon. Member is. I have listened for quite a while and I still do not know.


John Albert Gamble: Quite frankly, the question of privilege is the most basic privilege which a Member of Parliament can have, and that is, the right to be heard without prejudice as to what the Member of Parliament is going to say. I have stood in my place time and time again to make an observation by way of point of order that I was not permitted to make.
1 understand the Chair may hear a number of Members on a particular point or order and may in fact come to a conclusion that he or she has heard enough, but I can tell you what I do not understand. I do not understand how anyone occupying the chair can decide that the nature of the intervention of any Member is for a dilatory purpose. That was exactly the kind of comment we heard from the Chair this morning. I make these remarks without intentionally reflecting on the Chair.
I ask, Madam Speaker, at this point, how does the Chair determine, before even hearing a Member stand and utter the first word, the nature of his intervention? Is it by the colour of his tie? Surely not. Surely some recognition must be made of the fact that there may be points that should be contributed to a discussion with respect to a point of order which is legitimately raised in connection with the conduct of the business of this House, a matter on which other Members are entitled to make remarks. I did not have that as a right, and 1 consider that to be a very serious question of privilege. It is a question which goes to my right as a Member of Parliament. It is as fundamental as my right to come into the House. That is my question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I was not in the House and I will have to look at the "blues" and the report in Hansard. I just cannot make any sense out of what the Hon. Member is now saying because I cannot refer to the actual comments which were
Petitions
made in the House. I am just making this reservation, that there has been a ruling by the Chair on what the Hon. Member is referring to. Of course, I will not reverse that ruling. The Hon. Member is shaking his head. He said he would not ask me to do that. Of course, 1 would not even want to attempt to look at a ruling if, by so doing, that would indicate that any Hon. Member can reflect on a ruling made by the Chair.
There is a possibility of objecting formally to a ruling of the Chair, and that is open to the Hon. Member if he wants to do so. However, once it is made, Hon. Members may not reflect on a ruling of the Chair. If that is the thrust of what the Hon. Member has just been saying, I cannot judge it because I have to look at it in the context of the debate which took place at that time. I will look at it and I will come back to the Hon. Member.


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, my purpose was not to reflect upon the ruling of the Chair. My purpose was to draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the Chair reflects upon the opinions of Hon. Members before they have had an opportunity to speak. That is the issue which will be made very apparent to the Speaker when she examines those "blues". I will be very grateful if she will examine them and get back to the House.


Madam Speaker:: I will do that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

["Agreed and so ordered. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock this morning.\nAt 12.10 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Friday, October 28, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Erik Nielsen: Did you say Petitions?


Madam Speaker:: No, I said, "Presenting reports from standing and special committees." Tabling of documents. If the Hon. Member has a petition, we are just coming to it. Statements by Ministers. Petitions. The Hon. Member for Yukon.



Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the undersigned residents of Canada, primarily residents of Yukon, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, and humbly sheweth that the survival of the Yukon placer miners is threatened by

October 27, 1983
Petitions
unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by the federal Government Departments. Such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government would lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry in the Yukon. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation which would further threaten the security of employment in Yukon at a time when the staggering and unprecedented level of unemployment in Yukon threatens the quality of life in northern communities. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in certain assurance that your humble House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth: Whereas there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada; whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible; whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action that may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth; whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada; whereas this might be remedied as quickly as possible; whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind Hon. Members that they must not read or quote all the "whereases". They must just read the title and the prayer. I would ask the Hon. Member to go immediately to the prayer because he has already given us the title.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that whereas, Madam Speaker, there
exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, etc.-


Madam Speaker:: No. Order. No "whereases". Not even one.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I did indicate other "whereases". Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth-and this has to do with the quality of the water in the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw, which is a danger to the health of the residents and visitors to those cities. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enter into negotiations with the Province of Saskatchewan and the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina to grant substantial financial aid for the project. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this might best be remedied by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada in the towns of Carbon, Champion and Cochrane, Alberta, now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist on a general election being called now. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty and honour today to present a 30-page petition to the House to the following effect. We the undersigned insist that
October 27, 1983

Bill C-155, the Crow legislation, be amended to allow grain producers the option of either receiving their share in the Crow benefit as a producer payment, or electing to have it paid on their behalf to the railways. The purpose of this petition therefore is to express their concern with the present provisions of Bill C-155. The freedom of choice concept will guarantee the consensus which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport said they were seeking. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. Wherefore the undersigned have considered the alternative plan by the New Democratic Party on the Crow rate, which must be maintained. Also, considering that the railways of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern, efficient transportation system, they pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party's alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by residents of Lashburn, Saskatchewan, and Ottawa and Hull.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition signed by over 284 Canadians across the country on behalf of more than four millions of their fellow citizens who enjoy the self-discipline and intellectual stimulus provided by the game of chess. The purpose of this petition is to point out to the Federal Government the absolute necessity to follow the example of many provincial and national governments and to recognize in the game of chess a universal form of cultural expression combining physical with mental excellence.

The purpose of this petition is to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to change departmental policy to include measures to promote chess and consequently physical and mental excellence. The petitioners hope, Mr. Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find it in order, sense the urgency of their plea, and use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible moment. On a previous petition there were over 1,000 signatures, Mr. Speaker, and 1 hope you use your office to refer this matter to committee. It has been dragging on for several years.
Petitions
MR. McKENZIE-call for general election


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
Whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and this might best be solved by calling a general election immediately, we the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by citizens of this country exercising their ancient right. The petition refers to a serious crisis of confidence in the Government of this country. If you read through the ancient form of the petition, in short it calls upon this House to vote non-confidence in this Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to this House. The undersigned residents of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right. I must add this with all due modesty, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: You have lots to be modest about.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -but these 98 petitioners from Spirit River, Rycroft and Grand Prairie, Alberta, have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the NDP and Les Benjamin, MP for Regina West-wasn't that nice of them? They urge the Parliament of Canada to adopt the provisions in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rates may be maintained and that the railways of all Canada be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. The undersigned have carefully considered this alternative plan and do ever humbly pray that the House of Commons and Government will act upon it.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The petition refers to the need for an immediate national election. Therefore, we the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
28396

October 27, 1983
Petitions


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned residents of the Province of British Columbia now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide the remedy. Humbly sheweth that we the undersigned, a group of concerned Canadian citizens, wish to express our disaffection with present Liberal Government policies and demand the resignation of this Government. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by residents of Aldergrove, White Rock, Delta, North Vancouver and Langley in British Columbia.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I, too have a petition signed by citizens of Canada asking to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. The petition, in most graphic terms, talks about the crisis of confidence in Canada. It calls for an election and it says that we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to move as soon as possible to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petitioners now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. My petitioners humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and it might best be remedied by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned residents in Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. There has been a 100 per cent increase in Seaway tolls in the years 1978 through 1981, and they ask that there be no further increase in tolls for the use of the St. Lawrence Seaway for the foreseeable future, or at least until the shipping industry has seen a substantial recovery. Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray that your honourable House will accept the aforementioned recommendations. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure to present a petition signed by some 321 residents of Canada who were on Parliament Hill on Saturday, October 22, expressing their opposition to the Government's decision to test the United States Cruise missile on Canadian territory. The petitioners state that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to the peace of the world, and that history proves that as military strength increases, so does the temptation to use that military strength. The petitioners stress that Canada can play a more crucial role in achieving multilateral disarmament, and call upon Parliament to debate and pass Bill C-678, an act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, which would allow Canada to act as a mediator along with other countries who will participate in a worldwide nuclear disarmament process. As in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents of Canada in the towns of Vulcan, Stavely, Exshaw, De Winton and Cluny now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist on a general election being called now. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of almost 100 of my constituents in the riding of Fraser Valley East. The purpose of the petition signed by these people is to express their concern for the family unit as a God-given institution and a basic foundation unit of society. Believing that the rapidly increasing divorce rate and breakdown of the family unit is one of the major factors contributing to the rise of numerous social ills in our present society, they urge that Parliament oppose attempts to permit quick or easy divorce. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to encourage the preservation of marriage and the family as a basic foundational unit of society and oppose legislative attempts to permit quick or easy divorce.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. To the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada from the Vancou-
October 27, 1983

ver area now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable Efouse will therefor provide a remedy. The undersigned say that whereas there is a crisis of confidence in Canada, there must be a remedy immediately, and therefore we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a peitition to present to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Meacham, Colonsay and Viscount in Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid S131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in 1981-82. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by an imposition that will set grain freight charges five times Crow rate or higher by 1990; that such increases are being imposed at a time when grain prices for producers are at the 1974 level; and that detailed calculations show that the rate of five times Crow will cost the community of Weldon $471,800,000 because of higher rates, these figures being based on the actual deliveries in 1980-81-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is aware that under the rules of the House, the description must be of the briefest nature possible.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from the people of the Hines Creek, Spirit River, Worsley and Wanham areas of Alberta who believe that there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and believe that that can only be solved by a federal general election. Therefore, we the undersigned petitioners humbly
Petitions
pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too present a petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. This petition is signed by a number of residents of Canada, primarily residents of Yukon, who avail themselves of the ancient right to submit a petition to the House. They state that the survival of Yukon placers miners is threatened by unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by the federal Government Departments. They believe that such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government would lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry. Therefore, Sir, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation that would further threaten the security of employment in Yukon at a time when the staggering and unprecedented level of unemployment in Yukon threatens the quality of life in northern communities.
1 feel obliged, Sir, to point out that one of the signatories to this petition gives as his address Anchorage, Alaska. 1 believe that this gentleman is a Canadian citizen, but I do hope that his signature on this petition will not invalidate the petition the petition which has been signed by so many other genuine residents of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, I should have said Mr. Speaker. This is difficult.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not agree.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If someone is to blame, Mr. Speaker, it is the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
I also have the honour to present a petition signed by the residents of many towns in Saskatchewan, namely Herbert, Saskatoon, Rush Lake and other communities such as Morse, all of them residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
They humbly sheweth that:
Whereas Western Canadian farmers paid $131 million for grain in 1981-82 under the Crow rate, whereas this in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada; whereas the undersigned believe that this represents an equitable contribution to the Canadian economy and that Western

October 27, 1983
Petitions
Canadian farmers shall pay only one time the Crow rate, wherefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to retain the present Crow rate for grain. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, forgive me for having called you Madam Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled a petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy; humbly sheweth that since there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, which can only be done by the calling of a general federation election immediately, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
1 too have the duty and honour to present a petition to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition is signed by 288 citizens of the Dominion of Canada resident in Brentwood Bay, Calgary, Cassidy, Chemainus, Courtenay, Duncan, Edmonton, Langley, Lantzville, Ladysmith, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Parksville, Sooke, Vancouver, Victoria and Wabush, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide the remedy; humbly sheweth that having due regard to the serious economic dilemma which faces Canada today, including widespread unemployment, business bankruptcies and personal hardships affecting millions of Canadians, and whereas the Liberal Government has shown little confidence in reversing this disastrous crisis, the undersigned 288 petitioners have lost confidence in the Government of Canada and thereby insist that Parliament be dissolved and a federal general election be called immediately. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, but not for too long, I hope.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy; humbly sheweth, that there exists a crisis of
confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 want the House to know that those people across the way who are presenting those petitions forget the fact that they had the power for just a few months and did not know what to do with it. I do not know what they mean by these petitions.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member is so concerned about our not knowing what to do with power, I would challenge him to go to his Leader, ask him to call an election and see if we would then know what to do with power.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I might comment on the point of order by simply saying that we knew what to do with it, but he did not know what to do without it.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners with certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. Whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada; whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible; and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Just before I recognize the next Hon. Member, no doubt on a petition, may I remind Hon. Members that under House rules, since there is an emergency debate tonight, there will be no adjournment motion from 6 p.m.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 25 residents of the towns of Bramlea, Brampton, Mississauga, Bolton, Ontario, Orangeville and one from Rural Route No. 6, which is in Shelbourne, Ontario. They now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitoners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Goverment of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the
October 27, 1983

undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitoners will ever pray.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I too, have a petition to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. To the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election, immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 also wish to present a petition.
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada and Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada in cities such as Blaine Lake, North Batt-leford, Krydor, etc., who now avail themselves of their old and inalienable rights to voice a common grievance, with the firm assurance that your honourable House will find a remedy.
They humbly declare that:
Whereas the farmers of Western Canada have paid $131 million to export their grain in the year 1981-82, in accordance with the Crow rate;
Whereas this will contribute $6.3 billion to Canada's trade balance;
Whereas the undersigned believe this is a fair contribution to the Canadian economy;
And whereas western farmers have no intention of paying the Crow rate more than once;
Wherefore, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

mr. Mcknight-increase in st. Lawrence seaway tolls


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to
Petitions
your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House of Commons will therefore provide a remedy; humbly sheweth that any proposed increases in the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway be frozen at least until December 31, 1985. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to fulfil this wish of your citizens.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition submitted by a number of residents of Tofield, Alberta and Sherwood Park. It is to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. In the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy; humby sheweth and claim that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada; that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and might be best done by the calling of a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, largely from a group of residents of the Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe constituency but also from other Ontario residents ranging as far afield as Willowdale and Gravenhurst, Ontario. The petition is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. To the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable the House will therefor provide a remedy. The petitioners refer to a serious crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and call for an election. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, in the petition the undersigned residents in Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that because some of the most powerful poisons known to man have been discovered in the Niagara River, the source of drinking water for millions of people including thousands of Canadians, and because adequate action to stop the pollution of said river has not been undertaken by the former Minister or the present Minister of

October 27, 1983
Petitions
the Environment, immediate and decisive action must be taken to stop the flow of toxic materials into this once beautiful water course. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that your honourable House will accept the aforementioned recommendation and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of COmmons of Canada, in Parliament assembled 1 have a petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Wadena in the Province of Saskatchewan who now exercise their right to present a grievance. They humbly shcweth that they are very much against missile testing in Canada, that the U.S.A. can keep its missiles at home, that we call upon the Government to refuse to test the Cruise and your petitioners as in duty bound, will every pray.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The purpose of this petition is to indicate as clearly and as forcefully as they can to the federal Government that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this might be best done by calling a federal general election immediately.
Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents from various areas of British Columbia. I am very happy to join with my B.C. colleagues in indicating that the people in my constituency associate themselves with British Columbians in so far as this petition is concerned.
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take
whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled. In the petition the undersigned residents of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that the residents of Field, B.C., are faced with restrictions on the sale of their homes within the national park that make it virtually impossible for sales to take place. This is creating hard ship for residents, especially senior citizens, for widows of park employees, for workers transferred to other areas and for people forced to move because of health reasons.
We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the federal Government of Canada to expand the rules to allow residents from the adjacent park and Lake Louise to purchase homes in Field, British Columbia. Failing this, we petition the Government of Canada to purchase the buildings at the appraised value, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, to point out just how people across Canada have come to view this Government, I have a number of petitions from the Province of Quebec. Although I cannot read the title with any great clarity because it is in French, 1 know the English translation. They call upon the Government of Canada to resign and to call a federal general election because they, like the rest of Canadians, are fed up with this Government.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of western Canada who wish to avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present to this House a grievance of concern to them, in the assurance that this honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I wish to apologize to several Hon. Members when I mistake their names and ridings.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) or the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 27, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a strong urge to hear from the Hon. Member for Regina East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to all Hon. Members who want to hear me present a petition to you this afternoon, a petition mainly from citizens in and around Ottawa, Ontario. They express their concern about the proposed legislation that is before us. The petitioners have signed this petition to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-1982 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. I point out that these are people from Ontario who are not directly involved in farming but they appreciate the situation, and the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the economy and that the western farmers are willing to pay one times Crow and no change. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. I am presenting this petition to you and to the House of Commons from Canadian citizens, mainly from Ontario.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from 207 citizens of the Dominion of Canada, citizens who are residents of Brentwood, Inuvik, Sidney, Sooke and Victoria, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy; and humbly sheweth that having due regard to the serious economic dilemma which faces Canada today, including widespread unemployment, business bankruptcies and personal hardship affecting millions of Canadians, and whereas the Liberal Government has shown little competence in reversing this disastrous crisis, the undersigned petitioners have lost confidence in the Government of Canada and thereby insist that Parliament be dissolved and that a federal general election be called immediately, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled today.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain
Petitions
assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Whereas there exists in Canada a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada,
Whereas this must be remedied as soon as possible,
Whereas this might best be done by the calling of a general federal election immediately,
Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action is necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada,
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray that this happens as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), in that order.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a very serious petition to present to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might be best done by calling a general election immediately.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of being in Guelph, Ontario last night prior to the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) there today. I was presented with a petition signed by those in attendance last night and was asked to bring it before Parliament.
The petitioners, as residents of Canada and as members of the British Commonwealth, request that the Prime Minister of Canada express outrage to the President of the United States of America at the invasion by American armed forces of Grenada, another member of the Commonwealth. The petitioners believe that no country in the Americas is safe from interference in its sovereign affairs if the United States deems it vital to American foreign interests. The petitioners appeal to Parliament on behalf of all humankind who fear that such irrational action by a nation as powerful as the United States

October 27, 1983
Petitions
may, and could eventually, plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present from some people in the most beautiful riding in Canada to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible by the calling of a general federal election immediately.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the whistling bird.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was referring to Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No, I was not, and you know it.


Benno Friesen: i have a petition to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by the residents of Surrey, White Rock, Vancouver, West Vancouver, and North Vancouver.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada from the Prince George area of British Columbia, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to the petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy,
humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that the best way to remedy it is to call a federal election immediately.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House of Commons from residents of my constituency in the Province of Manitoba, in particular from the fine communities of Riverton and Gimli, Manitoba. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada and Parliament assembled, we, the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba, exercise our right to present a grievance which humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada and one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers; that the changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs; and that three Royal Commissions have recommended retention of the Crow rate.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as currently guaranteed in statute. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will humbly ever pray.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, and indeed it is a pleasure, to present a petition on behalf of many citizens of the City of Winnipeg, the home of the "never to be forgotten" but "soon to be replaced" Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). The objective of this petition is to indicate clearly to the federal Government the urgent crisis which exists in Canada today and which all of us can see in terms of unemployment, bankruptcies and considerable difficulty. The purpose of the petition is to ask the Government of Canada to call a federal general election at the earliest possible date so that that crisis can be overcome and the country can return to being healthy.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners hope their petition will be examined, that the Chair will find their petition acceptable and realize the urgency of their plea, and that the Chair will make use of its discretionary powers to allow this petition to be considered and refer it as soon as possible to committee.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a
October 27, 1983

remedy, humbly sheweth, having due regard for the serious economic dilemma which now faces Canada, including widespread unemployment, business bankruptcies and personal hardships affecting millions of Canadians, and whereas the Liberal Government has shown little competence in reversing this disastrous crisis, the undersigned petitioners have lost confidence in the Government of Canada and thereby insist that Parliament be dissolved and a federal general election be called immediately. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which is signed by 45 or so Canadians mainly from Alberta and Saskatchewan but also by a well-known and distinguished former journalist, Mr. Bruce Levy of Ottawa and a widely renowned and learned academic from Quebec, M. Jean Ethier of Hull. These two well-known people and the others are calling for the House of Commons to preserve the Crow rate for western farmers. They maintain that western Canadian farmers pay over $100 million a year to move export grain under the Crow rate and that this grain is contributing over $6 billion per year to the balance of trade, which they say is very important for all Canada, including central Canada.
Also they say that we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners shall ever pray.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, it may come as no surprise to you that I have a petition to present this afternoon from a fine group of Canadians who feel that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada. They want an opportunity to remedy this as quickly as possible. They feel that that may be done by calling a general election. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, of course, that is, by calling an election immediately.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled a petition signed by residents from the area of Mundare, Alberta, Vegreville, Alberta, and Innisfree, Alberta. In the petitions the undersigned citizens of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there does exist a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and must be done by the calling of a federal election immediately. We, the
Petitions
undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). I should have sent this petition to him since I know he is an ardent proponent of keeping the statutory grain rate. He is having great difficulty, mainly with some of his own colleagues. Some 60 petitioners from Assiniboia, Scout Lake, Lafleche, Rockglen, Lesieux, Kildeer, Lakenheath, Meyronne and Ottawa, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan proposed by the New Democratic Party and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system. These petitioners do humbly pray.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been signed by a number of Canadian citizens from Kimberley, B.C., Wycliffe, B.C., and Brantford, Ontario. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by the calling of a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 28 residents of towns of Mount Forest, Guelph, Kenilworth, Ontario, and R.R. 4 Kenilworth, Ontario. They now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition on behalf of some of

October 27, 1983
Petitions
the very fine people of the community of Lamont in the well served federal riding of Vegreville. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas it might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners forever pray.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan in the communities of Etonia, Calgary and Mantario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of Canada must be developed into a modern and efficient transport system. Wherefore, we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan, which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rates and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the House of Commons. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, primarily resident in Yukon, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the survival of the Yukon placer miners is threatened by unfair changes in the legislation and regulations proposed by the federal Government Department in that such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government would lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry in the Yukon. Wherefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation that would further threaten the security of employment in Yukon at a time when the staggering and unprecedented level of unemployment in Yukon threatens the quality of life in northern communities and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembed the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor present a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might be best done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The purpose of this petition is to indicate to the federal Government as clearly and as forcibly as possible that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this can best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that increases in the Crow rate will affect the prices of producers' grain which are now at the 1974 level and that it will cost the community of Hoey $180,100 per year. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. This petition is signed by a number of people from the communities of Domremy and Hoey in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. For the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, all from northern B.C., now
October 27, 1983

avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They are also concerned about the crisis of confidence in Canada and feel that the only way to solve this is by calling a general election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by individuals from Carmacks, Pukaskwa, and Whitehorse in the Yukon regarding a grievance common to your petitioners that the survival of the Yukon placer miners is threatened by unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by federal Government Departments. Such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government would lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation that would further threaten the security of employment in the Yukon at a time when, we all know, the staggering and unprecedented level of unemployment in the Yukon threatens the quality of life in the northern communities that I mentioned, and many others.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, l have a petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Governemnt of Canada, whereas this might be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by residents of the City of Alberta.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled, I have a petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan and communities such as High River and North Battleford, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a common grievance. Your
Petitions
petitioners, in certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, and, as in duty, bound your petitioners ever pray.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition mostly signed by residents of Dufferin County in my constituency but including residents of other areas of Ontario. The petition is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. To the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
The purpose of the petition is to demand an early election in Canada. The petitioners conclude by saying that therefore, we the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition on behalf of some of the wonderful people from the communities of Princeton, British Columbia, North Vancouver, Canyon, British Columbia and other communities in that Province along with citizens from Edmonton in Alberta.
To the honourable House of Commons and Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in certain assurance that the House will provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will forever pray.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens in the beautiful Province of British Columbia from Fernie and Sparwood and then we move over into Alberta. There are probably 25 citizens who state in the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now do avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a

October 27, 1983
Petitions
grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, that there exists, in their opinion, a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and that this could be remedied as quickly as possible. Therefore, there should be a federal election called, and, therefore, they state, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the Nipawin-Craik River-Choiceland area of Saskatchewan, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by rates that will impose a higher rate cost of five times the present Crow rate and higher by 1990, that such increases are being imposed at a time when the price for producers' grain is at the 1974 level, and the detailed calculations show that the rate of 5.1 times the Crow rate will cost the community of Nipawin $564,600 per annum extra in payment for grain freight that would otherwise have stayed in that community based on actual deliveries in the 1980-81 crop year. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 34 petitioners in the city of Vancouver. To the Hon. House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, this must be remedied as quickly as possible. Whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition here from the residents of Victoria, British Columbia, from Whitehorse in the Yukon, from Lake Laberge. A number of them are placer miners themselves. The
petition is to the honourable House of Commons in Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, primarily residents of the Yukon and some other parts of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the survival of the Yukon placer miners is threatened by unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by federal Government Department. Such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government could lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation which would further threaten the security of employment in the Yukon at a time when the staggering and unprecedented level of employment in the Yukon threatens the quality of life in northern communities. As in duty bound, your petitioners will every pray.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 as well have a petition. I might like to put forward another one. Hon. Members will at lest know Canadians are now out of Grenada and more or less en route to Barbados.
To the honourable House of COmmons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will provide therefor a remedy, humbly sheweth, Mr. Speaker, that whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
This is signed by 38 residents of the Province of British Columbia.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Saskatchewan farmers. They petition the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, in other words, no change. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
October 27, 1983

pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the undersigned residents of Canada in Blackie and Irricana, Alberta, which are farming towns where practically everyone farms or derives his livelihood from farming, feel that their livelihood is going to be jeopardized by Bill C-155 if it passes. They now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist on a general election being called now. As in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, this petition relates particularly to the very serious cash flow problem which farmers face. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, with the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the initial price for grain producers in western Canada should be raised to a level which more accurately reflects the prevailing world price of grain. Wherefore, we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by residents of Esquimalt, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Vancouver and Burnaby. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned petitioners of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that it can be remedied by the calling of a general federal election immediately. Wherefore, we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition here today to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents in the Province of Saskatchewan who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the alternative plan of the New Democratic Party which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition on behalf of some of the citizens in the communities of Burnaby, Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, British Columbia, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, wherefore, we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and Southern Ontario. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada which should be remedied as quickly as possible by the calling of a general federal election immediately. Wherefore, we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

October 27, 1983
Petitions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr, Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 17 residents of the cities and towns of Toronto, Brampton, Georgetown, Rexdale and Downsview. The Chair will be pleased to know that it was not Mr. Danson who signed from Downsview. They avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and this must be remedied as quickly as possible, which might be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Kootenay West, an area whose history in the past and its one-time threat of secession was in part responsible for the building of the Crowsnest Railway, I am proud to present the following petition to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition was signed by 18 residents of the Province of Saskatchewan and the communities of Maidstone, Waseca and Lashburn, along with residents of Ottawa, Ontario and Hull, Quebec. They now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the NDP that the Crow rate be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the NDP alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, on behalf of some citizens of some of Alberta's smaller towns, to present a petition to this House. The petitioners are from Tofield, Beaumont, Leduc and Villeneuve. The objective of their petition is to bring to the attention of this House and the Government the fact that there is a crisis of confidence. In particular in their region, agriculture and energy policies, along with issues affecting tourism, have caused bankruptcy, loss of jobs and severe hardship for many of these people. The purpose of the petition is to call upon the Government to give urgent consideration to the necessity of restoring confidence in this country and to suggest to the Government that the only
possible method of restoring confidence is to go through the process of a federal general election.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of their petition you will find it in order, sense the urgency of their plea and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to committee of this matter at the earliest possible moment.
mr. Mcknight-retention of crowsnest pass rates


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, request that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board make any change necessary to the formula used to calculate payments under the western grain stabilization fund in order to trigger an immediate payout from the over $900 million currently in the fund. I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in attendance.
Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to provide a remedy. As in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are now half way from Grenada to Barbados on their way to freedom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member restrict his remarks to the petition?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Tnat was a news flash, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules of the House call for order at this point. If the Hon. Member is introducing a petition, his remarks should be strictly relevant to that.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will have a petition from Grenada.
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore we, the undersigned petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada.
October 27, 1983


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, [ have a petition concerning the merchant marine, signed by 42 Quebecers from a number of large and small centres in Quebec, and also one Leslie Benjamin of Somerset Street here in the city of Ottawa.


An Hon. Member:: Who?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Regina, sorry.

It is a petition by the Seafarers' International Union of Canada to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that Canadians have been deprived of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs because we have no industrial maritime strategy and the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent maritime policy, although more than two years ago it promised to announce such a policy, and that the Government's action is endangering Canada's economic growth. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be asked to adopt forth with a consistent and effective maritime policy, resulting in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and expansion of Canadian industry and the shipping industry and related sectors. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, British Columbia especially, now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in Canada. This should be remedied as quickly as possible, which can best be achieved by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action is necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail them-
Petitions
selves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada and this must be remedied as quickly as possible, which might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is dated this 27th day of October in the year of Our Lord 1983.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know that the people who are represented by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) will be interested in this petition because it is signed by a number of people from Pembroke and Petawawa in the Ottawa Valley. That is an area with which you and I are so familiar, Mr. Speaker. The petition is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that there is no doubt that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. That petition is dated October 27, 1983.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present to the House a petition which I think the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) should be interested in since many of the petitioners are from the riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek. The petition is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of Canada must be upgraded and developed to provide a modern and efficient transportation system. Whereas the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

October 27, 1983
Petitions


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 would like your direction on this matter because I am not as familiar with the rules and the etiquette of the House as are many of the people who have been in the House for years. I seek your direction and perhaps your advice on a matter that arose when I spoke. While I was reading a petition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said: "I spy a stranger in the House". 1 think, Mr. Speaker, that he was referring to me because I have recently come back from a trip.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, I am sure the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is reverting to a time-honoured formula of the House, and the Chair noted that and looked around. 1 am sure such a formula is never used with reference to Members duly elected to the House of Commons.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by Canadian citizens from Campbell River, Surrey, West Vancouver, North Vancouver and Vancouver proper. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. The petition is dated October 27, 1983.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition from residents of British Columbia and, as citizens of the Dominion of Canada, they avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a suitable remedy. They believe, Mr. Speaker, that there exists a lack of confidence in the Government of Canada today and that the only way to remedy this would be to call an election. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition on behalf of some very fine and thoughtful citizens from the communities of West Vancouver, North Vancouver and Surrey and from many citizens of the good community of Valleyview in the Province of Alberta. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore the confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would be interested to know that farmers have occupied the Department of Transport offices in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Regina this afternoon. To the honourable, House of Commons-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he should confine his remarks strictly to the presentation of his petition.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: To the honourable, House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada and one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers and that changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs, and that three Royal Commissions have recommended retention of the Crow rate. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which was circulated in the placer mining capital of the world, Dawson City, where the largest placer mining operations in the country have taken place. Because of the potential destruction of the placer mining industry, petitions were circulated in Dawson city and 1 would like to put on the record what the petitioners asked for. The letter stated that the Yukon Placer Mine Survival Committee is seeking the support of all northerners in their fight for survival against unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by federal Government Departments which would lead to the destruction of the industry. It goes on, "If you feel you could help us, please add your address and phone number." The petition was circulated in Dawson City.
October 27, 1983

[DOT] (mo)
The petition is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, primarily residents of the Yukon, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the survival of the Yukon placer miners is threatened by unfair changes in legislation and regulations proposed by federal Government Departments and that such changes in the legislation and regulations as those proposed by the federal Government would lead to the destruction of the placer mining industry.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to enact any proposed legislation that would further threaten the security of employment in the Yukon at a time when the staggering and unprecented level of unemployment in the Yukon threatens the very quality of life in northern communities. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. This is dated October 21, 1983.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada signed by some 40 residents of Canada. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the crippling federal sales tax on farm fuels in having a very deleterious effect on farmers' incomes and input costs. They are asking that the federal sales tax on farm fuels be reduced.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary action to provide a remedy and relief in this particular area. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons. It is to the Honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. It is largely from residents of Wellington County in my constituency. In the petition the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will thereby provide a remedy. The petitioners demand an early general election. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of many citizens of Grand Prairie, Alberta, a community that is depedent partly on agriculture, partly on oil and gas and partly on tourism.
The objective of the petition is to bring to the attention of the House that there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada. Members of this community have watched bankruptcies as a consequence of the National Energy Program and they are concerned that Bill C-155 will cause similar bankruptcies in the agricultural sector. There is a shortage of jobs and the Government continues to create jobs in other parts of the country at a rate which it refuses to do for the citizens of Alberta.
The purpose of their petition is to suggest a remedy to the House of Commons and to the nation. That remedy would be a federal general election at the earliest possible moment. If Members on the other side care about Canadians, their economic wellbeing and their health, they will comply with the sense of this petition and cause an election to occur at the earliest possible moment.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, and that includes a federal general election at the earliest possible moment.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the duty to present a petition on behalf of the fine people of Claresholm, which is in the southern part of my riding, of Stavely, Mossleigh and also from some people who were visiting there from Surrey-White Rock and Victoria, British Columbia. These people are very concerned because scores of them have lost their jobs, many farms have gone into liquidation, others fear bankruptcy and businesses fear that they will fold up. Consequently they have petitioned the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled and now avail themselves of the ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. One of the remedies suggested is that the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist on a general election being called now before the whole country fails. As in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by residents of the Province of Nova Scotia from such places as Mabou, Baddeck, Inverness, Sydney, Belle Cote and New Waterford. The petitioners stress that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace.
The petitioners further stress that multilateral nuclear disarmament must occur in order to secure peace in the world.

October 27, 1983
Petitions
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to debate and pass Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapon's free zone, which if passed, would allow Canada to act as a mediator along with other countries that wish to participate in the worldwide nuclear disarmament process. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is a cross-Canada petition with signatures from "Toronto the Good", Valleyview, Grande Prairie in Alberta, Maple Ridge in British Columbia; Neilburg, Saskatchewan; Birtle, Manitoba; Fox Creek, Alberta and other communities.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis in confidence in the Government of Canada, and whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. This petition is dated October 27, 1983. It is signed by residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, Calgary, Alberta, Tranquille, British Columbia, Terrace Bay, British Columbia, and a number of other ridings and communities in the Province of British Columbia.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 28 residents. They all come from Orangeville, Ontario, which is noted for having a very distinguished representative in this House, the Hon. Perrin Beatty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the custom in this House to refer to Hon. Members by constituency and not by name.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I was simply overcome with my admiration for the Hon. Member and I have difficulty remembering his lengthy constituency name, but 1 do apologize to the Chair.
The petition of the undersigned citizens, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to yours petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that having due regard for the serious economic dilemma which faces Canada today, including widespread unemployment, business bankruptcies and personal hardships affecting millions of Canadians, and whereas the Liberal Government shows little competence in reversing this disastrous crisis, the undersigned petitioners have lost confidence in the Government of Canada and thereby insist that Parliament be dissolved and a general federal election be called immediately. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and undisputed right to present a grievance with the full assurance that the House will remedy it.
Humbly sheweth that:
Whereas Western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year;
Whereas this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade;
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy;
And whereas Western farmers will pay one times Crow;
October 27, 1983

Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate,
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadian residents who reside in Tofield, Alberta, and Sherwood Park. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by taxpayers of Canada who reside in the Provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens, residents of Canada, humbly sheweth that, due to losses from the carriage of grain, Canada's railways are unable to invest in the expanded railway capacity that is needed to maintain Canada's heretofore good reputation as a reliable exporter-supplier and that Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Bill, will allow this investment to take place while providing the necessary protection to the farmers of western Canada, and that with the passage of this Bill tens of thousands of jobs will be created across the country thereby contributing to economic recovery. Therefore, we the undersigned petitioners humbly pray all Members of Parliament to cease the unnecessary procedural wrangling, immediately conclude debate and vote upon Bill C-155. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the good citizens, 23 of them, of Gananoque, Ontario to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to
Petitions
your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. It reads as follows. The undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. It calls upon the House of Commons to call an election at the earliest date and concludes: "Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."
Unlike the petition presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis), pray here is spelled p-r-a-y and not p-r-e-y.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. House Leader inspected my petition and found it in order. 1 ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw his remarks and respect the rules of this House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I did indeed inspect the petition. It was not signed by three Members of Parliament. It has to be, to be in order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of hands across the mountains, 1 am pleased as a Member for British Columbia to present the following petition signed by some 18 residents of Maidstone, Battleford and Waseca, Saskatchewan; Hull, Quebec and Ottawa, Ontario, to the honourable House of Commons in Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan and others who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system. Therefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest

October 27, 1983
Petitions
Pass freight rate. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, as in my duty as a Member of the House of Commons, I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of the great riding of North Vancouver-Burnaby. The purpose of this petition, signed as it is by concerned Canadians, is to indicate to the House that there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada. The nature of the petition is to demand that a general federal election be called immediately.
The petitioners hope, Mr. Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find it in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their plea, and that you might use the discretionary power vested in your office to refer this petition to His Excellency the Governor General at the earliest possible moment.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the duty to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, that this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and that this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada and in the Canadian Parliament. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have the unique, extraordinary and special privilege of introducing a petition on behalf of the thoughtful and wise people from the community of Windsor, whose Minister and Member was in the House just a few moments ago. Those good citizens of Windsor petition the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in order to speed up the representation of petitions, 1 will present two petitions which I really should have given to the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) because 1 know he is an ardent supporter of keeping the Crow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please state his petition.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would be glad to, Mr. Speaker. These are two petitions signed by 37 people from Chaplin, Central Butte, Moose Jaw and Ottawa who humbly petition the House of Commons that they, the undersigned, have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party. Wherefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the NDP alternative plan in order that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rates may be maintained before we have a general election and that all railways of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the duty and honour to present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada a petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They humbly sheweth that there exists a crisit of confidence in the Government of Canada which must be remedied as quickly as possible by calling a general election. Wherefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is signed by 23 citizens from Fairmount, British Columbia; Spruce Grove, Alberta; Radium, British Columbia; Bawlf, Alberta; Calgary; Edmonton; Canal Flats; and Winnipeg, Manitoba.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas there exists a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada, whereas this must be remedied as quickly as possible, and whereas this might best be done by calling a general federal election immediately, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take whatever action may be necessary to restore confidence in the Government of Canada. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. It is dated this day, October 27, 1983, and it is signed by 25 residents of
October 27, 1983

Kamloops, British Columbia; Barrie, Ontario; Huntsford, British Columbia; Oak Bay, British Columbia; Delta, British Columbia and Edmonton, Alberta.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present signed by 287 Canadians, many of whom live in Banff where the people are angry with the Government over the destruction of a beautiful park in order to accommodate an ex-Liberal Cabinet Minister who built a hotel there and sold it for a sizeable amount of money. Many of these people are also very angry because the Government has extracted-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please state his petition.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Does the Government not want to know why the people are angry?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian. Will he please state his petition?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I would be very happy to present it on behalf of the people of Banff, Canmore, and even a chap from Halifax; there are also signatures from Exshaw and Ottawa. They are all angry with the Government and ask that a general election be called because of many reasons we do not have time to outline now. They avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to the petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist on a general election being called now. And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
[ Translation]


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and undisputed right to present a grievance with the full assurance that the House will remedy it.
Humbly sheweth that-

-Since my mother is in the gallery and does not understand French, perhaps I could read it in English. They humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada, where she is from, and one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers. The changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs. The petition is from Saskatchewan. It is signed by a number of petitioners from the great Province of Saskatchewan who humbly pray that their petition will be accepted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m., at which time the House will proceed to the
question of the invasion of Grenada, pursuant to Standing Order 30.
At 6 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the invasion of Grenada by a multinational force led by the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Grenada which took place not many days ago is an act which should be condemned by every person in all lands representing all ideologies who believe that negotiations, not violence, should be what conducts the affairs of mankind as they are organized in states, and who believe that no state has the right to impose its particular system of government upon any other. That is what this debate is about. I will come back to that point in a moment. Before I do so, I want to say what the debate is not about and to clarify a few matters.
The debate is not about whether one liked or disliked the Government of the former Prime Minister of Grenada, Mr. Bishop, a man who was brutally murdered. Whether one agreed or disagreed with his form of Government, or with what he was doing according to his principles in his land for his people, is not, I repeat, what this debate is about. It is not approval or disapproval of him.
Nor is this about the brutal act of murder that not only took Mr. Bishop's life but that of many members of his cabinet as well as two or more trade union leaders. That kind of brutality, however unacceptable it is-as surely it is among all civilized people-is not what we are debating tonight.
Nor, third and most important, is the debate about the violence that Grenada as a state was involved in vis-a-vis other states. No one involved in the invasion of Grenada that I am aware of has suggested that the State of Grenada itself was embarked upon any form of aggression against any of its neighbours.

October 27, 1983
Those are the three important matters that I want to say that the debate is not about, Mr. Speaker.
I now want to turn to the essence of the matter. What we are talking about is an act of aggression, as open, as calculated, as inhuman as any other act of murder. 1 use my words with care because I think it is important for us as politicans to keep in mind what acts of unjust war, in particular are all about. Wars in general are about killing people. Today, as we are debating in Canada, in a fellow member country of the Commonwealth young men and probably young women also are being killed. This means, and we should think of these things,-that when their lives are snuffed out they will never see a cloudless sky with stars again. They will not have the pleasures and the friendships we will have, and they will not experience the joys of parenthood. They will not do all the mundane or blissful things that are part of the human existence.
These people who are being killed, whether young Grenadians defending their land, whether Cubans who happen to be in their land, or whether a young soldier from Iowa who happens to be a U.S. marine and who has been instructed by his Government to act in this way, and, like young soldiers in any nation, is inclined to accept what he is told to do as being the right thing, are lives being lost today. War is not some abstract entity that is a collection of mere statistics. War means that men and women, particularly young men and women, are going to disappear from the planet in a violent and cruel way. We must keep that in mind in this debate.
In my view what we are involved in, in this debate, in this Parliament, is an act that was deliberately and coolly calculated to create violence. It was an act coolly and carefully calculated by a great democracy in the world, the United States of America. I will come back to that in a minute, Mr. Speaker.
Although fellow members of the Commonwealth were involved in this decision to invade Grenada, anyone who understands the political reality of war in this hemisphere or anywhere else on the planet, knows that the United States of America, as the great power involved in this instance, is really behind the activity. For anyone who has any doubt, I ask them to consider whether it is conceivable if the other states involved in this so-called joint action would be taking this action were it not for the United States Marines. Would they, on their own, be combining to invade Grenada? My own judgment, and I suspect that of anyone who thinks about it seriously, would be that they would not be involved.
This is an act to invasion, an act of aggression initiated and led by the United States of America. We in this Parliament have an obligation to state the truth, to accept the truth and, in unpalatable cases, to try to change the reality. That is what we are involved in tonight.
If, as I say, this act of aggression was something initiated in its fundamental causality by the United States, I want, with care, to say why I think that. In so doing I want to deal with the reasons offered by the United States, its President, its
Secretary of State, and other spokespersons, for the action and I want Members of the House to consider them.
No doubt as we are here tonight the President is on television and is readdressing these questions and reasserting the arguments and dressing them up with so-called fact. But just consider the arguments and consider whether anyone would believe them if they were offered, for example, by the head of another super power in another part of the world to justify acts of aggression in another part of the world.
First of all, the President has suggested that the United States has been involved in this act to protect its own citizens. That was one reason that was given. Surely we have to see this as a bogus argument. We now know, not through our own sources but through the New York Times as well as other American media, that the United States sent envoys, special representatives of the State Department, a number of days ago, shortly before the invasion, to ascertain whether there was necessity for involvement by the United States of America and its armed forces, presumably, and the answer they got was no.
We also know that the spokesperson for the largest single group of Americans there, namely, the university students, had openly expressed the wish that their President and the United States not take any violent action that could create problems for them.
It takes someone with a rather fanciful imagination to believe that the reason for the action of the United States was to protect its own citizens in Grenada.
Second, the United States has had the audacity, I say, in that region of the world to claim that it was acting to lay the foundations of democracy. I just mention some other countries in that region and ask Members of the House to try to place themselves in those countries and hear the words of the American President. 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, to think of Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. All those countries in our lifetime have had violence inflicted upon them by the United States again, I regret to say, as a democrat. These countries have been attacked, have experienced the violence of the United States marines and invariably the argument given was that the purpose was to create conditions for democracy. Quite the opposite occurred. After each of these actions of violence by the use of the military, democracy did not grow. Vicious, inhumane dictatorships were what emerged from these invasions-dictatorships that lasted not for a year or two but for a number of decades.
As Senator Moynihan of the U.S. said a couple of days ago, you do not create democracies by using violence, and particularly you do not create democracies in one state by inflicting upon it the organized violence of another. Senator Moynihan said in criticism of his own government: "I don't know how you restore democracy on the point of a bayonet". That sums it up very well.
The third reason given for this action by the United States, Mr. Speaker, was that the American Government was asked by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States to participate in this intervention-again, not to mince words, "to participate
October 27, 1983

in this invasion". 1 say again, Mr. Speaker, that this argument is bogus. 1 say so for a couple of reasons. The most fundamental reason is that no collection of states, whether or not they are democracies, has the right to say, "We will get together and gang up on another state". I do not care, Mr. Speaker, if 45 countries in the world get together and decide that the 46th country is wrong in terms of what it is doing internally. The 45 states should not impose their will on that one state.
This is not the first time in history this has happened, Mr. Speaker. We should keep in mind that democracies use power like tyrannies. Athenian democracy was the same. There was an Athenian empire which sought to impose its will upon other people. A democracy, I repeat, can abuse its authority, its power. It can violate its norms when it deals with other states. The so-called collective decision of a group of states to invade one state in a region has no moral-and I would also argue legal-authority.
The next point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that the charter of this collection of Eastern Caribbean states has two important requirements in it, both of which were violated. One is that for such action to take place unanimity is required. Grenada is a member of that organization. It should not surprise many people that Grenada did not participate in that decision. That was the number one violation of their own charter. Second, and very important, collective action taken by members of the Eastern Caribbean Organization was to be directed toward an outside aggressor who was taking action against one of its members. Again, Mr. Speaker, that requirement was not met.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the three arguments which have been offered with great seriousness in the U.S. media by the U.S. President and by its Secretary of State simply do not hold water and we in this House, like the rest of the civilized world which wants to be honest, must see that reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 would also add, Mr. Speaker, that the action taken by this collection of states against Grenada violates the Rio Treaty. It violates the principles of international law and goes against the United Nations Charter. It goes against the preamble of the Charter and it goes against Article 1 and II of the Charter. In particular, Article II of the United Nations Charter says that members of the United Nations should refrain from "threat or the use of violence against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
1 say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that it is a rather sad irony that the attack against Grenada should have taken place the day after the thirty-ninth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, the United Nations whose very name was suggested by a very distinguished and very great democrat by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I believe that if Mr. Roosevelt was alive he would have grave concerns about the abuse of the very principles of democracy, the very principles
of co-operative action upon which the United Nations was founded, and for whose purposes he worked so hard.
I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to what I believe are the real reasons for the invasion of Grenada. They should concern us as members of a country which is part of the Americas. They should also concern us at this particular time in world history when matters are so precarious, when nuclear weaponry make a distinct possibility of the obliteration of mankind. I happen to think, and the evidence can be adduced, and if we had more time I would be only too happy to provide it, that the Reagan administration-not the Carter administration and, not many members of the United States Senate or the United States Congress, but the Reagan administration- has been waging an undeclared war against Nicaragua. It has aided in the suppression of human rights in El Salvador, and it supports the dictatorship which exists in Guatemala. These are unpalatable truths for a democrat. These are unpalatable truths for many people in the U.S. Congress.
The Reagan administration is turning, in my judgment, the whole of Central America into a crusade. It is doing its best to turn that region, and a good part of its members, into a crusade against any kind of political regime which can be seen in any sense of the modern use of language to be philosophically left of centre. It is supporting in this holy crusade-or unholy crusade-any kind of regime on the right, providing that such regime supports the government of the United States. Just as during the Crusades, Mr. Speaker, when the so-called Christian heads of state perverted the very principles of morality, of Christianity, in the name of Christianity, so do we now find people in the Reagan administration completely perverting the most fundamental principles of democracy in the name of democracy. George Orwell told us what this was all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is in this context, Mr. Speaker, that I say that the attack on Grenada was simply an event just waiting for an excuse to happen, in the mind of the Reagan administration. If we in this House do not say in the clearest way that this is unacceptable, if we do not make it clear that the American administration is doing things which are fundamentally wrong, we betray our own traditions as a democratic people and we will also not be supporting those thousands of American democrats who oppose their government in this kind of activity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. He could be allowed to continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank Hon. Members of the House. I will try to conclude very quickly.
We must make very clear here in the Canadian House of Commons that we do not support this kind of activity, this

October 27, 1983
aggressive behaviour which has been undertaken against the nation of Grenada, because if the United States-and again I stress, the present administration of the United States-succeeds with this, and that is why President Reagan is on television again tonight, then 1 ask, can Nicaragua be far behind? And after Nicaragua, will it be Cuba? After Cuba will it be the Dominican Republic? And after the Dominican Republic, who knows?
We have a very basic obligation, Mr. Speaker, to send a message to the Government of the United States that it is morally wrong. 1 also want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that, as is very often the case in politics, morality counts for practical events. They are not disconnected aspects of human existence. Morality in politics frequently counts in the way states behave. If we do not make the proper decision in this instance as a parliamentary democracy on the northern borders of the United States, not only will we be doing a disservice to moral principles, we will not be sending the kind of practical, moral message which must be sent to the Government of the United States. That is what is involved in this debate.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliament of Canada tonight must now join France, Britain, Sweden, Venezuela, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and many other States in making it unequivocally clear that we condemn this invasion.
On the opening day of this session of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, an extremely serious debate took place in this House. On that occasion, as was the case today, I moved a motion under the provisions of our Standing Orders calling for an emergency debate. I did so because the Government of the Soviet Union, through whatever series of events, and in one sense it matters not, got involved in a decision that took the lives of 259 civilians. All of us in this House representing all Parties condemned that action, and correctly so. We did not hesitate when we thought through all of the important intricacies involved, and there were many, and in the final analysis said that was a morally wrong thing to do.
As I said the other day, most actions in politics, whether domestic or international, cannot be reduced to the simplicities of black and white. Most political issues are complex and involve very weighty and practical moral judgments. Occasionally you get clear-cut issues when you look honestly at the evidence. We did that, Mr. Speaker, on the opening day when it came to the shooting down of a Korean civilian aircraft. I suggest we are in exactly the same situation today regarding the clarity of the issues involved. We do not have an issue which is clouded by ambiguity. Anyone who wants to see the facts and see them honestly, I suggest, can only reach one conclusion.
In this sense, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a test for Parliament, a test of the integrity of the Members of Parliament of all Parties, to see if they can apply the same moral standard to that great democracy to the south of us when it acts wrongly,
as we did in applying standards and judgments to the Soviet Union when it acted wrongly.
Therefore I would like to propose we resolve this debate by coming together on a motion today, as we did on the opening day of this session. I would like to propose that motion, and I would hope that after consideration it could obtain the support of all three of Canada's political Parties in this House. It is:
This House supports the judgment of the Secretary of the Commonwealth- -
That is our Commonwealth, Mr. Speaker:
-who just recently described the invasion of Grenada as:
"A deplorable act of blatant aggression."
In the name of decency, Mr. Speaker, in the name of a fundamental commitment to democracy, in the name of a commitment to the principles of non-violence in relations amongst the nations of the world, I urge all Members of the House to support that motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was able to make a short statement on this matter yesterday, but considering the short amount of time allowed for that type of statement I was not able to complete my remarks. Therefore, 1 would like to very briefly make those same points again tonight.
1 pointed out how deeply shocked I and many other Canadians were two weeks ago when the bloody coup d'etat took place in Grenada, and how many of us would have supported reasonable international solutions to the problem which had arisen there. But we could in no way approve of the U.S. invasion of that small island which took place earlier this week. There is no doubt in my mind that that invasion, as was said by the previous speaker, is a clear violation of international law, the United Nations Charter, and in effect constituted an act of war against Grenada by the United States, If that action was merely to protect and evacuate United States citizens after other less severe alternatives had been examined, then there could be some justification for the attack. But there has been absolutely no evidence thus far that that was the case.
The other reason given by the United States Government for its action was to restore democracy or protect democratic institutions. 1 said that was a noble intention but very difficult to believe, Mr. Speaker, since many of the governments supported by the United States in Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America are military dictatorships. I referred to the example of Chile where there was a democratically elected government which was undermined by the United States Government and replaced by military dictatorship, and we see no signs of an invasion by the U.S. against that Government. Many other examples could be given as well.
Nor is it enough to argue that this action was necessary because of the bloody coup d'etat which occurred a few weeks before. Do we forget, or do Americans forget that their very beginnings were born in bloody military revolution in 1776 when Americans took up arms in rebellion against the British?
October 27, 1983

Would it have been tolerated in principle by the Americans that there would have been intervention by, let us say, the monarchies of Europe at that time? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. That is not a legitimate excuse.
The United States action in Grenada must be condemned not only because it is a violation of international law, but also because it sets an example. It allows that a large powerful nation can invade a smaller, weaker nation, if it does not approve of its system or structure of Government, or even if it does not approve of political developments in that country. How was this any different than the reasoning given by the Soviets for intervening in Poland and Afghanistan or the actions of Libya in Chad or the Cubans in Angola?
If we do not condemn the United States in this case, Mr. Speaker, how can we ever with any sincerity, with a straight face, condemn others who would do likewise again? What hypocrisy. If the United States can flout the principle of national sovereignty when it thinks it is appropriate to do so, then so can anyone else. Some will say those others have already done so, so why not the United States? Well, we expect more from the United States. In the U.S. there is freedom to criticize, there are freely elected governments, and there is a constitution based on very high principles. We do not expect the United States to act like the Soviet Union. We expect much more than that from the United States. We expect the United States to respect principle in international relations. Once we dispense with that principle, then we accept that might is right in international relations and that smaller nations must submit to the large powerful nations. World law and world institutions then become meaningless.
It is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, that many countries see this situation in much the same way. Many NATO countries and allies of the United States have criticized and objected to the action taken by the United States. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has mentioned some of those countries which include Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Sweden.
Another very sad commentary on this whole incident is the lack of consultation by the United States with its allies. It told some of its allies almost at the last minute what it was about to do, and it told others a few days before, but in such terms that what it was about to do could not really be understood. The United States certainly had no clear and straightforward consultations with the allies it relies upon in so many other ways in international relations.
The House and the people of Canada must certainly reject the puppet policy statement which was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in the House the day this incident occurred. The Leader of the Opposition was urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to jump on the bandwagon of the United States immediately, even before the facts were established. In responding to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said at the time that he was not ready to condemn or condone the American action because he did not
yet have the facts. The next day, which I believe was yesterday, the chief spokesman for the Conservative Party criticized the Prime Minister for taking the whole matter a step forward and delivering a note to the United States. He said that the Government was acting too quickly because it needed more facts and more information before it could make any statement. One wonders who really speaks for the Conservative Party on these matters.


An Hon. Member:: Do you speak for the Government?


Mr. Allmand:: I am touching upon sensitive nerves now, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You're being silly.


William Warren Allmand: Canadians are asking the same question. As a matter of fact, I have received many calls today which have put that very point to me. It is very evident, Mr. Speaker, that there is a fuzzy approach on that side with respect to this whole matter. Their position would be amusing if it was not so lamentable and if the issue was not so important.
This invasion, Mr. Speaker, must be condemned. That type of action repeats all of the errors found throughout history which have led to all-out war. A small invasion here or a small incursion there are the kinds of sparks that set aflame the tinderbox of war on a worldwide scale. Countries like the United States and the Soviet Union should realize that fact, especially in an age when there are enough atomic and nuclear weapons in the hands of both sides to wipe out mankind entirely. One might call this incident in the Caribbean small, but it can be the sort of incident which can lead to much more horrible catastrophes.
After the terrible conflicts of World War II, the United Nations was established and it was established on great principles. As was mentioned, we celebrated its anniversary on Monday of this week. Although it has had its faults, and we admit that it has, it offers a much better way of resolving disputes than unilateral military action. As Churchill once said, better jaw-jaw than war-war.
Peace requires patience and wisdom, not a hasty military action like that which took place in Grenada by the United States. In particular, peace does not require actions taken by the powerful against the weak.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a moment or two ago, the Government Whip asked me if I would defer my speech until after the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) had spoken in order to allow the Minister to speak second. That apparently will not happen, otherwise I would be following the Minister.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister was invited outside by the CBC to do a television show at 9.45 p.m.


An Hon. Member:: The CBC is more important. Where are his priorities?

October 27, 1983


Erik Nielsen: As my colleagues have said, that is an indication of the priorities of the Minister.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Where is your Leader and foreign affairs spokesman then? Where are their priorities?


Erik Nielsen: For the enlightement of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I will be addressing the question of where the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is. If the Hon. Member will recall the events today, it was after the Leader left the House to meet a commitment in the riding of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), our foreign affairs critic, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party came to me and sought consent for this debate. I believe I even went beyond what he asked me by consenting to the emergency debate tonight. However, that occurred after both the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and our critic had left the House. They are unavoidably absent this evening.


Mr.   Prud@: That's the same thing. We know where their priorities are.


Mr. Gimaiel:: Where are their priorities?


Erik Nielsen: 1 do not think the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel), who would countenance any position including the adoption of communistic stances in order to retain the Liberal Party in power, should be heard to be intervening at this time.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) on a point of order.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the Opposition House Leader that my Party is the Liberal Party, not the Communist Party as he is insinuating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair would appeal to Hon. Members. If we spoke to the motion that is now before the House, it would help matters greatly. The Hon. Member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: In any event, I have explained the absence of the Leader and the critic.
Before embarking upon my remarks, I would like to say that 1 was affected by some of the remarks made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party tonight. I find that I have to reject absolutely the principle espoused by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that at no time is an intervention to prevent the takeover of a country by a tyrant ever justified. I say that to him sincerely because I have had personal experience of what acts of war are all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In answer to the groans on the other side, 1 have been there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I have seen countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece and Africa succumb to that kind of action by states. There is a point-


John Edward Broadbent: They were attacked by another state.


Erik Nielsen: Peace in our time. Since that time, I have seen the acts that were committed by Russia and Hungary and Czechoslovakia in Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, so there are occasions when the justification is there.


John Edward Broadbent: What about the U.S. in Guatemala and Haiti?


Erik Nielsen: Surely it is premature to come to any final conclusion when all of the facts are not in. Surely it is premature to form any final judgment on the actions that we are discussing tonight.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Terrible. Ask Margaret Thatcher.


Erik Nielsen: Canada has a long history of involvement with the Caribbean countries-


Some Hon. Members:: Ask Margaret Thatcher.


Mr. Andre:: He listened to you.


Erik Nielsen: -from the days when Nova Scotian two-masters carried Canadian fish and other products to the Islands, up to the present when Canadian investment in the Caribbean runs to hundreds of millions of dollars in both the public and private sector. It has been a history of trade and friendship based on mutual respect for parliamentary government in the Caribbean countries of the Commonwealth, as in Canada. On many grounds, Canada has a direct and positive interest in the welfare and stability of the Caribbean Commonwealth countries.
It must be kept in mind that the current action in Grenada was initiated by the countries of the Eastern Caribbean at the request of the Governor General of Grenada and carried out with their co-operation. In the interests of lending co-operation to our neighbours in a time of stress and difficulty, it is imperative that the Government of Canada be on top of the situation, fully informed of developments, take part in the consultations that are going on and show initiative in meeting the serious problems that are developing and which is aware are developing. Unfortunately, there is little indication that this was the attitude of the Canadian Government.
The Liberal and the NDP Parties, together once again, are trying to narrow the issue to the landing of the United States troops in Grenada along with troops of six Caribbean countries. Implicit in this narrow view is that no guilt shall attach
October 27, 1983

to those responsible for shooting down the Prime Minister and four of his Cabinet along with dozens of innocent people. In my judgment, that is not the view that will be taken by most Canadians. This view of the NDP and the Liberals totally discounts the right of the people of Grenada to freedom of choice.
Of concern to Canadians is whether a Caribbean country, member of the Commonwealth, should be turned over to the Cubans and Soviets against the wishes of its people. Premier Castro has admitted to the presence of 600 or 700 armed Cubans in Grenada. They virtually controlled the country. By no stretch of the imagination can this be made to appear as any shining example of democracy.
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) position would have resulted in this state of affairs continuing. It would have allowed the Soviets and Cubans to strengthen their grip on the Island. It would have perpetuated a situation where Grenadians had no rights in their own country. It would have sanctioned and approved instability and fear in the region. It appears that the Canadian Government was so anxious to maintain a hands-off attitude that no attention was paid.
We believe the Grenadians, with their tradition of Commonwealth membership, have the same right to free elections as any other country in the Commonwealth. The Government turned its back on the Caribbean situation and it was perfectly obvious that this was its attitude. This is one reason why it was neither advised nor consulted about the multinational force until the very last minute. We are now informed reluctantly by the Prime Minister that Canadian officials did in fact meet with the Caribbean leaders, including Premier Adams of Barbados, as early as last Friday at which time the possibility of intervention was mentioned.
The Government has made much of the fact that Britain has taken the same position as Canada. Even if this were so-and there are essential differences-it must be noted that Britain's situation is not in any way similar to Canada's. The Caribbean Commonwealth countries are former British colonies. Britain does not relish the liberation of a former colony by the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That was made clear. We do not consider this to be a laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are making it such. You are absurd.


Erik Nielsen: If they had read the debates in the British House of Commons, that was made clear. Britain did not have troops available in the immediate area.
The Prime Minister and the Government have rejected the intervention to restore calm and public order in Grenada.
President Reagan and Secretary Shultz have promised the removal of American marines and the holding of elections within a reasonable period after order has been restored. The Governor General of Grenada will be asked to form a provisional government to act in the interim.
5.0. 30
The United States moved in only after a request was received from the chairperson of the Organization of States in the Eastern Caribbean. These States are bound by mutual defence agreements. It should also be noted that the Eastern Caribbean States were asked for help by the Governor General of Grenada, Paul Scoon.
Tom Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados; Edward Seaga, Prime Minister of Jamaica; Eugenia Charles, Prime Minister of Dominica, who is also chairman of the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean States, were among those who requested intervention.
Great Britain was approached and expressed doubts about armed intervention. Canada was not formally approached or consulted until a few hours before the intervention took place.
Canada has strong interests in the Caribbean. Only last February in St. Lucia, the Prime Minister committed this country to investing some $350 million in Caribbean aid. Private Canadian investment runs into hundreds of millions of dollars and of course, thousands of Canadians use the Caribbean for recreational purposes. There are many thousands of Canadians of Caribbean origin who are now making a substantial contribution in this country.
In a situation of murder and wholesale killing, the Prime Minister and three on his Cabinet shot down in Grenada, a strong Cuban military presence involving a threat to stability of the Caribbean community, the Canadian Government appeared totally unconcerned. It was caught flatfooted by events and now it is saying that it is all President Reagan's fault. Day after day, we asked questions about the Government's intentions and got no answers. Because the present Government does not have the confidence of its allies and partners, Canada was not consulted and advised about what was going to be taking place. The Government adopted its usual non-aligned posture, even to the point of not inviting consultation. Under the existing circumstances, this amounted to giving a green light to those who murdered the chief officers of the government as well as many others.
A Canadian Government with a realistic concern for Canadian interests would have taken steps to inform itself about what was going on. It would have consulted our allies and would have been in a position to offer advice and assistance. The simple fact is that we failed to live up to our responsibilities in that area. We emerged as an untrustworthy partner, one that could not be trusted to keep a secret. The Government was not informed. It was not even interested.
Canadians, Sir, were placed in jeopardy by the Government's lethargy and by the Government's failure to act. As a result Canada's standing in the Caribbean has diminished considerably. All of the wriggling and squirming that has been going on by the Prime Minister and his singularly ill-informed "minister of fate" cannot change those facts. Once again, this Government has let down Canada most deplorably.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 27, 1983


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter that has been brought before the House in this emergency debate is one of great importance and is of considerable gravity. It involves a circumstance, indeed a series of circumstances that are alien to what we have been accustomed to for the most part in this hemisphere. I would want to agree with the previous speakers to the extent that the matter is grave, but note that there is a very sharp divergence of opinion between the positions taken by the New Democratic Party, as very articulately expressed by its Leader, and the position taken by the Conservative Party.
I want to begin with something that I consider to be very important. The safety of Canadian citizens who, for one reason or another, found themselves in Grenada at the time of these happenings must be and is my prime responsibility and concern. Since the beginning of the weekend, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) and I have laboured constantly, often with considerable frustration, to extricate our citizens from the position in which they find themselves in Grenada. In relation to those efforts, I want to say that they have led to many difficulties and much frustration for many worthy foreign service officers. I want to pay tribute to officials at External Affairs here in Ottawa, Washington and in Barbados who, with little sleep, have sought to find their way through the web of military confusion that exists in Grenada in relation to helping our people leave the island.
I want to say also that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who is on a very important mission in the Middle East, has stayed in contact with the situation through reports on numerous occasions each day.
The military actions I have referred to, of course, make it very difficult to communicate with Grenada because the American occupied zone is under a military commander who has priorities other than civilian traffic. There are many contradictions. We have received incorrect information on a number of occasions, and indeed to the best of the information that we can discern there is a considerable amount of scattered fighting that is still going on in areas of the island that are by no means safe.
There is no question that under such circumstances the military authorities have priorities and have their preoccupations. I believe all of those have conspired against us. I am able to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that our latest indications are that all Canadians known to be on the island are safe.


J. Michael Forrestall: How about the others?


Gerald Augustine Regan: We have no indication or reason to believe that they are in any imminent danger.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We have confirmation that two Canadians have been airlifted to the United States, to South Carolina, but we are uncertain as to the exact time at which other Canadians will be able to leave the island.
We have a Canadian Armed Forces Hercules at Barbados. That aircraft has sought for the past 24 hours-longer than that, quite a few hours since the invasion-permission to land in Grenada. First we had another aircraft in mind but this one has been available to go in. We sought and finally during the night obtained permission for that aircraft to fly in today to bring out the Canadians. The aircraft finally received a time this afternoon, flew to Grenada, circled, but was unable to land. I can only report that probably for understandable reasons relating to the military operations, there is a state of high confusion in the operation of the airfield on Grenada. The aircraft was forced to return to Barbados without any passengers. We are in contact with a high source in Washington indicating our grave concern in this matter. We are confident that the Canadians who are still on the island will be airlifted from there tomorrow.
I want to say that the information that we have from the American sources indicates that Canadians had assembled and have assembled in the area of the airport, but we are unable to get any confirmation of earlier reports that a great number of them have been brought out on American aircraft.
I would like to review briefly the past events on Grenada which began to unfold from October 14. The position of this Government was that we were concerned about the political orientation of Grenada under the late Prime Minister Bishop since the coup of 1979 which overthrew the unpopular Government of Sir Eric Gairy. However, Canadian relations were maintained. There was dialogue. There was contact. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asserted the rights of countries to determine their own internal affairs, as long as they did not meddle abroad, at the St. Lucia Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in February. 1 want to say that we adhere to that belief. 1 think that there can be only the growth of uncertainty and grave danger for peace if we all assume the idea that, because a country has a government of a type of which we do not approve, there is the right for military intervention to change that type of government.
If I may move on, there was shock and dismay at the brutal assassination of Prime Minister Bishop and his many political colleagues and supporters. The situation from the Canadian point of view was monitored as closely as possible, particularly in relation to the safety of Canadians, by the first secretary of the Canadian High Commission, Joe Knockaert, who was in Grenada on aid business. He, with the help of members of CIDA co-operants, expecially Allan Bodey, established contact with as many Canadians as possible with a view to calming them and making possible evacuation arrangements. Those events were made extremely difficult by the rigid "shoot-on-sight" curfew. Nevertheless, the contacts were carried out in safety.
It was not possible to carry out an evacuation of the Canadians as early as we might have desired last weekend because the airport was closed for a period of time during the disorder and confusion as to who was in charge on the island.
October 27, 1983

However, Mr. Knockaert worked out a plan for the evacuation of the Canadians, starting on Friday, October 21, with the existing authorities in Grenada. They again contacted the Canadians to determine who wished to leave, and a charter aircraft was arranged to come to Grenada to pick up the Canadians and a number of other foreign nationals on Monday, October 24. The High Commissioner in Barbados made arrangements for a 48-seat aircarft.
Members will be at least partly familiar with the difficulties experienced with clearance of this aircraft because of the fact that it was one of an airline owned by a number of countries in the Caribbean area and that at the last moment, after permission had been given by Prime Minister Tom Adams of Barbados, other countries objected to it going into Grenada. By the time the confusion in the communications with those far-flung islands was overcome by the helpful intervention of Prime Minister Charles of Dominica and the work of our High Commissioner, Mr. Noble Power, it was too late in the day for the aircraft to fly into Grenada on Monday. As Members of the House know, the invasion occurred early the next morning, and that made evacuation impossible from that time up until the present moment.
In dealing with the events of last weekend, may 1 say that on Friday, October 21, consultations were initiated with the Commonwealth heads of Government by all four Canadian High Commissioners in the region. These consultations preceded meetings of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States late October 21 and October 22 in Barbados and of the Caricom heads of Government in Port-of-Spain on October 22 and October 23. At the time of these consultations on October 21, while some Caribbean States spoke of the possibility of physical intervention, none indicated any planning that was under way of a firm nature, and there was no indication that United States involvement was contemplated. I might say that at that time some of the Caricom states strongly opposed any idea of military intervention. The result is that they were not consulted further by those who eventually became involved in the invasion.
Also Hon. Members are familiar with the timing of the military intervention. At this point 1 want to say that after it occurred, when I instructed our High Commissioners in Jamaica and Barbados to contact Prime Ministers Adams and Seaga, they both expressed deep concern that Canada was not consulted. At least one of them spoke on the telephone with our Prime Minister. They indicated-and we have learned it from other sources-that Prime Minister Charles of Dominica had intended to explain the OECS position to the Canadian Government. She said this on television. Apparently it did not happen because of the rapid and dramatic resolution of events.
There was an extremely serious situation in Grenada, a situation of disorder, chaos and violence which caused consternation in adjacent countries and beyond. It was the type of situation which could have endangered the lives of foreign nationals as well as Grenadian citizens. 1 would be quick to grant that there were many who felt that something had to be done with that existing vacuum.
The principal questions with which we are all deeply concerned, whatever may be our views in the different corners of this House, are whether the action taken was justified and all other possible solutions of a less dangerous nature had been adequately examined. 1 hark back to the words of the Leader of the New Democratic Party because whatever the views of any Member, 1 do not think it is possible to find anyone in the House who disagrees with his description of the horror of war and what it does to young making, sometimes to young womankind, and so often these days to civilians. Only when the situation in Grenada has clarified will we know exactly what sufferings may have occurred there as a consequence of the course that was taken.
We understand the concern of other countries and the concern of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. War is terrible and, what is more, war is contagious. When it is seen that military intervention, no matter how noble the purpose may seem to be in one case, can occur in one location, there may be incentive for other countries under provocation to take that action with less justifiable motives.
We believe that wider consultations should have taken place before this action of military intervention occurred. We believe that it might have been possible-who can know now?-to have found a solution to the existing situation which would not involve the shedding of blood of young people, indeed of anyone.
Sir Geoffrey Howe said in the British House of Commons yesterday:
The United States took one view, the United Kingdom took another. It is no more for me to condemn them than it is for them to condemn us.
The Canadian position has been remarkably similar. We have said that we deeply regret that the Americans found it necessary to take that action. We regret in particular the lack of consultation. Another aspect of our position which needs to be remembered is that we have constantly said that if there is justification, the Americans have not presented it yet. There may be justification of which we do not know. I can only say that President Reagan did not present any new material justifications in his remarks tonight on television.


John Edward Broadbent: We will have to wait a long time for them.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I wonder, as we ponder this difficult problem, whether the position of the Opposition Parties might be somewhat different if they had at this moment the responsibility of office.
Again I say that we regret Canada was not consulted. We clearly were not. At seven o'clock on the eve of the invasion we were told by an undersecretary to our Ambassador in Washington, rather than a contact on a Minister to Minister or Chief of State basis, that some sort of rescue operation was under consideration and that possibly it might be of a military type. We were told that these options had to be presented to the President and that other options included an action by the Eastern Caribbean States alone. That hardly was consultation or information that an invasion would take place within hours.

October 27, 1983
Indeed, the forces of that invasion must have already been in motion.


Mr. Lawrence:: Why did you think they did not tell you?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member asks why I think they did not tell us. They did not tell us for similar reasons they did not tell Mexico, or Trinidad which had also indicated its opposition to the action, and for the same reason that they did not adequately tell Great Britain or any of the other countries. Apparently they consulted only the countries that indicated in earlier meetings that they were in favour of a military invasion. They did not consult with Canada because they felt that the doubts that have been expressed in this House, and indeed the doubts that exist in the minds of many Members of the Conservative Party, would have been reflected in the advice we would have given.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Because they did not trust you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member says they did not trust us. I say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not want anyone to trust me to give a blanket endorsement of an invasion in which people were going to be killed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I wonder if the Minister of State for International Trade might care to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue his remarks. At the moment his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I gather there is unanimous consent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am indebted to Hon. Members for allowing me the time. We believed there was an unseeming hurry to follow the course that carried hazards for civilians, including our civilians, which created an unfortunate precedent for other countries whose motives may be most worthy. 1 want to make it quite clear; I want no mistake about it: I admire the great republic to our south. I admire the United States and I value the friendship of the United States. But as a Canadian, 1 am not prepared to endorse automatically every action that they take regardless of an examination of its merit.
Since the invasion there seems to be a situation in which the understanding by the American authorities-and they chose this course to the extent of military opposition-appears to have been followed. It would appear that their intelligence indicated a much easier situation than occurred. But, of course, it is the sort of danger that comes with military intervention because intelligence can often be faulty. In that case the sacrifice or the loss can be greater than anticipated.
There are many aspects of this web that could be examined, but 1 am now trespassing on the time of the House. Rather than review in any more detail the motivation or the situation that has existed, I want to deal with the reality of the fact that an invasion has occurred, or a military intervention; the word
"invasion" has been used by the American authorities. 1 want to say that the most useful thing this House can do is to direct its attention toward efforts that may help to restore peace and self-determination for the people of Grenada.
We look to the future. The Prime Minister stated in the House this afternoon that no direct request has been made to us by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth to participate in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, but that Secretary General Ramphal had made general suggestions along these lines publicly and to Commonwealth members. The Prime Minister indicated that he has been attempting to communicate with certain Commonwealth leaders to explore the same type of idea. As Hon. Members will recall, during Question Period today he indicated he spoke by telephone to Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain on this and other related subjects.
If an election is to take place after the hostilities cease and the invading troops leave Grenada, quite presumably some kind of Commonwealth force will be required, the Prime Minister stated. He offered, subject to the approval of Cabinet, to participate in such an observation of an election. He further said that if hostilities are prolonged, he would even go further and suggest that we could call for a truce, ask all foreign nationals to leave and then the Commonwealth could send in an observer force to ensure that the peace is respected. This may be a direction in which Canada can be helpful.
Governor General Scoon is the continuing link with legitimacy on the island of Grenada. That is the case whether he asked for outside intervention or not, and there is considerable controversy and doubt on that question at this hour. However, the Governor General is the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in a Commonwealth country and has a legitimate position. Since 1979, no other authorities have been popularly elected on that island, although there apparently was widespread support for the Bishop Government.
Subsequent to the Question Period today, 1 have spoken to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ramphal, by telephone. I told him on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) that we endorse his comments in relation to a role for the Commonwealth, as Grenada is a Commonwealth country and Canada is the senior Commonwealth member in this hemisphere. I conveyed to Mr. Ramphal our support and our willingness to participate in any peace force that the Commonwealth should establish to be helpful in Grenada.
I further indicated that the Canadian Government would be willing to assist in consultations with other Commonwealth countries, if that should be considered by the Secretary General to be helpful. After thanking me for our reaction, he undertook to be in further contact with us within the next few hours.
It is difficult at this point in time to know exactly what will evolve in the coming days. Indeed, the Americans, who are militarily in the island, will obviously have a point of view. We believe, however, that the sooner a healthy determination by the people of Grenada can freely take place the better, and
October 27, 1983

there may well be an opportunity and an appropriate role for the Commonwealth.
In participating in this debate tonight, 1 recognize the seriousness of the situation as justifying the existence of an emergency debate in the House. I commend those Hon. Members, whatever their views, who contributed to an examination of this serious situation and I express my conviction that there may well be a role for the Commonwealth in re-establishing peace and self-determination in Grenada.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to raise a number of questions and to make some points about this dreadfully serious matter. I will start by making the point that 1 wish I were as certain about anything in this whole matter as the Leader of the NDP seems to be certain about every aspect of it.
1 would remind the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) that, contrary to his expressed view that it is the Cabinet that should decide whether Canada participates in a Commonwealth force, in fact it is the House that should decide that question. 1 should have thought that he would respect the privilege of the House in making his points on that matter a few moments ago.
A number of people have asked where this Party stands on the Grenadian question. Consistent with remarks made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) I would point out that this Party as of now is of the view that it is too early to make a definitive decision on this matter. We do not propose to prejudge what happened in Grenada in the last couple of days. We do not know what happened on the days when those murders occurred, or we do not fully know. We are asking the Canadian people to reserve judgment on the matter until we have some answers, as I expect we will have shortly.
Let us see what results from talking to people like the Governor General, Paul Scoon, before Canadians and this Party decide what is in the best interests of Canada in this matter. Let us neither condemn nor congratulate anyone with respect to this; let us wait a little and see what the facts are.
The motion standing in the name of the Leader of the New Democratic Party makes a number of statements. I would take issue with the motion when it states that Grenada is "an independent member of the Commonwealth whose Queen is also the Queen of Canada". I would remind them that the regime of Maurice Bishop suspended the Grenadian constitution in 1979, that a week or so ago General Austin put Governor General Paul Scoon under house arrest, and that the United States only dared to reveal that it was he who had called for aid after he was safely out of the country. 1 agree with the Minister of State for International Trade that at the moment the Governor General would appear to be the most legitimate focus of government in the country.
1 regret that the New Democratic Party has condemned the United States tonight without hesitation after 14 days of silence about the position of Canadians on the island of Grenada.
I gather that the Liberals are disappointed that they were not consulted about the matter. The United Kingdom was consulted, Friday, Saturday and Monday, I understand, but Canada was not told until the helicopters were in the air or landing on Grenada.
One of the aspects of this matter that is so serious to me is that the Caribbean states involved thought so little of Canada that they did not even consult us. As I understand it, none of them consulted Canada to see what advice we could give.
As a Member of the Party that I believe will form the Government of this country within a year or so* I also regret that the Department of External Affairs was so little aware of what was happening in and around Grenada that it did not apprise the Government, as I understand it, of events until the time of the invasion.
And last, Mr. Speaker, our best ally and friend, our major trading partner and one of the two countries with which we share this continent, did not trust us with information and did not consult us, as we were entitled to be consulted. I hope if something like this happens in the future we will be consulted. It seems to me that the Canadian Government has suffered a rebuff from the Caribbean States and the United States and from everyone involved in the tragedy that has occurred in an area where we used to think we had some influence and prestige.
1 should like to refer to a note that I made last night of what the Minister of State for International Trade said on the CBC television program "The Journal". He said that his Government is unable to see any justification for this. I think that represents an overly broad generalization but we must wait to see whether it is borne out by the facts.
At this point may I give a perspective I obtained today from a member of the East Caribbean community. It is his view of what has gone on in Grenada. I do not want to reveal his name because I do not think it would be fair to mention it in this Chamber. He made the point that he, as a member of an East Caribbean country, thought that bulldozers, etc., were the stock in trade of people who were building airport runways. We heard tonight from President Reagan that a warehouse was found to be full of weapons and that there were 600 seemingly well trained Cuban construction workers and 30 military advisers on the island. My source from the Caribbean asked what the true intentions of Cuba were in building this runway and pointed out that 600 armed men could overrun any of the member states of the Organization of East Caribbean States.
The gentleman I refer to also expressed to me his profound concern about what 600 armed people could do in that region of the world. He reminded me that about a year ago a plot was uncovered in the City of Toronto of a coup to be undertaken against Dominica. That coup was fortunately stopped. He pointed out that 100 armed men could probably seize and take control of Dominica. He pointed out that those six States, three of which have no army at all, are terribly vulnerable to an armed takeover. That is why he and many other people

October 27, 1983
were so concerned about what was going on in Grenada at the time,
1 should like to turn now to the statement of Prime Minister Eugenia Charles of Dominica, who was trained as a lawyer in the City of Toronto. Her statement to the OECS Permanent Council on October 26 is quite lengthy so I shall only refer to a few points that she made. She said:
Member governments considered that the subsequent imposition of a draconian 96 hour curfew by the military group in control was intended to allow them to further suppress the population of Grenada which had shown by numerous demonstrations their hostility to this group.
Then she said:
Member governments have also been greatly concerned that the extensive military build-up in Grenada over the last few years had created a situation of disproportionate military strength between Grenada and other OECS countries. This military might in the hands of the present group has posed a serious threat to the security of the OECS countries and other neighbouring states.
She went on to say, and I will paraphrase it, that the military group in control under General Austin was going to consolidate the position of the regime and that the country could be used as a staging post for acts of aggression against its members. Then, referring to Grenada, she said:
-a level of sophistication and size far beyond the internal needs of that country. Furthermore the member states of the OECS have no means of defence against such forces.
As Hon. Members here will know, she went on to cite Article XVIII of the Caribbean Treaty establishing the OECS, which is concerned with defence and security and indicates that members can take appropriate action.
1 will raise a completely different point at this time, and that is the question of Canadians who have been taken today by American Hercules planes to North Carolina. 1 would put it to the Government, Mr. Speaker, that if its expressed desire that only Canadian planes should take Canadians out of Grenada had endangered the lives of those people, the Canadian people will never forgive this Government. I feel sure that when the facts come out there will be many people who will be interested in knowing whether Americans were removed from the Ross Point Inn more quickly than the Canadians who were gathered there. Given the fact that the United States offered to take Canadians out on an equal priority basis with Americans, if our Government, out of a perverted sense of national pride, kept those Canadians waiting in that hotel while Americans staying in the same hotel or nearby were removed safely, then I submit this Government will hear a lot about this during its remaining life in office. That is one of the matters which will come out in the days ahead. For the sake of those 40 innocent Canadians, 1 pray that this Government did not put its petty nationalism ahead of their lives and safety.
I next ask the question, why is it that Barbadian Prime Minister Tom Adams gave a speech on television last night indicating that Canada had been advised of the planned invasion of Grenada? This certainly would appear to me to contradict the statements made by the Government here in
Ottawa. I would hope that that matter would be clarified in the days ahead as well.
On the question of consultation on the possible invasion, when did the Government of Canada first realize that this invasion was taking place? Was it really when the helicopters were in the air, or was it earlier? Canadians are entitled to know that, Mr. Speaker. What was it the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was getting at today when he told us that someone from the Caribbean was supposed to phone the Canadian Government to tell it what was going on, but forgot to do so? I feel that is something Canadians are entitled to know about as well. Why, for that matter, was not the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) recalled from the Middle East to try to deal with the question? He has good relations, I gather, with Secretary of State Schultz. One would wonder as a Canadian why he was not back here to deal with that important question which arose some time ago.
I ask again, Sir, why it was that after the execution of Mr. Bishop our Government did not more actively pursue the question of evacuating the men and women from Canada who were there? Was every avenue of escape investigated? Or were only avenues which involved the use of Canadian aircraft discussed? Why was it that the Canadian Government was reluctant to accept the American offer to evacuate the Canadians? When did the United States make that offer? For that matter, I do not beleive the Canadian Government has ever indicated how many Canadians are on Grenada and I would like to know why it does not know. Were the lives of Canadians placed in danger by the policies of the Canadian Government on the matter? That is something again that Canadians would like to know.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the all important question of the future. Will the Canadian Government really participate in the Commonwealth peacekeeping force? Will it take an active role in creating a new government which is broadly representative of Grenadian society? Will it give this House a chance to debate the nature and quality of such representation?
These are some of the questions which occur to me, and there are many more which may occur to other Hon. Members. I wish I were as certain about these matters as the Leader of the New Democratic Party. However, I believe that in fairness to our allies we owe it to them not to prejudge, not to decide prematurely that the United States in guilty of this or that. I believe that none of us should be making rash statements such as those made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party or the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). We should all wait a little and act in fairness and goodwill to all parties involved in this matter. Then, and only then, should we be making categorical statements.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the first few moments of my speech to come back to what the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said when he referred to a speech I made in this House about two years ago. 1 speak in English because I want to address myself to the
October 27, 1983

people who have been subjected to the propaganda of the Progressive Conservative Party in the last months. 1 know that the Tories took out of context a portion of a previous speech I made two years ago. It was possibly one of the most humane speeches delivered in this assembly for many years, and that Party used it to make the Canadian people believe that the Liberals are Communists and that I myself am a Communist.
I want to tell the Hon. Member for Yukon-and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) knows it quite well-that Communist armaments killed over 100,000 people in Lebanon, the country of my ancestors, in the past seven years. Why is he then trying to use a speech in which I was simply saying to the Canadian people that sharing is the future of our country and the future of our world to make the Canadian people believe that here on this side of the House we are Communists when we are not at all?
The Hon. Member and his colleagues, including the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), from what they have shown in the last few days, are those kinds of people who are driving our world into the way of intolerance, which is resulting in actions like the ones which are occurring now in Lebanon, Afghanistan and, for a few days, in Grenada.
I said this in English, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to make sure-although my English is not as good as I would wish-that people in Provinces and in areas other than mine will understand that Communism and goodwill are not the same thing.

To get back to today's debate, Mr. Speaker, Canada's position to date on the events in Grenada is in line with similar positions it has taken in the past, arising from the basic respect any political party and government must show other governments, whatever their allegiance may be.
Mr. Speaker, this last weekend was supposed to be a celebration of disarmament, but instead of showing us brotherly love, it showed us the horror of what happened in Lebanon, where young American and French soldiers who were there in a peace-keeping capacity were brutally murdered. It showed us how a small country called Grenada was ruthlessly invaded.
Mr. Speaker, the past prepares the future, and I remember a similar invasion that took place about seven years ago at the request of the government of the country that was being invaded. Seven years ago, the Syrians marched into Lebanon, at the request of the Lebanese Government. At the time, none of the Western or Eastern countries voiced any objections. Today, seven years later, the Syrians are still there. Syrian cannon and arms have thundered for months over the heads of anything that moved in Lebanon, whether Palestinians, Lebanese or others, and even more forces joined them. All this because countries throughout the world chose to ignore that act of aggression, the massive invasion of a foreign country.
When we refer to disarmanent, we generally mean nuclear arms and everyone knows about the nuclear arms race. A lot of people accept it alleging that, strategically, if both sides have nuclear arms, there is no danger of war. However there is another basic aspect to that famous theory which is aimed at deterring a possible enemy, and it is that in addition to having nuclear arms, both sides must show that they fully intend to use them. That is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because this is exactly what is going on. Both the Soviets and the Americans are now vying to show up to what length they are ready to go in their military operations. Everything began with Afghanistan. Let us see what occurred afterwards in the Middle East. Look at what happened afterwards in the Middle East. We are now speaking about events occurring very near our own country, in Central America, and the Official Opposition is asking us to endorse such an action, to endorse an aggression which can lead to a nuclear tragedy. We will not, I believe that it is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. I believe that world leaders have to rise and say: The frontiers of any existing country, whatever it may be, have to be respected. Shall we continue, Mr. Speaker, to accept that the wars of other people be waged in countries which have neither the power, nor the will, nor the capacity to defend themselves, such as Lebanon? Are we going to tolerate such an action, even if we are a free country aligned behind the United States, a country which is proud and which plays a role in NATO, a country which is a member of NORAD, and proudly so, the second largest country in the world, a country located between the two most powerful hostile nations, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, our two neighbors? Even if we live in such a country, shall we accept that the frontiers of the weaker countries not be respected by the stronger countries? Did Canada not protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan even if the Afghan government had apparently requested such an intervention?
Mr. Speaker, can anyone give me one good reason which would allow us to justify and condone that kind of action? Unfortunately, on the basis of facts, there is no such reason. As I have said, politicians will have to rise and Canada will have in the years to come to remain in the eyes of the smaller countries the symbol of a nation which has always defended those who needed it, either within its own frontiers or abroad. Let us continue to view individual freedom and freedom of expression as important principles in our lives.
I watched the Members of the Official Opposition take offence yesterday because the Canadian Government had not been consulted. The explanation is simple. Canadians are not a bellicose people, they have never invaded any place, they have always gone where they were asked to keep the peace, they are always where they are needed. They never seek our permission to invade other countries, for they know for a fact that if they did, some 95 per cent of our fellow Canadians would stand up and say "no", for we know that we are not very many to
28428

October 27, 1983
defend our huge country and that our borders are quite vulnerable. We know that we must gain the consideration of others if we want them to respect our borders. We know that we must do unto others, no matter their size, number and strength, what we want them to do unto us. That is what being Canadian means, Mr. Speaker.
I am proud tonight to see that most countries are now supporting the position which the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in this House a few days ago. I am proud also that the British Prime Minister who visited us in the House has indicated just how important it is for our allies to continue to help one another and to stand together against all possible foes, and that the so-called Iron Lady has adopted the same course of action as the Canadian government, for we just could not let the two super-powers continue to play as they do with the destinies of lesser countries.
Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to emphasize to you that there are no bombs falling on either Soviet or American territories and that both sides do not test their most recent weapons over their own territories. 1 am saying this, while fully aware of the part we have to play as a country, and that which the United States have to play as a world power. As President Reagan was reported as saying tonight, the United States is not a small country, and I agree with him when he says that super-powers must intervene in the affairs of the other countries. And I am saying this, knowing fully well that our basic values of freedom and brotherhood, the very values of Christianity which we have forever fought for, are at the mercy of potential enemies and that the Americans, just like us, must do their utmost to protect them.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it does not give us the right to take up arms and impose our will as if it were a matter of agreement, freedom, cooperation and fraternity. 1 think instead that Canada has been setting an example for a number of years. In their own country, the Americans have been giving the example for years through their domestic policy. Why not continue, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it is somewhat like in our personal lives and, if we want to be respected, we have to respect ourselves first and then respect others regardless of their size, their abilities and their strength. In that respect, I am proud to belong to the same party as the Prime Minister of Canada, who has shown once again that being a Canadian is first and foremost to believe in the freedom of expression of men, nations, ethnic groups and ideas. I am active in politics mainly because I want the situation to remain as it has been in recent years.
In conclusion, may I express the hope that those Canadian citizens who are still on that island will be able to return home as soon as possible. Let us hope that once again Canada will play the great role it has been playing throughout the world as a peacemaker along with others which will help Grenada find peace and harmony for all the inhabitants of the island.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I listened tonight to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who so quickly abandoned the high road that had been taken by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) by introducing this motion. I then listened to the subsequent speech made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I simply cannot understand why those two particular Members were chosen by the Conservative Party to lead off this debate. They have not taken any part whatsoever in the work of the subcommittee of the Canadian External Affairs Committee on Canada's relations with the Caribbean and Latin America.
Be that as it may, after listening to those two Members, it occurred to me that if they represent the Conservative Party and if, perchance, the Conservative Party forms the Government of this country, they will say that whatever the United States administration does is all right with them.


An Hon. Member:: A blank cheque.


Pauline Jewett: As my colleague said, it will be a blank cheque. I find this really horrifying. I have listened today to many American Congressmen and Senators, many of them who are of a conservative persuasion, lashing the Reagan administration for this invasion. I assume that Conservative Members of this House cleared the remarks they were going to make with their Leader and with their External Affairs critic, neither of whom could be here tonight, but in any event, neither of whom are here. I have to laugh, Mr. Speaker, when 1 hear the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona say that the Americans did not consult with the Canadians because they did not trust them. What Hon. Members of the Conservative Party are really saying is that the only time the Americans will consult with a country is when they know that that country will be ready to do whatever it is they want that country to do.
The Americans have forgotten completely that although they phoned Mrs. Thatcher and she cautioned them not to do it, they did not in fact take her advice. They did not call her back, they did not wait when she asked for a bit of time; they simply went ahead with their decision. So much for consultation.
What has disturbed me perhaps more than anything else since the new Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mul-roney) came into the House has been the growing disposition on the part of that Party to not make any judgments on its own account on international affairs. We do not have to wait another ten days to make a decision on this invasion. We have to get as many facts as we can about it, and we have all tried to do that. Most of those facts now seem to be available. Then we make our decision. That is what the Secretery General of the Commonwealth has done and what the majority of Latin American countries that are opposed to the invasion have done. That is what many countries in western Europe have done and many members of the American Congress and
October 27, 1983

Senate have done. They have made their decision. The Tories are still waiting to make their decision. I think that the Liberals have made their decision, although I was not entirely sure about that after listening to the Minister tonight. 1 hope that they have.
May 1 repeat for the benefit of the empty Tory benches that the motion we introduced is as follows:
This House supports the judgment of the Secretary of the Commonwealth who just recently described the invasion of Grenada as:
"A deplorable act of blatant aggression".
We all regret to say that that is exactly what it is. The Hon. Member for Yukon said that he totally and entirely disagreed with this motion. I cannot quote him exactly, Mr. Speaker, but 1 wrote down what he said as carefully as I could. He said that it is justified to intervene in a way similar to the intervention of the United States in order to prevent a takeover by tyrants. That is how the Soviet Union would justify an invasion. Now the Hon. Member for Yukon justifies an invasion on those grounds. 1 never thought we would see him taking a position that is totally immoral as well as illegal under international law and one which is in accord with the positions that we have seen taken by the Soviet Union.
The Hon. Member for Yukon made another incredible comment when he said that Britain does not relish the liberation of a former colony by the United States. Does anyone in the House think for a moment that that was Britain's concern? Does anyone think that Britain did not mind the action being taken but it simply did not like the fact that the U.S. took that action? Presumably Britain would have preferred it if another nation were to have taken that action. Apart from the fact that it is a tremendous misuse of the word "liberation," that is all that I can make of the Hon. Member's statement.
I would like to discuss the Government for a moment because the Minister is now in the House and he may wish to intervene about a matter on which the Canadian Government has not yet come clean. I hope that he will. We all understand the enormous confusion that there must be on this tiny island. The island is so tiny that one can fly over it in a helicopter in only two minutes. 1 understand that there must be a great deal of confusion there since all of the phone lines are jammed and so on. Nevertheless, the fact is that Prime Minister Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados, in a speech on television last night that was referred to earlier, although this part of it was not, said that he had met with the Canadian High Commissioner, Noble Power, in Barbados last Friday at 8 p.m. at Mr. Power's request. It was the wish of Mr. Power to relay on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada the concern about what had been happening until that point and more particularly the concern about the murder of Prime Minister Bishop and the concern for Canadians and nationals of other countries.
Last night on television. Prime Minister Adams who was in Barbados said that when he talked to Mr. Power, he told him that the only option was military intervention. He did not specify any particular nations but he did say that he had told Mr. Power that the only option for the Grenada situation was
military intervention by a state or states unnamed. The report on the television program came from people who were there and who heard the comment. Perhaps it has been mixed up in transmission somehow, but it did come directly through the electronic device of television. If it has not been mixed up, it really gives me and my colleagues the concern that that was not communicated to Ottawa. 1 am sure the High Commissioner would have communicated that because it is quite alarming to hear that the only option in the Grenadian situation was military intervention. If that was communicated, I assume he did so probably for the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), whom, I understand, at that juncture was acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), whom we have not seen too often in the House concerning this matter.
We could have acted then to try to persuade the Canadians to leave. I am sure many of them would have left if they had been told that the only option was military intervention. 1 suggest there was Saturday and Sunday, and possibly Monday, when they could have come out. While I am aware of the difficulty in getting the regionally based airline which the Minister told us about, I am speaking about the time earlier than that.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The airport was closed.


Pauline Jewett: Not on Saturday.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, it was.


Pauline Jewett: There are other indications that it was not.
Furthermore, there is the most interesting fact that there was another evacuation planned. I do not know if the Minister realizes this, but he has never even told us about it. It would have involved evacuating American, British and Canadian citizens on the Cunard liner Countess. This story is in today's New York Times. That ship was due to dock in Grenada on Tuesday. The article states:
American officials said that in response to a request from the American Embassy in Barbados, the captain of Countess had radioed that he would take on free of charge all American, Canadian and British citizens who wanted to leave the island, but had to have word if this plan were acceptable by Monday.
Perhaps we did not hear about that, but I would think that our High Commissioner would be in touch with the American Embassy in Barbados. I feel quite strongly that we still have not been told clearly that the opinion of military intervention was being discussed and that it was known Friday evening. I assume that the High Commissioner told External Affairs, so that there is either great confusion in that Department or the Minister for External Relations was excluded from any further discussion on this matter since nothing was done on Saturday or Sunday.
What disturbs me even more is that the Minister is not coming clean about this. Yet this is exactly what Prime Minister Adams of Barbados said on television last night.

October 27, 1983
We believe that the Canadians are in the hotel. We do know that the United States has refused permission for the Hercules to land. One could suspect that the Americans want to return them on their planes in order to give some additional justification to their presence in Grenada.
The American invasion of Grenada brings to mind a scenario that was written at least two years ago. An article was written by Gail Lem in This Magazine in March of this year. The article is entitled "The Elephant and the Mouse: What's the US Doing in Grenada?" It is very much worth reading in full, but I will quote only the three first paragraphs. She is talking about something called "Ocean Venture '81". The article states:
Like all such displays of military might, Ocean Venture '81 was weighted with code words, jargon and in-speak, but authorities did not waste undue language skills or political sophistication to disguise the real-life target of the exercise. In the eight-week flaunting of sea power by the United States and its allies in late 1981-their largest peacetime naval manoeuvres since World War Two-
As many will remember-
Grenada became 'Amber and the Amberdeens'-
That was the code:
And 'our enemy in the Eastern Caribbean'-
This is a tiny three-island state which, according to Ocean Venture '81, was:
-busy exporting terrorism, subversion and anti-democratic revolutionary activity' throughout the region under the influence of a menacing 'Country Red.' Citizens of Grenada and its sister island dependencies ... were understandably horrified at finding themselves the object of the US effort in the Caribbean and they were doubly shocked with the scenario's denouement: an invasion of the country by the US after Amber's radicals seize American hostages and 'negotiations with the Amber government breakdown.'
The United States carried out a full dress rehearsal of this mock invasion at Vieques Island, the US base off Puerto Rico. Under the direction of Rear Admiral Robert P. McKenzie, commander of the Florida-based Caribbean Task Force created by former President Jimmy Carter to counter a perceived 'Soviet threat' to US interests in the region, US paratroopers staged a dawn parachute drop into Vieques. Combat troops trained for mountainous terrain provided support, followed by 1,000 amphibious marine units and air assaults.
The US State Department insisted that the operation was intended only to 'develop a quick reaction capacity for a hypothetical hostage rescue mission.' Why then did the battle plan also call for US troops to remain on the island after rescuing the hostages and to seize power from the 'unfriendly' Amber government in order 'to instal a regime favourable to the way of life we espouse?'
That is the direct quote, "To instal a regime favourable to the way of life we espouse."
That was the scenario in 1981. Apart from the fact that it was not a question of hostages, almost everything else that has happened in the last few days is identical. I fear that it will escalate rather than de-escalate.
American administrations have yet not learned that it is not in the best interest of the United States, their strategic interest or otherwise, to engage in military interventions of this kind. It was not successful in Viet Nam and it will not be now. I am afraid that it will lead to tremendous escalation.
The Cubans have nationals whom they will want to protect as well. They have lost 100 already. They did not start the invasion, and this will just lead, I am afraid, to a tremendous escalation of the situation.
I agree entirely to participating in a peacekeeping effort but I really fear for what will happen before we have an opportunity to do that.
For one per cent of the cost of this massive military invasion, massive in the context of Grenada, that country could have been given an enormous contribution toward economic development, prosperity and political stability. Prime Minister Bishop had sought international development assistance and financial support for the development of the economy and particularly for building its tourist industry base. Such support was not given by the United States, just the opposite. To think that only one per cent of the cost of this invasion could have brought some prosperity and democracy to Grenada!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) has been making a great issue of the fact that the Minister has not come clean with Canadians. 1 think we are all prepared to admit that the Government has not come clean with Canadians. I suggest that the fact of the matter is that the Minister has not come clean because he obviously does not have all of the facts himself. They have not been given to him. His diffidence about imparting them to us, even those that he has, is very definitely related to the fact that he has so few to impart. That is obvious. The Minister, while he was out appearing on CBC this evening, obviously did not hear the President of the United States who was talking at that time and revealing that only two hours before speaking-and that was about four hours ago-there had been discovered on the island of Grenada three large warehouses stacked to the roof with arms and ammunition. That fact the Minister obviously did not know. I think none of us have the facts that we need on which to form a judgment.
There are some very disturbing news reports that I understand are now on the news wires. I will not give currency to them because I have no means of testing them, but they are very disturbing.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that in all sanctimoniousness today the New Democratic Party decided, and tried yesterday, to have a debate on this matter, it can be explained if we look at the chronology of events. On October 12 we learned that the Prime Minister of Grenada had been arrested. That was a Wednesday, if I remember correctly. Over the weekend we heard more disturbing events, and on Monday morning in the House the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) asked the first question about this matter as a result of information which had reached him. That was Monday of last week. There were no questions whatsoever from the New Democratic Party. On Tuesday there was no Question Period because of a procedural problem. On Wednesday the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East asked another pair of questions. On Thursday, a week ago today, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition led on the matters relating to Grenada, and was followed again by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in probing and
October 27, 1983

trying to find out what information there was. We did not know what was happening. We were not privy to the developments. We have had to read the papers and to rely on the newspapers and the wire services to get any information at all. And on that day, last Thursday, the NDP asked questions about fishermen in the north.
On Friday, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and 1 asked certain questions about recognition and consultation. There was consultation, I believe, going on at that time and we asked whether we were going to be party to that consultation. The NDP Members were asking questions about the Cruise missile, nothing about Grenada.
Then came Monday morning following that, and that was the critical weekend when the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Hon. Member for York-Peel asked questions about the new regime, because we then learned that the Prime Minister of Grenada had been assassinated along with a number of members of his cabinet, or the information we had from the press at that time led one to believe that that was the case.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for York-Peel asked questions pertaining to these events. The NDP was asking about disarmament. Then we come to Tuesday when we learned again from the press of the landing of U.S. and other troops on the island of Grenada and the NDP was asking about the automotive industry. There were four Members of this Party who were asking questions in order to determine what the facts were. None of us on this side had the facts. That Government ought to have had them. I know from experience it has a trained Department of External Affairs which normally gets at the facts. The Department did not get them. That is one of the problems with which this Government has been faced. It is not getting facts. But as I say, the New Democratic Party Members were talking about the automotive industry.
On Wednesday, in a statement the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) asked about Nicaragua. At that time on Wednesday, yesterday, came the first question on the matter by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He stood up and condemned the invasion, just like that. He knew all the facts. He could decide. An outright condemnation, he suggested, and that is basically what we are being asked to debate tonight.
How did they get their facts? I spent a fair amount of time looking in The New York Times, in the London Times, the Wall Street Journal and in Canadian papers. The facts are not all that easy to come by. The Government is not giving them to us. I think the Government is not giving them to us because it does not know them. The Government has been denied the facts. That is the regrettable conclusion to which I come.
Then we hear from the Prime Minister of Dominica, Miss Charles, who described the operation at the beginning of the month as a preemptive defensive strike in order to remove a dangerous threat to peace and security in the region. That was a statement by someone who lives next door to Grenada where the trouble is and about which we are learning more and more,
about warehouses of arms and ammunition. Why should we not listen to those who lived with the problem? They probably have greater access to the facts than we have.
Then we learn, not immediately, and I have not heard all that much from the Government on this matter, that the Queen's representative was in protective custody within Grenada, incommunicado. Somehow or other, happily, he managed to get out a message asking for help. This was the representative of the Queen, the legal representative of authority in the country. There had been a coup d'etat. The Prime Minister had assumed power in 1949 by a revolt and now, by a second revolt, he was replaced. These facts are now coming out very, very slowly. The people in the area feel there is a danger to them, to their way of life and to their institutions by the establishment in Grenada of a regime which has no basis in law, a basis only in revolution. Yet we have the sanctimonious New Democratic Party Members standing up and condemning whatever has been done to help those people in response to requests from them.
Next I would like to mention a report which I read from The New York Times Service. It is an analysis of the situation by a correspondent named Hedrick Smith. I do not know whether the name Hedrick Smith means anything to Members in the New Democratic Party. They probably have not read his book. I woulkd advise them to read it. Hedrick Smith's book is called "The Russians". He was The New York Times representative in Moscow for a number of years. We can remember Djilas' book and the story of the new bureaucracy that was being developed in Yugoslavia. Now we find Hedrick Smith describing, in very intimate and detailed terms, the new aristocracy of the bureaucracy which has grown up in the Soviet Union. Obviously Hedrick Smith knows what he is talking about when he is talking about matters related to the incursions, the insidious infiltrations by surrogates of the Soviet Union into other areas of the world such as the Caribbean. The facts are still coming out, but slowly. Obviously we do not have enough facts to form the far-out judgments which were put forward by the New Democratic Party in its resolution.
I was quite disturbed by some of the comments attributed to the Canadian Ambassador to Washington. This morning I read an article in The Globe and Mail which indicated some of the things he said about the Canadian Government having doubts about the need for the United States-led invasion in the Caribbean Islands. He said that from the information available to him they do not consider the invasion to have been justified. That could very well be, on the information available to him. As I already suggested, all available information was probably not made available to him. This same Ambassador is quoted as saying:
-the United States had offered to fly out Canadians who wanted to leave Grenada as soon as it was considered safe to do so, but Canada had refused.
I would like to think that the following quotation is incorrect. I hope it will prove, in the course of time, to have been incorrect. However he said, "I told him", "I" being the

October 27, 1983
Ambassador and "him" being Mr. Dam of the State Department, "that we're a sovereign nation and that the only natural thing for us to do is to go in and look after our own people." This was at a time when a 707 was sitting on the runway in Barbados. Anyone with experience flying 707s would know that it could not have landed given the condition of the runways in Grenada. 1 would like to know how that planes was ever diverted to Barbados. I feel we ought to be given an explanation of that. I suppose someone on the other side ordered it to go there. When the Government orders, off goes the captain. 1 would not be surprised if the captain said, "There is no sense in going to the Barbados for me to take off and go to Grenada because I will never be able to land in Grenada". The Government would tell him to do what he was told. Eventually they had to get a Hercules. I gather the Hercules went there, as the Minister indicated. It was warned off and had to return to Barbados. All this time the Canadian Ambassador was saying that we were a sovereign nation, that we would look after our own kind, and that we did not need any help. That is a very strange way to look after one's own nationals.
1 was glad to hear the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam mention the Cunard Line's vessel, The Countess, which was due to arrive in St. George's on Monday or Tuesday. It offered to take off all the Canadian, British and United States citizens who were there. However, it was warned off because of the inherent dangers in that country.
The conclusions about the operation itself are still very difficult to finalize. Perhaps we will not take that much comfort from the role of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), vaunted by himself and by his Party as being the great mediator and conciliator in the East-West talks and the North-South talks, boxing the compass, if one likes. It has been very seriously eroded in this particular operation. It is very evident that the facts were not reaching Canada as we would normally hope they would. Perhaps one day they will when we re-establish the credibility of our country. When we look over the record of the Prime Minister, it should not really surprise us. He made incredible inroads of destruction in the Department of External Affairs, in which I served, and divided the country by his policies of confrontation. Now he has eroded his own credibility.
To condemn, as this particular motion suggests we ought to do, the operation which has taken place in the eastern Caribbean in response to a request from four members of the area, I think is much too soon. As for the motion the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) presented at the end of his speech, I have yet to see the text of it but, as I listened to it, I found it even more upsetting, more hasty and based on fewer facts than are justified. While he might have been very happy to have it on the record to show, "What a fine boy am I", there is no question in my mind that it was premature. We have no position, and the Government is no help to us in putting us in a position to make judgments on the particular affair.
In conclusion, with the head of state of the country of Grenada unable to communicate with the rest of the world, with its government upset, with the countries surrounding Grenada seeking assistance and fearful of the consequences of a violent revolution in Grenada, and in the absence of more facts, we can do no more than hope that our Canadians will be brought back safely from Grenada shortly.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is with some personal sadness that I rise to take part in the debate on the motion brought to our attention by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. 1 welcome it in a sense because it gives me an opportunity to associate myself immediately with people around the world who have condemned, in the most forceful and justifiable terms, the events on the tiny island of Grenada in the Caribbean just two weeks ago. Their revulsion is a revulsion that I share. Prime Minister Bishop was a long and personal friend. I knew him throughout his political years. I had come to understand, in the sense that I understood the pressures under which he served his nation. There were pressures from those within his administration that would have him be less moderate than he was. There were those in his administration who would have him depart from his contact with the private sector. Others would have had him take a much more stringent, pure Marxist approach. They would have had him bind that nation even closer to Havana and Moscow.
I watched him resist those pressures. I watched him maintain his contacts with the western world, with western democracies. I watched him gain the respect of the Prime Ministers not just of the eastern Caribbean nations, but of the Prime Ministers of all Commonwealth countries, indeed countries within the western world outside of the Commonwealth grouping.
The lot of Maurice Bishop was not an easy one. His entry into politics was caused by his absolute frustration with the corruption of the democratically elected government led by Sir Eric Gairy. His continuation in politics was as a result of a frustration about the low standard of living under which the people of his country has to survive.
In absolute frustration some time after the death of his father, whose dedication was equal, and through the continuing legitimate concerns of his people, the Gairy Government was overthrown. That is all a matter of history. Bishop became the leader of that island nation. In the four and one half years that he was its Prime Minister, I watched the progress in medical care, dental care, education, clean water and agriculture. I watched him try and do for that tiny island that which 1 had come to respect in the man, an absolute desire to do good for people. I never lost an occasion, nor will I, to reaffirm to the people of Grenada the friendship and love that I and all civil and decent people throughout Canada hold for the people of that nation. Maurice Bishop did not die in vain, nor did his father, nor does any man who in fact sacrifices his life for the betterment of his friends.
October 27, 1983

The island nation is in trouble. It is not a time for Canada to cry out in condemnation of anything other than the brutal massacre of its Prime Minister, the brutalities inflicted upon him in the hours and days shortly before his death. We will learn of these things as the truth comes out. They are not fit subject matter to be discussed in the context of the debate tonight.
1 want the people of Grenada to know that 1 share in their grief. 1 also share in what I know to be their joy, their relief in not having to live under Hudson Austin, self-styled "General"-killer, in my judgment. Because I know them, I know they are free people. They have been steeped in democracy. They are the students of British history, the product of British history and concern just as we are in Canada. What we do from here on in will mark whether or not Canadians deserve some of the charges being levelled against them in the Caribbean today.
I regret that we are being condemned for having abandoned the Caribbean. I say to my Caribbean friends that we have not abandoned them, nor will Canadians or decent free people anywhere in the world. We will support them; indeed we must support them. That is our responsibility.
The charges can and I believe will be refuted, not nearly as much by our words as they will by our actions. Grenadians today need medical supplies, food and clothing. I ask the Government whether plans are now in progress to meet those needs. It is the least we can do.
1 was dismayed earlier last week when on two occasions 1 asked Canada to extend where necessary visas, student visas, or working permits to Grenadians in our country, where there might be a chance, against the uncertainty of their having to leave Canada because their visas, permits or authorities had run out. 1 regret that we were silent about that. I apologize to Grenadians in Canada because we would not even take that one little step. In the final analysis, 1 know that such extensions would have been granted, but it would have eased the anxiety of people who may have been facing that situation had that been stated. As the senior Commonwealth country in the western hemisphere, we might have said to Grenadians wherever they may have been around the world: "If you have to leave where you are and do not want to go home yet because of the instability and uncertainty, you are welcome in our country; please come". We did not do that. I extend to the family and friends of Maurice Bishop the deepest sympathies of Polly and myself. They will always have our prayers.
1 want to join with my Leader in one other area before I sit down. I suppose that with all the uncertainty only time will prove whether there is a right decision or a wrong decision. I only know that when friends need help I like to help them. To say that the United States of America invaded Grenada out of hand on the basis of no solid information is wrong. We do not know whether they went in as a very deliberate act of responsibility in response to a clear invitation from the Governor General of Grenada, Paul Scoon.
1 suggest that all the flaming rhetoric and America bashing is out of order at this time and I would reject it. I do not know the facts but it is my understanding from contacts that I have in the eastern Caribbean that in fact they did respond to an invitation. Church leaders have advised me that they are satisfied that the intervention was a direct response to a direct invitation from the Governor General who, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is a fairly responsible person. I want to make that point.
Time will sort out the facts for us. This bashing does not serve the best interests of Grenada nor any of those tiny islands, Grenadine, St. Vincent, Barbados, Antigua, Nevis or St. Kitts that lie in the chain. It does not serve their best interests or our best interests or human interests to run around bashing others for having taken action. Whatever the motivation of the United States of America, and this we will learn as time goes by, I plead with all Hon. Members to remember that Grenada is a tiny nation. It must now restore itself. It must choose what it wants to do but it needs our help. It needs peace, it needs quiet, it needs time. Let us give it that time and assist in any way we can.
I believe we should go to the island and lend whatever assistance we can, not as peace-keepers but perhaps as truce observers, if you will. It is the farmers, the fishermen, the clerks in the stores, the men on the banana and cocoa plantations who hold civility and decency together. They will be undaunted if they know that we care. It will not be our words but our actions that will tell them how we feel. I wish that there were more we could do, more we could offer, Mr. Speaker.
We have such a Government, such a process, that we lost 50 families; we found them again, I guess, and they are back at Ross Point and comfortable for the evening. There are some Canadians who say it is all over and that they want to stay and finish their vacation or get back to work. There are already non-Grenadians who say they will remain there.
Half an hour or so ago we learned that St. George's is secure and that people are beginning to move in the streets. I gather that there are still unsecured areas to the east of the city that are not safe. Already the island is beginning to settle down, not with flaming rhetoric or with blaming anyone-the Americans, the Bajuns, the Grenadians, Marxism, Communism or whatever. Let us not interfere with the process but rather by the extension of love, peace and prayers and perhaps some medical supplies, clothing and food, show that we want to restore to the island its way of life and peace.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the New Democratic Party for the timeliness of their motion to debate the matter of the invasion of Grenada by American troops. Before referring to my notes-

The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) expressed sympathy to the people of Grenada and the High Commissioner. I have already expressed these feelings to

October 27, 1983
the High Commissioner and told him that I share their terrible grief.
Like you, Mr. Speaker, having experienced one war I can understand how people are relieved tonight if there is some movement on the streets of St. George's.
1 should like to clarify the question about the Canadians who were lost this afternoon. They were thought to have left the island but it was found that they had not. When final arrangements were made to take the Canadians out with a high-wing aircraft that could land on Grenada, a motorcade was sent to bring them to the airport. On the way it ran into sniper fire and had to turn back with the intention of trying later. When they went back later the aircraft had landed but had taken off again because the crew was told by the control tower that no Canadians were left on the island. I am informed that finally they have been rescued.
As to the conversation that Nobel Power had with the representatives of Caricom, I should like to report the words of Mr. Thomas Adams of Barbados. Nobel Power's words will contradict the question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) about whether Canada was consulted or not. This is the conversation reported by Noble Power and Tom Adams. Tom Adams said to Noble Power, "Tell the Prime Minister how very much I regret that this fissure has developed between our countries." And Noble Power says that a whole set of circumstances during which he found himself under terrible strain prevented him from consulting with Canada. This is information from our High Commissioner following a conversation he had with the Prime Minister of Barbados. I take these words as official and 1 have satisfied myself that this is the truth.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has the floor to make a speech. He is free to accept a question if he wishes. Does the Hon. Member accept a question?


Maurice Dupras: Agreed.


Pauline Jewett: 1 thank my hon. friend. It was not a question of consultation 1 was raising. Could I ask the Hon. Member if he could confirm the statement answer 1 was raising, namely, the statement on television last night by Prime Minister Adams to the effect that when he spoke with our High Commissioner on Friday evening he told him that the only option in the Grenadian situation was military intervention.


Maurice Dupras: Yes, that is correct. He had that conversation with Noble Power. However, at no time did he mention the participation of the Americans. It was understood when they separated that they would have another conversation on this question. It was not the last conversation they had on this question. I feel that we have to take the word of our diplomat
in Barbados when he says that he received this information from the Prime Minister of Barbados.
I am struck, Mr. Speaker, by the irony that those who attacked and isolated Maurice Bishop for years have now used his death as a pretext for invasion. There is no question that those who killed Maurice Bishop are fully accountable for their crime. I am equally certain that the atmosphere of ideological hysteria whipped up by the critics of Bishop contributed to his death. It is a great tragedy that this tiny country of 100,000 people was chosen by others for their own reasons as a testing ground for global strategies.
The legacy of Maurice Bishop is that he began to rebuild a country devastated by years of corruption and mismanagement. International development insitutions such as the World Bank and the Intra-American Development Bank closely examined the Grenadian experiment and gave it very good marks. The basic needs of the people were being met while at the same time the financial management of the country was greatly improved. In short, for all its faults, Grenada was an experiment which was working. Unfortunately, there were those outside Grenada, just as there were those inside, who did not want the experiment to work.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that a distinguished Canadian, well known in the House of Commons, visited Grenada for two weeks in 1982. He had been commissioned by a Canadian company to do a survey as to the political situation in Grenada in 1982. He left Ottawa on June 26 by Air Canada and came back on July 14. In his report he tells of the difficulty of flying to Grenada because no major airport could receive the big jets of the airlines. He had to go to Barbados and wait two and one half days before he could charter an aircraft, at great expense, to take him to Grenada. With the permission of the Chair I would like to quote some of the remarks he made in his report:
While I could not check them out, I was advised that there were now a number of health care and nursing units scattered through the island, as well as some dental clinics. A number of these are manned by Cuban personnel, but the people in the country areas seemed to be quite thankful the service existed. The school system has been improved in various ways, including the virtual elimination of the public charge per pupil in the secondary school.
He goes on to describe in fact what he saw in St. George's of the great social improvement as well as the physical improvement of the country. He speaks of the roads and the lighting system, the sewage system and that type of thing. I quote again from his report:
I talked to a number of businessmen and women in the private sector and learned there were a variety of opinions. In the main there did not seem to be any fear that the government would intervene, and many, particularly the younger people, thought the government people were co-operative. Some served on advisory boards set up by the government to deal with issues which arose. Some of the older people were more concerned, but I could not discover any case where there was clear-cut evidence of government takeover. The advice given to me by officials was that they were desperately anxious to preserve the private sector-
That is, the government.
-and government would only enter into the picture to supply a service which was lacking (an opinion I have heard often expressed in government circles in Canada).
October 27, 1983

He went to see the progress of the building of the airport, and he said:
The construction work is being handled by Cubans with their engineers and technical people as well as workers. I was also advised that a large number of Grenadians were employed. A U.K. group has recently been given the contract to do the terminal and the lighting system.
All this I quote, Mr. Speaker, because I want to establish the quality of government and regime which Maurice Bishop succeeded in establishing in his country. I will try to compare that with the way he was criticized last spring by the American administration. The report also speaks of the better quality of life there, and I quote:
To start with I would judge that the great majority of the Grenadian people appear to favour Bishop over his predecessor Eric Gairy, who had dissipated the island's resources, and manipulated the electoral system to retain power (as well as employing the private roughhouse gang he kept on the payroll under the name of "Mongoose Squad") Bishop and others had sought appeals through parliamentary elections, but the prior administration held much too tight a physical control for this to happen. So the revolution.
His report concluded with the following comment:
I cannot take Ronald Reagan too seriously when he excludes Grenada from the C.B.I.-
The Canadian Basin Initiative.
-because they have discarded the Westminster system.
That is Reagan saying he excluded Grenada because they had discarded the Westminster system.
The U.S. discarded it many years ago... The people of Grenada are most unlikely candidates for outright Marxism-a steady and deep fundamental religious faith is clearly visible. In addition they have an ingrown attachment to individual enterprise, more so than many of the Caribbean lands I have visited.
This is a time for friendship and understanding, and continuance of some material assistance.
He ends his report with:
Ottawa.
October 1st, 1982
The author of this report is our former colleague, Ged Baldwin. I take his word. He and I had discussed the situation in Grenada upon his return and he told me that he found very offensive the remarks of the Reagan administration about the administration of Maurice Bishop. Mr. Baldwin was angry because, he said, "Every time I hear these remarks it questions my intelligence and my judgment on things. Having been in Grenada 1 was in a position to know better than what was described on TV so often during the spring of 1983". [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet Maurice Bishop on a few occasions, the first time in Belize and the second time in Mexico. He had an engaging and dynamic personality and he was trying to establish a political regime designed to improve the quality of life for his people. He was probably the most popular and most honourable politician ever in Grenada. My colleague from Halifax and Minister of State (International Commerce) (Mr. Regan) recalled that his father had known the same fate a few years before, that he was thoroughly dedicated to improve the living conditions of his people, and how successful he had been in his endeavours.
I should like to give some information concerning the economic activities of Grenada under the helm of Maurice Bishop, and say as well how justified he was to build the airport. I have here a list of airports in the Caribbean Islands whose population is roughly the same as that of Grenada.
In 1982, Aruba, which has an area of only 72 square miles and a population of 60,000, had an airport and a 9,000-ft. runway. The same applies to Antigua, with a population of
85,000.	Barbados, which is more densely populated, has an 11,000-ft. runway. Curasao, with a population of 60,000, has a runway of 11,187 feet. In Grenada, which has 111,000 inhabitants, engineers are building a 9,800-ft. runway, while St. Lucia, with its 120,000 inhabitants, much like Grenada, already has an airport with an 9,000-ft. runway. Nevertheless, this unfortunate country has been accused of building an airport to provide landing facilities for Russian bombers, when everyone knows it depends on the tourist trade to survive and that this was the only way to end a situation where people had to land in Barbados and wait two or three days, like Jed Baldwin said in his report, to get to Grenada, and because this unfortunate country has received aid from Cubans and Americans, because a Florida company did the initial excavation to install a sewage system and Canadians did other work, and the British who participated as well and so on, because this emerging country refused to accept the kind of society that was being forced on it and which Gairy had imposed for such a long time, it is being accused of being Communist and building an airport to receive Russian bombers. This is absolutely ridiculous!
Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to monopolize the time of the House, because I know other Members wish to take part in the debate. Nevertheless, I may say I am very anxious to hear some of my colleagues, especially the Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) who was a member of the Sub-committee, and also my colleague from Waterloo (Mr. McLean), who 1 hope will have a chance to speak, because he will be the only member of the Sub-Committee to have an opportunity to express his views on this very important matter of the events in Grenada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the words spoken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) at the United Nations on September 27 of this year. Perhaps 1 may quote him in the language in which he held his speech. He said:
One year ago, the Secretary-General inspired us to take a hard look at this Organization. We measured expectations against realities and, to no one's surprise, found ourselves wanting. We recognized that we were in the midst of what the Secretary-General called a "crisis in the multilateral approach in international affairs". We unanimously agreed on the "imperative need to

October 27, 1983
strengthen the rule and effectiveness of the United Nations." We have not yet succeeded.
It is now time to move from high-sounding generalities, on which we can all agree, to specific measures for strengthening the multilateral system.
1 invite my colleagues to read again the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in September because it is very sound advice. It is almost as if he had a premonition that something serious would happen soon. We all expected something soon in Central America but not in the Caribbean. He recommended that:
-the Council should meet informally to avert potential crises by examining incipient disputes during in-camera sessions with the Secretary-General.
-the Secretary-General requires additional personnel and resources for the more effective use of his "good offices" in the resolution of disputes.
This is the crux of the problem. We have a serious problem in Central America. We have a new one in the Caribbean. But no one turned to the Secretary-General of the UN because I think we do not want him to have the resources he needs to play the role he should be playing. As we all know, he was not involved in the Falklands crisis and he should have been involved in this crisis. Of course with the limited resources he has, it has not been possible. I wish that in the near future members of the United Nations would take this advice seriously and make it possible for the Secretary-General of the UN to have more resources and personnel to assist him to use his good offices in keeping peace and bringing peace to wherever, and whenever it is necessary.
We heard the criticism of the invasion by a wide range of countries, which indicates that criticism is not based on ideology because it comes from all sides. It is based on something more fundamental, a respect for international law and order. The claim is made that the invasion was carried out to save lives when in fact more lives were lost. I feared for the Canadians, not after the assassination of Maurice Bishop, but when I learned that an invasion had taken place led by American troops.
The claim is made that the invasion was carried out to restore order when in fact it consisted of violence and terror. Finally, the claim is made that the invasion is to re-establish democracy in Grenada.
Similarly, when Argentina invaded the Falklands it did so in the name of the holy cause, reunion of the island with the motherland. What was the position of this House at that time? It was, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of Argentina's claims, the invasion was not an acceptable means of achieving the objective. Once invasion is used to achieve one's objective, it will be used to achieve another and another and another. The end result is national chaos in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Great Britain understood all this in the case of the Falklands, and Great Britain understands that in the case of Grenada. The Canadian Government understood that in the case of the Falklands, and the Canadian Government understands that in the case of Grenada, of course.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. However, he may continue if he obtains the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to terminate his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Dupras: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the most disturbing features of the invasion is the spectacle of a great power, one of the most powerful countries in the world, invading one of the tiniest. This creates tremors of fear for many of the small countries of the world, particularly those located near giant neighbours. I can tell that from conversations of the past few days I have had with members of the Nicaraguan Government. Nicaragua, for example, is fully convinced that the invasion of Grenada is a prelude to what may happen next.
The fear is not only of enemy forces arriving and occupying the country, but economic terrorism which devastates crops, buildings and roads. These are acts which Canada has consistently condemned when committed by terrorist forces and insurgents. They are likewise to be condemned when committed by a great power.
It is now essential to move beyond the debate as to why this invasion occurred and to plan a solution to the problem it has created. I am persuaded myself that Canada, working within the Commonwealth context, has a major contribution to make. Suggestions have been made by various parties that a peacekeeping force possibly composed of Indians and an African State, maybe Zambia, or other nations from Africa and Canada could provide the means for an early withdrawal of the invasion troops. I suggest that all Parties in this House put aside their differences concerning the invasion and get together to support some practical initiative for resolving the problem. This could be done under the auspices of the Commonwealth Secretary.
Finally, the example, as 1 said earlier, of great powers invading small powers raises the question of whether international law and order has to be found. My own feeling is that middle powers, whether inside or outside the Commonwealth, have a responsibility to play a much more active and creative role in international affairs than they have to this point. In my view, this applies whether one is speaking of North-South relations or East-West relations. It is my hope that Grenada may be one of the first places for such a middle power strategy to be put into effect.
[ Translation]
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the recommendations formulated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs
October 27, 1983

on September 27 of this year will be given very serious consideration, so that the Secretary General of the United Nations will have the resources, tools and staff to intervene personally in a peace-keeping capacity when necessary and to prevent the worst, whenever possible. I am sure that all Members would agree to providing the Secretary General of the United Nations with additional funding and resources, thus enabling him to play a peace-keeping role.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate. When I woke up on Tuesday morning and heard the news on the radio and learned that the United States was invading Grenada, I was stunned. I cannot really say that I was surprised. I think that over the last few years I have become numbed to what any of the superpowers might do and particularly to what the United States has a history of doing in Latin America and the Caribbean. However, I was stunned that the United States would do something that was so patently stupid. 1 really wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Americans will ever learn. However, I will return to that point in a moment.
I was saddened, as I am sure were many other Canadians, the week before when I heard about the events that went on in Grenada. 1, like many other Canadians, was saddened particularly by the death of Maurice Bishop, the late Prime Minister of that country. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who spoke earlier pointed out that many Canadians had a certain degree of admiration for Maurice Bishop and for the type of government that he brought to the country of Grenada. Certainly we all admit that that government was far from perfect. We would have liked to see a move toward a more democratic, pluralistic society. However, there is no doubt that it was a government that was vastly superior to the one that had been run by Eric Gairy, the former Prime Minister of that country.
One wonders what might have happened if the United States had not rebuffed Bishop's persistent attempts over the last year or so to achieve some sort of a rapprochement with the United States. Events may well have been very different. However, what kind of response did Bishop get from the United States for all of his attempts at friendship? As my friend the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) pointed out earlier, the United States continued to run its annual Caribbean amphibious exercise featuring mock battles or invasions of Grenada as usual and it pursued its habitual attempts to isolate Grenada within the Caribbean community.
As the Leader of the New Democratic Party said in his opening speech on this debate, the Grenada invasion was simply an event that was waiting for an excuse to happen. I think many of us recognize the fact that over the last few years since the Reagan administration has been in office, President Reagan has been itching for some kind of an excuse to involve himself in the politics of that area. Indeed, he has been itching for some excuse to go to war in that area and to put down the
type of government about which he is so paranoid, any government which is slightly to the left of what he considers centre.
What happened in Grenada on Tuesday morning was very clearly a violation of international law. It was a violation of the United Nations Charter in a number of different ways, but notably it was a violation of Article 11 which calls upon all nations to refrain from threat or violence against the political integrity or independence of any other nation. It was a violation of the treaty and it was a violation of any and all standards of international morality. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, it was also a violation of United States law. It did not comply with the war powers resolution of that country.
I would like to deal briefly with President Reagan's rationale for the invasion. One of his reasons was that the invasion was mounted to protect the lives of American citizens. First, as has been pointed out in debate tonight and as has also been pointed out by the press, there is absolutely no evidence that the lives of the Americans resident in Grenada at the time were in any way in danger. Indeed, American students in that country sent messages through their families to the President the night before the invasion saying that they were in no way threatened and calling upon him not to take any kind of precipitous action. As the Leader of the NDP said in his speech, American envoys were in Granada a few days before the invasion and saw no threat to the lives of Americans in that country.
As well, Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Americans did not seem to make any attempts to remove their citizens peacefully from Grenada. The Canadian example was simply to ask and receive permission for a Canadian plane to go into Grenada and remove the Canadian citizens that were in that country. Ironically, it was the American invasion of Grenada that prevented that from happening. The lives of Canadians in Grenada were not threatened until the Americans invaded that country.
On the second point, Mr. Speaker, President Reagan has said that he invaded Grenada in order to restore democracy. When one looks at the American record of restoring democracy in Latin America, one does not hold much hope. During the greater part of the last century, we have seen American troops invade a number of countries in Latin and Central America. In the two most notable situations, what kind of a democratic system has been left behind? Take a look at Haiti, for instance. Papa Doc Duvalier was left as a shining example of democracy in that country. Take a look at Nicaragua where the Somoza family was left in power for some 50 years, I believe. Those men are some of the more oppressive and non-democratic despots that the western hemisphere has ever known.
1 remember well that in 1965 1 was a university student studying American foreign policy. At that time I watched as the Americans invaded the Dominican Republic under the pretext of saving that country or saving American lives and American interests from a Communist takeover. To this date, Mr. Speaker, some 18 years later, no objective observer has

October 27, 1983
been able to find any evidence that that Communist takeover threat ever existed.
Speaking of restoring democracy in this hemisphere, have we seen the United States land troops in Chile or Guatemala or Paraguay, that country for which the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has such great admiration? Have we seen those countries invaded to restore democracy? Indeed, ten years ago the Americans did the exact opposite in Chile. They toppled a democratically elected regime and replaced it with one of the worst scoundrels we have ever seen, a scoundrel who as of yet has not held a election in that country and shows no signs of doing so in the near future. Many of us have been astounded for many years when we see the double standard that the country to our south applies in international affairs. It is a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
I recall from my studies of American history and American foreign policy President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points which were first delivered in a speech to the American Congress in early 1918 as a way of achieving peace in Europe at the end of World War I. Those points grew to some 27, almost all of which were rejected or put aside during the peace negotiations in Versailles at the end of the war. One of those 14 points survived, as I recall, and it was the idea of self-determination of peoples. It is an idea that Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England and Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France, tried to claim originality for at the peace talks, as Wilson tried to claim its originality. But that idea, I believe, is as old as democracy. It is an idea which is included in the United Nations Charter and in the United States Declaration of Independence. But where was that great American principle of self-determination of peoples on Tuesday morning in Grenada?
I think the Americans have forgotten their own history. I believe the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) pointed out the example of American history when they achieved their independence. I wondered earlier today what would have happened if a superpower of that time, a United States of the late 1700s, had decided to move into the American colonies to forestall chaos and restore the colonial government which was the system considered normal and the approved order at that time. Where would the United States be? Where would those 13 colonies have been in 1776 if someone else had moved in to forestall chaos?
If one claims to walk the high road, one must be careful not to step off. If one wishes to be critical of another person, group or nation, then one cannot commit the same sin and still maintain credibility.
We in the West like to claim a superiority over the Communist bloc and, in many ways, rightly so. We cannot underestimate the value of the freedoms we enjoy. We cannot underestimate the value of the quality of life we enjoy. We also like to claim a moral superiority. But can we do so with justification when the leading power in the so-called western camp, the United States, commits the very sins for which we condemned
the Soviet Union, the leading power of the other side? While there certainly is a difference in scale, is there a difference in kind between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. invasion of Grenada?


Mr. Dick:: A big difference.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Tonight we have heard Tory after Tory try to give legitimacy to the American invasion of Grenada because they were invited by the Governor General of Grenada into that country. First, we have no proof of that. Second, let us recall Afghanistan in 1979. At that time the Soviet Union said that it was invited in by the regime to help maintain order.
We condemned the Soviets at that time for that phony excuse, and rightly so. In the four years since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, we have called upon the Soviet Union time and time again to withdraw their troops, and rightly so. But do we hear our friends over here to my right calling for the United States to withdraw from Grenada? Have we heard them discounting this excuse that they were invited into that country? We have no assurances as to if and when the Americans will leave Grenada. In 1916 the Americans sent troops into the Dominican Republic. They left in 1934. In 1915 they went to Haiti and did not leave until 1924. Today, the United States Congress voted to restrict the American occupation of Grenada to 60 days; but President Reagan has ignored the Congress in the past and it may well happen again.
1 took special note today of a cartoon that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. It is a picture of two halves of a face, one half is Andropov with a caption beside it stating "U.S.S.R. occupied Afghanistan" and the other half is Ronald Reagan with a caption stating U.S.A. occupied Grenada. But there is only one voice coming from this person which says: "A clearly justifiable action aimed at protecting a country from the control of a group of thugs". That says a lot, Mr. Speaker.
I also took special note of a column in today's Ottawa Citizen written by Anthony Lewis of the New York Times. He writes:
As the invasion of Grenada went forward in secret, high Washington officials met to work on a draft of President Reagan's announcement. They had a particular concern: to make sure, as one put it, 'that this does not sound like what Brezhnev said when the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan.'
But however clever the words, the Reagan action speaks louder. And there is no way to avoid what it signifies. It undermines the ability of free people to complain effectively when the Soviet Union uses force for its purposes. It legitimizes Soviet intervention in other countries.
If the United States is justified in using armed force to squash trouble on a tiny island how could we object to Soviet forces marching into Poland ... If Ronald Reagan can violate treaties and international law at will, why should anyone listen when we condemn Soviet violations of the Helsinki accords-
He goes on:
For the sake of a tactical military and political victory, Reagan has sacrificed the enormous American advantage of legitimacy. The long-term costs are likely to be extremely heavy.
Consider some of the reasons given by Reagan for the invasion: To forestall chaos,' and 'to assist in the restoration of conditions of law and order.' No future aggressor in the world-no tyranny of right or left-will have any trouble meeting those loose standards.
October 27, 1983

A fundamental principle of international law makes national territory inviolable and forbids intervention by other countries. To undermine that principle is terribly dangerous. And Reagan violated not only the principle but specific treaties.
The actions of the President of the United States this week have done all of us serious harm,
I would like to say that on Sunday of this week, just two days before the invasion of Grenada, I joined with all Members of the House and all Canadians, indeed with people all over the world, in sharing American feelings of shock, anger and sorrow over the deaths of so many young Americans and young French soldiers in Beirut. I think we still share that sorrow. But American actions in Grenada this week make it very, very difficult to continue to be sympathetic.
I am deeply saddened when a country like the United States which in so many ways is a great society, in so many other ways proves itself to be an international bully.
In conclusion, 1 would say that I think we all have to condemn this aggression just as we condemn any and all unjustified invasions. We have to subscribe to the motion moved by my Leader this evening and to the comments of Shridath S. Ramphal, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, that this was a deplorable act of blatant aggression.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in the House this evening to speak in this emergency debate. I am reminded, as we have all been, that the invasion of this Caribbean Island underlines the fragility of our world and of our international systems. I am moved by this regrettable incident to join in this debate and to add my voice to those who have expressed sympathy, regret and concern, and also, in the moments given to me, to reflect upon some concerns regarding Canadian foreign policy and Canadian involvement in peace-making processes.
We have heard this evening in great detail the record of the events of the past week. We are seeking from this side of the House more clarification regarding the responsibility and the circumstances. Surely the intention of this debate is not just to beat the wind but rather that we be instruments in this Parliament and be expressive of the concerns of all Canadians that there be security and, a sense of peace and tranquility. This has been reflected in the speeches of leaders and spokespersons on all sides of the House. We heard the sentiments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) regarding the caring which may be a part of the Canadian response to this situation.
I want to say that it was a pleasure to work in close association with the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), who was for more than 18 months the chairman of the subcommittee of this House, reviewing the matter of Canada's policy in relation to Latin America and the Caribbean, and also to work with the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), who has already participated in the debate. The overriding finding of our subcommittee, which was made up of 15 Members from all sides of the House, was
that Canadian foreign policy ought to be concerned with stability in the region and that all of our efforts ought to be directed toward being an instrument of stability. We saw, not only in Central America but in the Caribbean basin nations also, the seeds of great discontent. I echo the concern of the distinguished chairman of that subcommittee when he calls upon the Government for a middle power strategy. I ask with him, where is the Government's response to the committee report? If we had been taking action through this period, tonight at midnight we would not be echoing across the nation our hurt and concern for our hemisphere. We should have taken seriously some of the recommendations and the studies. In a motion I wish to echo for the House what we heard from leaders in the Caribbean basin regarding that particular area. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that tonight we can make charge or countercharge or we can take a moment to reflect on the fragility of our world, the needs of the United Nations and the need to revamp and to reorganize the Commonwealth. We can begin to use this unfortunate incident in the life of the world to set into place some of the instruments that will lead to some sense of stability in the future that will once again show Canadian leadership, something which unfortunately since the Pearson and Diefenbaker years has gone into the distant past.
I believe it is time for Canada to come forward with a sensible initiative as a senior and influential member of the Commonwealth, one that will encourage the deployment of instruments of order in our world rather than instruments of war. The potential role of mediator that international institutions are intended to play cannot be overestimated by this House or by Canadians.
Multilateral consultations are the only reasonable means of ensuring a balanced and lasting resolution to the conflicts we are now discussing concerning Grenada, the Middle East and other parts of our world. We ought to consider ways to strengthen United Nations' efforts in peace and security matters. Nations all too frequently bypass the United Nations with no condemnation or censure from this House, the Parliaments of the world, or the middle powers. We ought to be leading middle power initiatives, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Labelle, calls on his own Party to give leadership in doing.
Let me suggest that UN activities are also hampered by the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. No organization can be fully effective without the co-operation of two of its most powerful members. They, like all others in the world, are open to suasion, to morale and to public opinion. The Security Council needs to utilize more fully its authorities under Chapter VI of the Charter. This authority is to prevent international disputes likely to endanger international peace and security from escalating into armed conflicts and to exercise preventive diplomacy. If this authority of the Security Council were being exercised, the controversy plaguing us in this House tonight might have been averted. Canada, to its credit, once pioneered the dispatching of peacekeeping forces to trouble spots in our world. Now is the time, with other like minded nations, for Canada to pioneer a world security system. Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a reliable security

October 27, 1983
system is what international relations in the 1980s demands. The events in the Middle East and the events in the Caribbean these days underline this firmly.
That machinery might, for example, include an international peace force individually recruited under the authority of an improved Security Council. Others have suggested an effective system of world courts and arbitration tribunals to strengthen the rule of law in international conduct might begin to give nations some sense and hope and recourse.
Charges are being laid in this House, around the world and in the media that world law has been violated. The Charter of the United Nations has certainly been contravened. On this we can all agree. How can we prevent this from happening again? A resolve to empower multilateral institutions with the clout they require is the key, a system of order, that can operate with the force of law rather than the force of military power.
But looking more closely at the crisis at hand, the invasion of Grenada which we are debating tonight, let us consider a means of reconciliation, acting within the structures that exist today as a part of our interdependent global network. Grenada is a member of the Commonwealth, a long standing institution of regional co-operation. It is a solid existing political mechanism through which we can find long-term solutions to the problems of the region and resist the tendency to respond with knee-jerk measures or band-aid diplomacy.
The Secretary General of the Commonwealth has a great deal to offer in the way of bringing about a peaceful resolution as opposed to a military one. Canada would be wise to seek his counsel and should have been seeking his counsel since the recommendations concerning our overriding concern for stability were tabled in this House one year ago. The result was a response from the Government to the recommendations of the subcommittee which said: "We know all about that." "Facile would be to put it mildly", was the response of the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) which the committee received to that document. "We have already doing it", said the Government, ''Why, we are well ahead of you". If it were well ahead of us, we would have been signalled of what was happening in Grenada. We would have seen initiative from the Government, which at least would have been attempting to respond in advance to the growing tide of tension in the basin and in Central America.
I believe we have an opportunity. The institution of the Commonwealth is widely accepted. It is time for Canada to take a stand in the region as a member of an association of nations and to push forward with proposals. We can press for moderation and for consultation. We can take a position that military means should only be a last resort.
1 have travelled, through the region, as have other Members of the House, as a member of the subcommittee. I have met the people and seen with my own eyes the political, economic and social circumstances. I can compare them with my years of life in Africa and in other parts of the world. I have heard testimony, along with all sides of the House, from witnesses
who foreshadowed this intervention and felt it was only a matter of time. They told us that as we travelled.
While in Trinidad, for example, we met with a number of regional officials of government and non-governmental agencies who, as far back as January 1982, feared such moves. Whom did we meet? We met, for example, Dr. Kurleigh King, Secretary-General of Caricom. We met with Father Peter Nicholson, editor of the Catholic Times in Trinidad. We met with Brian Dare, aid officer of the Canadian High Commission in Barbados. We met with William Demas, President of the Caribbean Development Bank. We met with Reverend Dr. Roy Neehall, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Conference of Churches. In the testimony of those days we find the following question, "Are there fears of an invasion in Grenada?" Also we find the answer, "Yes, events in Dominica show how easy it is to take over a government. In Grenada there is a national fear of Gairy's talks in the U.S. about invading the island". That was testimony of the officials of the Canadian High Commission. We listened to the Secretary-General of the Caribbean Conference of Churches when he indicated, "I should like you to know that the Caribbean Conference of Churches is happy about the end of the Gairy Government in Grenada. We are, however, upset that the churches in Grenada are on a collision course with Mr. Bishop. We are going to begin very soon a dialogue with Mr. Bishop regarding such questions as political prisoners, freedom of the press and elections".
1 am left wondering why the Government has not taken a more active interest in the external threats to its Commonwealth colleagues regardless of where they come from. 1 am concerned that the Government did not seek to work within the Commonwealth structure to identify them and to avert them. Now we are going through a great smokescreen of charge and countercharge to cover up the negligence and failure to adopt a dynamic and positive foreign policy in relationship to our hemisphere, particularly to the Caribbean.
As I conclude my remarks in the debate this evening, I join in expressing sympathy to those who have lost family and loved ones and the people who find their nation island turned upside down. 1 join in the expression of hope that we as Canadians will continue to be open and to be responsive to human needs. I hope the House will come to the inevitable realization that the peace and security of our world hangs in the balance and that here we have a symbolic situation of much larger circumstances. We either seek political solutions to our conflicts on the international stage, or we will live in a permanent state of peril. We must come to grips with the principle of common security and join with neighbours and allies in a renewed commitment to the international institutions within which we have an honoured place. Should we not take that course, those who die in the midst of these tragic circumstances do indeed die in vain.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this most tragic and threatening situation regarding the invasion in Grenada. 1 appreciate the comments that were just made by
October 27, 1983

the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). 1 think all Hon. Members of the House would want to endorse his suggestions that there should be a world security system, that we should look at political solutions to problems rather than at invasion, and certainly at the idea that Canada should take the lead in middle power initiatives to introduce some of these political solutions.
Basically the debate this evening must focus on the deplorable act of blatant aggression which is seen in the American invasion of Grenada. It is naked aggression and it has to be condemned as such. We are talking about a small nation, about 144 square miles. It is about the size of Salt Spring Island in my constituency; it is a little larger. It has approximately 110,000 people. It is about the size of many of our constituencies. It is up against one of the most powerful nations in the world. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the invasion, as speaker after speaker from our Party has said.
We have to emphasize that this invasion was not a spur of the moment event. It did not begin with the overthrow of Maurice Bishop earlier this month. It is something which was predetermined and falls in line with the whole tragic history of American involvement in Central America and the Caribbean basin. For example, we could go back to the 1954 invasion of Guatemala. The present genocidal practices, which are being perpetuated against the Indian people of Guatemala, can be laid directly at the feet of the United States Government when in 1954 it went in and deposed the proper Government of Guatemala at that time. That invasion has been succeeded by one dictatorship after another, brutal genocidal dictatorships. As Hon. Members of my Party have pointed out, none of these invasions have been followed by any kind of restoration of democracy.
Earlier we heard from the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) about, "War Games-Ocean Venture '81", an uncanny preview of the invasion of Grenada, a frightening preview of what in fact happened. An account of this was published last March. Some Members of the Conservative Party have raised the fact that the Grenadians and Cubans were well dug in. Is it any wonder, when this kind of war game had been played on their doorsteps, that they saw themselves targeted for an invasion? We can ask why. The reason is that some people in the United States were determined to keep the Caribbean as an American lake. Grenada disturbed that tranquil dream, that pastoral scene that the Caribbean was an American lake, in March 1979 when Maurice Bishop, in a bloodless coup, took power.
On April 10, 1979, the American Ambassador to the eastern Caribbean warned the new government of Grenada not to develop closer ties with Cuba. This has a disturbing echo of the words of a couple of weeks ago of Ambassador Robinson telling Canada not to let Russian jets land in Gander, Newfoundland. I thought the job of an Ambassador was to try and
facilitate better communication rather than to dictate from one nation to another.
When the American ambassador told Grenada not to develop closer ties with Cuba, Maurice Bishop replied as follows:
From day one of the revolution we have always striven to have and develop the closest and friendliest relations with the United States, as well as Canada, Britain, and all our Caribbean neighbours .. . But no one must misunderstand our friendliness as an excuse for rudeness and meddling in our affairs ... We are not in anybody's back yard and we are definitely not for sale. Anybody who thinks they can bully us or threaten us, clearly has no understanding, idea, or clue as to what material we are made of.
Obviously Mr. Bishop's statement was not acceptable to the United States.
In a speech that Mr. Bishop made in July 1981 welcoming members of the Socialist Internationals to Grenada, he detailed some of the American attempts to destablilize the Grenadian Government. First, he talked about propaganda destabilization. He pointed to an initiative that was taken to invite Caribbean journalists from all over the Caribbean, excluding Grenada, of course, to Washington for a conference. Shortly after the conference ended, there was another vicious round of anti-Grenadian editorials in Caribbean newspapers. Bishop then detailed the economic aggression that the United States has consistently used to try and isolate Grenada from its neighbours. For example, when the Windward Islands Banana Association, which had banana farmers from Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada, requested help after a hurricane, that help was promised on the condition that no Grenadian farmers would get any help. So-called humanitarian aid was being used for economic and political blackmail.
Bishop pointed to successful United States attempts to stop the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from funding projects even after they had been approved by technical experts. He pointed to the offer from the United States of $4 million as a grant to the Caribbean Development Bank for lesser developed countries on the condition that Grenada be excluded from any of that money. These kinds of economic pressures led Bishop to say in that speech, and I quote:
We certainly believe very strongly that the time has now come when we must move to elevate the question of propaganda destabilization, of economic aggression, of mercenary invasion or the threat of mercenary invasion, to the same level that world public opinion has already elevated the question of the direct landing of marines. The time has now come, in our view, when international public opinion must be so mobilized that not only when marines land in somebody else's territory, but also when there is evidence of a systematic and concerted plan of propaganda destabilization, of economic aggression or of political and industrial destabilization, or of mercenary threat, there must also be a great outcry.
1 believe we have to learn to listen to what the late Maurice Bishop was trying to teach. There had to be a great outcry against all attempts to destabilize nations in the Caribbean and in Central America with which the United States does not agree. We should not have to wait until the marines land before we protest the American attempts to destabilize Nicaragua.
Yesterday our colleague from Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) spoke of the fears of the Nicaraguan people that CIA directed Contras could destroy crops which are now entering their most crucial phase in Nicaragua. Some of us heard Zabier Goros-

October 27, 1983
tiaga point out that the same pattern of economic warfare as we have seen in Grenada in the past is now being practised in Nicaragua.
The war games that the United States is carrying on in Honduras involve a similar invasion of Honduras by some enemy, presumably from Nicaragua. There would be a cry go to the United States for help and the United States would move in. This is the whole purport of those war games. There are 5,000 United States Army and Air Force personnel in Honduras at the present time.
There has been a lot of talk about the airstrip in Grenada. Several Honduran airstrips are being enlarged so that 250 foot long Galaxy transport planes can fly in U.S. military personnel. They are spending $150 million on air and naval bases on the Atlantic Coast and a new radar system is now in operation. All of this is intended to intimidate Nicaraguans, as President Reagan put it, into peace. We have seen a refusal to consider the Nicaraguan offer of non-aggression pacts with the United States and the Honduras and other countries in that area.
As we condemn what has happened in Grenada and condemn that invasion, there should also be a condemnation of all attempts to destabilize the Government of Nicaragua. Let us condemn them before they send in the marines. Let us call for a withdrawal of marine troops from Grenada, but let us also call for an end to the destabilizing efforts in Nicaragua.
We have to ask what it is the United States has to fear from these countries in Central America. It is a strong country.
There is basic goodwill among their people, yet they live in a kind of paranoid fear. This underlines the basic problem of our times. Like the Korean Airlines 007 incident and the invasion of Grenada, the American paranoia about Cuba and Nicaragua underlines the fragile nature of the world society. The arms race in which both the United States and the Soviet Union are participating is destablilizing our entire world. That is the name of the game. Our entire world society is being destabilized by the arms race. It fits the kind of paranoia that leads to the shooting down of a passenger jet and the invasion of a helpless little island by the mightiest power in the world.
We have to redouble our efforts to put an end to the arms race. We have to speak out loud and clear at this time. We have to condemn the invasion and we have to call for a withdrawal of troops. We must ask the United States to recover its right mind and deal with the problems at home instead of trying to destabilize and destroy other nations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Earlier this day it was moved by Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Miss Jewett, that this House do now adjourn. Is it the wish of the House to adjourn.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock this morning.
At 12.10 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 28, 1983